Arguments agaisnt Materialism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
08-04-2017, 12:40 PM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
There is nothing that's not explained.

Quote:arguing the implications based off what is at the very least a subjective experience, having different properties not explainable by reductive materialism

... is an outdated notion. Neuro-science can explain subjective experiences. The SET of mechanisms are what they are. They are complex (totally physical) processes. "Reductive materialism" is a red herring, and a meaningless phrase.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-04-2017, 02:07 PM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(08-04-2017 11:47 AM)Christian Philosophy Wrote:  I find it pretty funny that Naielis has a negative rating despite being mostly cordial and bringing up points at least partially defensible, even if probably wrong (I am not a property dualist). Yet people who just respond with insults and ad hominems get tons of upvotes simply for having "mic drop moments". None of this discredits your points, just an odd observation. I am not saying Naielis has been above this necessarily (he has not), but I do think the difference in up votes in this conversation between Naielis and say Bucky Ball is un called for. I think it is arguable Naielis did better in this conversation, at least in the information brought to the table. Easily should not be a net negative. Naielis is not even a theist, so I am not understanding this. Does being an atheist commit you to reductive materialism? Historically no. Russell is a notable example. In modernity Michael Tooley, who probably had the best inductive argument from evil against God's existence considers himself a substance dualist. I have not seen all the discussions here, but certainly here the difference is minimal in post quality.

He's been repeating himself, ignoring any and all questions, for 46 pages. And this isn't the first thread he's done it in. He's made it explicit that he feels he's smarter than everyone and there's some fundamental problem with us if we don't accept what he's saying.

We've all given him a fair shake. He's just trolling us now.

I have a website here which discusses the issues and terminology surrounding religion and atheism. It's hopefully user friendly to all.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Robvalue's post
08-04-2017, 02:27 PM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(08-04-2017 12:09 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  2 Corinthians 10:5
"Every creature is a divine word because it proclaims God" - Bonaventure
"Do no harm. Do good. Stay in love with God." - John Wesley
"The highest service to which a man may obtain on earth is to preach the law of God." - John Wycliffe

There is no "law of God". Every single element of the Jewish and Christian legal systems were appropriated from their ALREADY extant cultures.

If every creature id a 'divine word", then Jesus is not special, is he ?

More quotes maybe I should put in my signature.

"We shall introduce into this history in general only those events which may be useful first to ourselves and afterwards to posterity."
Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, Vol. 8, chapter 2

"Not all true things are the truth, nor should that truth which merely seems true according to human opinions be preferred to the true truth, that according to the faith."
Clement (quoted by M. Smith, Clement of Alexandria, p446)

John Chrysostom, 5th century theologian and erstwhile bishop of Constantinople: "Do you see the advantage of deceit? For great is the value of deceit, provided it be not introduced with a mischievous intention. In fact action of this kind ought not to be called deceit, but rather a kind of good management, cleverness and skill, capable of finding out ways where resources fail, and making up for the defects of the mind ... And often it is necessary to deceive, and to do the greatest benefits by means of this device, whereas he who has gone by a straight course has done great mischief to the person whom he has not deceived."
Chrysostom, Treatise On The Priesthood, Book 1.

"Thus eminent ‘believers’ added falsehood to the beliefs of later generations. ‘For the best of reasons’ they ‘clarified’ obscure points, conjured up characters to speak dialogue that could have been said, invented scenarios that could have happened and borrowed extensively from a wider culture. And this all before they became the custodians of power and had real reasons for lies, inventions and counterfeits. As we shall see, god's immutable laws became as flexible as putty."
St. John Chrysostom

1. That is an equivocation fallacy. When Jesus Christ is called the eternal Word of God, John is playing off the Greek concept of the Logo's, a sort of impersonal organizing force. Bonaventure was writing in Latin, and hence it is clearly not the same usage of the term here. Even if it was, that simply doesn't follow.
2.Eusebius did not really have an adequate knowledge of the historical method. But I still don't think useful is any sort of decietful term here. He is saying he will focus on the important parts, partly perhaps because briefness. It is reading into the text to assume otherwise. I think we can see this being the clearest interpretation, as his writings are far from always optimistic. Even still, his writings bear little to the faith in my opinion, and hence this seems like a weird topic.
3. Clemement was discussing the view defended as double truth", which is not really corruption, just a mistaken theory of truth grounding. It was quite popular within the Arabian regions up until the middle ages. This was mistaken of course, but there were who philosophical treatises written on this. It actually helped solidify a form of truth maker ontology.
4. That is completely out of context Bucky Ball! Book one of On the Priesthood is about what virtues to exercise at a particular time. This is part and parcel of Catholic moral theology. I don't agree with him (a lie is always a disordered act), yet what he is saying is whether it is always wrong to have a disordered act in light of a greater good. Kant, one with no Theological bone to pick, felt this was a question worthy to endeavor into (ultimately agreeing with me it is always disordered). Yet, this is mostly in light of honor in the European culture. He is discussing the intentions of the act for the most part. See this quote

" For a well-timed deception, undertaken with an upright intention, has such advantages, that many persons have often had to undergo punishment for abstaining from fraud"

It has to do with utility with regards to obligations and prohibitions.

5. Can you cite this last quote? The only places I have seen it were a Facebook post of sketchy origin, and on this site. You very well could be right, but I would like the original sourse like you did for all the other quotes. I am sketchy of this because John is speaking of the Christian God' immutable decree, and yet he lower case g's God. Secondly, the use of the world putty would have been a strange rendering for any semi modern translator, given that it's etymology is from the 17th. Century. Something like clay would make sense given that it had been used frequently in Theological works to describe material causation, and has some usage the Holy Scriptures, in Daniel. Overall, I have a degree of skepticism of this quote, but even if it were true, the most appropriate conclusion is he was talking about a pagan, which makes sense because he doesn't pay reverence to it's name. He does this in his famous quote about a god being concieved in the mind not being a very praise worthy god. You could be correct, but I will wait for your answer.

Thanks for the reply,

Christian Philosophy

2 Corinthians 10:5
"Every creature is a divine word because it proclaims God" - Bonaventure
"Do no harm. Do good. Stay in love with God." - John Wesley
"The highest service to which a man may obtain on earth is to preach the law of God." - John Wycliffe
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-04-2017, 02:34 PM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(08-04-2017 12:17 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(08-04-2017 12:04 PM)Christian Philosophy Wrote:  Well again, I am talking about his content as well. I think having insulting replies ought to make down voting a serious option. He is providing evidence from Leibniz's law among other things (he would treat these as first principles),

That is not evidence.

Quote:and arguing the implications based off what is at the very least a subjective experience, having different properties not explainable by reductive materialism.

An unfounded assertion. He didn't demonstrate anything of the sort.

Quote:He then proceeds to state the best explanation is property dualism. The qualitative experience we have are some of the most fundamental experiences around, and incorporating a mechanism to explain the evidence we have from our own brain states seems to be a fine endeavor.

It is not only not the best explanation, it isn't even an explanation. It is based on an unproven claim.

Quote:By the way, I am sorry to hear you were not the biggest fan of my signature. That is unfortunate. I like it however, so I think I will keep it.

I, too, think your signature is stupid.
1.How is that not evidence. You don't think our experiences of qualitative features of reality consitutes a degree of evidence? That is about as sense derived as it gets.
2. He appealed to Leibniz's law, a first principles indepedent of empiricism of which science is indebted to (without it, you could not consistently isolate variables), and showed that you can't appeal to a reality that simply has none of these features even remotely intrinsically.
3. I beg to differ, see above. Unless you deny you even subjectively have qualitative experiences (which would make you about as much an epistmeological skeptic as you get), it is evidence.
4. I am again sorry you guys dislike my quote.

Thanks for the reply,

Christian Philosophy.

2 Corinthians 10:5
"Every creature is a divine word because it proclaims God" - Bonaventure
"Do no harm. Do good. Stay in love with God." - John Wesley
"The highest service to which a man may obtain on earth is to preach the law of God." - John Wycliffe
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-04-2017, 02:54 PM (This post was last modified: 08-04-2017 03:05 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(08-04-2017 02:27 PM)Christian Philosophy Wrote:  1. That is an equivocation fallacy. When Jesus Christ is called the eternal Word of God, John is playing off the Greek concept of the Logo's, a sort of impersonal organizing force. Bonaventure was writing in Latin, and hence it is clearly not the same usage of the term here. Even if it was, that simply doesn't follow. +

Nope. He calls them "divine". It's very clear what he was referring to / and equating them to.

Quote:2.Eusebius did not really have an adequate knowledge of the historical method. But I still don't think useful is any sort of decietful term here. He is saying he will focus on the important parts, partly perhaps because briefness. It is reading into the text to assume otherwise. I think we can see this being the clearest interpretation, as his writings are far from always optimistic. Even still, his writings bear little to the faith in my opinion, and hence this seems like a weird topic.

His knowledge of history is irrelevant. What is relevant is his intention ... to present ONLY what is useful to the cause.
It's not surprising. It was an age of Pious Fraud. Exaggeration and fanciful fiction was the literary norm. It was acceptable. Scripture is full of it, as are other pious texts.

Quote:
4. That is completely out of context Bucky Ball! Book one of On the Priesthood is about what virtues to exercise at a particular time. This is part and parcel of Catholic moral theology. I don't agree with him (a lie is always a disordered act), yet what he is saying is whether it is always wrong to have a disordered act in light of a greater good. Kant, one with no Theological bone to pick, felt this was a question worthy to endeavor into (ultimately agreeing with me it is always disordered). Yet, this is mostly in light of honor in the European culture. He is discussing the intentions of the act for the most part.

He says deception can be useful. The context is irrelevant.
Speaking of Moral Theology and intentions, Catholics, (who say birth control is immoral, even while condoning NFP ... the intention of which is to prevent a pregnancy), can't really say much about intentionality and Moral Theology, when their own system is so inconsistent.

Quote:5. Can you cite this last quote?

It's in the Bible commentaries. I will look for it.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-04-2017, 03:09 PM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(08-04-2017 02:07 PM)Robvalue Wrote:  
(08-04-2017 11:47 AM)Christian Philosophy Wrote:  I find it pretty funny that Naielis has a negative rating despite being mostly cordial and bringing up points at least partially defensible, even if probably wrong (I am not a property dualist). Yet people who just respond with insults and ad hominems get tons of upvotes simply for having "mic drop moments". None of this discredits your points, just an odd observation. I am not saying Naielis has been above this necessarily (he has not), but I do think the difference in up votes in this conversation between Naielis and say Bucky Ball is un called for. I think it is arguable Naielis did better in this conversation, at least in the information brought to the table. Easily should not be a net negative. Naielis is not even a theist, so I am not understanding this. Does being an atheist commit you to reductive materialism? Historically no. Russell is a notable example. In modernity Michael Tooley, who probably had the best inductive argument from evil against God's existence considers himself a substance dualist. I have not seen all the discussions here, but certainly here the difference is minimal in post quality.

He's been repeating himself, ignoring any and all questions, for 46 pages. And this isn't the first thread he's done it in. He's made it explicit that he feels he's smarter than everyone and there's some fundamental problem with us if we don't accept what he's saying.

We've all given him a fair shake. He's just trolling us now.

You accuse me of dishonesty and then you turn around and call me a troll? Your hypocrisy is fascinating. I've been repeating myself because your brains appear to be malfunctioning. I haven't ignored anything. That implies intentionality to avoid which I do not possess. I don't feel smarter than everyone here. I am simply more educated on the subject. There is a fundamental problem with the groupthink mentality of anti-theists and typical atheists. Your belief structures are centered around science and atheism only. Any attempt to stray from that center is met with hostility, as shown by this thread. I do not troll because to do so would be disgraceful. The fact that you accuse me of it shows your own dishonesty. In the future, it would be lovely if you just stuck to the preemptive self-defense videos.

"I think part of the appeal of mathematical logic is that the formulas look mysterious - you write backward Es!" - Hilary Putnam
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-04-2017, 03:13 PM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(08-04-2017 02:54 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(08-04-2017 02:27 PM)Christian Philosophy Wrote:  1. That is an equivocation fallacy. When Jesus Christ is called the eternal Word of God, John is playing off the Greek concept of the Logo's, a sort of impersonal organizing force. Bonaventure was writing in Latin, and hence it is clearly not the same usage of the term here. Even if it was, that simply doesn't follow. +

Nope. He calls them "divine". It's very clear what he was referring to / and equating them to.

Quote:2.Eusebius did not really have an adequate knowledge of the historical method. But I still don't think useful is any sort of decietful term here. He is saying he will focus on the important parts, partly perhaps because briefness. It is reading into the text to assume otherwise. I think we can see this being the clearest interpretation, as his writings are far from always optimistic. Even still, his writings bear little to the faith in my opinion, and hence this seems like a weird topic.

His knowledge of history is irrelevant. What is relevant is his intention ... to present ONLY what is useful to the cause.

Quote:
4. That is completely out of context Bucky Ball! Book one of On the Priesthood is about what virtues to exercise at a particular time. This is part and parcel of Catholic moral theology. I don't agree with him (a lie is always a disordered act), yet what he is saying is whether it is always wrong to have a disordered act in light of a greater good. Kant, one with no Theological bone to pick, felt this was a question worthy to endeavor into (ultimately agreeing with me it is always disordered). Yet, this is mostly in light of honor in the European culture. He is discussing the intentions of the act for the most part.

He says deception can be useful. The context is irrelevant.
Speaking of Moral Theology and intentions, Catholics, (who say birth control is immoral, even while condoning NFP ... the intention of which is to prevent a pregnancy), can't really say much about intentionality and Moral Theology, when their own system is so inconsistent.

Quote:5. Can you cite this last quote?

It's in the Bible commentaries. I will look for it.

1. Didn't answer any of the point. Creation is totally different that begetting in Christian Theology.
2.Again, didn't answer my point, it was about what his method was. It is something every historian does. It is reading "for the cause" into it to say otherwise, and it also doesn't line up with his writings, which are not always optimistic to the Church's issues. The most straight forward reading is the one I offered.
3. It does matter. For the context is about helping others. Certainly Kant's case of the murderer chasing after your friend could be right (namely it is virtuous to keep the law even if your friend is hurt in the process), and yet this seems still absurd​. It is debatable and it certainly isn't in reference to the quote below if it is authentic, but in reference to cases like mentioned above.

Not to defend Catholic Moral Philosophy overly (I am not Catholic), but the reason Catholics are against NFP is because it perverts the final end of the faculty, namely the final cause of sex being children. Whether or not Natural Law is true, Catholics are not ultilitarians, and hence there is no inconsistency.
4. I will wait for the usage of this. But even still, I am not sure the relevance that had to my points. Like Eusebius, this would be not the most potent criticism for a Sola Scriptura affirming Protestant like myself.

Thanks for the reply,

Christian Philosophy

2 Corinthians 10:5
"Every creature is a divine word because it proclaims God" - Bonaventure
"Do no harm. Do good. Stay in love with God." - John Wesley
"The highest service to which a man may obtain on earth is to preach the law of God." - John Wycliffe
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-04-2017, 03:14 PM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(08-04-2017 03:09 PM)Naielis Wrote:  I simply am more educated on the subject.

LMAO. You have been proven to be totally ignorant on the subject.

Quote:There is a fundamental problem with the groupthink mentality of anti-theists and typical atheists. Your belief structures are centered around science and atheism only.

Of course.
The last pathetic refuge of ONE with whom NO ONE else agrees.
Everyone here comes to this nonsensical thread with THEIR own ideas.

Quote:Any attempt to stray from that center is met with hostility, as shown by this thread. I do not troll because to do so would be disgraceful. The fact that you accuse me of it shows your own dishonesty.

Quote:In the future, it would be lovely if you just stuck to the preemptive self-defense videos.

Thanks for doing EXACTLY what you just denied you did.
The reason you are met with hostility is you have presented no evidence to support your nonsense, (and you have not answered the questions asked of you).

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-04-2017, 03:16 PM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(08-04-2017 03:14 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(08-04-2017 03:09 PM)Naielis Wrote:  I simply am more educated on the subject.

LMAO. You have been proven to be totally ignorant on the subject.

Quote:There is a fundamental problem with the groupthink mentality of anti-theists and typical atheists. Your belief structures are centered around science and atheism only.

Of course.
The last pathetic refuge of ONE with whom NO ONE else agrees.
Everyone here comes to this nonsensical thread with THEIR own ideas.

Quote:Any attempt to stray from that center is met with hostility, as shown by this thread. I do not troll because to do so would be disgraceful. The fact that you accuse me of it shows your own dishonesty.

Quote:In the future, it would be lovely if you just stuck to the preemptive self-defense videos.

Thanks for doing EXACTLY what you just denied you did.
The reason you are met with hostility is you have presented no evidence to support your nonsense, (and you have not answered the questions asked of you).

Insulting is not the same as trolling. Could you please just be smarter?

"I think part of the appeal of mathematical logic is that the formulas look mysterious - you write backward Es!" - Hilary Putnam
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-04-2017, 03:22 PM (This post was last modified: 08-04-2017 04:05 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(08-04-2017 03:16 PM)Naielis Wrote:  
(08-04-2017 03:14 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  LMAO. You have been proven to be totally ignorant on the subject.


Of course.
The last pathetic refuge of ONE with whom NO ONE else agrees.
Everyone here comes to this nonsensical thread with THEIR own ideas.



Thanks for doing EXACTLY what you just denied you did.
The reason you are met with hostility is you have presented no evidence to support your nonsense, (and you have not answered the questions asked of you).

Insulting is not the same as trolling. Could you please just be smarter?

Whatever you say there, Mr. "Immaterial emergent properties do not exist in positions".

Laugh out load...Laugh out load...Laugh out load...Laugh out load...Laugh out load...Laugh out load...Laugh out load...Laugh out load...Laugh out load...Laugh out load...Laugh out load...Laugh out load...Laugh out load...Laugh out load

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: