I challenge you: your best alternate to materialism

Belz... said:
totality of current observations
Click to expand...
This is also contradiction, because "total observation" is necessarily 100% certain, where "current observation" is not necessarily 100% certain.

So now your contradiction is as follows: (necessarily 100% certain) AND (not necessarily 100% certain).
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
This is also contradiction, because "total observation" is necessarily 100% certain, where "current observation" is not necessarily 100% certain.

So now your contradiction is as follows: (necessarily 100% certain) AND (not necessarily 100% certain).
Click to expand...

Again, no. You are totally wrong. The totality of observation does not preclude future observations that may not fit with a material universe. That it is not 100% certain is irrelevant: so far 100% of our observations are consistent with a material universe, and not with any other ontology.

The definition of "contradiction" isn't "disagrees with me", Doron.
 
LarryS said:
That is my point . . . so we state the world is material as a concession to our not being able to verify it.
Click to expand...

It is literally the single most verified thing in the history of ever.

The fact that we are open to future evidence which could cause us to reconsider does not change that.
 
Belz... said:
Again, no. You are totally wrong. The totality of observation does not preclude future observations that may not fit with a material universe. That it is not 100% certain is irrelevant: so far 100% of our observations are consistent with a material universe, and not with any other ontology.

The definition of "contradiction" isn't "disagrees with me", Doron.
Click to expand...

"so far 100% of our observations" is a temporary claim.

"The totality of observation" is not a temporary claim.

So now your contradiction is as follows: (temporary claim) AND (not temporary claim).
 
doronshadmi said:
"so far 100% of our observations" is a temporary claim.

"The totality of observation" is not a temporary claim.
Click to expand...

Actually both of them are equivalent, since observation is never complete. The problem here is simply that you misunderstood what I meant, and are trying to convince me that I meant what you understood, and not what I said. That isn't my problem.

So now your contradiction is as follows: (temporary claim) AND (not temporary claim).
Click to expand...

Stop using words you don't understand. It's pathetic.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Let me help you.

A = "temporary claim"

~A = NOT "temporary claim"

A AND ~A is a contradiction.
Click to expand...

:nope:

In that case it can't be (total observation) AND (never complete observation).
Click to expand...

You're getting all tangled up in your nonsensical logic.

Read for comprehension for once: my statement about 100% of observation is NOT one about certainty, but about the current state of observation, 100% of which supports materialism. You misunderstood the statement, and that's it.

Your maneuvers around your contradiction are pathetic.
Click to expand...

There IS no contradiction. There is only your inability to understand what people are telling you.
 
Nonpareil said:
The second option is to argue that there may be states in which the universe does behave as though it is ideal - moments when we "wake up". The response to that is very simple: show one. Until you do, there is no evidence supporting the assertion, and thus idealism is not rational.
Click to expand...

It does not take a profound "wake up" to claim there is no evidence of matter outside of our awareness of it - it is everyone's daily experience. To prove Materialism, one needs to find this stuff called matter that lies outside of our being aware of it
 
Belz... said:
Read for comprehension for once: my statement about 100% of observation is NOT one about certainty, but about the current state of observation, 100% of which supports materialism.
Click to expand...
In that case "The totality of observation" is not total at all, but at its best it depends on our current abilities to observe reality only in terms of your hypothesis, called materialism.

The problem is that you simply unconditionally reject anything (the last one is http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10419612&postcount=982) that does not fit to your materialist hypothesis, even if you are aware of the fact that it is no more than "the current state of observation".
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Let me help you.

A = "temporary claim"

~A = NOT "temporary claim"

A AND ~A is a contradiction.
Click to expand...

I need to preface this post with the disclaimer that I do not usually resort to empty posturing, but it seems to be necessary in this particular case.

Doron. I have mentioned this before. I have studied computer science. I have studied advanced mathematics. I know how these things work.

You don't. You demonstrably don't. The post that I'm replying to here is proof of that.

Stop trying to educate others and try to learn something yourself.

~ is the negation symbol. ~A is true only if A is false. ~A can be expressed as the inverse of A; for example, if A is "the sky is blue", ~A is "the sky is not blue".

Belz' statements were "reality is material in nature" and "we can't be absolutely certain of anything". Setting aside for the moment whether or not these statements are true, let us designate them A and B, respectively.

~A, therefore, is "reality is not material in nature", and ~B is "we can be absolutely certain of things".

You have taken declared that Belz has claimed "A AND ~A".

What he has actually done is claim "A AND B".

There is no contradiction.

Read.
 
LarryS said:
It does not take a profound "wake up" to claim there is no evidence of matter outside of our awareness of it - it is everyone's daily experience. To prove Materialism, one needs to find this stuff called matter that lies outside of our being aware of it
Click to expand...

And we're back to denying even the possibility of evidence.

As I have said before, this entire position is largely incoherent, has no explanatory power, and crumbles as soon as you have a functional definition of "is".
 
Belz... said:
:nope:



You're getting all tangled up in your nonsensical logic.

Read for comprehension for once: my statement about 100% of observation is NOT one about certainty, but about the current state of observation, 100% of which supports materialism. You misunderstood the statement, and that's it.

There IS no contradiction. There is only your inability to understand what people are telling you.
Click to expand...

This is the path to frustration that ends with him lying about practicing TM (in the thread in my sig he specifically and explicitly states that he has nothing to do with TM except that he thinks their ideas match his. And if you read the precursor thread you will find the exact moment where *I* point him to TM because it is so similar to what he claims. All there in writing for all to see :) ) and lying about you personally.

I used to think reading comprehension really was a problem, but I am gradually going over to thinking it is a mechanism to frustrate people into giving up.

Forget it, this fish is not worth the kettle.

EDIT: LOL! I suddenly remembered why he still thinks I called him Baboon! It was a reference to the cartoon 'I am Weasel' in which there was a character called 'I 'R Baboon'. At no point did I ever compare Doron with him; that *was* a classic example of failure at reading comprehension! :)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom