Materialism (championed by Darwinists) makes reason Impossible.

[dafydd]

I presume this also applies to believers in materialism.
I don't believe by the way.

You presume wrongly. Science investigates reality and follows the evidence. You do believe in unknown unknowns and the event horizon of the formless and pixies in foliage and.........do you really want me to dig up some quotes from you?

 

[yy2bggggs]

In reality we cannot presume to know the actual nature of existence, only its appearance.

Why do you presume that there's even something about the "actual nature of existence" to know?

 

[Nonpareil]

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.

So, in effect, it follows no laws.

And I'd still like to see where in that article it says that.

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

Nope, nothing there supports what you said.

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

...Or there.

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.

...Or there.

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

You are confusing idealism, the philosophical stance, with idealism, the search for the ideal. That portion of the article is poorly written, but the two things are not the same, and if you have been speaking English for any length of time you know they are not the same.

And even if you were right, and they were the same thing, that still wouldn't support your contention that idealistic things do not have to obey any laws.

 

[punshhh]

Punsssh,

Perhaps you should consider what this means.

I said that materialism and idealism are equivalent constructs, they are the same. There is no way to tell the difference.

Yes your point is made and my point remains namely materialism and idealism are aspects of the appearance of existence, the tree. In mystic contemplation the nature of the wood is of concern.

 

[dafydd]

Why do you presume that there's even something about the "actual nature of existence" to know?

He 'knows' that there are unknown unknowns.

 

[dafydd]

In mystic contemplation the nature of the wood is of concern.

Daydreaming has no rules,you can imagine anything you want.

 

[Robin]

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

No, as Dancing David has just pointed out, Idealism and Materialism are indistinguishable.

By the way, can you quote an actual Materialist in the past 200 years who has claimed that the ultimate nature of reality is based on physical substances?

 

[punshhh]

So how about, just for a change, you stop shifting the burden of proof and tell me why you believe that every combination will occur.

I did the last time, I accept I might not have done a very good job, but I am used to a more constructive form of debate rather than an adversarial one.

My reasoning is that every combination which can happen would happen because given infinite time and space, there would be infinitely unending opportunities in the activity of the particles to form every combination which is not impossible. If for some reason a combination did not exist, there would remain infinite opportunities for it to arise somewhere else, or at some other time, ad infinitum.

 

[punshhh]

Why do you presume that there's even something about the "actual nature of existence" to know?

Well I am not presuming that there is anything to know. I am seeking truth, I may not find it, I think there is such a thing, along with a purpose.

I am not the sort of person who will accept a doctrine on existence without establishing the purpose of it and myself. Materialism is great, but does not answer these questions and it is these questions that I ask.

 

[dafydd]

I did the last time, I accept I might not have done a very good job, but I am used to a more constructive form of debate rather than an adversarial one.

My reasoning is that every combination which can happen would happen because given infinite time and space, there would be infinitely unending opportunities in the activity of the particles to form every combination which is not impossible. If for some reason a combination did not exist, there would remain infinite opportunities for it to arise somewhere else, or at some other time, ad infinitum.

You still don't understand,and this is a skeptical site,we need proof. If you want pats on the back go to a woo site. Try David Icke's site,they will welcome you with open arms there.

 

[dafydd]

Well I am not presuming that there is anything to know. I am seeking truth, I may not find it, I think there is such a thing, along with a purpose.

I am not the sort of person who will accept a doctrine on existence without establishing the purpose of it and myself. Materialism is great, but does not answer these questions and it is these questions that I ask.

Why should existence have a purpose? What do you mean by truth? You approach these matters from the wrong end.

 

[dafydd]

I did the last time, I accept I might not have done a very good job, but I am used to a more constructive form of debate rather than an adversarial one.

My reasoning is that every combination which can happen would happen because given infinite time and space, there would be infinitely unending opportunities in the activity of the particles to form every combination which is not impossible. If for some reason a combination did not exist, there would remain infinite opportunities for it to arise somewhere else, or at some other time, ad infinitum.

So the Hand Of God is just a random collection of particles?

 

[punshhh]

Why should existence have a purpose? What do you mean by truth? You approach these matters from the wrong end.

Well if existence does not have a purpose, its up the creek without a paddle

Truth(as I am using it here) = the actual nature(and significance) of existence.

Due you think that the actual nature of existence is the world as described by materialism?

 

[dafydd]

Well if existence does not have a purpose, its up the creek without a paddle

Truth(as I am using it here) = the actual nature(and significance) of existence.

Due you think that the actual nature of existence is the world as described by materialism?

What do you mean by the actual nature of existence? The question has no meaning. What do you think that you mean? Why do you refer to existence as an 'it'? The world and the universe is made of material,hadn't you noticed?

 

[lemurien]

Thinking while doing it.

from wiki:

According to Zhu Xi's epistemology, knowledge and action were indivisible components of truly intelligent activity.

Although he did distinguish between the priority of knowing, since intelligent action requires forethought, and the importance of action, as it produces a discernible effect, Zhu Xi said:

"Knowledge and action always require each other. It is like a person who cannot walk without legs although he has eyes, and who cannot see without eyes although he has legs. With respect to order, knowledge comes first, and with respect to importance, action is more important."

I have to read more about Tao, Confucius and Zhu Xi.
Any suggestions of a good introductory book, anyone?

 

[lemurien]

Why should existence have a purpose?

Because if it did not, the Universe would never have become conscious of itself.
'Purpose' as it occurs in the animal kingdom, is the driving force of evolution.

You might think that a dog has no idea of its purpose.
Try to strangle one and you'll see.

 

[dafydd]

Because if it did not, the Universe would never have become conscious of itself.
'Purpose' as it occurs in the animal kingdom, is the driving force of evolution.

You might think that a dog has no idea of its purpose.
Try to strangle one and you'll see.

The universe is conscious of itself? Pure woo. I don't go around strangling dogs and self preservation is built into DNA. There is no driving force behind evolution,you have no idea what evolution is.

 

[lemurien]

I did the last time, I accept I might not have done a very good job, but I am used to a more constructive form of debate rather than an adversarial one.

My reasoning is that every combination which can happen would happen because given infinite time and space, there would be infinitely unending opportunities in the activity of the particles to form every combination which is not impossible. If for some reason a combination did not exist, there would remain infinite opportunities for it to arise somewhere else, or at some other time, ad infinitum.

Things that have a probability of nonzero can happen but they do not have to.
You can assume infinite time and space, multiply a nonzero with infinity but still you have no knowledge to justify your assumption.

Thought games.
My question to you is: What is the use of these musings?
And I do agree with you, the Negativists' Club is not contributing much on our quest of answers.

They remind me of my neighbor's dog who barked at all things that moved, had moved recently or seemed to be capable of moving any given moment.

He broke free, run to the train tracks and after a squeal, silence reigned.
Cannot say I was sorry.

 

[lemurien]

The universe is conscious of itself? Pure woo. I don't go around strangling dogs and self preservation is built into DNA. There is no driving force behind evolution,you have no idea what evolution is.

If you belong to the Universe and you are conscious about yourself and the Universe then the Universe is conscious of itself. Simple as that.

Remove the urge to stay alive and evolution disappears, so does life.
And you say there is no driving force.
I do not contest your right to your opinions however foolish they might be.

Thank you for letting me feel smart and educated.

 

[lemurien]

You still don't understand,and this is a skeptical site,we need proof. If you want pats on the back go to a woo site. Try David Icke's site,they will welcome you with open arms there.

Wow. You want people who do not think like you or who say things you do not understand or agree with either to shut up or go elsewhere.

Are you American?