Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: November 24, 2024, 11:22 am

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Berkeley's argument for the existence of God
#29
RE: Berkeley's argument for the existence of God
(March 29, 2018 at 3:10 pm)vulcanlogician Wrote:
(March 29, 2018 at 2:55 pm)FatAndFaithless Wrote: ...except for the fact that the immaterial idea wouldn't exist if there wasn't a material brain to conceive of it.  Material, fleshy, pink brains are the source of ideas.  There's a direct necessity for the material brain in order for the immaterial conception to exist or matter.  A material brain is the necessary cause for ideas, as far as all the available evidence tells us.

But Berkeley would argue that we've never experienced a pink, fleshy brain directly... all we've experienced is the idea of a pink, fleshy brain...


@Khem

So, yeah, you have a system of firing neurons which cause the idea. If you are going to call those neurons (or the energy flowing through them) the idea, then, yes, then the idea takes up space and has mass. But even biological naturalists might disagree with the notion that the neurons are the actual idea. I don't want to say the word "qualia" too loudly because of recent controversies, but yeah... *whispers* qualia.

I think Berkeley's philosophy can be understood apart from neuroscience, regardless. Obviously he didn't know anything about it because neuroscience wasn't even a thing in his time. But he does have a point about ideas. All we ever know are ideas, and we never really "experience" material things. I'm pretty sure it's too airy fairy for you to take seriously, but he does say something interesting about the world we perceive.

I think it's very a good argument.

Material is opposite to immaterial by definition. Ideas are immaterial.

If there is no interconnection between a and b, nothing in common, than they cannot interact and one cannot be the cause of the other.

Dualism is disproven for sure by this premise if you believe in God, material existence is not possible for him to create, since he is not material.

But it also is proven regardless if you believe in God or not, the true nature of existence is immaterial because we perceive immaterial and assume opposite for material, and hence, this made up reality we made up in our heads, by definition, cannot have interaction.

So immaterialism is the state of existence without any material.
Reply



Messages In This Thread
RE: Berkeley's argument for the existence of God - by MysticKnight - March 29, 2018 at 3:14 pm

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  The modal ontological argument for God Disagreeable 29 1483 August 10, 2024 at 8:57 pm
Last Post: CuriosityBob
  Proving the Existence of a First Cause Muhammad Rizvi 3 935 June 23, 2023 at 5:50 pm
Last Post: arewethereyet
  The existence of God smithd 314 28359 November 23, 2022 at 10:44 pm
Last Post: LinuxGal
  Veridican Argument for the Existence of God The Veridican 14 2545 January 16, 2022 at 4:48 pm
Last Post: brewer
  A 'proof' of God's existence - free will mrj 54 8534 August 9, 2020 at 10:25 am
Last Post: Sal
  Best arguments for or against God's existence mcc1789 22 3603 May 22, 2019 at 9:16 am
Last Post: The Grand Nudger
  The Argument Against God's Existence From God's Imperfect Choice Edwardo Piet 53 10044 June 4, 2018 at 2:06 pm
Last Post: The Grand Nudger
  The Objective Moral Values Argument AGAINST The Existence Of God Edwardo Piet 58 15768 May 2, 2018 at 2:06 pm
Last Post: Amarok
  Arguments for God's Existence from Contingency datc 386 53136 December 1, 2017 at 2:07 pm
Last Post: Whateverist
  A good argument for God's existence (long but worth it) Mystic 179 38015 October 26, 2017 at 1:51 pm
Last Post: Crossless2.0



Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)