My argument against materialism

punshhh said:
I use horizon specifically because I am considering those aspects of reality which constitute the framework or foundations of our physical reality.
Click to expand...

Sigh. My problem was not with the use of the word "horizon", but with the term "verifiable", as I emphasized by placing it in italics. Is your computer so old it cannot display italics? Never mind, even so, my post was pretty clear. So, I ask again, for the third time: what do you mean by "current horizon of verifiable understanding"? Your last explanation was not about "verifiable understanding", but "verified understanding". This post of yours bypassed the question entirely. May I still hope for a clarification?
 
dlorde said:
Oh yeah - I forgot.

IIRC he's scared of Pixy's termites(?) demolishing his cherished illusions, or something... Reminds me of the way religions seem to feel threatened by rationalism and/or atheism. Surely if you have solid and unshakable belief in your dogma, no argument can threaten it, and questions, discussions, etc., can serve only to reinforce it and bring others on board? :D
Click to expand...

I'm happy to stand by the arguments I present, As I am not strictly affiliated to one theology, presenting them as the basis for my arguments would be misleading.
I only refer to such ideologies as examples of schools of thought in which my ideas are addressed.
 
laca said:
Why would a sane person care about something that cannot be tested or observed?



What do you mean by "current horizon of verifiable understanding"?
Click to expand...

Yes I see the distinction here, yes I was refering to verified, understanding that has been scientifically tested and accepted by the scientific community.
 
punshhh said:
Yes I see the distinction here, yes I was refering to verified, understanding that has been scientifically tested and accepted by the scientific community.
Click to expand...

Thanks. In that case, the answer is yes.
 
punshhh said:
You see he can't see beyond the end of his nose, it must be stifling in such a small world.
Click to expand...
In a way that is precisely what you're doing actually. Rather than appreciate what science and the accumulated knowledge of humanity knows and can verify of the nigh infinite number of interrelated systems causes and effects in the universe and the systems of behavior that govern it all, you'd rather dismiss it as mundane and material and focus on what you'd rather pretend is better it seems.

You may claim you're not so uninformed, but your summations beg us to say otherwise. The fact that a person who claims to be open to such appreciation is not stricken with awe and wonder at what we do know (and can only hint at now through abstract symbolic concepts like math) is just dumb founding to me. You're stuck, believing it's limitation of some sort that prevents people from sharing in your pretend world of arbitrary intuitions. You seem like you think the world is all there to be understood based on how it seems to you, while sharing a world with people who don't see what you see. And based on your story about your amazing question for the scientist in school that left your classmates stunned in silence, you get off on thinking this way. The persecuted seer of truths, dismissed by the stuffy short sighted old materialists. And you're not even pulling off the noble part of the truth seeking victim all that well, with your patronizing post above and your delightful commentary on my post over possible scenarios in human evolution for example. :pTut-tut!:jaw-dropp

You seem to have good intentions at the heart of it, and it's great you're asking questions at least I suppose. Hopefully you're young and hopefully you've got a lot more to learn about the finer points of the science you're so quick to dismiss as limited and drab in light of your special god and your spiritual truths.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom