Materialism (championed by Darwinists) makes reason Impossible.

punshhh said:
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.
Click to expand...

I don't know, I think there was an almost unanimous consensus on the issue.
 
Pure Argent said:
No.



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.
Click to expand...

Are you expecting woos to understand polysyllabic words couched in the right order and using their correct meanings? They're not used to it.
 
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.
Click to expand...

Here's where I find the problem, and I think where most people hit their brakes is that you do think God passes pure imaginative thought"

Now, first I thought you suspect this because you have had experiences that you attribute to God:


I don't know if God exists past pure imaginative thought, if thinking about it. I suspect that God does exist from a consideration of experiences I have had.
Click to expand...

Now, I hit the breaks because "experience" is entirely subjective especially when materialism can answer what experiences are. Now I know others disagree with the statement but there's too much evidence in support that experiences as human beings interact with them are achieved through summations of actions in the brain. There's nothing else, the only way we experience is with our bodies, our "probes" to reality as we know it.

To say you have experience lends me to believe that you can only have experiences in reality, which means whatever experiences you have are meshed within reality. To claim that you have a supernatural experience is a bit non sequitur so to speak.

This is particularly why I cannot reason that an experience you may have had amounts to validation to the theory of God as you refer to him (again I refer to God as the noun, not the personal noun)

Also if I may say something:

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.
Click to expand...

I have no problem with this particular statement unless you begin to attribute any characteristic to God. For instance;

God of the Old Testament, I am a strong atheist to Him (that reads that I think there is a greater than 50/50 chance of his nonexistence. I came to this conclusion based on religious history and nonsense of the Bible. I think most people here agree with this statement that the God of the Old Testament doesn't exist based on scrutiny. At the most, the God of the Old Testament is an imaginary figure within a fictitious setting.

Now, if we have, say a God that exists completely undetectable in this Universe, and is and has always been impotent to this universe since time immaterial, then I am not a strong atheist to this God. I may not be 50/50 but I would call myself a weak atheist to this God. Reason being because such an existence which plays no role in the Universe is, as far as we know, just imaginary. If something cannot in any way interact with reality, that makes it imaginary.

Once a claim is made that this being I mentioned CAN interact in any way with reality, that claim must pass scrutiny. So far, none have to my knowledge. Many try to make this claim pass scrutiny (Intelligent Design is an example) but they fail out of the gate.
 
Last edited:
I never said that idealism does not follow any laws.
Idealistic thought can establish its own laws as it pleases the only limiting factor being the thinker's imagination. On the contrary, the idealistic thought is not bound to the physical laws of the nature. Idealistic thought does not have to be disturbed by any data collection or statistic methods, either.

idealism is the opposite of materialism, in which the ultimate nature of reality is based on physical substances

Epistemological idealists (such as Kant) claim that the only things which can be directly known for certain are just ideas (abstraction).

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.

These perfect forms are imaginary, they have no counterpart anywhere outside the human imagination.

I guess we read with different kinds of eyes.
 
dafydd said:
Wiki,lol. Anyway,I am taking a leaf out of punshhh's book and giving my own definition to words.
Click to expand...

lol to you too
there was a 'no' linked to a wiki page, not my posting

I have to say that your postings do not contribute much of anything to anybody.
 
Last edited:
Mashuna said:
I don't know, I think there was an almost unanimous consensus on the issue.
Click to expand...

As I recall you conflated a mathematical numerical infinity with dimensional particles in an infinite timespace.

You then claimed that because mathematically you could have two infinities in the set of natural numbers, one of odd and one of even numbers. That there could not be every combination of particles.

Now I could not see how you arrived at this conclusion, surely you are referring to categorising the combinations into different sets of combinations. Which doesn't affect the total set of combinations.

Also I did construct the concept precisely so there were only one kind of particle, there is no even or odd division between them.
 
Lowpro said:
Here's where I find the problem, and I think where most people hit their brakes is that you do think God passes pure imaginative thought"

Now, first I thought you suspect this because you have had experiences that you attribute to God:


Now, I hit the breaks because "experience" is entirely subjective especially when materialism can answer what experiences are. Now I know others disagree with the statement but there's too much evidence in support that experiences as human beings interact with them are achieved through summations of actions in the brain. There's nothing else, the only way we experience is with our bodies, our "probes" to reality as we know it.

To say you have experience lends me to believe that you can only have experiences in reality, which means whatever experiences you have are meshed within reality. To claim that you have a supernatural experience is a bit non sequitur so to speak.
Click to expand...

Yes you have reached the crux of the issue along with DD in the post after yours(I will address it in my reply to DD)

Yes I agree that experiences are achieved through a summation of actions in the brain, there is no disembodied or supernatural mind. I have never claimed any kind of supernatural activity, only natural activity of which we are not entirely aware.
And yet I have had experiences which have caused me to question the simply materialist interpretation.


This is particularly why I cannot reason that an experience you may have had amounts to validation to the theory of God as you refer to him (again I refer to God as the noun, not the personal noun)
Click to expand...
I have not stated a validation I have made for the existence of God. I have pointed out that I do not hold a belief in God.

My experiences have only reinforced a rational thought process suggesting that creator gods(undefined) do exist.
I have no problem with this particular statement unless you begin to attribute any characteristic to God.

Now, if we have, say a God that exists completely undetectable in this Universe, and is and has always been impotent to this universe since time immaterial, then I am not a strong atheist to this God. I may not be 50/50 but I would call myself a weak atheist to this God. Reason being because such an existence which plays no role in the Universe is, as far as we know, just imaginary. If something cannot in any way interact with reality, that makes it imaginary.
Click to expand...
The gods I an considering are rather like this, however I would say this god only appears to be impotent to this universe and is only imaginary in the minds of humanity. In reality we cannot presume to know the actual nature of existence, only its appearance.

Once a claim is made that this being I mentioned CAN interact in any way with reality, that claim must pass scrutiny. So far, none have to my knowledge. Many try to make this claim pass scrutiny (Intelligent Design is an example) but they fail out of the gate.
Click to expand...
I have not made such a claim, this does not mean that I don't consider at some length that gods may interact with reality.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom