We have treated the illogicality of materialism HERE

Establishing the materialism is reductionism in the sense that it prays everything be reduced to the senses as humans possess them, therefore is limited by the elusive nature of the possibility of things that may be.

Example: If humans saw in X-ray like a bumblebee, they would be ignorant to the existence of the color spectrum since it transcends the reaches of their x-ray senses.

Therefore, that something doesn't appeal to human perception doesn't conclusively validate its inexistence.

But then, it doesn't validate its existence either.

Materialism appeals to the sense, belief in the immaterial asserts a transcendent knowledge that cannot be known.

Example: If someone asserts that the immaterial exists, they got to know this somehow, and if they got to know this in an objective sense, then it means that it can be reduced to the senses and immaterial by definition cannot be reduced this the senses, therefore, it is material.

This is a looped contradiction.

But, if one asserts the existence of the immaterial which doesn't appeal or can be reduced to the senses in actuality, then that begs the question - How in God's good earth did you get to know about it in the first place?

So, this is a question to everyone who believes in the existence of the immaterial: How did you conclusively determine that it exists?

Work us through this logic. Because you can't conclusively assert that something exists without having a way by which this knowledge is available to you.

There are loads of definitions of "immaterial". Could you pin us down by giving an idea which you mean please.

budaatum:
There are loads of definitions of "immaterial". Could you pin us down by giving an idea which you mean please.

Spiritual, Intangible, transcendent - Unable to exist physically (At least outside human perception or immediate material universe)

johnydon22:


Spiritual, Intangible, transcendent - Unable to exist physically (At least outside human perception or immediate material universe)

Sounds to me like we are going back to your other thread.

Reason I ask is, could I include the psychological and the mental that don't physically exist though they may impact as angels and demons which I can't physically present? I can't physically present love or sadness either but I doubt we'd say emotions don't exist.

budaatum:

Sounds to me like we are going back to your other thread.

Reason I ask is, could I include the psychological and the mental that don't physically exist though they may impact as angels and demons which I can't physically present? I can't physically present love or sadness either but I doubt we'd say emotions don't exist.

My other thread deals with illogicality of the materialism, this probes the certainty of the knowledge in the immaterial and holds a position that it is a logical absurdity.

Psychological phenomemons are physical, you can pin point particular behaviors of matter causing this or that.

Or even emotions, you can pin point chemical/hormones responsible and how our brain serve as a CPU to reduce these phenomenon to our perception.

Much like light, the sun is matter but the light it provides behaves totally different - But both are physical, measurable, can be reduced to human perception.

Immaterial in the sense deals with things transcendent to our immediate universe - much like spiritual realm, multiverses or transcendental beings.

Things that can be conceptually defined as distinct entities or existential states.

johnydon22:


My other thread deals with illogicality of the materialism, this probes the certainty of the knowledge in the immaterial and holds a position that it is a logical absurdity.

Psychological phenomemons are physical, you can pin point particular behaviors of matter causing this or that.

Or even emotions, you can pin point chemical/hormones responsible and how our brain serve as a CPU to reduce these phenomenon to our perception.

Much like light, the sun is matter but the light it provides behaves totally different - But both are physical, measurable, can be reduced to human perception.

Immaterial in the sense deals with things transcendent to our immediate universe - much like spiritual realm, multiverses or transcendental beings.

Things that can be conceptually defined as distinct entities or existential states.

I fear this is way beyond my level. My mind is composed of numerous immaterial things and even the idea that I have a mind is an "immaterial illogicallity of the materialism". But I think you're not asking about what might be in my own mind but about what might be in someone elses mind, and "bring it out and show you. Or it doesn't exist?

If you're right, then things like evolution can't exist or couldn't have happened because I'd struggle to provide evidence for it and its not in everyone's mind yet doth my mind constantly evolve as evidenced by wit were laid in front of eyes that hardly could conceive.

Basically, show blind people what one sees, is what you're saying. So I laugh. I'll go over your op sub though.

johnydon22:

Therefore, that something doesn't appeal to human perception doesn't conclusively validate its inexistence.

But then, it doesn't validate its existence either.

Agree. The mind is not the determinant of existence.

johnydon22:
Materialism appeals to the sense, belief in the immaterial asserts a transcendent knowledge that cannot be known.

No! In China we say "a person in a pit cannot see as the person on a hill". If a thing transcends one's senses it may still exist. You say so above.

Ideas in one's mind are immaterial and they are not necessarily beliefs and can be knowledge, ways of understanding or looking at things. To a person without that sort of mind those things might not exist but one wouldn't argue that they do not exist in the minds of who they do.

johnydon22:
Example: If someone asserts that the immaterial exists, they got to know this somehow, and if they got to know this in an objective sense, then it means that it can be reduced to the senses and immaterial by definition cannot be reduced this the senses, therefore, it is material.

How does one know something by "objective sense"?
Do you mean I touch it and can kick it so I know? So what about the million plus other things that one knows by ones "subjective sense", say a simple thing like being decent to others, do those things not exist because somehow they lack physical material?

Immaterial they may be but to the sense that is ready to receive that seek, as religious people would say, shall be given 'it'.

johnydon22:
This is a looped contradiction.

Ya don say Doc it's a good one though.

johnydon22:
But, if one asserts the existence of the immaterial which doesn't appeal or can be reduced to the senses in actuality, then that begs the question - How in God's good earth did you get to know about it in the first place?

By diligently seeking for it every minute and everyday what does it mean what does it imply what does it do how does it effect how does it work why does it work where does one get it how does one use it when does one use it and for Christ sake, what the fuq is it!?

That's how. And you won't know you found 'it' until you find 'it', as muttley might say.

johnydon22:
So, this is a question to everyone who believes in the existence of the immaterial: How did you conclusively determine that it exists?

No! I object to your derogatory, "who believes"! My mind is immaterial, evolution is immaterial, and I don't believe they exist because I know they exist!

I conclusively determined 'it' exists when I found it.

johnydon22:
Because you can't conclusively assert that something exists without having a way by which this knowledge is available to you.

The knowledge was not available to me! I had to go looking for it as stated above. It was after a lot of seeking that I got to the point that I could conclusively assert that something, which up to now you've very carefully been referring to as 'it', exists.

There used to be a time when the argument wasn't if the immaterial existed or not, but which existent immaterial was the greater existent immaterial.

Hence it was up to the existent immaterials to prove their superiority over the other existent immaterial.

But it's quite unfortunate that the argument has more or less been reduced to the existence of the immaterial.

So the difference between then and now is the solution to the present day argument concerning the existence of the immaterial, and it is called "mighty works" that cannot be possible without the immaterial.

It musn't necessarily be reduced to the senses to assert its existence.The existence of such an immaterial entity could be the result of a purely logical inference or consequence.

tartar9:
It musn't necessarily be reduced to the senses to assert its existence.The existence of such an immaterial entity could be the result of a purely logical inference or consequence.

Exactly what i am asking for

johnydon22:


Exactly what i am asking for

You seek an example? Well,in theoretical physics higher dimensions are said to exist thou havent been tested or probably never be able to.

tartar9:

You seek an example? Well,in theoretical physics higher dimensions are said to exist thou havent been tested or probably never be able to.

So, how did you come to the conclusion that it does?

ghost exist.....dont ask me how i know....lol

is the earth hanging on something or just floating in space?...

there are so many instances that 'wao' our physical reality..that we simply cannot push aside.there are things beyond the physical that seems to affect us, that no amount of medication can get rid of...
i think no one can claim any concrete knowledge of the immaterial realm as there are many possibilities as the population of the earth, i think it will be stupid for us to ignore it or fooolish for us to claim the opposite.

people are already finding it hard to grasp the singularity of the dual concept..not to talk of one billion possibilities..

johnydon22:


So, how did you come to the conclusion that it does?

Those higher dimensions follow from the equations.They seem to be necessary consequences for consistency in nature.

tartar9:

Those higher dimensions follow from the equations.They seem to be necessary consequences for consistency in nature.

You still making a claim without establishing a logical string that led to this conclusion

sonmvayina:
ghost exist.....dont ask me how i know....lol

You sure know I will. Lol

So how?

is the earth hanging on something or just floating in space?...

I don't know

there are so many instances that 'wao' our physical reality..that we simply cannot push aside.there are things beyond the physical that seems to affect us, that no amount of medication can get rid of...

Things like?

i think no one can claim any concrete knowledge of the immaterial realm as there are many possibilities as the population of the earth, i think it will be stupid for us to ignore it or fooolish for us to claim the opposite.

Here is the problem; The sheer definition of immaterial makes it intangible, undetectable and unknowable, doesn't this fit the definition of Nothing?

people are already finding it hard to grasp the singularity of the dual concept..not to talk of one billion possibilities..

We will come to that on a different thread

Although this debate(not a shouting contest) does not exhaustively answer your question, I do think it does give a good insight as to how both sides of the divide look at the evidence at the scholarly level.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hVCVt-dvVOc

It's quite an interesting watch...