RE: Berkeley's argument for the existence of God
March 29, 2018 at 3:05 pm
(This post was last modified: March 29, 2018 at 3:07 pm by Mystic.)
O man... you guys...
Ok immaterial has no interconnection quality with materialism since by definition they are opposites.
Can we agree on that? If so, how does material cause immaterial, if nothing to bridge the cause and effect?
This is the heart of the argument. Everything else was stating things we know, and the conclusion follows.
That is if there would be disputable premise, it would be one of these two, but both are manifestly true when thought about.
Ok immaterial has no interconnection quality with materialism since by definition they are opposites.
Can we agree on that? If so, how does material cause immaterial, if nothing to bridge the cause and effect?
This is the heart of the argument. Everything else was stating things we know, and the conclusion follows.
That is if there would be disputable premise, it would be one of these two, but both are manifestly true when thought about.
Ok immaterial has no interconnection quality with materialism since by definition they are opposites.
Can we agree on that? If so, how does material cause immaterial, if nothing to bridge the cause and effect?
This is the heart of the argument. Everything else was stating things we know, and the conclusion follows.
That is if there would be disputable premise, it would be one of these two, but both are manifestly true when thought about.
Ok immaterial has no interconnection quality with materialism since by definition they are opposites.
Can we agree on that? If so, how does material cause immaterial, if nothing to bridge the cause and effect?
This is the heart of the argument. Everything else was stating things we know, and the conclusion follows.
That is if there would be disputable premise, it would be one of these two, but both are manifestly true when thought about.
