Materialism Vs Theism

Author: EtrnlVw

Posts

Total: 86
Topic's author
#61
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@3RU7AL
So, "unknowable" would be perfectly acceptable to you?

What I'm getting at is that any personal description of the Creator is not relevant to the topic. If a Deist accepts or interprets our universe as a product of intelligence then the Deist fits into the only other one of two categories. I don't know why you are pressing the issue, obviously a Deist is not a materialist, that leaves one other option. Deism is defined as "belief in the existence of a supreme being"....any other description beyond that is unnecessary for this evaluation. I've made no claims or correlations of God with religion.
Even if you claim a Deist to be a materialist that still renders only two categories to choose from.

If you create a topic I'd be glad to answer that in detail, because to claim a Reality that we originated from "unknowable" is rather stupid. We are a part of that Reality and It will always be a part of us whether we realize that or not, which means at some level we have a access to that Reality as we are connected to It (I'd be glad to elaborate on that). I'm not even proposing any specific conception of God either to make that assessment BTW, my arguments are always compatible with Deism 80% of the time anyways. I don't have to use religion as a means to support the reality God exists, the soul exists or that creation is a product of intelligence. I'd rather not derail the subject matter and argue about conceptions of God.


#62
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@EtrnlVw
If a Deist accepts or interprets our universe as a product of intelligence then the Deist fits into the only other one of two categories.
I consider myself a DEIST but I'm not convinced "intelligence" is a concept that applies to "the unknowable" "source".
#63
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@EtrnlVw
because to claim a Reality that we originated from "unknowable" is rather stupid.
I see.

So, I'm guessing you KNOW "the unknowable"?

Are you neighbors perhaps?

Do you invite them over for a chat, perhaps?
#64
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,074
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@EtrnlVw
Creator...Might be the reason for the cause of our existence.

I prefer to think that creation just set the wheels in motion.

Had things occurred slightly differently,  this might well have been an advanced species descended from dinosaurs, discussing the GOD principle.

Which may well be the case elsewhere, especially if evolution progressed similarly, but without the extinction event.

Advanced Alien Lizards or Birds is not as unlikely as it might seem.
Topic's author
#65
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@3RU7AL
I consider myself a DEIST but I'm not convinced "intelligence" is a concept that applies to "the unknowable" "source".

You should be convinced, intelligence is the single most common denominator that makes any Supreme Being what It is. Unless of course you want to go out on a limb and say God is a thing. Consciousness/awareness can be deduced as a prerequisite for intelligence and without conscious awareness you're no longer talking about an Entity. Once we agree on that intelligence is a no-brainer, as intelligence would be required to have an ability to put together a universe that operates and functions.

I see.

Good.

So, I'm guessing you KNOW "the unknowable"?

That's your claim not mine. The argument wouldn't be that God is unknowable, rather how much do we know, or can know. But it's not really that complicated, we know a lot about God through our own direct experiences and observations. We are of the very same nature as God.

Are you neighbors perhaps?

Do you invite them over for a chat, perhaps?

Lets not get stupid. When you converse with me, you'll see everything makes sense. You don't have to invite God or visit God, that Reality is very much already connected to you as God is within all things, present and pervasive. As a matter of fact you could never escape that Reality, there's no where you could ever go where God is not present. Communication then becomes a misconstrued concept between the soul and its creator. 

Topic's author
#66
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@zedvictor4
Creator...Might be the reason for the cause of our existence.

That's a very good position to have, I'm impressed you have flexibility on this issue.

I prefer to think that creation just set the wheels in motion.

To a point but it's an incomplete assumption. I believe it's more like a guided process and the universe itself is responsible for nothing other than being a canvas for the Creator.... I don't think God would just set it in motion and then somehow all these processes begin to act on their own, that's not a very logical proposition. I think the universe is the way it is because God wanted precisely the way it is, and used these processes as a means of achieving it. Once we get the misconception out of our heads that God is some embodied Being somewhere out there that exists somewhere within creation then this becomes much more clear and easy to understand. Creation is actually within God not outside God or somewhere beside God, the universe would conceptually be much more like the mind of God and everything that exists, exists within that conscious Reality. So God essentially manipulates energy and the elements within the universe and uses processes to generate and create forms within it.
Energy co-exists with God, which is conscious activity so while energy is not created of course, it is generated. God in turn uses energy as means of creation, and everything that follows. Both awareness and energy are eternal and omnipresent.

Had things occurred slightly differently,  this might well have been an advanced species descended from dinosaurs, discussing the GOD principle.

TBH, I don't believe it's possible anything at all could have occurred without intelligence it's simply a ridiculous idea. In other words there's zero chance anything could have spontaneously occurred and for that matter worked. I'm not being close-minded of course rather it's just obvious to me personally.

Which may well be the case elsewhere, especially if evolution progressed similarly, but without the extinction event.

I made a post about dinosaurs in this thread ironically, check out post #17

Advanced Alien Lizards or Birds is not as unlikely as it might seem.

Lol, anything can exist within a Reality where a creative Entity is responsible for what exists which makes giant lizards and aliens life much more in favor with a Creator. As a matter of fact, the more things we find that exist the more I believe it favors a Creator. I'm not one those guys who thinks we're alone in such a grand universe.

#67
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@EtrnlVw
I consider myself a DEIST but I'm not convinced "intelligence" is a concept that applies to "the unknowable" "source".
You should be convinced, intelligence is the single most common denominator that makes any Supreme Being what It is.
How are you defining "intelligence"?

There are many religions that use language consistent with MAGNUM MYSTERIUM.

Unless of course you want to go out on a limb and say God is a thing.
How is "god" NOT "a thing"?

I mean, "god" is necessarily (EITHER) "a thing" (OR) "a no-thing", right?
Topic's author
#68
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@3RU7AL
How are you defining "intelligence"?

"the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills."
"the ability to apply knowledge to manipulate one's environment or to think abstractly as measured by objective criteria"
"the ability to learn or understand (reason)"

Hows that?

There are many religions that use language consistent with MAGNUM MYSTERIUM.

I would allow you to elaborate on that but for now lets not touch on religion until relevant.

How is "god" NOT "a thing"?

I mean, "god" is necessarily (EITHER) "a thing" (OR) "a no-thing", right?

Lol, ever hear the terms person, place or THING?
We're going to make the assumption that God is animate (living) correct? I mean we have to make some obvious assessments so that we aren't stuck on stupid right? I would not classify God as a thing in the sense I wouldn't classify YOU as a "thing"....since God is obviously not a place, lets just say God is a person, meaning God is an animate Being. If you're too shy about saying God is a person then lets just say God is a conscious (living) Being, how about that? anytime you add consciousness, living, sentience or awareness or even intelligence that automatically disqualifies it as a thing.

Thing-
an inanimate material object as distinct from a living sentient being.


Lets back up a couple steps before we move forward. Which qualities or attributes are you willing to give to a Supreme Being (Deistic God)? if you're not willing to commit to being conscious are you not willing to say this Being is alive?? if this Entity is alive (living) then that means It is also conscious as they go hand in hand, can't have one feature without the other. I wouldn't label anything living as a thing, as in an "inanimate object".

I don't want this to become a game of semantics as many of your conversations become. Lets just try and be focused and rational here or I will become bored very quickly.

Topic's author
#69
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@3RU7AL
Lets do something entirely different than what normally happens, lets see how quickly we can agree and move forward! we do that by using very simple and efficient reasoning and rapidly move ahead. So when I say something that makes sense and you can agree with it, let me know and then we take steps from there. Playing word games will seriously annoy me, so its up to you here where progress goes. 
#70
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@EtrnlVw
Materialism starts with the assumptions that reality exists and we can learn from it.

[...] Materialism doesn't just start with the assumption reality exists, it starts with the assumption that matter is the fundamental substance of existence...of that reality. That puts a stamp on your quest for truth, and if that satisfies your intellectual needs that's your choice.
Ok.  Just so you know, I don't personally identify as a materialist. I just see Materialism as more parsimonious.  

I don't know what a "super-reality" is supposed to be
By "super-reality", I mean something above and beyond the reality that can be observed and/or demonstrated. It's reality+.

This is not a God of the Gaps argument [...] if God fits in any gaps it's because it works, it's missing pieces to the puzzle. 
Make up your mind, eh?  

It's a legit question 100%! Why would processes begin to just occur all by themselves and start to produce things 
Why would processes not occur naturally - other than you can't believe it's possible?

Occam favors the former.

Sure pal. I'll remind you again....
Materialism doesn't get a free card because it skips out on important questions making you believe you've made less assumptions lol...that's really hilarious. Theism fits in perfectly with Occam's Razor as there are absolutely no unnecessary premises being offered and zero assumptions being made that are not of importance.
I'm not sure how you think Materialism is getting a free pass. When Occam's razor is applied to a comparison between Theism and Materialism, the latter is favored because it does not unnecessarily multiply entities. Theism assumes a reality beyond the natural world that cannot be detected or demonstrated whereas Materialism accepts reality as we see it.  It's not that complicated, buddy. If a super-reality could be established, then Theism would be favored.


#71
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@EtrnlVw
"the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills."
(IFF) your version of "god" is omniscient (THEN) they would have zero "ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills"
#72
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@SkepticalOne
I don't know what a "super-reality" is supposed to be
By "super-reality", I mean something above and beyond the reality that can be observed and/or demonstrated. It's reality+.
The word you're searching for is NOUMENON.
#73
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@SkepticalOne
...a reality beyond the natural world that cannot be detected or demonstrated...
But does happen to be logically-necessary.

The only "glitch" is that NOUMENON is technically "unknowable".
#74
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@EtrnlVw
"the ability to apply knowledge to manipulate one's environment
(IFF) your version of "god" is omnipresent (THEN) they would have zero ability to "manipulate one's environment"

or to think abstractly as measured by objective criteria"
Abstract thought is the exact opposite of QUANTIFIABLE ("objective" criteria).
#75
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
"the ability to learn or understand (reason)"
(IFF) your version of "god" is omniscient (THEN) they would have zero "ability to learn"
#76
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@EtrnlVw
We're going to make the assumption that God is animate (living) correct?
Why would we do this?
#77
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@EtrnlVw
lets just say God is a person,
The word "person" is synonymous with "HUMAN".
#78
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@EtrnlVw
God is a conscious (living) Being,
Like a dog?

Is a dog a "conscious (living) Being"?
#79
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@EtrnlVw
if you're not willing to commit to being conscious are you not willing to say this Being is alive??
Please define (in quantifiable terms) the word, "conscious".
#80
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@EtrnlVw
I wouldn't label anything living as a thing,
Is an individual human blood cell, living in a petri dish, considered a "creature"?
#81
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@EtrnlVw
I don't want this to become a game of semantics as many of your conversations become. Lets just try and be focused and rational here or I will become bored very quickly.
I only have two speeds.

ZERO AND ONEHUNDRED.

You are hereby absolved from any implicit social obligation to respond and or even acknowledge any of my responses.

This is a purely voluntary interaction.
#82
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@EtrnlVw
Lets do something entirely different than what normally happens, lets see how quickly we can agree and move forward! we do that by using very simple and efficient reasoning and rapidly move ahead. So when I say something that makes sense and you can agree with it, let me know and then we take steps from there.
I ALWAYS SEEK COMMON-GROUND.

Playing word games will seriously annoy me, so its up to you here where progress goes. 
I love how you try to pretend that if I don't accept your implicit AXIOMS prima facie, then somehow it makes me "the bad guy".

I admire your intelligence and I believe we actually agree on a lot of underlying concepts.

That is why I'm even bothering with any of this.
#83
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@EtrnlVw
We're going to make the assumption that God is animate (living) correct?
We're going to make the assumption that "god" is comprised of a complex system of individual cells working in symbiotic unison with bacteria in order to maintain homeostasis?
Topic's author
#84
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@3RU7AL
If we can't agree to God being "living" (alive) as a universal starting point, I'm sorry but there's no chance of a successful exchange between the two of us. If you are unable to follow a basic level of logic that says if the quality of being alive is not evident then there's no relation to a "Supreme Being" then your rationale is way too far gone for me to handle. And I can handle a lot, but I can't work with sheer stupidity. Not that you're stupid, but being too skeptical can only lead to an imbalance of rational thought.

I admire your intelligence and I believe we actually agree on a lot of underlying concepts.

I appreciate that but your train of thought is just too scattered and far fetched for there to be any efficiency within our dialogue.

I ALWAYS SEEK COMMON-GROUND.

Not in a way where it's recognizable lol, I used to accept you as one of the more intellectually capable posters here but I've come to the conclusion that I can't relate to your process of thinking on any level. A good example would be the following....
I write:
"God is a conscious (living) Being"

You respond with:

Like a dog?

Is a dog a "conscious (living) Being"?

This is a ridiculous response and one that was completely unnecessary. My answer of course would be yes, like a dog but obviously we're not talking about a dog. But yes, living is living and living includes a dog. But I fail to see the relevance in it to whether or not God is to be determined as living, as opposed to inanimate. You either agree with the statement or you do not, your response was entirely unrelated and useless. This makes any upcoming engagement with you not very exciting to be nice about it. All it shows me is that there will be a lot of worthless content I have to sift through just to get you to agree with a simple premise.
If a deist were to accept the existence of a Supreme Being, "living" would follow by necessity otherwise we are no longer discussing a "Being" or an Entity but rather an inanimate object, a thing. Once we establish God as at least being alive, then we can articulate what that would entail. But since we know a dog can't create a universe your correlation there is utter garbage. 



#85
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,611
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@EtrnlVw
Once we establish God as at least being alive, then we can articulate what that would entail
Does God breathe and fart? Does he get diarrhea? We are made in his image, right?
Topic's author
#86
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@FLRW
Does God breathe and fart? Does he get diarrhea? We are made in his image, right?

God does not suffer the consequences of having a physical body. "Made in His image" does not mean that everything we are, God is. It's not that literal, it means we have a likeness of God, and that likeness more or less refers to our inner being not our physically created bodies.