i wouldn’t ask you to trust me, but verify for yourself, if you honestly push on materialism a bit, it falls apart.
you will not find a coherent explaination for why why anything exists instead of nothing.
why anything is ordered. categories, distinction, all morality, good/bad, better/worse, syntax, semantics, numbers, all the immaterial phenomena we rely upon and use everyday, have no basis in a materialistic world
in short, rationality and freewill go away
i was a materialist before, so i get its appeal
"why" is an incoherent question. Substitute "how" for your questions above.
"Why" is a human invention, and it's unsurprising that we invented a shoddy concept with some undefined zones. "How/what" are downstream of the laws of nature, and are thus reasonable areas of inquiry.
If you want to ask "why", talk to an artist, fiction writer, priest or politician. But expect opinions, not solutions.
How is it anything exists at all? as opposed to nothing exists?
materialism has no valid answers
it just presupposes its own conclusions
1. Not every question has an answer we can comprehend (see quantum physics). Some answers might be comprehendable but the information we'd need to answer the question is inaccessible (like "what was the population of a given lat/long coordinate in the year 1345?")
2. Why do I need to answer that question in order to answer other questions? Assuming some priors and is always a necessary limitation. If you learn new stuff about those assumptions or find new information that indicates the priors are imperfect (as they likely are) you update a bit.
"The best you can do" is a fundamental aspect of world.
“assuming some priors”
yeah, and and not all assumptions are valid
“if i assumed all of reality was made of cheese” you wouldn’t take it serious.
it’s demonstrabley wrong. it doesn’t have an answer to account for everything not cheese
it’s the same as assuming all of reality is just matter.
I wouldn't take that assumption seriously because it immediate conflicts with all sorts of observations and experiment and doesn't explain any new unexplained phenomena.
Your argument here rests on the same processes that you are trying to say are useless.
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
How do you explain reliance upon immaterial phenomenon while simultaneously denying them?
Which ones am I relying on?
in the post, u use categorization, syntax, semantics, all outgrowths of order itself
the order that subatomic particles follow: no logicially valid argument for how that came to be materialistcally
materialism can only go as far as random chaos, if u are trying to explain any order beyond that, ur reliant upon the immaterial
to even say “the apple is on the table” relies upon the immaterial.
it’s an objective fact
and it doesn’t fit with materialism
Why do we need to answer "how it came to be?" rather than content ourselves with "how it works?"
What does the former question get you?
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
