Materialism

If you are someone who does not believe in the immaterial soul or God, or if you just aren't sure what to think, WATCH THIS VIDEO!

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Materialism
• Determinism
• Naturalism
• Atheism

[stealspell]

I don't see how determinism has anything to do with whether or not my thoughts are true. I don't quite get what it means to have "true" thoughts. Why do you assume thoughts hold some kind of "truth" to them?

[Kanbei85]

@stealspell

When you say, "determinism is true", you are expressing a thought that you assume corresponds with the outside world of reality. When I say, "I am 25 years old", I am also doing this. Thoughts must have truth value in order for us to have a meaningful discussion about anything.

[odinata]

You talk and talk and talk, but you never say anything.

Your religious opinions do not replace facts.

[stealspell]

@Kanbei85 On another note, I'm not sure how free will allows me to choose between saying "I'm 25 years old" and not since according to your theory, if I understand it right, we are determined to say only one thing--that which was determined to be said. Hence we MAY be determined to say what is false, right? You seem to be claiming that I'm choosing true thoughts from false thoughts. o.0 How exactly am I doing that?

[stealspell]

@Kanbei85 Well now you are presupposing there is an "outside" world hence why determinism won't work with your metaphysical theory. If determinism is true, surely there is no outside and therefore there is no need to say thoughts must contain some "truth value". First you have to prove there is an outside world and I'm supposing you'll do this philosophically.

[stealspell]

@Kanbei85 No, I'm not searching for an empirical argument. All I'm saying, which isn't clear to you as I can tell, is that you can't say that the mind and the brain(body) are two separate entities under the SAME context or standard for which you are to prove them. If you give me a philosophical argument for the mind's existence then you have to give me a philosophical argument for the brain's(body's) existence because that would place them under the SAME context or standard of evidence.

[Kanbei85]

@stealspell

Yes, I do have an argument, and I've been elaborating it to you all along. It's not an empirical argument, which is what you seem to be searching for. It's a philosophical one. I don't prove my mind's existence with science, but nonetheless I know it is not just another part of the physical universe, for all the reasons I've already given you. But I do urge you nonetheless to read that book.

[stealspell]

@Kanbei85 You don't have any arguments specifically? It's a well known fact that we can't see the mind. We can't point to it when we open up the brain. It has no spatial existence. So where is the scientific evidence it exists? This is a central problem in philosophy that's been around for thousands of years and the sum of it is this: you can't prove the body philosophically and you can't prove the mind scientifically. If you are truly a dualist you are using two different standards of evidence.

[Kanbei85]

@stealspell

I would direct you to the book "Beyond Death" by J.P. Moreland and Gary Habermas for a great exposition of specific evidence for the soul.

[stealspell]

@Kanbei85 "The evidence strongly shows that there are separate entities" What evidence? I think you have two different standards of evidence for the body and the mind. That wouldn't exactly make them separate entities if they are under standards of evidence. For example: Prove the mind exists scientifically or prove the body exists philosophically.