₦airaland Forum

IAmSabrina:
To be honest, i'm not really grasping the message of this thread but maybe its because am very busy and not home now

Maybe when i return, i'll go through it well. If there is any need to, i'll mention you

It is actually simple, let me simplify it further.

It is a question and the question is;

Is it illogical to conclusively believe that nothing exists except that which is material and hence can be reduced to the senses?

IAmSabrina:
In other words, you're saying that there's no way to prove or disprove an object beyond our perceptive capacity,

It can be logically deduced though, mathematically if you will.

Let me ask a question;

Are ideas material?

and i'm saying that said object is thus, unfalsifiable. If it is unfalsifiable, what reason do i have to believe in it?

There isn't any to state conclusively that it isn't there either. Or is there?

LordReed:
I think we are hitting a mix up here of two different things. Unperceptible and immaterial are two different things. The extra dimensions as envisioned by string theory may very well be "material" like time is "material" we just have not found a way of measuring such dimensions so they are unperceptible. Immaterial on the other hand declares such things as having no physical dimensions by which they may be observed or measured. This to me are 2 fundamentally different things so which are you concerned with?

Time isn't material bro, not at all. Even in physics time is non-spatial.

Material means 'matter' or consisting of matter.

Matter simply everything with weight and occupies space.

This definition implies matter is descenable through the senses.

Immaterial means 'not matter' not consisting of matter.

Hence the perceptibility of immaterial often eludes the senses.

So what do you think bro? Is it logical to conclusively believe only that which is material exists?

LordReed:
Is string theory not largely mathematical?

It is since it transcends our material physics.

adoyi8:
Infering things we cant perceive or prove was what led to religions. lets be humble and accept that we are just humans and there many things we cant perceive

I know that it is very possible that we can't even perceive 99% of what exists through any of our senses or equipments, my question simply is; How do we come to the knowledge or concept of things we can't perceive?

LordReed:
My 1st post tried to limit the scope of my answer to the religious aspects.

Well, we will wait for a thread on spiritual realm then. Lol

Let's just say, this thread is neither theological or scientific but rather philosophical.

It doesn't exclude either but is not limited to any

I will leave all that string theory stuff to actual scientists. That type of science is above my paygrade LoL.

None of us are experts in string theory bro, it is simply used to demonstrate the idea of immaterialism.

adoyi8:
if we cant perceive them then they dont matter 2 our survival. if they begin 2 matter then we hv 2 evolve 2 perceive them n react appropriatly or go extinct.

Survival isn't the premise here but rather existence in an objective sense.

A materialist believes everything that exists must be perceptible. (Reduction principle)

A non materialist thinks not.

LordReed:
They will have to give a coherent description of this "spiritual realm" before one can formulate what may be required as proof. I am yet to see such a coherent description.

I am actually not talking about 'spiritual realm' that language use is theological.

i am using the term 'immaterial' since it encompasses the concept i am asking about. And immaterial here simply means, things that are not perceptible by your 5 senses. E.G: 4th or 5th or 6th and so forth dimensions as are implications of string theory

LordReed:
Science allows for the possibility of many things, doesn't make them real or true. I will wait for when such phenomena can be proven to exist.

Meaning that even science itself as a discipline or philosophy isn't materialistic correct?

So, what sort of proof would you require to prove extra dimensions that are by definition imperceptible to you as a 3D being?

Never said such or suggested such; I said the logical course is to be "materialist"

Science as a discipline relies heavily on logic and mathematics and this logic and mathematics has taken us beyond simple materials perceptible to us in String Theory, doesn't this imply that the thought of immaterial things is very logical?

until such can be proved which is what your op asked.

How do you bring to your senses what is by definition imperceptible to your senses? Isn't that a contradiction?

If it can be reduced to your senses, then it is material.

But it is immaterial by definition hence unprovable in the material sense.

The most likely approach is maths and logic, would these derivative evidences suffice for you as a skeptic in the immaterial?

IAmSabrina:
Exactly! Of what use is believing something that is unfalsifiable?

Not the point. The point is, when you ask for proof for something supposedly imperceptible, what type of proof exactly are you asking for since proof simply means "Appeal to my perceptibility".

For instance, String Theory (which by the way is the strongest theory at the moment employed in explaining the universe) allows for extra dimensions beyond this.

What proof would you require to believe this?

ThothHermes:
It implies something greater, something this realm. God is an arbitrary term here, if you choose to call it that then it's okay.

So, by your logic, something immaterial is greater than the material? How is this conclusion reached?

LordReed:
Actually its theirs because they are the ones making the claim. They claim there is such a world so they should show us how they perceived a realm that is unperceptible.

Just typing this out already shows how confused the concept is.

The problem isn't about making the claim but rather sufficient proof for a materialists on a material claim.

You asked for the proof, you should be able to know what type of proof should suffice.

So, what type of proof do you ask for when asking for proof on something supposedly imperceptible to your senses?

Primary onus of proof is on the claimant - undisputed.

One who asks for proof should have an idea of what type of proof is required to validly answer their skepticism.

Or is "prove it" just a meaningless term?

ThothHermes:
I did not say anything about God.
Your thread says to show the illogicality or otherwise of materialism. And that's what I did/attempted to do.

I know but most of your proof seem to be stating about some supposedly innate yearning for higher authority by humanity which implies God, or doesn't it?

ThothHermes:
The fact that we keep pondering it. The fact that man has continued to look to the heavens for succor. The fact that across civilizations, man always seeks out something to worship, something greater than himself.
Like a baby's instinctive search for his mother's breast even without understanding what it is, we keep seeking in different ways, we have been seeking since we became and we will continue to seek no matter how advanced scientifically we get.
That is my proof that there is something beyond the material.
Ergo, materialism is illogical.

Something beyond the material doesn't necessarily mean God bro.

And the reasons above, how do connect them as proof to your argument?

LordReed:
Hehehehe, thats the riddle those who believe have to solve.

Hahaha actually it isn't, it is yours. As someone who asks for proof, it is left for you to state the kind of proof that sufficiently satisfies this.

So, what sort of proof do you expect for something not perceptive to your 5 senses?

adoyi8:
our senses evolved to help us look for food, run away from danger and reproduce. There are many things we cant perceive. so it is illogical to say that what we can perceive is all that exists.

How do we infer what is if we can't perceive them?

LordReed:
Even something as ephemeral as the mind is tied to physical things thus I find it hard to credit the notion that there exists a whole 'nother realm occupied by things that are not perceptable.

Even science allows for such possibility, with string theory giving rise to many extra dimensions impossible for you to detect.

Granted I used to believe it was the case that such a realm existed but when I recollect all the so called "spiritual experiences" none of them carry any weight in establishing the veracity of such a claim.

So in otherwords, anything you can't detect or perceive doesn't exist? Wouldn't that be saying your perceptive senses are infallible since it is highly unlikely that the entirety of existence stops at things we can detect with our sense?

Being a "materialist" is the logical course of action until it can be proved that there exists such a thing as a spiritual realm.

How do you prove something imperceptible to the senses?

As explained by the OP, reductionism!

As a literal philosophical representation, materialists can be termed Reductionists and materialism termed Reductionism because the fundamental principle behind this school of thought basically reduces everything to what can be perceived.

A materialist simply reduces what is and what is possible to the perceptive capabilities of the 5 senses.

Prove it

In a materialistic sense is simply saying, make this perceptible to my 5 senses.

This is a question thread, what do you think about the materialistic school of thought?
(The school of thought that nothing exists except it can be perceived (matter)

Do you think it is logical to hold such a belief?

(My own thoughts are in the comment section)

jesusjnr2:
My friend, Jonny, how far now?

What are you still waiting for?

An IV?

Ok here is your IV, you can now come in where you truly belong.

Lol. You have issues bro

Of course a creator or creators is perfectly possible and in fact can be a logical conclusion

Your history mostly showed someone with questions who dangled on the edge of religious skepticism and eventually culminated into rediscovery of faith.

Amitez:
@Daddy Freeze relishes bashing Christians, their leaders and their festivals. He is fond of accusing Christians as fools for paying tiithes and offering, blasts men of God for being rich or performing miracles, etc. He has even gone to the extent of criticising Christmas celebrations amongst others. Much as I do not support any man of God exhibiting wealth, you cannot also help but ask, why is Daddy Freeze principally against Christian Faith? Why can't he dare Muslims? I tell you the very day he tries it, a death sentence will be pronounced on him.
This God of Christians is a merciful God ... hence anyone can rap nonesence. Same goes for Christians. We are asked to let go and let God. However, this charade is going too far and we need to put the devil in his rightful corner, where he belongs ... darkness!

Therefore I challenge @Daddy Freeze to dare Muslims and Islamic faith. Except he is telling us that it is only in Christianity that "fools" dwell. Or that Islam is perfect.
The very day he does, I will begin to take him seriously. As for now, he is FAKE and agent if darkness.

Daddy Freeze is a christian and as such is concerned about whay goes on in Christianity, and in today's world, what goes on in the Christian ministry is no more than a joke hence anyone who genuinly cares about Christianity like Daddy freeze should speak up, a reform is needed especially on the ongoing pentecostal nonsense.

Anyone who wants the best for Christianity should call out the funny practises that paint Christianity out as an elaborate large standup commedy and scam.

I am an atheist but i think Christianity can be much more than it is now

LordReed:
We don't value things solely based off of contrast with their lack but rather with their utility to us. Sugar remains sweet whether bitterness exists or not. Also not sweet is not equal to bitter so even if bitterness didn't exist sweet will still have value because you can still distinguish it from not sweet.

This is my position, you do not need the extremes, the absolute absences to create value for what is. There are certain things that exist that we do not know about but it doesn't stop us from creating value for the things that we do know exist.

lol. Actually we do value it due to the fact we know of what it would be like without it.

If we lived in a world where we would be ok still if air ceased, then our value of it diminishes.

But for us, we know lack of air entails suffocating and ultimately death hence our value of it - Negativity and positivity give meaning to each other.

Savvy?

LordReed:
Is air meaningless?

No. So?

LordReed:
Not as something you "suffer". For instance, you are hungry and the food is right at your beck and call .

So, the problem isn't that you don't have innate desires you can suffer from but the presence of solution to these problems?

Still, negativity remains intact na.

Isn't the argument that; positive things don't make sense if the negative ones don't exist?

LordReed:
Do you need to taste shit to know what sugar tastes like or vice versa? If you've never tasted shit will you still know and appreciate sugar?

Actually poo isn't the opposite of sweetness.

Bitter is.

And yes, without bitter or sour taste, sweetness becomes vaguely meaningless.

If everything is special, nothing is special.

Shepherd00:
because there won't be God to remind you of afterlife, so no talk of sin or Hellfire. You can do as you like and not feel the need to think of retribution.


Only, that world actually existed in some atheists nations and even North Korea and Cuba today. Just check out how people are enjoying life over there.

Why do you think everyone not believing in God translates to God not existing in an objective sense?

frank317:
infinite life exactly... but with pain, regrets, accidents and learning. however there will always be second changes and and infinite advancement to better life.
like playing candy crush and gettin to higher and harder levels with each level getting more and more excited.

So an ideal world is a world where death doesn't exist. Ok.

MrPresident1:
Sissy John is afraid of knowledge

I'm afraid of weed

LordReed:
Don't misunderstand me, I am not talking of anything called absolute pain. I am referring to the absolute absence of pain. In your world as you described, a person can't be hungry because hunger is pain. In the world I conceive of, every person can be hungry but are totally assured of having a meal the second they want it.

So, in otherwords, pain will also be present?

Shepherd00:
I think the kind of world where only atheists will be around.

Really? Why would this world be ideal?

MrPresident1:
John John

Only Amadioha can give us an ideal world

The return of Amadioha!!!

You are correct my guy