Why ... (2)

[AgnosticTheist]

This thread was split automatically after 1000 replies and this thread has been automatically created.
The old thread automatically closed is here: "Why ..."

 

[Davian]

It does indeed, however it does not have a material form. It is immaterial. Only material objects are possible in a material universe.

Can you define what you mean by "immaterial", other than by telling me what it isn't?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

It does indeed, however it does not have a material form. It is immaterial. Only material objects are possible in a material universe.

How? Logic is not a material object, yet you are claiming that there must be an absolute truth and an absolute false. Nothing in the material world can provide for that.

I don't know where you get this idea from, but it seems to be a misconception. Laws, of the kind that we are talking about, describe a set of relationships in some phenomenon. Logic, in the broadest sense of the word, is similar in that it describes the relationships between propositions about the world. It is concerned primarily with the logical form those relationships take. You seem to be under the impression that, in a material universe, the very concept of a 'relationship', whether it is causal or correlational or whatever, isn't possible. Yet I know of no one who would claim that a material universe precludes the existence of relationships in the phenomena comprising that universe.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Can you define what you mean by "immaterial", other than by telling me what it isn't?

The word "immaterial" is an interesting choice. Its synonyms include: irrelevant, inconsequential, insignificant, etc. Of course religious apologists are using the word in a different sense, but I wonder whether, in the background of their thinking, these meanings all hang together, however discordant.

 

[Davian]

When you can provide evidence that a purely materialistic universe created the laws of nature, let me know.

You are obviously setting up for a false dichotomy. The absence of a "naturalistic" or "materialistic" explanation for <insert latest "gap" here> is not evidence for gods.

Why is your belief that you have knowledge of the truth inversely proportional your apparent desire to take on the burden of evidence?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Originally Posted by Oncedeceived

Oh? Please provide that information. I am not aware of an experiments that do.
​

The results of particles interacting are observed in experiments. Those are the laws. They are very material. __________________


Particles are the laws?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Can you define what you mean by "immaterial", other than by telling me what it isn't?

The opposite of matter, material, materialism, or materialistic


In my own words: Not having a material makeup. No material form.

 

[Loudmouth]

Particles are the laws?

The interactions of the particles are the laws. If there was just one particle you wouldn't have any laws because nothing would happen. Once you have material particles interacting then something has to happen, and those are the laws.

 

[Oncedeceived]

You are obviously setting up for a false dichotomy. The absence of a "naturalistic" or "materialistic" explanation for <insert latest "gap" here> is not evidence for gods.

Why is your belief that you have knowledge of the truth inversely proportional your apparent desire to take on the burden of evidence?

You obviously do not understand my argument. God of the gaps only allows that God possibly could have worked but does not provide any such evidence. However, what my point to this argumentation is, is that I am trying to show that in a purely materialist worldview it is inconsistent to claim that all things in the universe must be material since the very laws of the universe are immaterial. This shows the worldview refutes itself.

 

[Oncedeceived]

The word "immaterial" is an interesting choice. Its synonyms include: irrelevant, inconsequential, insignificant, etc. Of course religious apologists are using the word in a different sense, but I wonder whether, in the background of their thinking, these meanings all hang together, however discordant.

Thank you Dr. Achaeopteryx.

 

[Loudmouth]

Since this is a new thread I thought I would revisit and summarize one of the discussions that I found interesting from the last thread. I would hope that Oncedeceived would continue to comment, but I would never want anyone to feel like they are forced to respond.

The overarching question is why would God create separate species so that they fall into a nested hierarchy of similarities and differences. Mind you, this is a TWIN nested hierarchy since both morphology and genetics falls into the same nested arrangement. What is important to remember here is that morphology and genetics are not necessarily linked. Much of the genome of humans (and other species) does not affect morphology one way or another, and yet it still falls into the same predicted nested hierarchy that morphology does. Morphology and genetics are independent datapoints that both point to the same conclusion.

Many of us feel that this is compelling evidence for evolution since we observe the mechanisms of evolution producing a nested hierarchy in living populations both at the morphologic and genetic level. For species that do not participate in horizontal genetic transfer a nested hierarchy is the only pattern that evolution can produce for a set of species that share a common ancestor.

So the question is why would God separately create species so that they fall into a nested hiearchy even though these species did not evolve from a common ancestor. I think we can all agree that an omnipotent deity can do anything that the deity wants, including the creation of species that exactly mimics common ancestry and evolution. Such a deity could also plant DNA and fingerprints at crime scenes, or create the universe last Thursday complete with a false history and false memories. However, I don't see anyone throwing away forensic science or history books just because God could do those things. So why would someone conclude that evidence that exactly fits what we would expect from a natural process of evolution would instead be the work of a deity?

Why?

 

[Loudmouth]

You obviously do not understand my argument. God of the gaps only allows that God possibly could have worked but does not provide any such evidence. However, what my point to this argumentation is, is that I am trying to show that in a purely materialist worldview it is inconsistent to claim that all things in the universe must be material since the very laws of the universe are immaterial. This shows the worldview refutes itself.

How could the laws be immaterial when they are derived from the material?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Thank you Dr. Achaeopteryx.

Not yet.

 

[OllieFranz]

Loudmouth --

Oncedeceived is not arguing for Special Creation. For a while I was confused what her "deal" was. She was willing to concede almost everything science teaches, and yet she still insisted on coming in on the Creationist side.

------------

You obviously do not understand my argument. God of the gaps only allows that God possibly could have worked but does not provide any such evidence. However, what my point to this argumentation is, is that I am trying to show that in a purely materialist worldview it is inconsistent to claim that all things in the universe must be material since the very laws of the universe are immaterial. This shows the worldview refutes itself.

I think I'm finally starting to see the light -- or in this case get a small glimmer of your problem with science. You seem mainly to be upset because when Occam's Razor is applied, Science does not retain, as an essential asumption, the Supernatural workings of God, and the ideal (and thus unobtainable) "pure" version of the laws of nature.

It might help if you learn more about Plato's Cave, if only to give us a common frame of reference to discuss the differences between the ideal/supernatural and the natural, and how they can and can't influence one another.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plato%27s_Cave

Philosophy Bro: Plato's "The Allegory of the Cave": A Summary

faculty.washington.edu/smcohen/320/cave.htm

Edited to add: Sorry about the links that didn't take as links. I still have trouble working the copy/paste on my mobile, and the formatting buttons are just plain wonky, as well.

 

[Loudmouth]

Loudmouth --

Oncedeceived is not arguing for Special Creation. For a while I was confused what her "deal" was. She was willing to concede almost everything science teaches, and yet she still insisted on coming in on the Creationist side.

From what I can see, Oncedeceived is still arguing for the separate creation of kinds and against universal common descent through evolutionary mechanisms (with God involved in some undetermined way). If I am wrong then I would hope that Oncedeceived would correct me on this.

 

[Davian]

The word "immaterial" is an interesting choice. Its synonyms include: irrelevant, inconsequential, insignificant, etc. Of course religious apologists are using the word in a different sense, but I wonder whether, in the background of their thinking, these meanings all hang together, however discordant.

Dunno. Maybe some sort of compartmentalization is taking place that allows them to use the word with two different meanings with the minimum of cognitive dissonance.

I do see that Oncedeceived responded to both of my posts in this thread without directly addressing the points I was making, possibly in evasion of that cognitive dissonance.

 

[Davian]

The opposite of matter,

insignificance
meaninglessness
nothing
nothingness
zero

material,

imperceptible
dishonest
false
intangible
invalid
irrelevant
unimportant
unsubstantial

materialism, or

spiritualism (whatever that means)

materialistic

abstemious
mental
thrifty
ungreedy

(from thesaurus.com)

In my own words: Not having a material makeup. No material form.

I asked, "Can you define what you mean by "immaterial", other than by telling me what it isn't?"

To rephrase, do you have a positive ontology for this "thing" that is "not material"?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Not yet.

Awesome! How much longer and in what?

 

[Oncedeceived]

I don't know where you get this idea from, but it seems to be a misconception.

What do you base that assumption upon?

Laws, of the kind that we are talking about, describe a set of relationships in some phenomenon.

The laws, of the kind that we are talking about, are outside of the relationships in any phenomenon. Relationships are governed by them, not they by them.

Logic, in the broadest sense of the word, is similar in that it describes the relationships between propositions about the world.

If logic were mere descriptions of anything, whether that be relationships or propositions they would be subjective and not universal in nature. They would not be consistent nor would they be evident in the universe as a whole. Descriptions are man's answer to observation, relationship is something in relation to another in that each has a connection to the other. The laws of mathematics for instance, is a relationship to reality in that it is a true measure of that reality but it is not the reality in itself.

It is concerned primarily with the logical form those relationships take.

So logic is primarily the "logical" form those relationships take, however that is circular due to the fact that the logic must be present prior to the logical forms the relationships take.

You seem to be under the impression that, in a material universe, the very concept of a 'relationship', whether it is causal or correlational or whatever, isn't possible.

That is totally illogical. Why would I deny the concept of a relationship?

Yet I know of no one who would claim that a material universe precludes the existence of relationships in the phenomena comprising that universe.

Straw man.

 

[Davian]

You obviously do not understand my argument. God of the gaps only allows that God possibly could have worked but does not provide any such evidence.

God, or gods. No evidence.

However, what my point to this argumentation is, is that I am trying to show that in a purely materialist worldview it is inconsistent to claim that all things in the universe must be material since the very laws of the universe are immaterial. This shows the worldview refutes itself.

Only in a strawman "materialist worldview" that uses definitions of "material" and "immaterial" of your own liking. Your argument gets no traction if we cannot agree on what the words you are using mean.

Again, why is your belief that you have knowledge of the truth inversely proportional your apparent desire to take on the burden of evidence?