Theism vs. Atheism debate

Author: Fallaneze

Posts

Total: 540
#451
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,303
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Fallaneze
Well first, monism isn't necessarily true. 
(IFF) two substances can interact (natural and super-natural or mental and physical) (THEN) they must be fundamentally the same.

(IFF) two substances can NOT interact (natural and super-natural or mental and physical) (THEN) they must be UNDETECTABLE to each other.

(THEREFORE) de facto monism is necessarily true.

Second, we have evidence of a mental reality and no evidence of a non-mental reality. So why is physicalism a better explanation than idealism when idealism is evidenced by a mental reality whereas physicalism, which posits a non-mental reality, has no evidence whatsoever?
We have evidence that our "mental reality" is shockingly incomplete.

We can deductively reason that noumenon is a logical necessity.

We can also logically deduce that we can't say much about noumenon except that it is non-infinite and is likely composed of some portion of unknown and some portion of unknowable features.
#452
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
I speak of what I know.

The godless are confused by their own reasonings.

#453
mustardness
mustardness's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,979
2
2
3
mustardness's avatar
mustardness
2
2
3
-->
@3RU7AL
(IFF) two substances can interact (natural and super-natural or mental and physical) (THEN) they must be fundamentally the same.
Its called gravity { weakest force } at a minimum aka mass-attraction and know one knows how, or why it exists.  We only know that if it did not exist, Uni-V-erse would not exist.

We can also logically deduce that we can't say much about noumenon except that it is non-infinite....
Aka eternally existent, finite, occupied space Uni-V-erse.

....and is likely composed of some portion of unknown and some portion of unknowable features.
Virutal particles are deemed knowable indirectly via their seeming effects on other particles { occupied space } or so some say.
...photons in a similar way via changes in electrons energy level gains or losses.....

Speculated by myself as positive-geodesic-space (  ) aka Gravity, is deemed knowable via rational, logical common sense that humans do not fly off into space from Earths spinning.

Speculated by myself as negative-geodesic-space )( aka Dark Energy, is deemed knowable indirectly via a cosmological constant  effect wherein most galaxies ---or cluster of galaxies--  going away from each other at accelerating speeds.

Yes humans are not born with infinite knoledge. They have only gradually become aware of various kinds of occupied space and the metaphysical-1 attributes that complement them ex shape/geomery { math } and other more abstract mathematics.

#454
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,303
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@mustardness
I saw this the other day and thought you might find it interesting, [LINK]
#455
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Fallaneze
@3RU7AL

(IFF) two substances can interact (natural and super-natural or mental and physical) (THEN) they must be fundamentally the same.


The Uncreated and the created are two distinct physis (or natures as often translated into English). They are not the same. To say they are the same is monophysitism.

The Orthodox Catholic Church recognizes monophysitism as a heresy, and thus not orthodox(orthodox meaning correct belief).






#456
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@3RU7AL
We can also logically deduce that we can't say much about noumenon except that it is non-infinite and is likely composed of some portion of unknown and some portion of unknowable features.

We can say without a doubt that noumenon is not God, because God is not a mental object.
#457
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,303
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Mopac
The Orthodox Catholic Church recognizes monophysitism as a heresy, and thus not orthodox(orthodox meaning correct belief).
Your "orthodoxy" is logically incoherent.
#458
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,303
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Mopac
We can say without a doubt that noumenon is not God, because God is not a mental object.
Please explain how you can possibly know if your hypothetical god is a "mental object" or not.
#459
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@Mopac
@3RU7AL
I am not sure you two agree what 'noumenon' refers to.  

Most of the world uses that word in the Kantian sense, which makes 'noumenon' non-mental by definition.  But I think I recall Mopac objecting to Kant using yhe word incorrectly....
#460
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,569
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
God is real..fact
#461
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,303
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Dr.Franklin
God is real..fact
Please explain.
#462
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,569
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@3RU7AL
Why is life so complicated..Coincidence. I think not!
#463
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@3RU7AL
3ru7al, it is not currently possible for you to find the coherence in what I believe because the faith is constructed in such a way as to be shut off from those who are in a certain frame of mind. You are confounded, but not because what I believe is incoherent.

I have spoken to you at such a length that you should already have the answers to your questions. You will not believe what I say, so how is me explaining again going to be different?

The issue here is that western philosophy evolved as an attempt to undermine Christianity. That being the case, it is impossible for you to have a true understanding while holding on to this philosophy.


#464
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,303
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Mopac
3ru7al, it is not currently possible for you to find the coherence in what I believe because the faith is constructed in such a way as to be shut off from those who are in a certain frame of mind. You are confounded, but not because what I believe is incoherent.
(IFF) you are unable to explain your position without appeals to "special pleading" (THEN) your position is de facto incoherent.
#465
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@keithprosser
Yes, noumenon is a Greek word, not a German word.


Noumenon literally means a manifestation of the mind.



This is actually consistent if you understand that "Rationalistic scientism" or whatever you want to call it only has to do with things that are known. Things that are unknown might as well not exist! 

It is effectively making a god of one's understanding.



Topic's author
#466
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
-->
@3RU7AL
Something is "necessarily true" if the alternative is inconceivable. Dualism is conceivable. Therefore, monism isn't necessarily true.

You mean to say that dualism is logically incoherent because of the interaction problem, not that it's logically impossible. 

Why can't two fundamentally different substances interact? Doesn't the physical universe operature under certain abstract parameters? Is the physica universe not interacting with these abstract parameters (such as math and logic)?

#467
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,303
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Fallaneze
Something is "necessarily true" if the alternative is inconceivable. Dualism is conceivable. Therefore, monism isn't necessarily true.
Something is "necessarily true" if the alternative is incoherent.  Dualism is incoherent.  Therefore, monism is necessarily true.
#468
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@3RU7AL
Instead of dismissing what I say because I present no reasoning, you should instead me explain.


It is a fallacy misidentification too accuse me of special pleading because I recognize that The Uncreated is of a different physis than created.

#469
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,303
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Fallaneze
You mean to say that dualism is logically incoherent because of the interaction problem, not that it's logically impossible. 
It's logically impossible to confirm a dualistic universe.

It's logically impossible to interact with more than one fundamental substance.

De facto Monism is true in every possible universe.

A dualistic universe is FUNCTIONALLY IDENTICAL to monism.

Dualism is the refuge of ghosts gods and goblins.  (IFF) ghost gods and goblins CANNOT interact with us, then the hypothesis is MOOT.
#470
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,303
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Mopac
It is a fallacy misidentification too accuse me of special pleading because I recognize that The Uncreated is of a different physis than created.
That is the very definition of "special pleading".
#471
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@3RU7AL
There is no fallacy, so you are misidentifying a fallacy.

Examples of Special Pleading:

1. Students who break the rules should be suspended from school. I broke a rule, but I shouldn't be suspended because I would be in a lot of trouble with my parents.

2. Katie and Mark are siblings. Their cat, Rusty, has made a mess in the bathroom by clawing the toilet paper and strewing it all over the floor. When they both return home after school, Mark tells Katie that she needs to clean it up because he is too tired to do it after school.

3. Yes, teacher, I think that lying is wrong, but she is my daughter, and she is normally such a good kid!

4. Of course those who aren't productive at work shouldn't get a raise. But, Mr. Boss, I have a family to feed.

5. Everyone should clean up their own messes, but my messy room doesn't bother me. If it bothers you, then you should clean it up.

6. Everyone should be patient and wait his or her turn in line. However, I need to go to the front because I have some place to be.


Not an example of special pleading..

The uncreated and the created have distinct natures.

#472
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,303
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Fallaneze
Why can't two fundamentally different substances interact?
It's like communication.  In order to communicate, you must both have mouths and ears (or eyes and hands for sign language) and speak a similar language or at a minimum have some common experiences.

Doesn't the physical universe operature under certain abstract parameters? Is the physica universe not interacting with these abstract parameters (such as math and logic)?
Yes, and anything fundamentally identical.
#473
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,303
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Mopac
All truth claims must adhere to epistemological limits.

All truth claims must be logically coherent.

All truth claim must be comprehensible.

EXCEPT FOR THE FOLLOWING SPECIAL CASE:

The uncreated and the created have distinct natures.
#474
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,303
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@keithprosser
Of course I could be dreaming now...  but life is a bit short to bother with every fanciful idea there is - I don't have much interest in idealism.
I believe I'm advocating for "instrumentalism" which treats things beyond our epistemological limits as a "black box".
#475
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@3RU7AL
You are mocking because you are too lazy to confirm the veracity of this, not because you are saying anything insightful.


Fallacy misidentification.
#476
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,303
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Mopac
All truth claims must adhere to epistemological limits.

All truth claims must be logically coherent.

All truth claim must be comprehensible.

EXCEPT FOR THE FOLLOWING SPECIAL CASE:

The uncreated and the created have distinct natures. 
#477
mustardness
mustardness's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,979
2
2
3
mustardness's avatar
mustardness
2
2
3
-->
@3RU7AL
Mopac---The uncreated and the created have distinct natures.
The uncreated does not exist ergo has no nature and at best is metaphysical-1 mind/intellect/concept ex a biologic/soul unicorn only exists as a metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concept.

#478
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@3RU7AL
There is nothing about this that is logically coherent, comprehensible, or within epistemological limits.

You are simply too lazy to confirm the veracity of this.

#479
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@3RU7AL
You assume there is an exception here, but that is because you are too lazy to confirm the veracity of what I am saying.

But I understand, being someone who takes their understanding as their god, anything you don't understand is automatically unknowable, logically incoherent, and incomprehensible.


This of course reflects more strongly on your hubris than anything, Mr know-it-all.

#480
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,303
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Mopac
You assume there is an exception here, but that is because you are too lazy to confirm the veracity of what I am saying.
Please demonstrate your logic.