Of Holes and A-Holes

[Neo-Scholastic]

I say that holes are a good example of something that both exists and is immaterial. A hole is known with respect to something material but is not itself material. It is possible to know about something that is indeed immaterial through observation of something that is material. As such a hole is defined by what surrounds it, but the hole itself is not the same as the surrounding material.

The main concern I have with bringing this up is to show that someone can deduce the existence of immaterial things from material things. Likewise people can deduce the existence of material objects from personal experience which is not a material thing. Thus people can go back and forth trying to define material things, like brains, and immaterial things, like minds, in terms of the other without reaching any conclusion as to which is primary. They thus remain forever stuck in paradox. (No matter, never mind) The simpler solution is to accept both materiality and immateriality are part of one larger reality that is a hypostatic union of both.

Holes, and similar things like gaps and tears, do not depend on specific substances for their existence. This property allows people to say things like, this hole in the metal is the same size as that hole in this paper. If you insist that holes do not properly exist, then you simultaneously and tacit deny the existence of other forms, like triangles, and categories, like unity and extension.

[Darkstar]

A hole is not a thing per se. That is, it is not an immaterial thing so much as it is simply a lack of a material one (also, technically speaking there would still be air in the hole if this were on earth, thus it wouldn't even be truly empty).

[ignoramus]

Aren't we just swapping the god of the gaps argument with the new shiny god of the holes argument.

Most here agree that there is a lot more than meets the eye, but we're not going to shove god in just to feel warm and fuzzy about an afterlife.
(Isn't that the main driver for beliefs in the big 5)?

[Jackalope]

Not too surprisingly, it's been done before.

Here I was thinking that "immaterial" was a synonym for "spiritual". Is this not the case, Chad?

[Aoi Magi]

A hole doesn't exist without it's surrounding material, so by your own logic "the great immaterial being" doesn't exist without us, right?

[Minimalist]

A hole has length, width and depth which can be measured to extreme degrees of accuracy. Moreover, a hole is instantly identifiable as such...especially if your put your tire into one.

The same can not be said of your "god."

[fr0d0]

A hole doesn't exist without it's surrounding material, so by your own logic "the great immaterial being" doesn't exist without us, right?

Or we are proof of said immaterial being

[genkaus]

I say that holes are a good example of something that both exists and is immaterial.

Not really, as you demonstrate yourself in the next statement.

A hole is known with respect to something material but is not itself material.

Here is the relevant definitions of 'material' from freedictionary:
1. Of, relating to, or composed of matter.
2. formed or consisting of matter;

You take only half of the definition - the part about consisting or composed of matter - and ignore the part about what gives it its form. Since a hole is defined by and exists in relation to something material, it is material as well.

It is possible to know about something that is indeed immaterial through observation of something that is material.

Your examples could use work, but the argument is correct nevertheless.

Ideas are immaterial.
Laws of nature are immaterial. But we know of them from observation of something material. But, keep in mind that here, by immaterial, I do not mean spiritual.

The main concern I have with bringing this up is to show that someone can deduce the existence of immaterial things from material things. Likewise people can deduce the existence of material objects from personal experience which is not a material thing. Thus people can go back and forth trying to define material things, like brains, and immaterial things, like minds, in terms of the other without reaching any conclusion as to which is primary. They thus remain forever stuck in paradox.

No, actually, there is no paradox here - the material comes first. You need a brain to develop before your mind can develop. Your first ideas develop from and about the things that already exist. The laws of nature develop from the observation of existing reality.

You need the immaterial thing called mind/experience to know about the material things, but the existence of those material things does not depend on your knowledge of them. On the other hand, without any material to be conscious of (or to form the underlying framework of consciousness), the immaterial wouldn't exist.

The simpler solution is to accept both materiality and immateriality are part of one larger reality that is a hypostatic union of both.

Is it simpler? Really?

[Aoi Magi]

The material object around the "hole" is the reason for it's existence. And since we invented religion, so it makes sense that without us it cannot exist. However that is only proof that the idea of the said "immaterial being" exists, not the being itself....

[ShaMan]

Here is an example of something immaterial: a hole.

What is your objection now?

Oh how cute

A hole is not defined by what it is not, a hole is defined as the absence of that which surrounds it, which is.

I'll say this as nicely as I can

You're the A-hole.

Holes, and similar things like gaps and tears, do not depend on specific substances for their existence.

My mistake. You're just clueless. Carry on.