• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

My argument against materialism

Basically my point in this thread is that materialism has not presented a logical understanding/explanation of our existence.

I see a paradox in that (a) a possibly infinite extension of finite universes/dimensions is considered reasonable. Alongside (b) little consideration of an 'infinite source' of existence.

Now (a) defies logic
No.

(b) is surely dictated by logic.
No.

So we have a universe existing in space-time, consisting of finite 'atoms' their associated subatomic particles and energies.
We gather that all these atoms originated/sprang from a singularity, at a point in time. A singularity where QM and GR 'breakdown', (are meaningless), (perhaps point in time is also meaningless).

Perhaps this is our infinite creator?
No, it's a singularity.

Anyway, to me this process is important, as it is 'hard evidence'(c), for the 'existence' effectively of an infinite creator/generator.
No, it's a singularity.

It is, by definition, not evidence of anything on the other side.

It supports my claim that logic dictates that finite existence is created/generated from singularities.
No; we only know that if we trace our Universe backwards in time we arrive at a singularity.

Now if this singularity is not infinite spatially and temporally
It's not. It's a singularity. It's zero spatially and temporally.

then we are back to square one, ie a finite number of forms, this time singularities rather than atoms.
No.

Logic would (going from the evidence we have (c))
There is, by definition, no such evidence.

dictate that these finite singularities must have been created/generated by some kind of 'greater'
singularity themselves, ad infinitum.
No.

Hence we are left with an infinite(spatially, temporally) singularity, I would argue infinitely infinite in every way.
As we have demonstrated, this is incorrect in every possible way.
 
Thanks a lot. I was worried it was too long, but I was following a train of thought all the way through as best as I could.



I think there's a real danger in reductionist thinking when you start to reduce things to the point of "what if we're not even really here" .

At some point, things just must be. As a child it often drove me crazy trying to assume an alternative to anything happening at all. The absence of everything.

The universe is here, and things are happening. We accept a lot of processes as simply being the processes they are as the behavior of reality for some reason or another. If you touch some things, they move, but some things don't. Water evaporates. Fluid goes all over the place while solids do not. There is a difference between seeing and smelling. There's a difference between a well lit room and a room without light. Some reasons are more acceptable as just being what they are than others I suppose.

For me, there is just a natural behavior in the universe for some reason we don't understand that ends up happening.

There's not only no reason to consider a mind of some sort arranged things to happen as they do. I think when you bring a God into things, it complicates the issue and often ends up leaving one confused and trapped in circular logic(never mind the anthropic tinted goggles).

There's too much power in circular logic being used as a conclusion to some people's minds I think. It seems a self assertive explanation, a state of balance in paradox. And often it is posited as proof by the theist, though one could use the same logic in ridiculous examples.

I think when you break it down, it's a lot harder to accept a prime organizer or God happening by itself than a giant thing like reality happening all by itself that has certain rules and activities which obey laws of behavior.

I think it's more likely that a material thing (at the most reduced level made up of almost pure and rudimentary components that are simply behaving within parameters established by what works and what doesn't) existed all along with no beginning, than that a vast and nearly infinitely complex awareness came about or has always been.

I think even abstractly that things start out at the bottom as less complicated, and move towards arrangements.

A god is just way too complicated a thing for me to imagine as being a universal constant. A god is the most complicated thing possible, even. Which betrays it for the human expectation it is.

I think consciousness is a very complicated and almost mechanical thing that can only be made possible through many simple components being arranged through trial and error.

I think a godless material universe is far more beautiful an idea aesthetically and full of far more meaning than a God is as well, when you really get down to considering it.

Which is what saddens me when theists dismiss the material world view as being bleak and without meaning. I truly find the idea of a universe with a loving god who arranged all things to be the bleak and meaningless view.

A Prime Mover turns everything into a tool or construct, rather than a thing of such improbable complextiy and interconnected reaction that it takes the breath away for being so miraculous and seemingly improbable.
A god makes everything mundane and probable. The only mystery left is "How did God always exist by itself" at that point.

One can reason away meaning and importance with logic, but I think aesthetic elegance speaks for itself and I am just happy I can appreciate such things with emotion and pleasure and humor. I find it all captivating and so much more "spiritual" than any spiritualist can make things out to be with their talk of absolute meaning and souls and gods and worship.

I'd rather the universe be a miracle of inter related behavior than a giant construct created by some vast architect. That to me is precious and fragile and full of importance and meaning to be appreciated for it's elegance.

I think the universe has a very natural and material behavior to create order from chaos. We can demonstrate this with feedback loops of chaos and I find that more satisfying than any time I spent growing up worshiping God and wondering at his plans.

If you haven't watch it yet, I recommend you watch the BBC's Secret Life of Chaos. At least to the part with the flame and the video feedback. I found it to be quite an eye opening introduction.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HACkykFlIus

I have seen the secret life of chaos, its great.

I think I should explain that I do not fit the usual definition of a believer/theist on this forum(from what I have read).
I have come to a similar position to yourself via a similar appreciation of science and contemporary thinking.
I also have arrived at a similar position through a spiritually based philosophy and study. I see no conflict between the two, they are two sides of the same coin. They are in reality lifestyle choices, some people go for one some for the other. I having an interest in these things study these philosophies and others out of a fascination with the nature of existence.
 
Last edited:
Basically my point in this thread is that materialism has not presented a logical understanding/explanation of our existence.

I see a paradox in that (a) a possibly infinite extension of finite universes/dimensions is considered reasonable. Alongside (b) little consideration of an 'infinite source' of existence.

Now (a) defies logic and (b) is surely dictated by logic.

Given the above, it seems you have no adequate grasp of at least one of the following concepts: paradox, infinity, universe, dimension, reasonable, existence and logic.

I'm sorry, punshhh, but I haven't seen a coherent post from you so far.
 
No.


No.


No, it's a singularity.


No, it's a singularity.

It is, by definition, not evidence of anything on the other side.


No; we only know that if we trace our Universe backwards in time we arrive at a singularity.


It's not. It's a singularity. It's zero spatially and temporally.


No.


There is, by definition, no such evidence.


No.


As we have demonstrated, this is incorrect in every possible way.

Did the known universe originate 'in' the singularity of the big bang?
Did it originate immediately afterwards?
Or did it arise from nothing?
 
Seen how? Where? When? And more importantly, on what drugs? Also, do you still have some? :eye-poppi

Eu naturale, Do you realise the silliness that would follow if I said I had taken any drugs?
 
I have seen the secret life of chaos, its great.

I think I should explain that I do not fit the usual definition of a believer/theist on this forum(from what I have read).
I have come to a similar position to yourself via a similar appreciation of science and contemporary thinking.
I also have arrived at a similar position through a spiritually based philosophy and study. I see no conflict between the two, they are two sides of the same coin. They are in reality lifestyle choices, some people go for one some for the other. I having an interest in these things study these philosophies and others out of a fascination with the nature of existence.
Except that science is real, and spirituality is just a word to cover up meaningless nonsense.

You can choose to guide your life through science, skepticism, and critical thinking, or through meaningless nonsense.

Similarly, if you break your leg you can go to a doctor, or you can go to a faith healer. The doctor will put you in an itchy uncomfortable cast, and in a few weeks you'll be walking again. If you go to the faith healer, well, maybe you get lucky at at least not get an infection and die, but that's the best you can hope for.

Excuse me if I side with reality.
 
Given the above, it seems you have no adequate grasp of at least one of the following concepts: paradox, infinity, universe, dimension, reasonable, existence and logic.

I'm sorry, punshhh, but I haven't seen a coherent post from you so far.

If (a) is a logical explanation, what is beyond the finite bits of the universe, or before or after the known universe?

Are we floating in a void?
 
Except that science is real, and spirituality is just a word to cover up meaningless nonsense.

You can choose to guide your life through science, skepticism, and critical thinking, or through meaningless nonsense.

Similarly, if you break your leg you can go to a doctor, or you can go to a faith healer. The doctor will put you in an itchy uncomfortable cast, and in a few weeks you'll be walking again. If you go to the faith healer, well, maybe you get lucky at at least not get an infection and die, but that's the best you can hope for.

Excuse me if I side with reality.

Fine, I straddle them both.
 
Did the known universe originate 'in' the singularity of the big bang?
The Big Bang was the expansion of the singularity out from zero. Our Universe was there in the singularity, but compressed down to zero size and infinitely dense, and so unrecogniseable.

Or possibly not; we can't actually see back that far. If you keep following the lines back, then you hit a zero point where everthing in the Universe was gathered into a point of zero volume. But we can only actually see back to about 300,000 years after the Big Bang, not the event itself, and certainly not the singularity.
 
If (a) is a logical explanation, what is beyond the finite bits of the universe, or before or after the known universe?
If time began with the Big Bang then there is no such thing as before the Universe. If time is a property of the Universe then there is no such thing as after the Universe.
Are we floating in a void?
If the Universe were the only thing to exist then there would be no void in which to "float".

You appear to be ruling out the possibility that a finite reality might be all that exists.

You seem to feel that if the Universe is finite then it must be encapsulated in some sort of infinity.

It may be. But it does not necessarily have to be so.
 
The theistic model predicts consciousness... like creating after it's own kind - just as an acorn can produce another oak tree.

Now you're being ridiculous. The theistic model predicts _nothing_. It doesn't make predictions, only judgments and preachings. It's not a scientific theory.

But even if it were, there is NOTHING in religious litterature about how this would be possible. Your comparison with trees assumes that spirits can have sex and make kids.

Oh... I assure you, Belz. I would be more than happy to compare the evidence for psi against the evidence for things like computers producing consciousness in their circuitry.

Oh... wait...

I see your problem with this....

You haven't got any evidence at all for things like computers doing this!

1) Why would you compare one to the other since they have nothing to do with one another ?

2) I asked you to provide evidence for psi, not to move the goalposts. Do you have any evidence at all ?
 

Back
Top Bottom