I'm not gonna waste any more time arguing Religion

[Ron_Tomkins]

And that is because, as I have pointed out before, Religion is one of the many branches that subdivide from a much more essential core: The issue of Materialism. Deal with the Materialism "problem", and everything else (religion, psi orbs, reincarnation, homeopathy, dowsing) automatically dies.

So this thread is an invitation to anyone to discuss in a serious way, what evidence do they have that there's anything beyond the material. In a serious, mature, consistent way.

Also, have they looked beyond the need for there to be something beyond the material, and accept the possibility that there might not be such thing?. Can they honestly admit that their quest is about truth and not wishful thinking?.

Also, how do they define non-material? How do they define the Supernatural? Where do they draw the line?.

This is what I ask for. No more endless rants on disproval of God. No more circular logic of "my book says so". I wanna go down to the core: Materialism. What's your case against it? What clues, pieces of evidence have you gathered to build a case that there's something beyond it?.

[Apathia]

Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins

And that is because, as I have pointed out before, Religion is one of the many branches that subdivide from a much more essential core: The issue of Materialism. Deal with the Materialism "problem", and everything else (religion, psi orbs, reincarnation, homeopathy, dowsing) automatically dies.

So this thread is an invitation to anyone to discuss in a serious way, what evidence do they have that there's anything beyond the material. In a serious, mature, consistent way.

Also, have they looked beyond the need for there to be something beyond the material, and accept the possibility that there might not be such thing?. Can they honestly admit that their quest is about truth and not wishful thinking?.

Also, how do they define non-material? How do they define the Supernatural? Where do they draw the line?.

This is what I ask for. No more endless rants on disproval of God. No more circular logic of "my book says so". I wanna go down to the core: Materialism. What's your case against it? What clues, pieces of evidence have you gathered to build a case that there's something beyond it?.

OK, Ron. You're not going to get into any of these dead end religious discussions again.
I know how you feel.

But you realize, don't you, that throwing down the gauntlet about "Materialism," will just lead to the usual metaphysical morass.
Search for the many sad threads on this subject.

You'll soon find you need to start a new thread titled "I'm not gonna waste any more time arguing Metaphysics."

[Pure_Argent]

Maybe you should start a thread with the name "Metaphysics Discussion". I highly doubt that any of this forum's theists are going to bother reading a thread titled "I'm not gonna waste any more time arguing Religion".

[Ron_Tomkins]

Originally Posted by Apathia

OK, Ron. You're not going to get into any of these dead end religious discussions again.
I know how you feel.

No, no. Trust me, I'm not writing this out of some frustration from dealing with a bunch of obtuse theists (though I have dealt with lots of them). It's simply that after analyzing the whole thing deep enough, I can see that Religion itself is not the priority. It's an issue of Materialism. Everything else branches out from there.

Originally Posted by Apathia

But you realize, don't you, that throwing down the gauntlet about "Materialism," will just lead to the usual metaphysical morass.
Search for the many sad threads on this subject.

I do, and I kinda have with individuals such as Undercover Elephant. But that doesn't mean that other dualists that I've never spoken with couldn't jump in the thread and provide other arguments. And yes, even the slight possibility that someone may provide an argument that is strong enough. After all, you never know. But you do need a convincing argument based on evidence.

Originally Posted by Apathia

You'll soon find you need to start a new thread titled "I'm not gonna waste any more time arguing Metaphysics."

Oh no, no, no. That one's too good to stop discussing

[Ron_Tomkins]

Originally Posted by Pure_Argent

Maybe you should start a thread with the name "Metaphysics Discussion". I highly doubt that any of this forum's theists are going to bother reading a thread titled "I'm not gonna waste any more time arguing Religion".

If, after a few days of seeing the thread vanish into oblivion with no participation from any dualist, I will try that. Thanks

[Apathia]

Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins

I do, and I kinda have with individuals such as Undercover Elephant. But that doesn't mean that other dualists that I've never spoken with couldn't jump in the thread and provide other arguments. And yes, even the slight possibility that someone may provide an argument that is strong enough. After all, you never know. But you do need a convincing argument based on evidence.

Oh no, no, no. That one's too good to stop discussing

Then break out the popcorn!

[Malerin]

Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins

If, after a few days of seeing the thread vanish into oblivion with no participation from any dualist, I will try that. Thanks

How are you defining "materialism"?

[Ron_Tomkins]

Originally Posted by Malerin

How are you defining "materialism"?

This definition pretty much sums it up

2. the philosophical theory that regards matter and its motions as constituting the universe, and all phenomena, including those of mind, as due to material agencies.

[Cynic]

Given that definition of materialism, the first step toward supporting dualism would be to demonstrate a circumstance that cannot occur (but is known to occur) without something more than the material. I can't think of a thing.

Naturally the lack of such thing doesn't prove anything. Invisible elves might be simultaneously suspending gravity and holding me to my chair themselves. But in this case, a theory that isn't falsifiable is worthless.

[Ron_Tomkins]

Originally Posted by Cynic

Given that definition of materialism, the first step toward supporting dualism would be to demonstrate a circumstance that cannot occur (but is known to occur) without something more than the material. I can't think of a thing.

Naturally the lack of such thing doesn't prove anything. Invisible elves might be simultaneously suspending gravity and holding me to my chair themselves. But in this case, a theory that isn't falsifiable is worthless.

Yes, I agree on a hundred percent.

[Apathia]

Great!
Now to get the corn poppin:
What's "material?'
What's a "material agency?'

[Hokulele]

Originally Posted by Apathia

What's "material?'

$2 per yard.

Quote:

What's a "material agency?'

http://www.fabric.com/clearance-fabr...?Source=Header

[Ethnikos]

Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins

This definition pretty much sums it up

2. the philosophical theory that regards matter and its motions as constituting the universe, and all phenomena, including those of mind, as due to material agencies.

I don't see what that has to do with religion. The cosmos is mundane. So what? That would be the definition of the universe. Everything is based on the physical. There isn't some part, over there, somewhere, operating by a different set of rules.
One night, there is a big flash of light in the sky. Everyone says, "Holy crap! What the hell was that?" "It has to be a supernova from somewhere in the galaxy." The astronomers figure out where it had to have originated from, and eventually narrow it down to a particular star. They look at the records of observations of it and determine there was a planet orbiting it, capable of supporting life. "That would really suck, having your sun blow up. We should build a craft to send there, that will make use of this new science we just discovered, that can go back in time, and rescue some of the people who lived there." "Great idea. That will give us motivation to develop a practical application for the science." Eventually some brave volunteers show up and greet the subjects of their effort. There are a lot of people about, way too many to take with them. They come up with a plan to select a few specimens and promise to come back for the rest. Meanwhile, the people on the doomed planet develop their culture and produce scientists who refute the myths of the "gods" and say anyone who believes, are just unscientific, and to be ignored.
I guess the point being, in a way, the rescuers would seem to be not of the same cosmos as the rescuees. They came from a place where the victims are very long gone. And the rescuers, to these people, have not been born yet. So do they exist to each other? Not really, but somehow they meet.

[Mr Clingford]

If you a priori assume the material is all there is (which isn't an unreasonable position IMO) then there is no evidence to suggest otherwise because you will think there can only be a material cause for all evidence.

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by Ethnikos

I don't see what that has to do with religion. The cosmos is mundane. So what? That would be the definition of the universe. Everything is based on the physical. There isn't some part, over there, somewhere, operating by a different set of rules.
One night, there is a big flash of light in the sky. Everyone says, "Holy crap! What the hell was that?" "It has to be a supernova from somewhere in the galaxy." The astronomers figure out where it had to have originated from, and eventually narrow it down to a particular star. They look at the records of observations of it and determine there was a planet orbiting it, capable of supporting life. "That would really suck, having your sun blow up. We should build a craft to send there, that will make use of this new science we just discovered, that can go back in time, and rescue some of the people who lived there." "Great idea. That will give us motivation to develop a practical application for the science." Eventually some brave volunteers show up and greet the subjects of their effort. There are a lot of people about, way too many to take with them. They come up with a plan to select a few specimens and promise to come back for the rest. Meanwhile, the people on the doomed planet develop their culture and produce scientists who refute the myths of the "gods" and say anyone who believes, are just unscientific, and to be ignored.
I guess the point being, in a way, the rescuers would seem to be not of the same cosmos as the rescuees. They came from a place where the victims are very long gone. And the rescuers, to these people, have not been born yet. So do they exist to each other? Not really, but somehow they meet.

Now go and have a nice lie down.

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by Mr Clingford

If you a priori assume the material is all there is (which isn't an unreasonable position IMO) then there is no evidence to suggest otherwise because you will think there can only be a material cause for all evidence.

Now this sort of gets to the really interesting point:

there is no way to tell one from the other!

If we have godthought, energy packets, butterfly dreams,brains in vats, material, immaterial it all comes down to the same thing:

1. the universe is unitary or dualistic
2. the universe behaves consistently or it doesn't
3. the scientific method of approximate models is useful or not

Now this then leads us to some other conclusions about the nature of the material/immaterial debate

A. There is either the seperation of material and spirit or not
B. One can study the phenomena of the spirit or not
C. The application of the scientific method to the spirit or not

[Brian-M]

I'm confused. If you're not gonna waste any more time arguing Religion, exactly how are you going to waste your time instead?

[Cynic]

Originally Posted by Ethnikos

I don't see what that has to do with religion. The cosmos is mundane. So what? That would be the definition of the universe.

That would be the definition of a materialist universe. Most of the religious have this notion of "god" and the "supernatural", which are by definition something other than material. So it has everything to do with religion -- establishing the need for dualism is the first hurdle they need to leap in order to begin positing gods.

[Apathia]

Apathia asked:

Quote:

What's "material?'

Originally Posted by Hokulele

$2 per yard.

http://www.fabric.com/clearance-fabr...?Source=Header

I find this an excellent and very relevant answer!

A bolt of cloth: stuff we use to make stuff.

[HansMustermann]

Originally Posted by Ethnikos

I don't see what that has to do with religion. The cosmos is mundane. So what? That would be the definition of the universe. Everything is based on the physical. There isn't some part, over there, somewhere, operating by a different set of rules.
One night, there is a big flash of light in the sky. Everyone says, "Holy crap! What the hell was that?" "It has to be a supernova from somewhere in the galaxy." The astronomers figure out where it had to have originated from, and eventually narrow it down to a particular star. They look at the records of observations of it and determine there was a planet orbiting it, capable of supporting life. "That would really suck, having your sun blow up. We should build a craft to send there, that will make use of this new science we just discovered, that can go back in time, and rescue some of the people who lived there." "Great idea. That will give us motivation to develop a practical application for the science." Eventually some brave volunteers show up and greet the subjects of their effort. There are a lot of people about, way too many to take with them. They come up with a plan to select a few specimens and promise to come back for the rest. Meanwhile, the people on the doomed planet develop their culture and produce scientists who refute the myths of the "gods" and say anyone who believes, are just unscientific, and to be ignored.
I guess the point being, in a way, the rescuers would seem to be not of the same cosmos as the rescuees. They came from a place where the victims are very long gone. And the rescuers, to these people, have not been born yet. So do they exist to each other? Not really, but somehow they meet.

And the point of this is...? Let me guess, it's about Chewbaca living on Endor with the ewoks, right?

[Hux]

If the supernatural is real, how come we dont see Vampires and Ghoulies running around...

[Beerina]

Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins

And that is because, as I have pointed out before, Religion is one of the many branches that subdivide from a much more essential core: The issue of Materialism. Deal with the Materialism "problem", and everything else (religion, psi orbs, reincarnation, homeopathy, dowsing) automatically dies.

So this thread is an invitation to anyone to discuss in a serious way, what evidence do they have that there's anything beyond the material. In a serious, mature, consistent way.

Also, have they looked beyond the need for there to be something beyond the material, and accept the possibility that there might not be such thing?. Can they honestly admit that their quest is about truth and not wishful thinking?.

Also, how do they define non-material? How do they define the Supernatural? Where do they draw the line?.

This is what I ask for. No more endless rants on disproval of God. No more circular logic of "my book says so". I wanna go down to the core: Materialism. What's your case against it? What clues, pieces of evidence have you gathered to build a case that there's something beyond it?.

The materialist aspect is just a subset of the larger aspect: scientific proof.

The politics section is loaded down with every manner of theory that "sounds good", but precious little proof of any of it, much less considerations of freedom that should trump even those things.

None of that in politics relies on secular/spiritual differentiation.


I submit to you the real delineation is the meme concept -- ideas in the mind that work in the mental model of reality, thus instigating real-world action, but may or may not have anything to do with how reality actually works.

[Darth Rotor]

Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins

And that is because, as I have pointed out before, Religion is one of the many branches that subdivide from a much more essential core: The issue of Materialism. Deal with the Materialism "problem", and everything else (religion, psi orbs, reincarnation, homeopathy, dowsing) automatically dies.

How dialectic of you.

Quote:

Also, have they looked beyond the need for there to be something beyond the material, and accept the possibility that there might not be such thing?. Can they honestly admit that their quest is about truth and not wishful thinking?.
Also, how do they define non-material? How do they define the Supernatural? Where do they draw the line?.

Who is "they" and how in the name of all that is beef brisket is this tone of yours an "invitation" of any sort to anyone to engage in a friendly and lively way?

Quote:

What clues, pieces of evidence have you gathered to build a case that there's something beyond it?.

Schroedinger's cat. Wasn't in the drawer I stuffed it into.

[Cynic]

Ignoring for the moment that Schroedinger intended the cat story as a criticism of QM and not and explaination of how reality works, how does that support dualism?

[Darth Rotor]

Originally Posted by Cynic

Ignoring for the moment that Schroedinger intended the cat story as a criticism of QM and not and explaination of how reality works, how does that support dualism?

I note the absence of (amateur) humor detectors in your universe, paralleling my complete miss of your jibe a few days back over in politics. Oh, dear, is that evidence of parallel universes?

And I still can't find that darned cat!

There was a better post by someone else about the problem with the entering axiom, which has developed on its own and which I am enjoying, so I won't interrupt it.

DR

[rocketdodger]

I think this approach is doomed as well.

IMHO the only approach that can ever succeed is to treat humans as rational agents from an A.I. perspective, and ask questions about the cost/benefit of certain behaviors.

In particular, if a rational agent has a material goal, is there any evidence that acting according to immaterial assumptions is a more efficient way to reach the goal than acting according to material assumptions?

The answer to that is clearly "no." And since by definition it is impossible for a human to have an immaterial goal (everything a human can define is material) ... case closed.

Conclusion -- people who deny materialism will usually still act according to materialism because it is just plain stupid to do otherwise. In the cases where people don't -- praying for water to help their crops instead of adopting irrigation for example -- they simply aren't aware of a material solution. Furthermore, in the rare cases where people still adopt an immaterial solution, it is only because they have ulterior material motives that are satisfied by such a solution -- such as a priest preventing people from using a certain technology, etc.

[Cynic]

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

I note the absence of (amateur) humor detectors in your universe, paralleling my complete miss of your jibe a few days back over in politics. Oh, dear, is that evidence of parallel universes?

And I still can't find that darned cat!

There was a better post by someone else about the problem with the entering axiom, which has developed on its own and which I am enjoying, so I won't interrupt it.

DR

I've become rather dependent on smilies. Can you provide me a link to my alleged jibe? If it was unintentional, I'd like the chance to apologize.

[normdoering]

Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins

If, after a few days of seeing the thread vanish into oblivion with no participation from any dualist, I will try that. Thanks

Try what you like, it won't help.

Fear is the mind-killer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GYW6cTWng-o

[Third Eye Open]

Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins

I do, and I kinda have with individuals such as Undercover Elephant. But that doesn't mean that other dualists that I've never spoken with couldn't jump in the thread and provide other arguments. And yes, even the slight possibility that someone may provide an argument that is strong enough. After all, you never know. But you do need a convincing argument based on evidence.

Oops! That's 'materialist thinking' right there. Dualists consider non-material things such as feelings or hunches to be evidence too, and your 'materialist bias' is the only reason you wont accept it as such. There really can be no discussion about this, people will believe what they want to believe. Period.

[Beth]

Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins

Also, how do they define non-material? How do they define the Supernatural? Where do they draw the line?.

I don't know about other people, but I draw the line at things which are have no mass. I am undecided on whether massless subatomic particals like photons should be considered material objects. Things that can be considered conceptual rather than physical I consider to be non-material objects. I define supernatural as anything that lies outside of the four-dimensional space-time continuum we reside in. Whether anything supernatural actually exists by this definition is unknown to me and, IMO, no one else knows either. Non-material objects are not supernatural according to my definition.

Quote:

Materialism. What's your case against it? What clues, pieces of evidence have you gathered to build a case that there's something beyond it?.

I consider numbers to be non-material. I consider time to be non-material. I consider justice to be non-material. Do you believe that things like numbers, time, and justice exist? What material do you consider them to be made of?

What would you consider to be evidence of non-material objects?

[Third Eye Open]

Originally Posted by Beth

I consider numbers to be non-material. I consider time to be non-material. I consider justice to be non-material. Do you believe that things like numbers, time, and justice exist? What material do you consider them to be made of?

They certainly can't exist without material. One could draw from this that they are properties of material, though not material themselves. Just like 'fast' is not material, but is a property of material.

[rocketdodger]

Originally Posted by Third Eye Open

They certainly can't exist without material. One could draw from this that they are properties of material, though not material themselves. Just like 'fast' is not material, but is a property of material.

But 'fast' doesn't exist except as a pattern of neural impulses in the head of a human, so actually it is just as material as anything else.

Same goes for numbers and justice.

[rocketdodger]

Originally Posted by Beth

Do you believe that things like numbers, time, and justice exist? What material do you consider them to be made of?

They are obviously material.

If you have 5 oranges, the number 5 is obviously made of oranges.

If a process takes an hour to complete, time is obviously made of the process.

If justice is served by a criminal doing time, justice is obviously made of all the people involved in the process.

Was that really so difficult?

Can you show me a number that is not represented by something, a period of time that doesn't measure anything, or justice that doesn't involve intelligent beings?

[Beth]

Originally Posted by Third Eye Open

They certainly can't exist without material. One could draw from this that they are properties of material, though not material themselves. Just like 'fast' is not material, but is a property of material.

What material object possesses the property of infinity? Can time truly be said to be a property of any material object? Justice is arguably non-existant in our world, so we can drop that one if you like, although I like to think it exists. Whether or not any of these can exist without the material world we exist in is unknown to me, as is anything elsethat might exist outside of our material world. If you claim that everything that exists in our world is necessarily material, then you've simply defined the non-material out of existance.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins

Also, have they looked beyond the need for there to be something beyond the material, and accept the possibility that there might not be such thing?. Can they honestly admit that their quest is about truth and not wishful thinking?

Just a minor language quibble. Where you say "need" (in italics), you are not speaking of an actual need. In fact, if it were a need it would go against the point you're making (with which I agree). That is, if something is a need, then that something has to exist.

I prefer the term "wishful thinking" but maybe saying "try to get beyond wanting something to be true and entertain the possibility that it might not be true".

I've heard "need" used in this sort of looser way. "I need you to sit down now, Johnny", for example. I think it's sloppy language too (perhaps language that seeks to avoid taking responsibility for expressing a desire).

As I said, just a minor quibble on the use of "need".

[JoeTheJuggler]

Originally Posted by Beth

What material object possesses the property of infinity? Can time truly be said to be a property of any material object? Justice is arguably non-existant in our world, so we can drop that one if you like, although I like to think it exists. Whether or not any of these can exist without the material world we exist in is unknown to me, as is anything elsethat might exist outside of our material world. If you claim that everything that exists in our world is necessarily material, then you've simply defined the non-material out of existance.

The problem you're having here is the same problem the Ontological Argument (St. Anselm's Proof) for the existence of God has. (Or rather the inverse of that problem.) You can't predicate existence. You can't mix up properties or functions of things with the things themselves.

For example, running is one of the functions of my legs. My legs are material, but running is not. No materialist would deny that "running" exists, but it is not an object, but rather a property or function of a thing.

My brain is material but my mind is not. The mind can easily be seen as a function of the brain (or an emergent property). Materialists do not have to deny the existence of abstractions, properties or functions of objects. . . including the mind.

In fact, I don't think any modern-day materialist does argue that way, so using that as a standard to argue against is a straw man fallacy.

[Third Eye Open]

Originally Posted by Beth

What material object possesses the property of infinity? Can time truly be said to be a property of any material object? Justice is arguably non-existant in our world, so we can drop that one if you like, although I like to think it exists. Whether or not any of these can exist without the material world we exist in is unknown to me, as is anything elsethat might exist outside of our material world. If you claim that everything that exists in our world is necessarily material, then you've simply defined the non-material out of existance.

Time can only be measured using material objects. All the concepts that you call immaterial are based on material objects that we experience, are used to describe them or define their actions. All our experiences and knowledge are of material things.

Visualize a void empty of material. Can you have justice in this void? Time? Fear? If there is nothing material for any of these concepts to apply to, then they have no meaning and do not exist.

[Beth]

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

The problem you're having here is the same problem the Ontological Argument (St. Anselm's Proof) for the existence of God has. (Or rather the inverse of that problem.) You can't predicate existence. You can't mix up properties or functions of things with the things themselves.

For example, running is one of the functions of my legs. My legs are material, but running is not. No materialist would deny that "running" exists, but it is not an object, but rather a property or function of a thing.

My brain is material but my mind is not. The mind can easily be seen as a function of the brain (or an emergent property). Materialists do not have to deny the existence of abstractions, properties or functions of objects. . . including the mind.

In fact, I don't think any modern-day materialist does argue that way, so using that as a standard to argue against is a straw man fallacy.

I'm not arguing against that. I'm simply clarifying my definition of material versus non-material, as was requested by the OP. I agree with you that properties and functions of material objects are not necessarily material objects in and of themselves. Hence, by my definition of "material", non-material things also exist. If you want to expand the definition of "material" to include things that are not material objects, that fine. I don't because I find it more appropriate to classify concepts, functions, processes, abstractions, etc. as non-material things.

[Beth]

Originally Posted by Third Eye Open

Time can only be measured using material objects. All the concepts that you call immaterial are based on material objects that we experience, are used to describe them or define their actions. All our experiences and knowledge are of material things.

Visualize a void empty of material. Can you have justice in this void? Time? Fear? If there is nothing material for any of these concepts to apply to, then they have no meaning and do not exist.

Are you claiming that time does not exist in the vacuum of space?

ETA: Wouldn't the vacuum of space qualify as a non-material thing?

[Gate2501]

Originally Posted by Beth

I'm not arguing against that. I'm simply clarifying my definition of material versus non-material, as was requested by the OP. I agree with you that properties and functions of material objects are not necessarily material objects in and of themselves. Hence, by my definition of "material", non-material things also exist. If you want to expand the definition of "material" to include things that are not material objects, that fine. I don't because I find it more appropriate to classify concepts, functions, processes, abstractions, etc. as non-material things.

Just be sure that you do not equivocate with the definition of "thing". Your usage does not, and can not, denote an object.

To do so would betray a wedge strategy at work.

Edit: I say this because I feel that you are bordering on equivocation already "Hence, by my definition of "material", non-material things also exist.".