Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Does Materialism Destroy Rationality?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by seer View Post
    Except his idealism leads to God, the divine mind - as a matter of fact such a mind it necessary, I'm not sure how you can have his idealism without it.
    Well it seems you've learned something new then. I'm an atheist and an idealist.

    In general I've noticed that Christians do a really bad job of actually thinking seriously about the possibilities involved if something other than this material world is actually the underlying reality. You all seem to have a tendency to just insert your Christian God straight into it and declare victory... even though there is no reason whatsoever that there being a higher reality than this universe should mean that your Christian God exists in it, and in fact surely there are a near-infinite number of ways there could be an underlying reality that wasn't that of Christian teachings.

    In this thread you've been super-ready to reinterpret computer-programmers as God, if one happened to be responsible for this universe, even though there was no suggestion they were anything more than average in intelligence or skill, nevermind having any properties like eternality, uncreatedness, knowledge of the future, or having anything whatsoever to do with historical Christianity in any way.

    This material world might not be the underlying reality, yet every single other teaching of Christianity might still be 100% wrong. There is no reason to think that the one implies the other.

    Berkeley claims that an inspection of our ideas shows that they are causally inert. Since there is a continual succession of ideas in our minds, there must be some cause of it. Since this cause can be neither an idea nor a material substance, it must be a spiritual substance. This sets the stage for Berkeley’s argument for the existence of God and the distinction between real things and imaginary things.
    I don't find any part of this argument plausible or convincing. I'll file it under "absurd arguments for the existence of God #1,000,001".

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Starlight View Post
      Well it seems you've learned something new then. I'm an atheist and an idealist.
      Well you suggested that you held to Berkeley's Idealism. That doesn't work without God. So perhaps you need to define what kind of idealism you hold to.

      Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

      Comment


      • Originally posted by seer View Post


        I still don't see how a thought "about" London for instance is a physical thing.
        The physical brain comprises neurons, which are cells that have a pattern of neuron firing, and this results in a thought process, e.g. "London" . Hence, no physical brain then no thoughts. ..
        “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by seer View Post

          And how do you know that God didn't create the simulation?
          Why would gods create "simulations" of reality when, supposedly, they can create reality itself?
          “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Tassman View Post

            The physical brain comprises neurons, which are cells that have a pattern of neuron firing, and this results in a thought process, e.g. "London" . Hence, no physical brain then no thoughts. ..
            No argument, but the thought 'about' London though produced by the brain is more than the brain. After all chemicals have no idea what London is - they are chemicals.
            Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Tassman View Post

              Why would gods create "simulations" of reality when, supposedly, they can create reality itself?
              Who knows...
              Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

              Comment


              • Originally posted by seer View Post
                Well you suggested that you held to Berkeley's Idealism. That doesn't work without God. So perhaps you need to define what kind of idealism you hold to.
                If I refer to believing in gravity in the Newtonian sense, it doesn't mean I'm obligated to hold Newton's religious views just because I accept his views on gravity, even if he thought he had an argument for why the laws of nature implied a lawgiver. In the same way if I refer to believing in idealism in the mind/body sense (rather than a utopian sense) it doesn't mean I'm in any way obligated to care that some geezer had some wacky argument for why he thought it implied the existence of God. There are a zillion atrocious arguments for the existence of god that people come up with, you not least of all.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by seer View Post

                  No argument, but the thought 'about' London though produced by the brain is more than the brain.
                  It is what the “brain” does via its billions of nerve cells. Thoughts about London are grounded in the demonstrable fact of the bricks ‘n mortar city of London existing and indeed constructed by the thoughts and planning of preceding generations.

                  After all chemicals have no idea what London is - they are chemicals.
                  It’s how the brain works. Thought processes are formed by the brain’s neuronal firing. No neuronal-firing = no thoughts. This is true of most living creatures
                  “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by seer View Post

                    Who knows...
                    Whatever the gods create IS by definition, reality – NOT a simulation of reality.
                    “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                      If I refer to believing in gravity in the Newtonian sense, it doesn't mean I'm obligated to hold Newton's religious views just because I accept his views on gravity, even if he thought he had an argument for why the laws of nature implied a lawgiver. In the same way if I refer to believing in idealism in the mind/body sense (rather than a utopian sense) it doesn't mean I'm in any way obligated to care that some geezer had some wacky argument for why he thought it implied the existence of God. There are a zillion atrocious arguments for the existence of god that people come up with, you not least of all.
                      That wasn't the point. Berkeley's idealism does work without God, it is not an argument for God per se. He is saying that for something to exist it must be perceived. That the table you are looking at does not exist if you don't perceive or stop perceiving it. The only way that that the table endues, without our perception, is because God's perception continues it. You suggested that you agreed with Berkeley's Idealism, but you don't, you don't seem to know what it entails. So I will ask again, what form of idealism do you believe? Or is this going to be like your moral realism where you didn't understand the basics?
                      Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                        They would only be creators of the computer game, not of the reality they themselves live in. And they would be us or people like us.

                        Worshipping the creators of a computer game while playing that computer game seems a hilariously stupid thing to do.
                        I think the point is that theists would be closer to the truth than atheists when we argue that OUR reality/universe was create by an intelligence. It means all the evidence atheists use to "prove" there is no intelligent design/creator is wrong. It was all just put there by the designers of the virtual world we live in.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                          I think the point is that theists would be closer to the truth than atheists when we argue that OUR reality/universe was create by an intelligence. It means all the evidence atheists use to "prove" there is no intelligent design/creator is wrong. It was all just put there by the designers of the virtual world we live in.
                          In such a scenario, 99.99% of Christian teachings would be flatly false. Being right on a tiny detail but being wrong on absolutely everything else, is not 'closer to the truth'.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                            In such a scenario, 99.99% of Christian teachings would be flatly false. Being right on a tiny detail but being wrong on absolutely everything else, is not 'closer to the truth'.
                            They would be right in claiming that the universe was created by an intelligence, that all of the evidence science uses to claim differently is wrong. And unless the software has been running for billions of years, the universe only has an appearance of age, therefore YEC! Heck they could probably be right that the Earth (simulation) is the center of the sim universe.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by seer View Post
                              That wasn't the point. Berkeley's idealism does work without God, it is not an argument for God per se. He is saying that for something to exist it must be perceived. That the table you are looking at does not exist if you don't perceive or stop perceiving it. The only way that that the table endues, without our perception, is because God's perception continues it. You suggested that you agreed with Berkeley's Idealism, but you don't, you don't seem to know what it entails. So I will ask again, what form of idealism do you believe? Or is this going to be like your moral realism where you didn't understand the basics?
                              Why obsessively try to reinterpret my view through the lens of your interpretation of Berkeley's view?

                              I merely pointed to the vague category of this type of view, I didn't say I held to everything Berkeley ever believed, and I especially didn't say I held to your interpretation of it and your interpretation of the consequences of it.

                              Perhaps you would find it less upsetting if I said I held the 'brain in a vat' / 'we're in The Matrix' view?
                              Last edited by Starlight; 08-03-2021, 04:00 PM.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                                They would be right in claiming that the universe was created by an intelligence, that all of the evidence science uses to claim differently is wrong.
                                Science can't really opine much on the topic of what initiated the big bang. It wouldn't imply any scientific findings were wrong to discover it had been initiated inside a computer.

                                And unless the software has been running for billions of years, the universe only has an appearance of age
                                You're confusing time within the simulation with time outside it. Simulations can be fast-fowarded trivially easily from the point of view of the programmer.

                                Heck they could probably be right that the Earth (simulation) is the center of the sim universe.
                                Could be. Again, absolutely nothing else they believe would be correct though. Claiming victory when 99.99% of your religion turns out to be wrong would be absurd. To some extent this is why I call myself an atheist rather than an agnostic, because even if some of these ideas turned out to be correct, the religious people would still be wrong about everything else their religions teach.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by tabibito, 09-14-2021, 05:15 AM
                                23 responses
                                176 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by seer, 08-30-2021, 09:03 AM
                                256 responses
                                1,355 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post seer
                                by seer
                                 
                                Started by seer, 08-30-2021, 07:35 AM
                                1 response
                                26 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post eider
                                by eider
                                 
                                Started by seer, 08-28-2021, 05:41 PM
                                10 responses
                                80 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Stoic
                                by Stoic
                                 
                                Started by MehdiR, 08-25-2021, 01:44 PM
                                9 responses
                                122 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Bill the Cat  
                                Working...
                                X