Materialism Vs Theism

Author: EtrnlVw

Posts

Total: 86
#31
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@EtrnlVw
Theism doesn't give unwarranted answers where necessary questions are posed. 

Materialism starts with the assumptions that reality exists and we can learn from it.

Theism assumes reality exists, we can learn from it, and some sort of super-reality exists that can answer all the questions we either haven't figured out yet or answers questions which assume a super-reality to begin with (eg. "why do processes occur?")

Occam favors the former.

#32
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@FLRW
I don't see the relevance of your post regarding Job.
#33
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@SkepticalOne
Occam favors the former.
Occam did not know, nor did his razor, how to obtain information direct from God. Apparently, you do not, either. Sorry. The answer is given by Hebrews 11: 1 [actually, the entire chapter], and James 1: 2 - 5. Scoff if you like, be skeptical if you must, but that is how it is done and it is not rocket science. You might begin with a more positive moniker...
#34
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@FLRW
Such belittling. You leave the the story before it is done. The Lord reminds Job that God is powerful... where you end, but the Lord continues, telling Job to gird up his loins like a man, [don't be a wimp] and tells him to deck himself in majesty and excellence, and to be arrayed with glory and beauty. Never leave such a story midstream.
#35
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@fauxlaw
Occam did not know, nor did his razor, how to obtain information direct from God.
Nor, it seems, does anyone. It's almost as though a god is misleading people with contradictory 'knowledge' or there is no god and people are deluding themselves. 

...Faith is the excuse people use for believing things when they have no evidence. Castigate if you like, believe if you must, but I do not (intentionally) partake in unwarranted belief.

#36
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@SkepticalOne
Didn't read, did you? Ignorance is found in all quarters, but particular where one refuses to see. Argue for your limitations; they're yours, entirely, and no one else's choice. Something like letting someone else decide what to put in your pie hole.
#37
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@fauxlaw
Its important to note, being unable to provide verifiable evidence for a belief does not constitute a "limitation" of non-believers. 

#38
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@SkepticalOne
No, the non-belief is a self-imposed limitation; the worst kind.
#39
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@fauxlaw
No, the non-belief is a self-imposed limitation; the worst kind.
My non-belief is merely the result of insufficient evidence - our beliefs should be apportioned to the evidence.

No favors are being done for theism by berating skeptics (for having an evidentiary standard) rather than...you know..providing verifiable evidence for belief.

#40
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@SkepticalOne
an evidentiary standard
I gave you an evidentiary standard. That you choose to ignore it and remain uninformed is entirely your choice. If you have a plumbing problem, do you go to a grocer? You either get my drift, or you do not. If you want to know God, don't seek the advice of anyone else. Get it? No, apparently not. This is too simple for you, therefore , it is to be ignored. So be it.
#41
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@fauxlaw
That's no standard at all, buddy. People 'go to god' and come away with different and contradictory answers. Surely, even as a believer, you've noticed this.
#42
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@SkepticalOne
That's no standard at all, buddy.
I summarized "go to God," but, what I told you in full earlier was James 1: 2 - 6, which you "Didn't read, did you? Ignorance is found in all quarters..."

2 My brethren, count it all joy when ye fall into diverse temptations;
3 Knowing this, that the trying of your faith worketh patience.
4 But let patience have her perfect work, that ye may be perfected and entire, wanting nothing.
5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.
6 But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed.

THAT is a standard, and it is a little more than a lackadaisical "go to God." Few can do it, because most, like you, cannot get past being patient. You want it right now, and if it doesn't hit you over the head, it did hit you at all. Further, you cannot be skeptical. Ask in faith, nothing wavering. It is almost miraculous, but you cannot expect a miracle up front. Miracles do not cause faith; they follow faith, but you do not have time for that, do you, buddy?
#43
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@fauxlaw
I was a Christian for ~35 years. Exactly how much patience do you think is necessary? I stopped believing because (just like you) I could not substantiate my belief with verifiable evidence. Its not my (or anyone else's) fault theism has to be taken on faith - which isn't a pathway to knowledge. Theism is simply a weakly evidenced position propped up by a tradition of emotionality.

Name any position which can't be held "on faith" - there isn't one. Absolutely anything can be believed if 'faith' is the only prerequisite. You'll need to do better than that if you mean to sway others with rational argumentation.


#44
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
Faith is one pathway to self knowledge.  Not sure what verifiable evidence that produces. Almost any relationship is based on faith, love and other emotions. No evidence of those either. We take people's words they are experiencing those emotions. 
#45
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Faith is one pathway to self knowledge.  Not sure what verifiable evidence that produces. Almost any relationship is based on faith, love and other emotions. No evidence of those either. We take people's words they are experiencing those emotions. 
No, I disagree with that. There is generally evidence for the emotions others feel for us (sharing resources, bodies, lives, having children, generally considering us in their day to day decisions, etc.). On the other hand, faith might have us *know* (read 'fool ourselves') the fidelity of a cheating spouse is true.

I think there is a bit of equivocation here too. Faith without verifiable evidence does not lead to knowledge, whereas trust (faith) built on evidence can. 

#46
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
No, I disagree with that. There is generally evidence for the emotions others feel for us (sharing resources, bodies, lives, having children, generally considering us in their day to day decisions, etc.). On the other hand, faith might have us *know* (read 'fool ourselves') the fidelity of a cheating spouse is true.
Go ahead. Being married doesn't mean you love your spouse. Having kids doesn't mean you love them, ask DHHR. 


I think there is a bit of equivocation here too. Faith without verifiable evidence does not lead to knowledge, whereas trust (faith) built on evidence can. 
Again you cannot monitor with evidence internal emotions. 
#47
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Go ahead. Being married doesn't mean you love your spouse. Having kids doesn't mean you love them, ask DHHR. 
No, you're right. One of these alone doesn't necessarily mean love, but all the evidence together does strongly point to it. I don't know DHHR.

Again you cannot monitor with evidence internal emotions. 
You can - just not directly.

Topic's author
#48
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@SkepticalOne
Materialism starts with the assumptions that reality exists and we can learn from it.

I believe that begins with any philosophical inquiry of questioning the origins of our existence. However materialism has its own presumptions it and of itself. That reality ~begins~ with an assumption that matter is the primary force of origins, and that we can learn from that assumption alone. Materialism doesn't just start with the assumption reality exists, it starts with the assumption that matter is the fundamental substance of existence...of that reality. That puts a stamp on your quest for truth, and if that satisfies your intellectual needs that's your choice.

Theism assumes reality exists

Agree

we can learn from it

Agree

and some sort of super-reality exists that can answer all the questions we either haven't figured out yet

This is not a God of the Gaps argument, I've presented nothing here based upon whims or guesswork. Theism is a well thought out, intellectual proposition based on sound reasoning and evidence. It's also an intuitive response which if true, means we would have an innate connection with it (because we are apart of that). Which also adds an extra layer of consideration and why I believe it has been proposed since man has existed essentially. You might label it outdated but I call it classic and timeless...how long the obvious has been presented works in its favor.
I don't know what a "super-reality" is supposed to be but God would simply be apart of the construct of our world, and everything would flow naturally from that origin, and make sense. No need for some "super reality", that's just your way of adding terminology to what you believe doesn't belong in the picture.
Number one, if there are gaps or unanswered questions we need not be simply satisfied with materialism and pretend no further thought is necessary and anything proposed beyond that disqualifies it for Occam's Razor. Any reasonable premise that answers real questions is not unnecessary just because you deem materialism as a solution you personally accept.
Number two if God fits in any gaps it's because it works, it's missing pieces to the puzzle. That's exactly what we are looking for right? Just because you're satisfied with an incomplete proposition doesn't mean we all need to shut down our intellectual gears. If you read through the thought processes of the OP then you should be able to see how our logic follows, and of course how it fits together. Those thoughts would be the precursor to what is most likely true, a very strong indicator and that is what we want to build on. 
Given that there really are only two options to begin with, either God created the universe (Creation) or God did not (materialism) it's not a hard determination but rather how any individual interprets our world in one of two ways. But only one can be true and I'm going with the superior option.

or answers questions which assume a super-reality to begin with (eg. "why do processes occur?")

Again this super reality thing is nonsense and I'm not making any unnecessary "assumptions". We have two propositions being made, there's our universe as the subject and two premises being offered as an interpretation and I'm making an educated assessment based on what we have to work with, what we observe. You can make up little cute names for it but what I find funny is that you guys make a big deal over questioning what we observe as products of the universe and how they occur (which is great) but when someone presses the same fervor and extends that to the processes themselves you begin to get all silly and squirmy.
It's a legit question 100%! Why would processes begin to just occur all by themselves and start to produce things as if the processes themselves had minds? and somehow inanimate materials know how things should be constructed as if they had intelligence? I'm not presenting this question to play dumb, it's to get you to look further into what you've accepted. I've already looked at the question and I've weighed the evidence and coupled with my own spiritual experience and observations it's more than a solid worldview.

Occam favors the former.

Sure pal. I'll remind you again....
Materialism doesn't get a free card because it skips out on important questions making you believe you've made less assumptions lol...that's really hilarious. Theism fits in perfectly with Occam's Razor as there are absolutely no unnecessary premises being offered and zero assumptions being made that are not of importance. You ignore those questions and then pretend it's unnecessary to answer them. When we're trying to solve the problem of the origins of our existence we need to answer as many questions as possible, we don't stop at the recipe and then make the assumption that all the ingredients produced a product on their own. We know that ingredients are the product of a recipe and that a recipe is the product of mind and thought (agency). This is completely necessary to look at and question.

The fact that intelligent processes occurred at all is the indicator that intelligence was involved, it's not an assumption anymore than when you see a beautiful building or house you've made the obvious assessment some genius made a blueprint, gathered the right materials and began a process to construct it. This is a Theists interpretation of what we observe in our universe, it's one out of two interpretations so we don't have to search too far to make a conclusion. 

#49
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@EtrnlVw
You forgot to include DEIST.
Topic's author
#50
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@SkepticalOne
Its not my (or anyone else's) fault theism has to be taken on faith - which isn't a pathway to knowledge. Theism is simply a weakly evidenced position propped up by a tradition of emotionality.

Wow, so suddenly your interpretation is exempt from assuming things without justification and our interpretation is all about "faith" which I'm sure you're going to define as belief without facts or evidence lol? Interpreting the universe as a product of intelligence has nothing to do with how you define faith. Which BTW is a useless definition of what spiritual faith is but either way it's besides the point. This is not about faith but about following the logic, using commonsense and putting together the evidence, which is the indicator of what is true. I've made this topic to show you how both materialism and theism are thought through and faith was never even an equation. I will have to admit thought, that is requires much more "faith" to believe that processes began producing products all by themselves then to believe that they are the products of intelligence, ironic isn't it?

Name any position which can't be held "on faith" - there isn't one. Absolutely anything can be believed if 'faith' is the only prerequisite. You'll need to do better than that if you mean to sway others with rational argumentation.

I think you've came in to this topic believing your own presumptions about what you think Theists do and completely missed the fact that our interpretation is based upon solid reasoning not faith. Our position is not held by faith anymore than your own interpretation. Somehow you think your personal interpretation meets all these requirements you believe satisfies a fact based belief and ours doesn't, you're quite a comedian in this thread. You've basically admitted you have an incomplete system of thought "that can answer all the questions we either haven't figured out yet" and then claim it's our position that's based on how you define faith.
If we were to even have an intelligent discussion about faith at all you would have to ask me how I DEFINE faith before you begin to make assumptions about what I believe and by what methods.

our beliefs should be apportioned to the evidence.

You're just preaching to the choir materialist. Why would you make any assumptions to the contrary, I've made this topic specifically to show how our interpretation IS apportioned to the evidence. I even showed how it would work, given that God exists and created the universe....which harmonizes with a scientific rendering. 

Topic's author
#51
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@3RU7AL
You forgot to include DEIST.

Deist fits in to one out of the two propositions, either God created the universe or God did not. One is called Theism and the other materialism. 
#52
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@SkepticalOne
Again you cannot monitor with evidence internal emotions. 
You can - just not directly.
It's important to clearly distinguish QUANTA from QUALIA.
#53
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@EtrnlVw
Deist fits in to one out of the two propositions, either God created the universe or God did not. One is called Theism and the other materialism. 
Do you define "god" as "beyond our epistemological limits"?
#54
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@FLRW
Yes, the Creator was Bumba.  According to the Boshongo people of central Africa, in the beginning, there was only darkness, water, and the great god Bumba. One day Bumba, in pain from a stomach ache, vomited up the sun. The sun dried up some of the water, leaving land. Still in pain, Bumba vomited up the moon, the stars, and then some animals. The leopard, the crocodile, the turtle, and finally, man.
Well stated.
Topic's author
#55
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@3RU7AL
I'm not arguing for any specific conception of God, so how I define God is irrelevant to the topic. Here though, in this topic I would define God as Creator, as in the cause of our existence. 
Topic's author
#56
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@3RU7AL
Yes, the Creator was Bumba.  According to the Boshongo people of central Africa, in the beginning, there was only darkness, water, and the great god Bumba. One day Bumba, in pain from a stomach ache, vomited up the sun. The sun dried up some of the water, leaving land. Still in pain, Bumba vomited up the moon, the stars, and then some animals. The leopard, the crocodile, the turtle, and finally, man.
Well stated.

What exactly was it that he stated? I'm curious because it was completely irrelevant to my topic. 
#57
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@EtrnlVw
Here though, in this topic I would define God as Creator, as in the cause of our existence. 
So, "unknowable" would be perfectly acceptable to you?
#58
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@EtrnlVw
What exactly was it that he stated? I'm curious because it was completely irrelevant to my topic. 
I appreciate a good myth.
#59
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@3RU7AL
It's important to clearly distinguish QUANTA from QUALIA.
I've never understood that terminology. 
#60
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@SkepticalOne
It's important to clearly distinguish QUANTA from QUALIA.
I've never understood that terminology. 
FACTS must be empirically demonstrable and or logically-necessary QUANTIFIABLE (QUANTA) and emotionally meaningless.

OPINIONS must be personal, private, unfalsifiable, experiential, indistinguishable from GNOSIS, QUALITATIVE (QUALIA) and emotionally meaningful.