Request For Help - Arguments To Eliminate Materialism

#21
Video is now live:
A Theist & An Atheist Figure Something Out

The argument wasn't accepted by my atheist guest and I could see why. Would love your thoughts Naturale Eius Debent.

I would personally leave morality aside, and begin by dismantling the ontological, theological and even historical holes in their arguments. Most of these people haven't read any books on theology, comparative religion, and probably very little on philosophy and history (at least that's what seems to be the case, when one considers their weak arguments).

My own approach with arrogant materialists and atheists, is to start from the beginning:

1. There are only two explanations for the existence of the universe: it came from literal nothing; no laws of physics, no matter, no nothing (let's not imagine a black void, because that would be something). Or it came from an infinite reversion of universes (what the multiverse theory proposes).

2. The concepts of Nothing and Infinite are out of grasp for our minds. We don't and can't understand what does nothing or infinite mean.

3. Therefore, there are aspects of reality that are supernatural (beyond known natural laws and matter), and will remain unknown and mysterious forever.

4. Therefore, there is an open door for supernatural or/and metaphysical beliefs.

This is just one trench of the argument against materialism. I could copy-paste a more detailed document I did on this subjet, with many more arguments (by the way, I'm open for criticism, just like you).
 
#22
Video is now live:
A Theist & An Atheist Figure Something Out

The argument wasn't accepted by my atheist guest and I could see why. Would love your thoughts Naturale Eius Debent.
I knew for sure he wasn't going to accept it! I saw the video, and it was very interesting, but I felt like neither of you actually understood my point. And there was good criticism, I don't deny it, but remember that I speak spanish, and if these concepts are very hard to explain by themselves, it's even more difficult to explain them in a language you don't totally master. So, I think I too failed at elaborating my point. I probably have to use better words and concepts for an english context. I hope I accomplish that this time.

The definition of words is were things usually always get complicated (I wrote the argument here just as a sketch of the argument itself, not a complete presentation, so I didn't define some key words, like "supernatural", and I didn't clarify that I use those words by a personal interpretation).

First of all, "Regress" was indeed the correct word, not "Reversion". When I saw the video, I felt that the word Reversion was very confusing. I didn't noticed that when I originally wrote it.

Second, the word "Supernatural": For me, supernatural doesn't mean "aspects of reality we haven't discovered yet", because that would be a classic God of the gaps, like you both correctly pointed out. For me, supernatural means "aspects of reality we cannot ever understand", like Nothing, like Infinite. You said you can imagine Nothing, but that is not correct. Nor you, me, or anyone alive right now is psychologically or physiologically able to imagine Nothing, because that would be like trying to imagine being dead. You can playfully imagine how it would feel to be dead, but you would be alive while imagining it, so your conceptualization of death would still be permeated by the experience of being alive, thus it wouldn't be correct. It would be a caricature of death.

Let me explain this a little bit more. Everything we know about death, we know it from empirical investigations we work out while alive. Alive scientists, writting down alleged facts about another person/being that is dead. So, the important question here is: do we, alive beings, really know how death feels like? Do we, alive beings, know what death is? No.

The same reasoning applies to Infinite or Nothing. We are something, and we are finite, so we can't understand Nothing or Infinite. There's a reason why infinity is not used in mathematics, even though it's a real (and crucial) facet of mathematics: because you can't do nothing (pun intended) with infinity. See, between 1 and 2, or any given pair of numbers, there are infinite numbers, wich means, oxymoronically, that numbers as we understand them actually don't exist, because they're not really delimitated, they're infinite. We conceptualize a delimitation for numbers so we can use them. if we used numbers infinitely (impossible), we would not have electricity, medicine, technology, super-colliders, etc., because all of those things were built utilizing equations that assume numbers as finite (you can't sum up two infinities). Infinity is not conceivable for us. (I believe there is a member of this forum that could explain this much better than me, but I don't remember his or her name).

The concept of Nothing is likewise impossible to understand for beings that are and only know something. That's why I insist: DO NOT imagine a black void, because that is something. And I keep bringing that up, because that is the only possible way to conceive nothingness from a somethingness perspective. We can only create mental caricatures of concepts we don't understand (like a black void in the case of Nothing, because a black void is the less something that we can imagine, so we caricaturize Nothing that way in our minds).

I know this seems very complex, but I'm trying my best to explain the argument.

Now, like the atheist pointed out, a universe that comes from Nothing, it's very improbable. I too believe that the universe is more likely to have existed forever (Infinitely). I don't understand what he didn't understand about that. So, if we can finally accept that Infinite and Nothing are concepts totally out of grasp for our minds, and that no matter which one you choose to explain the origin of the universe, it would still be incomprehensible for our brains and minds, then my argument keeps standing strong.

But this is just one of many arguments against atheistic and materialistic idiocy (I know you prefer to respect atheists and materialists, and I esteem that, but I don't share that feeling, because their ideologies come from profound historical evil, even if they're not aware of that, so I have a very hard time finding a single thing to be respected in ther beliefs). The other arguments I have, deal with their moral, historical, theological, theosophical, occultist/esoterist, scientifical, logical and mathematical ignorance. And I believe the historical argument in particular, is one of the most critical, and therefore difficult to make them understand, because they're adoctrinated to believe anything the officialist science of chronology and history wants them to believe.

We can talk about that if you want. But after all, it was very pleasing hearing you talk. You are very intelligent and that is much needed in this whole debate nowadays.
 
#23
I knew for sure he wasn't going to accept it! I saw the video, and it was very interesting, but I felt like neither of you actually understood my point. And there was good criticism, I don't deny it, but remember that I speak spanish, and if these concepts are very hard to explain by themselves, it's even more difficult to explain them in a language you don't totally master. So, I think I too failed at elaborating my point. I probably have to use better words and concepts for an english context. I hope I accomplish that this time.

The definition of words is were things usually always get complicated (I wrote the argument here just as a sketch of the argument itself, not a complete presentation, so I didn't define some key words, like "supernatural", and I didn't clarify that I use those words by a personal interpretation).

First of all, "Regress" was indeed the correct word, not "Reversion". When I saw the video, I felt that the word Reversion was very confusing. I didn't noticed that when I originally wrote it.

Second, the word "Supernatural": For me, supernatural doesn't mean "aspects of reality we haven't discovered yet", because that would be a classic God of the gaps, like you both correctly pointed out. For me, supernatural means "aspects of reality we cannot ever understand", like Nothing, like Infinite. You said you can imagine Nothing, but that is not correct. Nor you, me, or anyone alive right now is psychologically or physiologically able to imagine Nothing, because that would be like trying to imagine being dead. You can playfully imagine how it would feel to be dead, but you would be alive while imagining it, so your conceptualization of death would still be permeated by the experience of being alive, thus it wouldn't be correct. It would be a caricature of death.

Let me explain this a little bit more. Everything we know about death, we know it from empirical investigations we work out while alive. Alive scientists, writting down alleged facts about another person/being that is dead. So, the important question here is: do we, alive beings, really know how death feels like? Do we, alive beings, know what death is? No.

The same reasoning applies to Infinite or Nothing. We are something, and we are finite, so we can't understand Nothing or Infinite. There's a reason why infinity is not used in mathematics, even though it's a real (and crucial) facet of mathematics: because you can't do nothing (pun intended) with infinity. See, between 1 and 2, or any given pair of numbers, there are infinite numbers, wich means, oxymoronically, that numbers as we understand them actually don't exist, because they're not really delimitated, they're infinite. We conceptualize a delimitation for numbers so we can use them. if we used numbers infinitely (impossible), we would not have electricity, medicine, technology, super-colliders, etc., because all of those things were built utilizing equations that assume numbers as finite (you can't sum up two infinities). Infinity is not conceivable for us. (I believe there is a member of this forum that could explain this much better than me, but I don't remember his or her name).

The concept of Nothing is likewise impossible to understand for beings that are and only know something. That's why I insist: DO NOT imagine a black void, because that is something. And I keep bringing that up, because that is the only possible way to conceive nothingness from a somethingness perspective. We can only create mental caricatures of concepts we don't understand (like a black void in the case of Nothing, because a black void is the less something that we can imagine, so we caricaturize Nothing that way in our minds).

I know this seems very complex, but I'm trying my best to explain the argument.

Now, like the atheist pointed out, a universe that comes from Nothing, it's very improbable. I too believe that the universe is more likely to have existed forever (Infinitely). I don't understand what he didn't understand about that. So, if we can finally accept that Infinite and Nothing are concepts totally out of grasp for our minds, and that no matter which one you choose to explain the origin of the universe, it would still be incomprehensible for our brains and minds, then my argument keeps standing strong.

But this is just one of many arguments against atheistic and materialistic idiocy (I know you prefer to respect atheists and materialists, and I esteem that, but I don't share that feeling, because their ideologies come from profound historical evil, even if they're not aware of that, so I have a very hard time finding a single thing to be respected in ther beliefs). The other arguments I have, deal with their moral, historical, theological, theosophical, occultist/esoterist, scientifical, logical and mathematical ignorance. And I believe the historical argument in particular, is one of the most critical, and therefore difficult to make them understand, because they're adoctrinated to believe anything the officialist science of chronology and history wants them to believe.

We can talk about that if you want. But after all, it was very pleasing hearing you talk. You are very intelligent and that is much needed in this whole debate nowadays.
I would love to help you work on it and then we could get the next versions of it and put those in front of future guests to Consciousness Matters.

Would you like to talk about it on the show yourself? If live is difficult would you like to do a video on your phone? Just some ideas!

BTW, I'm very happy as I look back at that part of the conversation because I felt that Timothy agreeing that supernatural didn't really mean anything was very interesting.

More in depth....

I believe I mis-spoke if the by saying I can imagine nothing, I imagine it as a definition that works, not as something directly experienced. I agree that I can't imagine nothing in a felt or experienced sense. I do think though I can define nothing and understand it as a concept.

I think a skeptic would play the logical positivism card in reference to supernatural as you've explained further above. They may say, sure it could be there but if we can't know it now we can't say anything about it so why talk about it further?

"Now, like the atheist pointed out, a universe that comes from Nothing, it's very improbable. I too believe that the universe is more likely to have existed forever (Infinitely). I don't understand what he didn't understand about that." - agreed.

I am absolutely and strongly in favour like yourself of exposing that atheism is not a sensible default rational position, that it has in no way answered it's burden of proof. I intend this be a strong theme in my work and it's been brewing in the scripts that don't make it to the screen.

If I try to reduce your argument to it's simplest form I feel like it is this:

We can't ever fully explain our origins, therefore we should always hold the idea of a God as possible.

Does that form of your argument represent your argument fairly in minimal form or is it lacking some important detail?
 
#24
The important detail it lacks, is that I'm not defending "God". I'm defending the supernatural, or at least my own definition of supernatural (wich religions and other spiritual schools of thought have symbolically interpreted as "God"). I'm defending supernaturalities (does that makes sense?) which, even though will permanently lay beyond our comprehension, we should discuss anyway, like theologians, theosophists and some philosophers do, because those supernaturalities hold important truths about our own existence.

I do think though I can define nothing and understand it as a concept.
You are totally correct. We can grasp the concept of Nothing and Infinite, but that's not sufficient. Science hasn't ever being comfortable with just grasping the concept of a given thing: science pursuits a wholly understanding and experiencing of that thing. But there are aspects of reality that can't ever be understood or experienced by our bodies and minds; only conceptualized in a very caricaturesque way. That's my point.

They may say, sure it could be there but if we can't know it now we can't say anything about it so why talk about it further?
Someone who says something like that, hates the institutions of science, philosophy and even curiosity itself. That's why religion and esoterism are important disciplines; they don't claim to know everything (the real ones), they just claim that there are realities beyond us, that those realities are crucial to us, and that we should try our best to talk about them, decipher them, and ideally, access them (what they would call illumination). That's where the debate gets interesting.

And about the first thing you said: I'm writting a complete argument against materialism, incorporating all the micro-arguments into a single big one, and I thought about posting it here when it's finished. I would love to get your input when I create that thread. We can discuss it with other members of the forum, and make it better, because it probably has a lot of mistakes (it's like 10 pages long. It's no Kalam-argument-length. But I'll try to resume it the best I can before posting it).
 
#25
The important detail it lacks, is that I'm not defending "God". I'm defending the supernatural, or at least my own definition of supernatural (wich religions and other spiritual schools of thought have symbolically interpreted as "God"). I'm defending supernaturalities (does that makes sense?) which, even though will permanently lay beyond our comprehension, we should discuss anyway, like theologians, theosophists and some philosophers do, because those supernaturalities hold important truths about our own existence.



You are totally correct. We can grasp the concept of Nothing and Infinite, but that's not sufficient. Science hasn't ever being comfortable with just grasping the concept of a given thing: science pursuits a wholly understanding and experiencing of that thing. But there are aspects of reality that can't ever be understood or experienced by our bodies and minds; only conceptualized in a very caricaturesque way. That's my point.



Someone who says something like that, hates the institutions of science, philosophy and even curiosity itself. That's why religion and esoterism are important disciplines; they don't claim to know everything (the real ones), they just claim that there are realities beyond us, that those realities are crucial to us, and that we should try our best to talk about them, decipher them, and ideally, access them (what they would call illumination). That's where the debate gets interesting.

And about the first thing you said: I'm writting a complete argument against materialism, incorporating all the micro-arguments into a single big one, and I thought about posting it here when it's finished. I would love to get your input when I create that thread. We can discuss it with other members of the forum, and make it better, because it probably has a lot of mistakes (it's like 10 pages long. It's no Kalam-argument-length. But I'll try to resume it the best I can before posting it).
Yes I completely accept what you've said regarding it not being God per se, but supernaturalities, though, I think we need to work on what we call that. Interesting stuff.

I'd be very happy to see if I can help you out with that, feel free to drop me a message on here or something to make sure I don't miss your work.
 
Top