(July 20, 2009 at 5:49 am)Purple Rabbit Wrote: 'I have no reason to think that things that cannot be explained in the material view can cast doubt on the material view.'
But I agree with that. Because failure to explain the material doesn't prove it's immaterial in any way, does it? It just shows that hasn't been shown to be material at least yet.
Because - It could just be material but physically undetectable! The immaterial and the material yet physically undetectable, the two are indistinguishable.
But with the immaterial it would mean it isn't made out of physical matter and so it is some sort of strange one-off exception to the rest of the known universe....
If it is material but just physically undetectable, then that means it's made out of physical matter but can't be physically detected/hasn't been yet. The point is that it's still made out of matter! Not that it's not made out of matter...it's not completely immaterial!
If it's not physically detectable, that is enough. One doesn't have to add the notion that this means it is not even physical at all, completely immaterial, not made out of matter, etc. It could just be undetectable matter (iow, matter that has not yet been detected). To go further and suggest the completely immaterial I would require evidence for...in order to believe that that is true.
Do you agree that there is a difference between physically undetectable and non-physical? Non-physical would mean that it's not made of physical matter and not part of the physical universe - iow because what's not physical can't effect ('can't touch') the physical.
Physically undetectable would mean that it's just...not physically detectable! It could still be actually made of physical matter and part of the known physical universe, and therefore able to effect the rest of it...physically! It's just not detected, at least yet, at least by us humans on this planet.
EvF
