Gambit
Well-Known Member
Sorry to burst your little materialistic bubble, but dark matter and dark energy have never been scientifically detected.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Is metaphysical naturalism a worldview that is ultimately based on faith?
- Thread starter Gambit
- Start date
Sorry to burst your little materialistic bubble, but dark matter and dark energy have never been scientifically detected.
leibowde84
Veteran Member
Dreams and memories have been shown to exist physically in the brain.
leibowde84
Veteran Member
You mean directly drtected. They have certainly been scientifically detected. We can't see gravity, but it exists nonetheless.
leibowde84
Veteran Member
Not true. They have certainly been scientifically detected. Just not directly.
Gambit
Well-Known Member
I cited documentation to substantiate my claim.
This is a non sequitur. Did you even bother to read my previous post?
Gambit
Well-Known Member
Do you not understand what a hypothesis is?
Gambit
Well-Known Member
It is theoretically impossible to objectively observe something that is inherently subjective. No more commentary is necessary.
prometheus11
Well-Known Member
Gambit, don't be silly. Brain surgery, strokes, brain damage, neuroscience, neurosurgery all point to the brain as the machine that produces all thought.
It's why you'd rather have a serious injury anywhere else than in the brain.
It's hard to believe you ignore such obvious evidence. You might as well be arguing that rocks are conscious and that thoughts are generated in your kneecaps. Silliness.
It's why you'd rather have a serious injury anywhere else than in the brain.
It's hard to believe you ignore such obvious evidence. You might as well be arguing that rocks are conscious and that thoughts are generated in your kneecaps. Silliness.
prometheus11
Well-Known Member
Yes, dark matter and dark energy are as detectable as gravity. All three occur at every point in the universe at every moment of time. Don't be retarded.
vaguelyhumanoid
Active Member
What about direct religious or otherwise paranormal experiences? Also, different species have different sensory perception, especially when it comes to color. Even some humans vary greatly in perception from the standard. Who's to say which mode of sensory experience is objectively "real"?
So evidently you are cognizant of the fact the energy does not qualify as "physical" according to your definition (#67: "'Physical' applies to anything that is perceived through the senses and/or is not intellectual or spiritual.") You have obviously refuted the thesis that you said the materialist believes, that reality consists of "nothing but" that which is "physical". (#64: "the 'materialist' merely believes that only things of a or related to a physical nature exist.")
Moreover, in #64 you indicated that "subjective experience" does not "fit" within the definition of those things that the materialist believes to solely exist.
Whether you recognized it or not, you couldn't have done a better job of repudiating materialism if someone had paid you.
This is from someone who has already acknowledged that the findings and theories of modern physics include the reality of phenomena that are non-physical?
If you don't recognize that you are contradicting yourself by saying, on that one hand, that non-physical phenomena exists and is causal, and, on the other hand, claiming that "there is zero evidence contrary to materialism," please say so, and I promise I will help you understand that contradiction.
Sheesh!
prometheus11
Well-Known Member
And I told you then and there that I didn't get hung up on the term. It was your hang up.
We agreed on those forces that are real. You're not arguing with me, you're arguing with your imagination, just like you did the last time we conversed, until I explained how we agreed. Must I do that, now, again?
Because I will. You're worth it.
We agreed on those forces that are real. You're not arguing with me, you're arguing with your imagination, just like you did the last time we conversed, until I explained how we agreed. Must I do that, now, again?
Because I will. You're worth it.
I assume that by “grasp,” you mean “understand.” And perhaps you also mean “imagine”?
Right now I can choose to imagine a circle. It’s as though I have a mind’s eye with which I can view my own private circle. I can see an object consisting of a curved line that has no beginning or end--all points on that line would be equidistant from the center point. I can choose to imagine the line to be blue. Or I can choose for it to be red. I can fill in the interior of the circle with the color yellow, and imagine exterior portion to be, say, purple with clouds drifting around. I can even choose to imagine the circle to be on a curved surface rather than a flat plane, so that, from any given perspective, the points on the line would not appear to be equidistant from the center point.
What are the “physical” (your definition) brain components that do all this grasping, understanding and imagining? More importantly, how do these brain components do this grasping, understanding and imagining? And what is the brain component that allows me to manipulate these understanding and imagining brain components willfully? After all, despite there being billions of brain component, there seems to be only one “me” who isn’t in conflict with any other “me” who wants to imagine, say, a green circle or a square at the moment (though the one me is able to imagine those objects willfully, too).
Absent of any scientific evidence and theory that explains how any brain components conspire to produce such a private mental image, and do so at my volition, then I suppose all possibilities are open. Right?
This is the only question I have for you right now: Do you or do you not understand that you are contradicting yourself by saying, on that one hand, that non-physical phenomena exists and is causal, and, on the other hand, claiming that "there is zero evidence contrary to materialism"?
prometheus11
Well-Known Member
Evidently you're not grasping what I've already proven to you
I don't struggle with the terms you find problematic. Real things have physical aspects. To conjecture concerning some strange realm that beyond what is real and affects the physical is an absurd exercise.
The math implied some cool stuff that's sorts fun to consider, but it's merely informed conjecture.
I've never seen somebody so ready for a fight as you, though. Feisty. What's your rush?
I don't struggle with the terms you find problematic. Real things have physical aspects. To conjecture concerning some strange realm that beyond what is real and affects the physical is an absurd exercise.
The math implied some cool stuff that's sorts fun to consider, but it's merely informed conjecture.
I've never seen somebody so ready for a fight as you, though. Feisty. What's your rush?
Jumi
Well-Known Member
That's a strange way of looking at it.
prometheus11
Well-Known Member
As to you striving with the idea of consciousness, it just doesn't bother me. Daniel Dennet has done some work, but it seems obvious to me that it's an artifact of the neural net. I thought must people understood that idea as fact. How many people are out there seriously considering that "the mind" or "the soul" is some mystical thing separate from the physical neurons? I mean, it makes for a convenient (albeit absurdly sloppy) argument for metaphysics on some back water Internet forum, but there's not people out there who seriously believe that "they" are something more than the electric fields generated by neuron synapses, are there? Not really.
prometheus11
Well-Known Member
