07 Nov 06
Originally posted by PawnokeyholeBecause I don't believe there is any evidence to support the supernatural. As such I believe that the natural alternative is likely to be that there are (ever) decreasing sub-levels of natural existence, be they sub-quarkian, strings or some as of yet undiscovered cohesive force.
Why do you think this?
07 Nov 06
Originally posted by StarrmanSure: that's the problem. The initial post hasn't changed in meaning despite a few nit-picking efforts otherwise. And now you come wishing to debate whether or not something clearly not physical actually has physical properties... that just aren't detectable right now. Of course, your diversion has nothing to do with the initial assertion, nor does it pertain to any further explanation. It's just a diversion.
If you can't lay your argument out in one carefully concieved post to start with I am not willing to answer questions I do not understand the impact of and how they fit into the parameters of your argument. If you are going to be obtuse and ill-defined, then fine, keep your debate. I'm done.
That's what's funny about you nay-sayers. When your offer for a fight is taken, you will do anything for forestall the actual contest, including debating what the definition of 'is' is. Sure, it's great for filling a lot of space, but--- in the end--- the stall simply reveals what was there the whole time: you have neither a sound argument for your position nor the temerity to see what you do possess exposed.
07 Nov 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHDo you think all materialism entails mechanicism?
Sure: that's the problem. The initial post hasn't changed in meaning despite a few nit-picking efforts otherwise. And now you come wishing to debate whether or not something clearly not physical actually has physical properties... that just aren't detectable right now. Of course, your diversion has nothing to do with the initial assertion, nor does it p ...[text shortened]... a sound argument for your position nor the temerity to see what you do possess exposed.
07 Nov 06
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBH
And now you come wishing to debate whether or not something clearly not physical actually has physical properties... that just aren't detectable right now.
You asked if I was a materialist. I am, right down to the core of existence, I'm not debating it, I'm telling you what I believe to be the case. If that doesn't match your pre-concieved idea of a materialist, or you aren't willing to entertain the notion of such application in your clearly obtuse argument, then you're begging the question. As such, I have no way of ascertianing what you're aiming at, I'm not diverting anything.
That's what's funny about you nay-sayers. When your offer for a fight is taken, you will do anything for forestall the actual contest, including debating what the definition of 'is' is. Sure, it's great for filling a lot of space, but--- in the end--- the stall simply reveals what was there the whole time: you have neither a sound argument for your position nor the temerity to see what you do possess exposed.
Seriously, you're being ironic, yes? Present your argument in its entirety and stop stalling. Then we won't run into problems of definition, we can merely argue about what it entails.
07 Nov 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHThanks for a very entertaining thread, Freaky. Seeing you claim some sort of 'victory' and pat yourself on the back after confusing most people in the thread with your vague writing was the icing on the cake.
Sure: that's the problem. The initial post hasn't changed in meaning despite a few nit-picking efforts otherwise. And now you come wishing to debate whether or not something clearly not physical actually has physical properties... that just aren't detectable right now. Of course, your diversion has nothing to do with the initial assertion, nor does it p ...[text shortened]... a sound argument for your position nor the temerity to see what you do possess exposed.
07 Nov 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI've read this whole thread again and I only see one person stalling.
Sure: that's the problem. The initial post hasn't changed in meaning despite a few nit-picking efforts otherwise. And now you come wishing to debate whether or not something clearly not physical actually has physical properties... that just aren't detectable right now. Of course, your diversion has nothing to do with the initial assertion, nor does it p ...[text shortened]... a sound argument for your position nor the temerity to see what you do possess exposed.
07 Nov 06
Originally posted by BigDoggProblemI do what I can to entertain. Please forward payments through Paypal only.
Thanks for a very entertaining thread, Freaky. Seeing you claim some sort of 'victory' and pat yourself on the back after confusing most people in the thread with your vague writing was the icing on the cake.
We haven't even got to the argument, so 'victory' is still out of the question. The first phase of the assertion was bogged down not by imprecision in the original statement, but by a few people who wanted to argue the point--- despite the fact that their arguments actually supported the point!
The original statement began with an assertion that the majority position within atheism as it relates to explaining the physical world is one of mechanistic materialism. I asked if that assertion in any way mischaracterized the majority and/or mainstream position, or overlooked any other popularly-held atheistic position. Instead of offering other majority and/or mainstream positions consistent with atheistic explanations for the physical world, several people chimed in with abberant or minority positions.
It's a fairly simple undertaking, really, that should be relatively easy to support with readily available information found on, say, the internet or some such storehouse of information. So easy, in fact, that I offered several popular atheist websites that supported the assertion. Either the majority atheistic explanation for the physical world is mechanistic materialism, or it is something else. If my assertion is inaccurate to any degree which would adversely impact the outcome of the actual argument, then replace my assertion with the view that does characterize the majority atheistic explanation of the physical world.
08 Nov 06
2 edits
Originally posted by FreakyKBHWhat relevance is it what the majority atheist position "as it relates to explaining the physical world"?
I do what I can to entertain. Please forward payments through Paypal only.
We haven't even got to the argument, so 'victory' is still out of the question. The first phase of the assertion was bogged down not by imprecision in the original statement, but by a few people who wanted to argue the point--- despite the fact that their arguments actua th the view that does characterize the majority atheistic explanation of the physical world.
If atheism doesn't imply mechanistic materialism (which it doesn't), then any criticism of mechanistic materialism will not necessarily be a criticism of atheism.
As an aside, why would it be a criticism of a person's belief regarding the existence (or otherwise) of god that that belief did not have some corollary explanation for the existence of the physical world that was both clear and compelling? Perhaps certain questions regarding the origin and existence of the physical world are, as things stand, simply beyond explanation; perhaps there are questions that cannot even be meaningfully asked.
Why should a view about the existence of god be more likely to be true simply because it offers some explanation for the existence of the physical world? What if this explanation turns out to be utterly childish and implausible?
08 Nov 06
Originally posted by dottewellNice to have you back; it seems like it's been awhile.
What relevance is it what the majority atheist position "as it relates to explaining the physical world"?
If atheism doesn't imply mechanistic materialism (which it doesn't), then any criticism of mechanistic materialism will not necessarily be a criticism of atheism.
As an aside, why would it be a criticism of a person's belief regarding the ...[text shortened]... physical world? What if this explanation turns out to be utterly childish and implausible?
The two concepts are being considered simultaneuously, and cannot be extricated from each other. What is being considered is the atheistic explanation for the physical world, not merely the atheistic viewpoint.
08 Nov 06
3 edits
Originally posted by FreakyKBHNot one person raising a voice in protest to the assertion has offered support for their disagreement, other than giving a minority view
[b]I think his grand strategy is simply to bore his opponents to death.
Have I succeeded so soon?
To be fair, my assertion addresses the majority position of atheism, that of mechanistic materialism. While some fringe ideas have been presented here (see bbarr's agnostic stance toward the reality of the physical world, or a stab at perfect random not physical (biological, psychological, sociological, moral) can be.
Any arguments there?[/b]
You think a libertarian account of free will is a minority view??
Perhaps this can be accepted as a working definition of the commitment of the materialist:
1. Causation within the physical order is non-purposive.
2. The physical order is closed, and not influenced by anything outside.
3. All states supervene on physical states, i.e., there is only one way that anything not physical (biological, psychological, sociological, moral) can be.
Gee, I thought the materialist is committed to the metaphysical claim that every thing that actually exists is material. He is not committed to your #1. If I intepret your #2 as saying that all things that exist are physical, or material, things and that all interactions that exist are physical, or material, interactions; then yes I think the materialist is committed to that. In your #3, I don't understand why you are using an "i.e." to connect those two claims because they seem completely unrelated to me. Further, it's not clear to me that the materialist is committed to either claim. I don't think he is committed to the first claim since I don't see how materialism entails that all states must supervene on other states. And saying that the materialist is committed to the second claim doesn't make sense to me since the materialist does not think anything immaterial, or "not physical", exists in the first place.
EDIT: Come to think of it, I don't really understand your #2. I don't really know what you mean by "closed". And "anything outside" is also problematic since the materialist does not think anything exists that is immaterial or not physical. Your #2 reads as though the materialist is committed to the claim that there may be non-physical stuff somewhere but that it does not influence the "physical order" -- he's not committed to that, since materialism is stronger, stating that non-physical stuff does not exist. (I'm using physical and material interchangeably.)
08 Nov 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI'm not back; I'm just playing out three remaining league games.
Nice to have you back; it seems like it's been awhile.
The two concepts are being considered simultaneuously, and cannot be extricated from each other. What is being considered is the atheistic explanation for the physical world, not merely the atheistic viewpoint.
The point is that there can be different atheistic explanations for the physical world, or none. It is simply irrelevant, philosophically, what the "majority" view happens to be. If you are trying to construct some sort of reductio you need to have some sort of relationship of implication between your premises and conclusions/further premises, i.e.
atheism implies mechanical materialism which implies xxx which is absurd.
If you simply have
most atheists believe in mechanical materialism which implies xxx which is absurd
...then you don't have a viable argument (any more than if most atheists happened to believe that 2+2=5).
My further point is that there is no reason to say you can't extricate the two concepts; what you consider "an explanation for the physical world" might be impossible for the atheist to provide. My question is: so what? Why would that make atheism less likely to be true?
Anyway, I'm very tired and going to bed. Fare well.
08 Nov 06
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBHThey're not irrelevant. At best, you are using philosophic terms in esoteric ways that defy convention and confuse your peers. It's not irrelevant to demonstrate that your claims are false under any reasonable interpretation; and to ask that you clarify your position.
It's not techincally a stall if one is delayed by irrelevant arguments.
08 Nov 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI do agree with you the the universe, at the scale at which we inhabit it is mechanistically material.
I do what I can to entertain. Please forward payments through Paypal only.
We haven't even got to the argument, so 'victory' is still out of the question. The first phase of the assertion was bogged down not by imprecision in the original statement, but by a few people who wanted to argue the point--- despite the fact that their arguments actua ...[text shortened]... th the view that does characterize the majority atheistic explanation of the physical world.
