Materialism (championed by Darwinists) makes reason Impossible.

punshhh said:
I am using purpose in a different way, there is no destiny or determinism in there.

The bolded part is closer to my meaning, a person can create their own purpose, why not also a creator god, why not a universe(if regarded as an entity).

For example, say a god had an itch in a region occupied by our universe. His purpose is to relieve the itch, this purpose might have big repercussions for us. A universe in a region without an itch might be a very different place.
Click to expand...

Your analogy creator appears to be broken.
 
punshhh said:
It is correct for me or I would revise it.

It is not a difficult conclusion to reach that the truth is unknowable. Rather the idea that the truth can be known is quite a bold statement.
Click to expand...

Here's the problem(s) as I see it with this train of thought, if I may point them out because I've actually never seen you discuss your own thought process and how you come to conclusions; you just state that you do.

When you come to a conclusion its validity requires it pass scrutiny, and not just by you. If you disagree with this, why?

The conclusion that the truth is unknowable is a bold statement, but it doesn't invalidate what we actually "do" know, since all you seem to do is move the goalpost of truth (and I don't mean that as an insult, but I feel that whenever we describe something as true, you seem to say "well that's not the truth I am referring to").

Example is:

What we don't know: Does God exist past just pure imaginative thought (as I think he exists to you and I only call it God as a noun, not as a particular religious entity)

If you think God passes pure imaginative thought, and in so is more than just a possibility that hasn't been eliminated yet, what VALIDATES that opinion? What process of thinking keeps your ability to scrutinize your claims "of whatever they are" as something materialism cannot explain.

That was a long-winded attempt for me to provide to you why I think your assertion(s) are invalid. What makes you not see the problems (they're quite glaring) when I myself see them quite easily.
 
Last edited:
tsig said:
Guess I'll never hire you as a carpenter since I'd prefer someone who'd actually swings a hammer than someone who just talks about it.

Engineering and architecture are all about making it work in the material world. You seem to be mistaking the plans for the building.
Click to expand...


Of course it is better to get a carpenter to do a carpenter's work.
You do not believe in thinking before doing?
That way you are always busy, doing and undoing.

chacun son truc
 
lemurien said:
Wrong.
That exactly is the power of human reasoning.
I can hit material nails with various idealistic hammers without making a move.
I can create the what-if sequence in my head and go and make the best imaginable hammer to hit that very specific material nail.
Mentally first, then on paper (or whatever) and then out of the suitable material.

What sets us apart is the ability to create weightless, measureless hammers and test them in our heads against the ideas we have absorbed from the material world.

That's what engineering and architecture is all about.
You blind or something?

Sorry, tarsiers are not blind, you are night creatures. Do you fabricate tools?
Click to expand...

tsig said:
Guess I'll never hire you as a carpenter since I'd prefer someone who'd actually swings a hammer than someone who just talks about it.

Engineering and architecture are all about making it work in the material world. You seem to be mistaking the plans for the building.
Click to expand...

lemurien said:
Of course it is better to get a carpenter to do a carpenter's work.
You do not believe in thinking before doing?That way you are always busy, doing and undoing.

chacun son truc
Click to expand...

Thinking while doing it.
 
Lowpro said:
Here's the problem(s) as I see it with this train of thought, if I may point them out because I've actually never seen you discuss your own thought process and how you come to conclusions; you just state that you do.
Click to expand...
I am not used to putting my thought processes down in writing. Also I use various unorthodox processes, which I don't know if I can actually put down in a way which can be understood. For example when Robin asked me to explain my thought process regarding if everything must exist given infinity in the Occams razor thread. It took numerous posts to explain the concept I work with and broke down before any agreement was reached.
I use many concepts like that one in one line of reasoning on some issues, along with some lateral thinking which again would not go down well on this forum.

When you come to a conclusion its validity requires it pass scrutiny, and not just by you. If you disagree with this, why?
Click to expand...
I don't disagree with this and I will try out conclusions here and see how they stand up to scrutiny. The few I have put forward have in a large part been misunderstood or discarded as a nonsense. Its going to be a long process. I am used to spending hundreds of hours discussing these ideas face to face with someone verbally, in which the attainment of an understanding is far easier than this.

The conclusion that the truth is unknowable is a bold statement, but it doesn't invalidate what we actually "do" know, since all you seem to do is move the goalpost of truth (and I don't mean that as an insult, but I feel that whenever we describe something as true, you seem to say "well that's not the truth I am referring to").
Click to expand...
Yes I understand this criticism, which is justified. However, I have refined my use and understanding of terms like truth to a great degree, which often includes theological meanings.

By truth I mean that(and the nature of that) which actually exists, rather than that which appears to exist.

Example is:

What we don't know: Does God exist past just pure imaginative thought (as I think he exists to you and I only call it God as a noun, not as a particular religious entity)
Click to expand...
I don't know if God exists past pure imaginative thought, if thinking about it. I suspect that Goddoes exist from a consideration of experiences I have had.

If you think God passes pure imaginative thought, and in so is more than just a possibility that hasn't been eliminated yet, what VALIDATES that opinion? What process of thinking keeps your ability to scrutinize your claims "of whatever they are" as something materialism cannot explain.
Click to expand...
This may be difficult to pin down, if you are patient we should get there in the end.
I do think God passes pure imaginative thought. This results in the conclusion that I see a 50/50 probability from the view point of human thought that God exists or doesn't exist. As whatever humans come up with through the power of thought has no bearing on the actual truth of the situation.

I do think in principle that materialism can explain existence as we know it, however we are far short of that mark at the moment. As to wether this is also the case for the true nature of what exists, that is a different thing and may not be conceivable by humanity.


That was a long-winded attempt for me to provide to you why I think your assertion(s) are invalid. What makes you not see the problems (they're quite glaring) when I myself see them quite easily.
Click to expand...
Thankyou, I see this as constructive and welcome someone who is prepaired to look a little deeper into what I'm saying than some(they know who they are;)).
 
Last edited:
Dancing David said:
Considering your use of the words meaning and purpose and existence, my point is made.
Click to expand...
Though not accepted.
I use those words in their dictionary and common definitions. Do note that I have to get into a metaphorical straight jacket of language to be able to communicate on this forum.



Um this is where the usage of the words break down
-dancing energy
-godthought
-brains in vats
-butterfly dreams

There is no way to distinguish them ontologically. Moot, mu.
Click to expand...

As you like, I do not confine myself to the materialist process of thought.

I have a zoo/menagerie of concepts at my disposal.
 
punshhh said:
Though not accepted.
I use those words in their dictionary and common definitions. Do note that I have to get into a metaphorical straight jacket of language to be able to communicate on this forum.




As you like, I do not confine myself to the materialist process of thought.

I have a zoo/menagerie of concepts at my disposal.
Click to expand...

Feel free to zap me a thought whenever you get your telepathy going.
 
lemurien said:
even according to wiki you are wrong
Click to expand...

No.

Wikipedia on Idealism said:
Idealism is the philosophical theory which maintains that experience is ultimately based on mental activity. In the philosophy of perception, idealism is contrasted with realism, in which the external world is said to have an apparent absolute existence. Epistemological idealists (such as Kant) claim that the only things which can be directly known for certain are just ideas (abstraction). In literature, idealism refers to the thoughts or the ideas of the writer.
In the philosophy of mind, idealism is the opposite of materialism, in which the ultimate nature of reality is based on physical substances. Materialism is a theory of monism as opposed to dualism and pluralism, while idealism may or may not be monistic. Hence, idealism can take dualistic form and often does, since the subject-object division is dualistic by definition. Idealism sometimes refers to a tradition in thought that represents things of a perfect form, as in the fields of ethics, morality, aesthetics, and value. In this way, it represents a human perfect being or circumstance.
Idealism is a philosophical movement in Western thought, but is not entirely limited to the West, and names a number of philosophical positions with sometimes quite different tendencies and implications in politics and ethics; for instance, at least in popular culture, philosophical idealism is associated with Plato and the school of platonism.
Click to expand...

Please highlight where in this it states that idealistic reality would not obey any laws, or where it states that idealism is a "subcategory" of imagination.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom