My argument against materialism

[PixyMisa]

Materialists tell of matter, please explain matter as it is understood by materialists?

We have.

I have read the wiki references on this, unfortunately I cannot debate with Wiki.

Of course you can.

If you were to explain it personally we may be able to discuss what we are refering to and reach an understanding.

Not so long as you keep asking what matter is "constituted of".

 

[laca]

I cant see how we can, all we can do is remain open minded and consider all possible avenues of understanding.

Like what?

 

[Robin]

Do these theories include matter?

But matter is not the point. A unified theory might abandon the concept of matter altogether. It would make no difference to Materialism. Don't take Wiki as an expert on philosophy. Wiki is very unreliable in matters philosophical.

 

[punshhh]

But matter is not the point. A unified theory might abandon the concept of matter altogether. It would make no difference to Materialism. Don't take Wiki as an expert on philosophy. Wiki is very unreliable in matters philosophical.

Ok I can see that materialism might abandon the "concept of matter" and that matter may not be "the point" of materialism

My question was originally regarding energy, what I was looking for in the answer is what this existence we know of is "made up of".

Of what is this table I am leaning on constituted?

Alternatively through what concept is the existence of this table justified by materialism?

 

[punshhh]

No, it doesn't. Where did you get that gem?

I made this observation from my enquiry into what energy and atoms are.

Perhaps you can help me, materialism tells me that existence is the action of energy. Now I know how this works, this is well documented.

What is this energy and how is it able to act in 3 dimensions?

 

[punshhh]

Or we could use the scientific method, which has taken us this far.

Science is one of these avenues of understanding.

 

[punshhh]

Like what?

Science, philosophy, theology and direct experience.

 

[PixyMisa]

Ok I can see that materialism might abandon the "concept of matter" and that matter may not be "the point" of materialism

My question was originally regarding energy, what I was looking for in the answer is what this existence we know of is "made up of".

Of what is this table I am leaning on constituted?

Wrong question.

Alternatively through what concept is the existence of this table justified by materialism?

It's there.

 

[dlorde]

My annoyance is based on the pattern of your participation i.e. mainly all criticism.

This is a skeptic forum, criticism is the major part of what we do

 

[punshhh]

Thanks Dancing David & yy2bggggs for the help. I was using the Quick Reply screen & didn't know you have to Go Advanced to be able to preview posts. I also found the wrap quote tags icon. Now, I think my posts should make more sense!

Thanks again!

Its not easy getting much explanation out of most of these posters, perhaps you can discuss something with me.

I have not had time to read your paper on the flood, I just thought I'd mention that I am currently watching a great flood live on TV.

 

[punshhh]

Quarks.

Is quark not just another particle.

 

[Robin]

Ok I can see that materialism might abandon the "concept of matter" and that matter may not be "the point" of materialism

My question was originally regarding energy, what I was looking for in the answer is what this existence we know of is "made up of".

Of what is this table I am leaning on constituted?

Alternatively through what concept is the existence of this table justified by materialism?

Materialism is not an ontological position.

If you want to know what something is go and ask an ontologist.

 

[Robin]

Science, philosophy, theology and direct experience.

Tell me one thing that theology has helped us understand.

 

[punshhh]

What new steps in understanding do you have to present?

I don't have any.

I am interested in what we don't know.

 

[Belz...]

Do these theories include matter?

I only asked if particles are constituted of energy, surely this requires a yes or no answer.

Incredible. I'm having trouble believing that _anyone_ could be so dense as to not understand the veritable onslaught of times you were answered that this didn't make sense as a question.

I'm voting for .

 

[punshhh]

Materialism is not an ontological position.

If you want to know what something is go and ask an ontologist.

Have I fallen "through a gap" into another discipline, are there any ontologists present?

Theology helps us to understand the nature of divinity.

Also if God were not to exist, considerations regarding morality and ethics. Along with some kind of context for humanity within existence.

This is not the place to go down these avenues, I would prefer to concentrate on the issue in hand until and reach some kind of resolution before moving on.

 

[Belz...]

How will we get this full picture of reality?

I don't know, but so far with the lens I'm using I'm always missing a galaxy or two.

 

[punshhh]

Incredible. I'm having trouble believing that _anyone_ could be so dense as to not understand the veritable onslaught of times you were answered that this didn't make sense as a question.

I'm voting for .[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/608046235f50502c5.gif[/qimg]

What is this or is it a meaningless question.

I looked up atom in wiki and saw a photograph of an atom/molecule of Gold.

Is this a photo of some matter?

Or does materialism not concern itself with such materials?

What is this a photo of?

What is an atom/molecule of gold?

 

[Robin]

Have I fallen "through a gap" into another discipline, are there any ontologists present?

I doubt it. I am not sure that there is such a thing any more. If there were one here he would probably begin by asking you what you meant by "is".

 

[Belz...]

No, it doesn't. Where did you get that gem?

It's the kind of nonsense that sounds good in a conversation with family members where no one second-guesses the "profound" things you say.