Evidence for God from Science

RickD wrote:

Nils wrote:
I have to clarify. A materialistic world-view should, to be coherent, be able to explain everything in the world. But it is not required that it explains how the world came into existence. That question is outside the scope of materialism and in that sense there is no need for an answer. But my world-view includes the existence question and therefore the question is important to me

Isn't that self-defeating?

If one who holds to a materialistic world-view admits that something is outside the scope of materialism, then how can materialism hold water?

I have never seen a discussion on this subject but I see it as reasonable to say that materialism/physicalism applies to our universe, a universe that we can describe using physics, that we can get evidence about by physical methods and try to bring order to using physical laws. That /what created our universe we have as far as I know no evidence about and therefore we can't apply physical methods. It seems to be outside the physical realm and discussions about it are metaphysical, at least currently.

Whatever you think of my discussion above I don't think it will influence the validity or consistence of a materialistic universe.

Nils

Kurieuo wrote:Nils, also I haven't overlooked your post. I'm short of time lately, but I appreciate anyone opposite to my position who does try take up the challenge to justify their view of the foundational nature of reality.

Kurieuo, no problem, take your time. I am rather slow in answering myself.

I'm not sure what reasons were offered that swing you towards Materialism/Physicalism (which we might use interchangeably), but right now I've just skimmed your post and will examine your words more closely when responding.

You are right, I have not given any reasons for my worldview, I could argue at length about these (my 28 arguments that I mentioned in another thread), but now I would rather discuss what you brought up in your OP, the challenge to an atheist. But to make it completely clear, I don't think that it ever will be possible to prove or disprove theism or atheism.

What we may discuss are "the inmaterial aspects found in the world", aspects that according to my view are emerging properties in a materialistic, and even deterministic world. (Even if I don't think our world is deterministic). Aspects as consciousness, decision making, moral responsibility and love.

Nils

Nils wrote:

RickD wrote:

Nils wrote:
I have to clarify. A materialistic world-view should, to be coherent, be able to explain everything in the world. But it is not required that it explains how the world came into existence. That question is outside the scope of materialism and in that sense there is no need for an answer. But my world-view includes the existence question and therefore the question is important to me

Isn't that self-defeating?

If one who holds to a materialistic world-view admits that something is outside the scope of materialism, then how can materialism hold water?

I have never seen a discussion on this subject but I see it as reasonable to say that materialism/physicalism applies to our universe, a universe that we can describe using physics, that we can get evidence about by physical methods and try to bring order to using physical laws. That /what created our universe we have as far as I know no evidence about and therefore we can't apply physical methods. It seems to be outside the physical realm and discussions about it are metaphysical, at least currently.

Whatever you think of my discussion above I don't think it will influence the validity or consistence of a materialistic universe.

Nils

I guess I misunderstood what you meant by, "materialistic world-view". Whenever I've heard anyone talk about having a materialistic world-view, they are saying that materialism is all that is.

I'm glad you acknowledge the possibility of what I think is obvious. There is something more than materialism.

RickD wrote:

Nils wrote:

RickD wrote:

Nils wrote:
I have to clarify. A materialistic world-view should, to be coherent, be able to explain everything in the world. But it is not required that it explains how the world came into existence. That question is outside the scope of materialism and in that sense there is no need for an answer. But my world-view includes the existence question and therefore the question is important to me

Isn't that self-defeating?

If one who holds to a materialistic world-view admits that something is outside the scope of materialism, then how can materialism hold water?

I have never seen a discussion on this subject but I see it as reasonable to say that materialism/physicalism applies to our universe, a universe that we can describe using physics, that we can get evidence about by physical methods and try to bring order to using physical laws. That /what created our universe we have as far as I know no evidence about and therefore we can't apply physical methods. It seems to be outside the physical realm and discussions about it are metaphysical, at least currently.

Whatever you think of my discussion above I don't think it will influence the validity or consistence of a materialistic universe.

Nils

I guess I misunderstood what you meant by, "materialistic world-view". Whenever I've heard anyone talk about having a materialistic world-view, they are saying that materialism is all that is.

I'm glad you acknowledge the possibility of what I think is obvious. There is something more than materialism.

I would not say that there is more than materialism. I say that there is only materialism in our world, i.e. our universe. If there is some entity that created our universe we probably will never know what it is. To me it is meaningless to say that this entity is materialistic or not. Therefore I don't say that "there is something more than materialism". Even to say that it is possible that there is something more than materialism sounds wrong to me if you don't mean the trivial, that we don't know everything and will never know.

Nils

If there is only materialism then where do abstract thoughts fit in?

PaulSacramento wrote:If there is only materialism then where do abstract thoughts fit in?

Abstract thoughts only exist in your head, they are figments of your imagination; they don't have an actual existence.

Ken

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:If there is only materialism then where do abstract thoughts fit in?

Abstract thoughts only exist in your head, they are figments of your imagination; they don't have an actual existence.

Ken

Thoughts don't exist ??

PaulSacramento wrote:

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:If there is only materialism then where do abstract thoughts fit in?

Abstract thoughts only exist in your head, they are figments of your imagination; they don't have an actual existence.

Ken

Thoughts don't exist ??

As I said; they only exist as a figment of your imagination.

Ken

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:If there is only materialism then where do abstract thoughts fit in?

Abstract thoughts only exist in your head, they are figments of your imagination; they don't have an actual existence.

Ken

Thoughts don't exist ??

As I said; they only exist as a figment of your imagination.

Ken

Then How exactly does imagination exist in a materialistic world?

PaulSacramento wrote:If there is only materialism then where do abstract thoughts fit in?

I am not sure about what you mean by "abstract" thoughts. Are there abstract thoughts and other thougths?

Generallly, I think that thoughts supervene on the material in the same way execution of algorithms supervenes on silicon in computers.

Nils

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:If there is only materialism then where do abstract thoughts fit in?

Abstract thoughts only exist in your head, they are figments of your imagination; they don't have an actual existence.

Ken

Thoughts don't exist ??

As I said; they only exist as a figment of your imagination.

Ken

And my imagination, since it isn't material, doesn't exist either?

RickD wrote:

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:If there is only materialism then where do abstract thoughts fit in?

Abstract thoughts only exist in your head, they are figments of your imagination; they don't have an actual existence.

Ken

Thoughts don't exist ??

As I said; they only exist as a figment of your imagination.

Ken

Then How exactly does imagination exist in a materialistic world?

Imagination exist only in the context of human thought. They don't have an existence by themselves.

K

PaulSacramento wrote:

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:If there is only materialism then where do abstract thoughts fit in?

Abstract thoughts only exist in your head, they are figments of your imagination; they don't have an actual existence.

Ken

Thoughts don't exist ??

As I said; they only exist as a figment of your imagination.

Ken

And my imagination, since it isn't material, doesn't exist either?

Your imagination only exists in the context of your thoughts. They are only real to you; nobody else.

Ken

Thoughts only exist in our imagination and our imagination only exist in our thoughts.
Wow..the very definition of circular reasoning.

Is Kenny getting closer to finding God? I think so. There's only so many straws you can grasp before you have to give up on your past grudges and move forward.