Is metaphysical naturalism a worldview that is ultimately based on faith?

[Gambit]

Gambit, what do you mean by "non sensory perception? "

And what does that have to do with maths?

We must perceive mathematical abstractions (e.g. points, lines, triangles, circles, etc.) in order to perform math. Perceiving these abstractions is not based on the senses because they are nonphysical or immaterial.

 

[Gambit]

What do you mean by non-sensory perception? Just imaging things in your head?

We perceive mathematical abstractions which are nonphysical and therefore nonsensible.

 

[Gambit]

Did you miss where it says that it can be detected via it's gravitational effects? Those effects are an example of the evidence supporting the existence of Dark Matter.

Those gravitational effects serve as the basis to INFER the existence of dark matter. But science has never directly observe dark matter. That's why it's only hypothetical. To reiterate: We can infer the existence of God based on the fact that we live in a world of contingent beings. Be we cannot scientifically validate God's existence. And for the atheist to demand that we must in order to justify such a belief is ridiculous.

 

[leibowde84]

In your opinion, what exactly is it that materialism or "metaphysical naturalism" asserts to be the "empirically verified" stuff of which nothing else exists?

I asked the question about "natural principles" and how one tests the hypothesis that a principle is "natural" as opposed to "non-natural". I really don't understand what is being asserted by the term "natural principle" as the solely existing thing. My God, "natural" is a food labeling term that the FDA cannot even define.

Do you agree that the definition of "materialism" given in post #7, which asserts that matter (and its motions) is the sole existing thing, is a thesis that has been refuted by modern physics?

I think that the definition in post #7 is extremely misleading and lacking. Here is what I get from Merriam Webster:

Materialism:
(philosophy) the belief that only material things exist.

Material:
a : being of a physical or worldly nature
b : relating to or concerned with physical rather than spiritual or intellectual things

Thus, the "materialist" merely believes that only things of a or related to a physical nature exist. We have yet to find anything that doesn't fit into that, supported by verifiable evidence beyond mere subjective experience.

 

[Nous]

I think that the definition in post #7 is extremely misleading and lacking. Here is what I get from Merriam Webster:

Materialism:
(philosophy) the belief that only material things exist.

Material:
a : being of a physical or worldly nature
b : relating to or concerned with physical rather than spiritual or intellectual things

Thus, the "materialist" merely believes that only things of a or related to a physical nature exist.

Define "physical". (Unlike the term "matter," "physical" isn't an adjective than any science needs or defines.)

We have yet to find anything that doesn't fit into that, supported by verifiable evidence beyond mere subjective experience.

On another of Gambit's recent threads (on nonlocality and entanglement), Prometheus said just the opposite. I agree with him (using his definition, which was a non-vacuous definition).

 

[leibowde84]

Those gravitational effects serve as the basis to INFER the existence of dark matter. But science has never directly observe dark matter. That's why it's only hypothetical. To reiterate: We can infer the existence of God based on the fact that we live in a world of contingent beings. Be we cannot scientifically validate God's existence. And for the atheist to demand that we must in order to justify such a belief is ridiculous.

So, then you admit that there is evidence to support the existence of dark matter, even though dark matter cannot be directly observed? Because the article clearly states that this is the case.

On the other hand, my real issue with you relating this to the existence of God is that there is no evidence that we can infer the existence of God from. You say that because we are contingent beings, we can infer God's existence, but that is a GIGANTIC UNSUBSTANTIATED ASSUMPTION. It is merely circular reasoning, assuming your conclusion in your premise. You have to prove, independently, that we are contingent beings. If that is done, I agree that God could be inferred, but you have failed to even begin your work supporting your claim that we are, in fact, contingent beings.

So, can you provide your argument for why you think we are "contingent beings"?

 

[leibowde84]

Define "physical". (Unlike the term "matter," "physical" isn't an adjective than any science needs or defines.)

On another of Gambit's recent threads (on nonlocality and entanglement), Prometheus said just the opposite. I agree with him (using his definition, which was a non-vacuous definition).

Something that theists tend to do is define materialism incorrectly. Obviously it isn't confined to only matter, as that would be absurd. Energy isn't even matter, which certainly exists in reality. The materialist believes that all of reality is material. "Physical" applies to anything that is perceived through the senses and/or is not intellectual or spiritual.

 

[Gambit]

So, then you admit that there is evidence to support the existence of dark matter, even though dark matter cannot be directly observed?

Yes, just as there is evidence to support the existence of God even though God cannot be directly observed.

So, can you provide your argument for why you think we are "contingent beings"?

Everything that comes into existence is a contingent being.

 

[Gambit]

"Physical" applies to anything that is perceived through the senses and/or is not intellectual or spiritual.

We can perceive a mathematical abstraction (e.g. a circle) that clearly is not physical. Therefore, we can say definitively conclude that materialism is a false worldview.

 

[Nous]

"Physical" applies to anything that is perceived through the senses and/or is not intellectual or spiritual.

No one has ever seen or touched energy (the quantity defined as mass times the speed of light squared). So, either energy doesn't exist, or non-physical phenomena exist. Right?

 

[leibowde84]

Everything that comes into existence is a contingent being.

That is only if you assume a creator. Again, this is circular reasoning. Can you support this claim?

 

[leibowde84]

We can perceive a mathematical abstraction (e.g. a circle) that clearly is not physical. Therefore, we can say definitively conclude that materialism is a false worldview.

That is a mere misunderstanding of the term. The materialist would say that perception is explained by brain activity that is physical. It's not as if they don't believe in imagination. They just think that it is happening physically in the brain.

 

[leibowde84]

No one has ever seen or touched energy (the quantity defined as mass times the speed of light squared). So, either energy doesn't exist, or non-physical phenomena exist. Right?

No, energy is not intellectual nor is it spiritual. And, the effects of it can be observed. It isn't limited to direct observation.

 

[Gambit]

That is a mere misunderstanding of the term. The materialist would say that perception is explained by brain activity that is physical. It's not as if they don't believe in imagination. They just think that it is happening physically in the brain.

Several points:

- We cannot imagine a mathematical abstraction in our mind's eye because we cannot make an image of an abstraction. (There are no perfect circles in our mind's eye for the same reason there are no perfect circles in nature.)

- While the brain may be physical, the mind is definitely not. We cannot directly observe consciousness. The only basis we have for affirming that anything is physical is that it must be objectively detected by the senses (whether it is detected directly or indirectly). Therefore, the evidence accorded to us by our first-person perspective clearly demonstrates that materialism is false.

- Contemporary physics does not support materialism. Materialism has been invalidated by the theory of relativity and quantum mechanics.

- Materialism is a worldview that is based on faith - faith as the atheist defines the term....belief in something despite evidence to the contrary.

 

[Gambit]

That is only if you assume a creator. Again, this is circular reasoning. Can you support this claim?

Every particle is "popping in and out of existence." There are no exceptions. (This is according to contemporary physics.)

 

[prometheus11]

Bull hockey.

The brain can grasp abstractions just like it can conceive of fairies and gods.

Not proof of something nonmaterial at all. How preposterous.

There is ZERO evidence that "the mind" is nonmaterial and there is ZERO evidence contrary to materialism.

 

[prometheus11]

Dark matter and dark energy are proved by their measurable, constant, ubiquitous effects. They DEMONSTRABLY act EVERYWHERE at every point in the universe. We gave them names because we had to name these constant effects.

Not so with God. At all. Duh.

 

[leibowde84]

One at a time ... this is nonsensical.

- While the brain may be physical, the mind is definitely not. We cannot directly observe consciousness. The only basis we have for affirming

You keep on arguing from ignorance, using our current lack of scientific understanding re: consciousness to support the claim that it isn't something that can be explained in the brain/nervous system. It is logically flawed.

Because our current scientific understanding is so young, it is absurd to claim that if we don't have an explanation now, we never will.

 

[Gambit]

There is ZERO evidence that "the mind" is nonmaterial and there is ZERO evidence contrary to materialism.

There is ZERO evidence that the mind is physical. To quote one of your fellow atheists: "Physical applies to anything that is perceived through the senses"

It is clear that you cannot perceive my mind through your senses (or vice versa, I cannot perceive your mind through my senses). Therefore, it follows that the mind is not physical. In fact, there is no scientific evidence that consciousness exists.

 

[leibowde84]

Every particle is "popping in and out of existence." There are no exceptions. (This is according to contemporary physics.)

That's not true. We now know how memories are formed and strengthened in the brain.