Regariding the evidence for materialism

[downbeatplumb]

Is consciousness physical?

Yes. it is the interaction of nerves and chemicals in the brain.

Are the laws of the universe physical?Are concepts physical?

No. these things are usefull for describing the world, but are not in themselves physical, they are abstract and exist only in the, (admitedly material) mind.

[The Grand Nudger]

Conceptual abstractions are a way in which we organize information based upon observations of the material world. We do all this by leveraging our brain, and these abstractions do in fact have material analogs themselves. It's key to remember that whatever is going on in your head is happening in the material world. Arguing against material reality in even the most subdued form is a herculean task.

[Fred]

The lack of evidence of anything existing outside of the material world is the evidence for it.

This is how far it's fallen? You guys hvae gotten fat and lazy from kicking fundies. Imagine a believer throwing that line out. You'd feed him or her to the lions in a trice. No proof for goblins or the hobgoblins of consistency. Thoreauly played, that.

---

It's not so much ""the theory that physical matter is the only reality" as it is ""the theory that physical matter is the only reality for which we have good reason to believe exists".

Being materialists, I'd have to say you would have the inside rail on the belief that it is the only reality. I'm not really all that interested in what you believe here, as one flying teapot works as well as another, I suppose.

It very much is the theory that physical matter is all that exists. Ya painted yourselves into that box, so might as well own the damn thing, since you have such faith in it. Myself, I find it an extraordinary claim. Yet, all I got is questions about my proof. I don't have to prove anything. You folks made the claim, so where's the fucking evidence?

Nobody disputes the existence of matter, energy, space or time (I should hope),

Yes, you should hope and pray because I'm pretty sure space and time got shaken up pretty badly in some kind of equation or something to do with a light beam or some such. I know I heard that somewhere. And matter as we know it, I'm sure I heard that was not at all the case, either. But I'm not a physicist, so I muddle as best I can to keep up with this stuff.

the dispute is over whether or not there exist other types of things, such as "immaterial minds" or "spirits" etc. I've never seen either evidence for such other things nor any case that has established their necessity.

Uh, no. The dispute is whether matter is the only really real thing in the universe. It's a binary. There isn't any wiggle room. It either is, or it isn't. Materialists believe that it is. Fine. Where's the evidence?

[Fred]

What do you mean you don't find compelling evidence that this is the case?

I mean I don't find compelling evidence. All I find is people telling me it's there instead of showing me.

What evidence have you seen for an alternative, and what is that alternative?

Who cares about my evidence? I'm not making the claim. The materialists take it as gospel, oh they sure as fuck do, yet there's no evidence forthcoming, just calls to prove otherwise. Not. My. Job.

Materialism is just faith statements. Again, there's nothing wrong with that per se, but there's a lot wrong with not being able to see this because of the choir book obscuring your view.

And even in responding to this charge, it will just be endless iterations of "is not, where's your evidence?" It's the only song sung.

[Erinome]

If I told you that I had a magical talking frog, I couldn't prove that it exists because it does not actually exist, aside from existing in the realm of my imagination. You, however, could not prove that it does not exists, simply because it does not exist. I made it up, but you can't prove that.

How hard is it to understand that humans invented god? Material things are sometimes invisible. Take oxygen for example. It's colorless and odorless, almost like it isn't there, but we know it is, because we can see it's molecular structure. Logical thinking would lead to the conclusion that if you can't prove that something does not exist, then it probably just doesn't exist.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Fred.I've come in a bit late,I may have missed some of the more brilliant nuances of your argument..


I wonder if you would mind terribly changing tack just a little? Instead of going on about what evidence is not,could you perhaps explain what you think evidence is? Perhaps giving a few examples of non materials evidence?


NB; The word 'evidence' simply means anything produced to is support of an argument, it does not necessarily have any connection to what is true. Hence,I use the term 'credible evidence' EG the Bible is indeed evidence for the existence of God,Jesus,young earth creationism ectc etc. However,it is not CREDIBLE evidence.




VOID can probably explain this better than me.

[Fred]

Fred.I've come in a bit late,I may have missed some of the more brilliant nuances of your argument.

Hell, I hear ya, sir. I can see from here that it's a pretty long line forming over there.

I wonder if you would mind terribly changing tack just a little? Instead of going on about what evidence is not,could you perhaps explain what you think evidence is? Perhaps giving a few examples of non materials evidence?

Heh. I'm not saying what evidence is not. I'm asking for evidence. I hear that is a pretty important feature is some circles, yet it seems hard to come by around here, given how everyone here keeps asking me for it.

[R-e-n-n-a-t]

The evidence is very clear: behold.

There is not an elephant in my room.
Therefore, there is no elephant in my room.

It doesn't get more logical than that. If something is not represented by a physical aspect, it does not exist. List ONE thing that DOES exist without a physical aspect, which you have proven exists, and this argument will be void. Good luck.

[Fred]

The evidence is very clear: behold.

There is not an elephant in my room.
Therefore, there is no elephant in my room.

It doesn't get more logical than that.

Uh, perhaps, but logic aside, there's a really big elephant in your room.

If something is not represented by a physical aspect, it does not exist. List ONE thing that DOES exist without a physical aspect, which you have proven exists, and this argument will be void. Good luck.

Logic isn't material and yet the really real logical truth DOES exist that if all square circles are triangular in shape, and a rectangle is a square circle, then it will be triangular in shape, and there isn't a physical aspect to triangular square circles last I checked.

Represented by is not the same as reduced to.

[R-e-n-n-a-t]

First, care to enlighten me to which elephant is in my room?

Second, you misunderstand me. logic itself is incapable of responding to stimuli. It is a static 'law', and not a thing. Of course a 'thought' exists in the same way logic does, which is to say, it does not exist outside of our definition for a concept. Logic is simply how we sum up the myriad of things which happen because of causation.
So no, logic does not exist 'as a thing'. Neither does a thought, or an ethereal mind. They are definitions, just as logic is, applied to a concept which works ONLY because of purely physical interactions and processes.