9 Simple Reasons for Any Rational Person to Reject Materialism

[Thermos aquaticus]

Haha wait... So if I break my radio the stations will come through perfectly?

If you hit your radio at home will the DJ start to slur their speech? If I take parts of the radio out will the DJ lose cognitive abilities? If I give the radio an anti-depressant, will the DJ be happier?

 

[1137]

If you hit your radio at home will the DJ start to slur their speech? If I take parts of the radio out will the DJ lose cognitive abilities? If I give the radio an anti-depressant, will the DJ be happier?

Imagine that, your metaphor requires us to just assume materialism haha. We're done here.

 

[dfnj]

What is materialism? It is known as other things like material reductionism and physicalism among others. It is the view that only one substance exists – matter – and that all reduces to matter. This is a faith-based position that is spreading wildly through the West as a reaction to oppressive Western religions. It is philosophically unsound and has no supporting evidence. Let at look at this.

1) The “evidence” for materialism is that doing something to the brain effects how consciousness comes through. Take a drug or a hammer to your head and you may start slurring, seeing things, hearing things, stumbling, etc. This is not evidence of materialism because it is also expected in more supported positions such as dualism and idealism, as we will see. It is the only support that materialism has presented thus far in its favor and it does not even actually suggest materialism itself. We will look at this more below.

2) The Law of Identity is the most basic and foundational law of logic and states that things with different properties cannot be identical – “A is A and not Non-A”. The material and conscious worlds have entirely different properties, including but not limited to (respectively); being spacial vs. not taking up space, being objective and being subjective, being universally accessible and being wholly private, and many more. We can illustrate this by looking at a brain, having others see it as well, and measuring the space taken up by the brain. Now imagine your fantasy man/woman standing in the room before you. Does she take up space? Can others see her? Are the traits that make her “perfect” objective? Of course not, because matter and consciousness have different properties, and so thinking matter causes the mind is a violation of the most basic logic.

3) Our own conscious experience is the one thing we know directly, and everything else we know of depends on us being conscious beings. This includes matter. So to reduce consciousness to matter reduces the one thing we know with certainty to something that we know through it. This is unreasonable.

4) Things like cognitive science prove the mind can override the brain. Self-regulation, internal coping skills, bio-feedback, meditation – all are conscious and willful acts that override the material body. This can be seen such as in a depression patient recognizing a depressed episode coming on and using skills like Self-talk and meditation to keep the episode at bay. This is scientific fact, and once you remove willful engagement from therapy it becomes ineffective. Further, and good psychiatrist will also recommend counseling or various therapies along with the physiology-altering drugs.

5) The mind is actually capable of manipulating nature, even changing it to suit its will. One example of this is in architecture, where complex buildings are created in the mind and then transferred into the objective material universe. Movies or music are another good example as they exist as ideas before they even become “reality”. Medication is another example where we literally change the nature of substances in order to affect our health, such as manipulating the flu to make yearly flu-shots.

6) Materialism also relies on the faith in future discovery. “Maybe one day we will find the mechanism that makes consciousness.” “Maybe one day we will explain how the subjective arises from the objective”. And maybe not. This is blind faith and nothing more.

7) The Upper Paleolithic Revolution was an event in human history that saw the species leap from “just another animal” to a species with higher consciousness. This led to the creation of art, religion, the rise of individuality, the creation of languages, the formations of societies, etc. Everything that let human beings become the dominant species on this planet occurred during the UPR. However, we had already existed as an evolved species for tens of thousands of years before the UPR. Further, this changes seems to have affected the species as a whole over a relatively short amount of time, rather than through the longer-term genetic changes we see with evolution. On top of this, the consciousness that it produced, as we have been discussing, had not only different properties from the natural world but was able to question, manipulate, and go against it. This again shows that consciousness is entirely different from the material world and how it functions.

8 ) Absurdity – in short, materialism leads to philosophical absurdity any way you look at it. For example it pretends to be a skeptical position but relies on the senses and puts what we know aside for what we know through it. This is the exact opposite of skepticism, and skepticism and materialism are mutually exclusive.

Further absurdity is that the only “evidence” for materialism amounts to nothing more than correlations – we may as well also accept the pastafarian position that the decline in pirates causes global warming!

Metaphors that materialism tries to create reduce to absurdity – for example they will say “mind” is what the brain does like “running” is what feet do, that “mind” and “running” have the same properties. Does running not take up space, can it not be seen, heard, felt? Another example is that water is not identical to the atoms which create it, similar to the mind and brain. Yet are both atoms and water not spacial, objective, universally accessible?

Yet another absurd reduction of materialism is again found in the single piece of evidence that doing things to the brain affects consciousness. Sure, maybe this means that materialism is true, but there is no other evidence that materialism is true! It would be like saying “well MAYBE magic leprechauns are the cause of gravity.” Sure that could theoretically explain it, but is that really the most rational way to go about it?

9) Finally, materialism is dangerous. For example we can look at mental and behavioral health and how those are treated. For instance, any good doctor who prescribes medication to address the physiological side of mental illness will also recommend therapy to address the mental side. As talked about above, without willful engagement in such therapy interventions no changes can occur. It would be dangerous to address only the physiological and not the mental aspects of these illnesses. Further, belief that individuals are deterministic machines with no control over their lives would make any kind of mental/behavioral healthwork impossible. Imagine a counselor telling a client to just say “**** it” because they have no control over their problems anyways!

It can also prove dangerous in other aspects of life. The best example of this to date is the Life-Fields of Dr. Harold Burr out of Yale University. Along with dozens of other scientists over decades of time Dr. Burr and company scientifically proved that L-Fields act as blueprints to all physical life. Measurements of these fields could predict cancer, disease, infection, depression, ovulation, prime times of learning information, and much more. But because the findings of Burr, Ravitz, etc. convinced them not only of a creator but of mind/body dualism, teleology of life, and a model to replace materialism, it was inherently written off as pseudo-science by the religion of materialism. Ironically, in the modern day Electric Universe theory is looking promising towards replacing that non-science “science” which has overrun physics, and the hypothesis is currently being tested. We will have to see how materialism reacts to this.

SUMMARY / TLDR

Materialism does not have evidence that supports it specifically and relies on faith in future discovery, it violates the Law of Identity, it puts what we know (consciousness) under what we know through it (matter), the abilities of consciousness go against the material world, consciousness can manipulate and change the material world, what we know about the rise of consciousness doesn’t fit with materialistic evolution as we know it, materialism reduces to absurdity, and materialism is a dangerous faith that puts its own beliefs over objective knowledge which could benefit human beings.

You will enjoy this video:

But saying idealism is more prevalent than materialism is like proving 9/11 conspiracy theories. People's dogmas are carved in stone. I'm surprised as many people believe the World is round as they do. The clockwork computer simulated Universe will never die!

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Imagine that, your metaphor requires us to just assume materialism haha. We're done here.

As suspected, you can't defend dualism when the obvious implications of dualism contradict what we see in the real world. The very fact that we can use a chemical that alters the brain which then alters things like moods, inhibitions, behaviors, and the very essence of consciousness directly contradicts dualism. This shouldn't be possible if consciousness is independent of the brain, and yet there it is.

 

[Quintessence]

As suspected, you can't defend dualism when the obvious implications of dualism contradict what we see in the real world. The very fact that we can use a chemical that alters the brain which then alters things like moods, inhibitions, behaviors, and the very essence of consciousness directly contradicts dualism. This shouldn't be possible if consciousness is independent of the brain, and yet there it is.

There are different forms of dualism, right? One problem that has been pointed out with some forms of substance dualism is the "problem of interaction," or how two independent substances manage to interact at all if they are so entirely different from one another. The solution to this is simply to understand that the two substances are not wholly independent. With this approach, the objections here don't follow. If we grant that different substances interact, we would expect changes in one substance to impact the other, rather than the converse. I think that's one of @1137 's points, if I'm reading correctly.

Put another way, everything is understood as interconnected, rather than totally independent and isolated; the various substances don't reduce down to each other either. It's akin to understanding that your parents are two entirely different people, but that their relationship and interactions with each other influence one another. If one parent dies, you would expect it to impact the other because they are in a relationship.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

The solution to this is simply to understand that the two substances are not wholly independent. With this approach, the objections here don't follow. If we grant that different substances interact, we would expect changes in one substance to impact the other, rather than the converse. I think that's one of @1137 's points, if I'm reading correctly.

The problem is that dualism is unfalsifiable. No matter what evidence is brought forward it will be said to be consistent with dualism. If all evidence is consistent with dualism, then no evidence is consistent with dualism. It is simply a belief.

Put another way, everything is understood as interconnected, rather than totally independent and isolated; the various substances don't reduce down to each other either. It's akin to understanding that your parents are two entirely different people, but that their relationship and interactions with each other influence one another. If one parent dies, you would expect it to impact the other because they are in a relationship.

The difference is that I have observable evidence that my parents are individual beings independent of each other. I have yet to see anyone reference an observation of consciousness independent of the brain.

 

[WalterTrull]

...my parents are individual beings independent of each other...

Unlikely. They are aware of each other, they communicate, how can they be independent of each other?

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Unlikely. They are aware of each other, they communicate, how can they be independent of each other?

They are separate human beings. I can observe both of them as separate organisms. Where is the same observation for consciousness and the brain?

 

[Subduction Zone]

The problem is that dualism is unfalsifiable. No matter what evidence is brought forward it will be said to be consistent with dualism. If all evidence is consistent with dualism, then no evidence is consistent with dualism. It is simply a belief.



The difference is that I have observable evidence that my parents are individual beings independent of each other. I have yet to see anyone reference an observation of consciousness independent of the brain.

That is a good point. One could easily design a testable hypothesis where there would be several scenarios that could refute materialism. Anyone passing James Randi's Million Dollar Challenge when it existed would almost certainly have in effect refuted materialism.

If a supporter of dualism cannot come up with a testable hypothesis for their beliefs by definition it would not be a scientific belief and there would be no scientific evidence for the concept.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

That is a good point. One could easily design a testable hypothesis where there would be several scenarios that could refute materialism. Anyone passing James Randi's Million Dollar Challenge when it existed would almost certainly have in effect refuted materialism.

If a supporter of dualism cannot come up with a testable hypothesis for their beliefs by definition it would not be a scientific belief and there would be no scientific evidence for the concept.

It wouldn't appear to be a logical concept, either. This supposed immaterial consciousness is given whatever attributes are needed in order to produce what we see without first establishing that the immaterial consciousness has those properties. It appears to be nothing more than assuming the immaterial is real, or just assuming the conclusion is true.

 

[1137]

You will enjoy this video:

But saying idealism is more prevalent than materialism is like proving 9/11 conspiracy theories. People's dogmas are carved in stone. I'm surprised as many people believe the World is round as they do. The clockwork computer simulated Universe will never die!

I'll check this out!

As suspected, you can't defend dualism when the obvious implications of dualism contradict what we see in the real world. The very fact that we can use a chemical that alters the brain which then alters things like moods, inhibitions, behaviors, and the very essence of consciousness directly contradicts dualism. This shouldn't be possible if consciousness is independent of the brain, and yet there it is.

I could literally repeat a millions times how this fits Dualism and at this point I can safely say you still wouldn't understand. You REALLY think that when you destroy a radio you destroy the radio waves? That if you damage your TV you damage the stations? This is what materialism suggests, that losing access to consciousness means it's magically gone. Are you under the impression that Dualism has no interaction between mind and brain?

You are independent of your mother right? Does that mean you somehow are supposed to have no connection to each other?

There are different forms of dualism, right? One problem that has been pointed out with some forms of substance dualism is the "problem of interaction," or how two independent substances manage to interact at all if they are so entirely different from one another. The solution to this is simply to understand that the two substances are not wholly independent. With this approach, the objections here don't follow. If we grant that different substances interact, we would expect changes in one substance to impact the other, rather than the converse. I think that's one of @1137 's points, if I'm reading correctly.

Put another way, everything is understood as interconnected, rather than totally independent and isolated; the various substances don't reduce down to each other either. It's akin to understanding that your parents are two entirely different people, but that their relationship and interactions with each other influence one another. If one parent dies, you would expect it to impact the other because they are in a relationship.

Spot on!!!

The problem is that dualism is unfalsifiable. No matter what evidence is brought forward it will be said to be consistent with dualism. If all evidence is consistent with dualism, then no evidence is consistent with dualism. It is simply a belief.

Well materialism would falsify Dualism. Are you admitting that materialism carries no weight? Cause if you believe materialism you should already believe that Dualism is falsified.

The difference is that I have observable evidence that my parents are individual beings independent of each other. I have yet to see anyone reference an observation of consciousness independent of the brain.

You've never heard of gods? Spirits? Ghosts? NDEs, OBEs, etc? I find the correlation between materialism and unfamiliarity with other positions quite worrying.

They are separate human beings. I can observe both of them as separate organisms. Where is the same observation for consciousness and the brain?

So if your mom dies, cheats, gets cancer, or runs away forever, it will have no impact on your dad in ant way, shape, or form?

It wouldn't appear to be a logical concept, either. This supposed immaterial consciousness is given whatever attributes are needed in order to produce what we see without first establishing that the immaterial consciousness has those properties. It appears to be nothing more than assuming the immaterial is real, or just assuming the conclusion is true.

Well we just look at the properties it has. When I think it doesn't take up more space in the room, my love for my SO cannot be measured, my "perfect place" I use in meditation cannot be seen by others... It's up to YOU the Materialist to show that these things actually do reduce to matter.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

I could literally repeat a millions times how this fits Dualism and at this point I can safely say you still wouldn't understand.

The problem is that you can't describe a potential observation that would not fit dualism. Dualism is unfalsifiable and therefore can't be evidenced. It is simply a belief.

You REALLY think that when you destroy a radio you destroy the radio waves? That if you damage your TV you damage the stations?

Can I have my radio drink half a fifth of Jack Daniels and observe that the DJ on the radio has lowered inhibitions?

Are you under the impression that Dualism has no interaction between mind and brain?

Where is the evidence that this interaction actually occurs?

You are independent of your mother right? Does that mean you somehow are supposed to have no connection to each other?

I can evidence that both my mother and I exist independently of each other. Can you do the same for consciousness and the brain?

Well materialism would falsify Dualism. Are you admitting that materialism carries no weight? Cause if you believe materialism you should already believe that Dualism is falsified.

What observation, if made, would falsify dualism?

You've never heard of gods? Spirits? Ghosts? NDEs, OBEs, etc? I find the correlation between materialism and unfamiliarity with other positions quite worrying.

Where is the evidence that any of these are real and come from an immaterial source?

Well we just look at the properties it has. When I think it doesn't take up more space in the room, my love for my SO cannot be measured, my "perfect place" I use in meditation cannot be seen by others... It's up to YOU the Materialist to show that these things actually do reduce to matter.

False. You are now shifting the burden of proof which is a logical fallacy. You made the claim that the consciousness is immaterial and independent of the brain. Therefore, the burden of proof lies with you to supply evidence for this claim.

 

[blü 2]

how two independent substances manage to interact at all if they are so entirely different from one another. The solution to this is simply to understand that the two substances are not wholly independent.

You're saying that the material can be shown to interact with the immaterial, yes?

First, it's necessary to demonstrate that the 'immaterial' can be distinguished objectively from the imaginary. This can't be done, as far as I'm aware, and accordingly it's a central problem for the immaterial.

Second, if the immaterial can interact with the material then we'll observe that as events in reality that are uncaused but purposeful (distinguishing them from quantum randomness). I take it these events must occur in the brain. If immaterialism is to gain any credibility, its proponents need to bring credible evidence of this kind to the table.

Put another way, everything is understood as interconnected, rather than totally independent and isolated; the various substances don't reduce down to each other either.

That will only become sayable after the reality of the 'immaterial' is established. Presently there's no evidence for it at all that's satisfactory to reasoned enquiry.

 

[1137]

The problem is that you can't describe a potential observation that would not fit dualism. Dualism is unfalsifiable and therefore can't be evidenced. It is simply a belief.

It can be falsified by materialism. Once again I must ask if you don't think materialism is more supported than Dualism, why do you believe materialism? If Dualism isn't falsified by materialism why believe the latter? I just can't imagine having a position that can't show why it's true and others aren't, so help me out.

Can I have my radio drink half a fifth of Jack Daniels and observe that the DJ on the radio has lowered inhibitions?

.... Your radio drinks???

Where is the evidence that this interaction actually occurs?

Is that a joke? Aren't you the one who's been repeatedly pointing out doing something to the brain affects the mind? Do you not know what "interaction" means?

Google definition: "reciprocal action or influence."

Google definition reciprocal: "given, felt, or done in return."

Google definition influence: "the capacity to have an effect on the character, development, or behavior of someone or something, or the effect itself."

I can evidence that both my mother and I exist independently of each other. Can you do the same for consciousness and the brain?

Really, so if something bad happened to you, like an illness or suicide, do you think it would have no impact on your mother? Do you REALLY not understand how separate things influence each other?

What observation, if made, would falsify dualism?

A mechanism of how Consciousness arises, a refutation of the law of identity, a refutation of the law of consciousness, showing that mental events have the same properties as matter... Literally anything.

Where is the evidence that any of these are real and come from an immaterial source?

Even if I pointed to you towards it you would just throw a fit telling me that it's somehow against philosophy to link or reference things, so what's the point?

False. You are now shifting the burden of proof which is a logical fallacy. You made the claim that the consciousness is immaterial and independent of the brain. Therefore, the burden of proof lies with you to supply evidence for this claim.

You have literally no idea what you're talking about. The BoP does indeed start with me. I supported it by explaining:

"Well we just look at the properties it has. When I think it doesn't take up more space in the room, my love for my SO cannot be measured, my "perfect place" I use in meditation cannot be seen by others... It's up to YOU the Materialist to show that these things actually do reduce to matter."

Don't you dare try telling me observation isn't valid haha. If you want to reject it then you need reasons to. This pathetic idea that the burden of proof is ALWAYS on the same person needs to go away, and belongs solely to New Atheism and Materialism. Guess what, in a debate you're going to need to support your position as well, this is why the BoP is kinda silly because it's led to you and your peers thinking you can have a valid position without support for it lol.

 

[blü 2]

@1137, old friend, it seems to me you're not doing so well here, taking to silence or defensive mocking instead of making reasoned replies that address the problems of the immaterial.

For the immaterial to be part of reality, we have to be able to distinguish it from the imaginary, don't we?

How are we going to do that?

For the immaterial to be part of reality, there must be evidence of it in reality, and there simply isn't, no?

For the immaterial to be a real part of human mentation, we must encounter detectable phenomena attributable to it as we watch brains working in real time, must we not?

And we see nothing of the kind, correct?

If you're unable to address these questions then your jibe of fideism and your purported consequent laughter don't have any basis, do they?

 

[Desert Snake]

You're saying that the material can be shown to interact with the immaterial, yes?

First, it's necessary to demonstrate that the 'immaterial' can be distinguished objectively from the imaginary. This can't be done, as far as I'm aware, and accordingly it's a central problem for the immaterial.

Second, if the immaterial can interact with the material then we'll observe that as events in reality that are uncaused but purposeful (distinguishing them from quantum randomness). I take it these events must occur in the brain. If immaterialism is to gain any credibility, its proponents need to bring credible evidence of this kind to the table.
That will only become sayable after the reality of the 'immaterial' is established. Presently there's no evidence for it at all that's satisfactory to reasoned enquiry.

Good argument, blu 2!

 

[Desert Snake]

What is materialism? It is known as other things like material reductionism and physicalism among others. It is the view that only one substance exists – matter – and that all reduces to matter. This is a faith-based position that is spreading wildly through the West as a reaction to oppressive Western religions. It is philosophically unsound and has no supporting evidence. Let at look at this.

1) The “evidence” for materialism is that doing something to the brain effects how consciousness comes through. Take a drug or a hammer to your head and you may start slurring, seeing things, hearing things, stumbling, etc. This is not evidence of materialism because it is also expected in more supported positions such as dualism and idealism, as we will see. It is the only support that materialism has presented thus far in its favor and it does not even actually suggest materialism itself. We will look at this more below.

2) The Law of Identity is the most basic and foundational law of logic and states that things with different properties cannot be identical – “A is A and not Non-A”. The material and conscious worlds have entirely different properties, including but not limited to (respectively); being spacial vs. not taking up space, being objective and being subjective, being universally accessible and being wholly private, and many more. We can illustrate this by looking at a brain, having others see it as well, and measuring the space taken up by the brain. Now imagine your fantasy man/woman standing in the room before you. Does she take up space? Can others see her? Are the traits that make her “perfect” objective? Of course not, because matter and consciousness have different properties, and so thinking matter causes the mind is a violation of the most basic logic.

3) Our own conscious experience is the one thing we know directly, and everything else we know of depends on us being conscious beings. This includes matter. So to reduce consciousness to matter reduces the one thing we know with certainty to something that we know through it. This is unreasonable.

4) Things like cognitive science prove the mind can override the brain. Self-regulation, internal coping skills, bio-feedback, meditation – all are conscious and willful acts that override the material body. This can be seen such as in a depression patient recognizing a depressed episode coming on and using skills like Self-talk and meditation to keep the episode at bay. This is scientific fact, and once you remove willful engagement from therapy it becomes ineffective. Further, and good psychiatrist will also recommend counseling or various therapies along with the physiology-altering drugs.

5) The mind is actually capable of manipulating nature, even changing it to suit its will. One example of this is in architecture, where complex buildings are created in the mind and then transferred into the objective material universe. Movies or music are another good example as they exist as ideas before they even become “reality”. Medication is another example where we literally change the nature of substances in order to affect our health, such as manipulating the flu to make yearly flu-shots.

6) Materialism also relies on the faith in future discovery. “Maybe one day we will find the mechanism that makes consciousness.” “Maybe one day we will explain how the subjective arises from the objective”. And maybe not. This is blind faith and nothing more.

7) The Upper Paleolithic Revolution was an event in human history that saw the species leap from “just another animal” to a species with higher consciousness. This led to the creation of art, religion, the rise of individuality, the creation of languages, the formations of societies, etc. Everything that let human beings become the dominant species on this planet occurred during the UPR. However, we had already existed as an evolved species for tens of thousands of years before the UPR. Further, this changes seems to have affected the species as a whole over a relatively short amount of time, rather than through the longer-term genetic changes we see with evolution. On top of this, the consciousness that it produced, as we have been discussing, had not only different properties from the natural world but was able to question, manipulate, and go against it. This again shows that consciousness is entirely different from the material world and how it functions.

8 ) Absurdity – in short, materialism leads to philosophical absurdity any way you look at it. For example it pretends to be a skeptical position but relies on the senses and puts what we know aside for what we know through it. This is the exact opposite of skepticism, and skepticism and materialism are mutually exclusive.

Further absurdity is that the only “evidence” for materialism amounts to nothing more than correlations – we may as well also accept the pastafarian position that the decline in pirates causes global warming!

Metaphors that materialism tries to create reduce to absurdity – for example they will say “mind” is what the brain does like “running” is what feet do, that “mind” and “running” have the same properties. Does running not take up space, can it not be seen, heard, felt? Another example is that water is not identical to the atoms which create it, similar to the mind and brain. Yet are both atoms and water not spacial, objective, universally accessible?

Yet another absurd reduction of materialism is again found in the single piece of evidence that doing things to the brain affects consciousness. Sure, maybe this means that materialism is true, but there is no other evidence that materialism is true! It would be like saying “well MAYBE magic leprechauns are the cause of gravity.” Sure that could theoretically explain it, but is that really the most rational way to go about it?

9) Finally, materialism is dangerous. For example we can look at mental and behavioral health and how those are treated. For instance, any good doctor who prescribes medication to address the physiological side of mental illness will also recommend therapy to address the mental side. As talked about above, without willful engagement in such therapy interventions no changes can occur. It would be dangerous to address only the physiological and not the mental aspects of these illnesses. Further, belief that individuals are deterministic machines with no control over their lives would make any kind of mental/behavioral healthwork impossible. Imagine a counselor telling a client to just say “**** it” because they have no control over their problems anyways!

It can also prove dangerous in other aspects of life. The best example of this to date is the Life-Fields of Dr. Harold Burr out of Yale University. Along with dozens of other scientists over decades of time Dr. Burr and company scientifically proved that L-Fields act as blueprints to all physical life. Measurements of these fields could predict cancer, disease, infection, depression, ovulation, prime times of learning information, and much more. But because the findings of Burr, Ravitz, etc. convinced them not only of a creator but of mind/body dualism, teleology of life, and a model to replace materialism, it was inherently written off as pseudo-science by the religion of materialism. Ironically, in the modern day Electric Universe theory is looking promising towards replacing that non-science “science” which has overrun physics, and the hypothesis is currently being tested. We will have to see how materialism reacts to this.

SUMMARY / TLDR

Materialism does not have evidence that supports it specifically and relies on faith in future discovery, it violates the Law of Identity, it puts what we know (consciousness) under what we know through it (matter), the abilities of consciousness go against the material world, consciousness can manipulate and change the material world, what we know about the rise of consciousness doesn’t fit with materialistic evolution as we know it, materialism reduces to absurdity, and materialism is a dangerous faith that puts its own beliefs over objective knowledge which could benefit human beings.

I reject materialism because my understanding of things refutes materialism.

 

[blü 2]

I reject materialism because my understanding of things refutes materialism.

For me, truth is conformity with reality (the 'correspondence' view).

How do you define truth?

 

[Desert Snake]

For me, truth is conformity with reality (the 'correspondence' view).

How do you define truth?

That is part of it, however reality is also our own perception of not only the outside reality, but our proclivities and also, unevidenced beliefs.

Pertaining to materialism, my perception has a lot of non materialism /classic materialism/, inference.

I have a thread somewhere, titled "Pink flamingos prove creationism", in that thread, argumentation for non creationism is based on complete speculation. There is no evidence for it, only suspicion, and theories.

Materialism must be evidenced by materialism, and it simply isn't. No reason to believe it, and it's highly unlikely, by odds, / odds of Creationism are higher than materialism, which is discussed in that thread.

Reality says non materialism.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That is part of it, however reality is also our own perception of not only the outside reality, but our proclivities and also, unevidenced beliefs.

Pertaining to materialism, my perception has a lot of non materialism /classic materialism/, inference.

I have a thread somewhere, titled "Pink flamingos prove creationism", in that thread, argumentation for non creationism is based on complete speculation. There is no evidence for it, only suspicion, and theories.

Materialism must be evidenced by materialism, and it simply isn't. No reason to believe it, and it's highly unlikely, by odds, / odds of Creationism are higher than materialism, which is discussed in that thread.

Reality says non materialism.

I can't recall a more nonsensical post.

I did start a thread on scientific evidence. Perhaps you should check that out.