Evidence for the supernatural
What kind of evidence could there be for supernatural phenomena? As an atheist I'm trying to think of examples of what would convince me that there is a god and that the physical world is not all there is.
How about miracles? An example of a miracle would be the splitting of the red sea when the Jews are escaping from Egypt. A miracle points to a divine being with a purpose violating natural law to produce a desired outcome for certain people. The problem is that if the laws of nature could be violated then they aren't laws at all. If the laws of gravity fail in any instance then the laws of gravity are wrong since it makes a universal statement. How then do you define what a miracle is when either there are no laws of nature, or they do exist and the laws are truly immutable.
What other examples are there that provides evidence for something supernatural?
How about miracles? An example of a miracle would be the splitting of the red sea when the Jews are escaping from Egypt. A miracle points to a divine being with a purpose violating natural law to produce a desired outcome for certain people. The problem is that if the laws of nature could be violated then they aren't laws at all. If the laws of gravity fail in any instance then the laws of gravity are wrong since it makes a universal statement. How then do you define what a miracle is when either there are no laws of nature, or they do exist and the laws are truly immutable.
What other examples are there that provides evidence for something supernatural?
Comments (76)
You didn't get to finish your OP, so its unclear exactly what you are positing here.
I'm not making a statement on whether or not evidence of the supernatural is possible. I'm genuinely interested in what would count as evidence for the supernatural. My only problem is concerning miracles and how they are possible.
It could be something that can't be explained by science but is not in conflict with laws of nature. In other words, it is complementary with nature not opposing it.
Wouldn't that just depend on the situation? It's easy enough to imagine convincing scenarios. Just watch any show like Supernatural, or the movies like Dr. Strange and Harry Potter.
If the stars in the sky all of a sudden formed the words, "I Am that I Am", then we would be forced into considering non-natural explanations.
What matters is the whether it can or cannot be explained naturally in principle, but people take positions such as "god of the gaps", and suggest that everything is explicable naturally, even if it has in fact yet to be, or cannot take place.
The former case is a naive conceit, and the second it's just axiomatic. Personally I think that if you think that love is explainable with chemical descriptions, rather than the supernatural, then you probably don't know what it is. The regrowing of limps, and other parlor tricks could never be as miraculous.
Ok, I see what you mean.
Under that definition, its hard to imagine what would be convincing. There would be other possibilities than god as an explanation, such as advanced alien technology, or specifically adapted life forms that display psychic phenomenonor something.
I suppose even things like collective will power of mankind or loosely defined magic would fit your criteria.
The only thing I can think of is a display of omniscience. If a being were to have the answer to any question, who could at will present limitless knowledge, that would be something that fit your criteria and a strong reason to at least be open to the idea of god.
Supposing you were sitting there in front of your computer contemplating your next post, and you heard, clear as a bell, a voice that said "Jack Jones" (or whatever you name is) "I am god and I am real and you are not imagining my voice. You will now feel an intense comforting warmness." And you did feel a comforting warmness which lasted for days.
Would that be sufficient? (John Wesley, an Anglican priest and the founder of the Methodist Church felt his heart "strangely warmed" and reassured.
Or do you need to see the stars in the sky rearranged to say "I am god and you all are totally screwed"?
Or you could be having a psychotic episode.
Conflict permeates one right down to the way they move, with effort and striving, with weight. Their fields of vision are of lower orders, their sentience singular.
By me you mean the human race? I guess that would be one possibility we'd be forced to consider.
Many years ago I had an experience something like that. I was sleeping and was shaken wide awake by a voice which said only, "I am here" in a deep masculine Jehovah-like voice. There was no mention of God, but that was the first reference that came to mind, due to the tone of the voice.
It didn't feel like a dream, but something very real. As example, I got up out of bed and explored the whole house to see if someone was actually there. Didn't find Baby Jesus hiding in a closet though, so eventually went back to bed.
I have no idea what if anything this experience might mean. It could mean that I ate too big of a burrito for dinner. But 40 years later, the memory remains.
We don't have compelling evidence of the supernatural, but one need look no farther than the history of science to find compelling evidence of vast ignorance. That doesn't prove the supernatural exists, but it does strongly suggest that an open mindedness to the seemingly impossible is in order.
TLDR; Supernatural is a temporary state and no amount of evidence will change that
From one psychoanalytic POV, the dream was clearly a message from the unconscious to NOT take up this guy's invitation to live with him during graduate school as a lover. (I did anyway -- it worked out well). From a POV as to whether the supernatural exists, it was a validating message (though about the devil rather than Jehovah... one has to take what one can get).
When I was a child, even into adolescence, I had a fear of dark places -- like the barn where we stored coal. One of my jobs was to fill buckets of coal after school and bring them to the house for the stove. I always tried to get this done while it was still light out. I knew the barn like the back of my hand, but alone in the dark it took on a malevolent character. As a mature adult I have felt these feelings about dark places only very rarely, and they were easily rationalized.
It isn't hard at all to imagine how a person immersed in a culture where it was believed that the world was infested with benign and malignant small gods could be both comforted and terrorized frequently. Imagining spirits seems like something humans are just primed to do -- unless otherwise instructed. And most of us are not otherwise instructed. Billions are encouraged to believe in 1, 2, 3... 50 gods.
I had another related incident when I was awake. I was about 16, and surfing by myself. A big afternoon storm came up so I got out of the water and sat under an overhang on the nearby beach house (vacant) to wait for the storm to pass.
I was bored while sitting there so for something to do I played a game, and asked God to give me a sign if he existed. (I was on the edge of walking away from my Catholic upbringing at the time). I waited, I waited, I waited. Nothing. More waiting. More nothing. Ok, who cares, no big deal, the storm passed, I went back to surfing. It wasn't a big event, just more of an idle teenage day dream, quickly set aside and forgotten.
Well, almost. Fifty years later I can't remember anything else about that day, that week, that month. I'm not entirely sure what year it was. I don't remember whether the surf was any good that day. But the memory of asking that question remains with me to this day.
This proves nothing at all, but suggests that if there is a God he probably has his own schedule, his own way of making a point, his own way of answering questions.
Quoting Bitter Crank
There's a logical basis for the idea that vast numbers of humans have imagined spirits because something like spirits really do exist. Every species on the planet is brilliant within it's niche, or it wouldn't be there. And, every species is largely blind beyond it's niche.
It seems entirely possible to me that there are things going on over our heads that we don't have the equipment to perceive, given that this is true for every other species of life ever discovered. It's actually wildly speculative to assume that this couldn't be true, given the pile of evidence that suggests it just might be.
I don't mean something supernatural necessarily, but phenomena within the laws of nature that are just not accessible to us. Again, every species of life ever discovered sees only a slice of reality. Why not us too?
The logical flaw of those who would reject this is the idea that because we can see more of reality than other animals, we can therefore have a complete picture, that what we see is what is real. Ok, that could be, but how about this.....
Prove it.
You mean like how there was a logical basis for the idea that the Earth was flat and the center of the universe because the Earth really is flat and the center of the universe? Oh, wait it isnt. You're simply appealing to the majority, which can be wrong. And there is such a thing as a mass delusion.
A more likely explanation is that humans have imaginations and adopt the norm of the society they find themselves in.
Ok, I hear you, you're content to ignore the well established real world fact that every other species of life ever discovered can perceive only a limited slice of reality and is blind to the rest.
Very sappy, and not sapient. Through stories like this children (and adults) are encouraged to think that God might (possibly, maybe, perhaps) show up in the hour of great need and save us. Like, "Blessed Mary pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of my Senate Judicial Committee hearing" Brett prayed... until he lost his cool and started ranting and raving.
Judge Kavanaugh needs to read more classical drama, where the Gods routinely play nasty tricks on pricks like himself.
The guide asked everyone to gather around him and let the kids come to the front, it was a rather restricted area. All of the other kids pushed to the front but I had this feeling that it was not a good thing to do so I stayed at the back.
The guide explained that the place they had found the remains of one of the mistresses of the 17th century owner of the place, that had gone missing when his wife had found out, was exactly where these kids were standing. Shrieks and screams rang out while I laughed about it.
No idea what why I did not want to move but I can still remember saying to myself "Don't go"
That's doubtful, he was one of those honey voiced, sweet talking people. I can still hear him saying "Gather around but let the little ones come to the front so that they can see".
Quoting Bitter Crank
I had the bad fortune to develop it at about 17. The family split up and we went back to live in England and I hated everything and everyone that thought they knew what was best for me. Didn't take too long for me to get into enough trouble that I did not want to live there anymore. So I did what everyone told me was the last thing I should do and came to live in Central America. Best decision of my life. But I still have problems with authorities, especially those that don't know what I know but try to tell me how to do things.
It's an interesting question. Thanks for starting the thread.
There seem to be three different things mentioned there: 'supernatural phenomena', 'there is a god' and 'the physical world is not all there is'. Those aren't all synonymous and might involve different evidences.
For example, the existence of mathematics might (arguably, for mathematical Platonists) be evidence that 'the physical world isn't all there is'.
https://www.iep.utm.edu/mathplat/
And things like hauntings or "psychic phenomena" might (arguably, if they really happen) be evidence of 'supernatural phenomena', which may or may not be a subset of 'the physical world isn't all there is' idea, while not necessarily implying 'there is a god'.
I'm not sure that a worldview that endorses methodological naturalism could recognize a miracle even if its nose (do worldviews have noses?) was rubbed in it. Methodological naturalism demands that natural explanations be sought for natural events. (This is the approach that modern science has successfully taken.) So even if a miracle in your (and David Hume's) violation of the natural order sense occurred, the methodological naturalist would assume that it must have a natural explanation, even if it's unknown at the moment. So a research program might be launched to find it. So the most that a methodological naturalist would see is an anomalous (for the moment) physical event whose natural/physical cause is still not understood.
Interestingly (to me, anyway), St. Augustine had a rather similar understanding of miracles. His idea was that God originally created all of the laws of nature at the beginning for all time, and doesn't act capriciously, changing his mind and violating them with miracles.
So what accounts for miracles that seemingly violate the order of nature? Augustine's idea was that a miracle isn't really a violation of the order of nature at all, but rather a violation of our understanding of the order of nature, a violation of what we expect to happen. (Hence his theory is called the 'epistemic theory of miracles'.)
Put another way, alongside the big and obvious laws of nature that people learn today in physics class, there are lots of little small-print ones like the numbered notes at the back of a scholarly book, obscure minor principles that God wrote into the cosmic plan, creating exceptions that God knew (in his divine omniscience) that he would need later.
I'll speculate that this idea, coming from an authority as mighty as Augustine, might have helped justify medieval sorcery. The sorcerer was just somebody with access to all the obscure small-print laws of nature, inscribed now in his grimoire, his book of spells.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemic_theory_of_miracles
- Something which defies the currently understood laws of nature
- AND shows evidence of an intellect at work
These two things combined could be, for example:
- A planet shaped like a kitten's head ... and it's only found orbiting the brightest star in Leo. So, you have the kitten's head which laws of nature don't seem to allow (it really looks like a kitten's head), and then there's the intellectual abstraction, that it's orbitting the brightest star in Leo, another feline connection.
So, you have breaking known laws of nature, strongly paired with an intellectual abstraction, so you have intellect at work + breaking known laws of nature.
- It is not implicit in known laws of nature (is it?)
- It is an intellectual abstraction (phi ratio is the objective anchor of the subjective world of aesthetics, aesthetics being a world of abstraction)
Therefore it passes my test of the supernatural.
Of course, that is not the definition you are working with. It is a semantic issue at that point.
On the other hand, evidence for the supernatural could include all sorts of things, including someone claiming to see a ghost. That may not be convincing evidence, but, it would still be evidence of some kind.
In your example story above God said, "Let go." This sounds like God giving up, throwing in the towel, abandoning the man on the mountain.
Or is it? What if the man never was a separate thing? What if his experience of separateness is only a compelling illusion generated by the operating system of his mind? If the larger truth is that the man never was a separate thing, then he can't die, thus there's nothing to worry about, and the advice from God was pretty practical.
Maybe God is saying let go of the rope. Or maybe he's saying, let go of the illusion that you are a separate thing?
I assume that our unfortunate climber would soon arrive at the gates of heaven after having let go. In heaven we will find eternal rest in the care of God. Heaven will be an altogether pleasant experience, I have been led to believe.
Of course, it is possible that something else will happen, and somehow he won't be splattered on the rocks below. I wouldn't count on it. God doesn't intervene (seems to me).
We are either never united with God, or we are never apart from God except in hell. (I'm speaking here out of my past when I believed.) I don't think we transition one to the other.
I used to hear this sort of story (and worse) when I was involved in Metropolitan Community Church, a gay evangelical group. I come out of mainline Methodist church, and we didn't hear stories like that from Methodist ministers. But this MCC liked to promote what I would call kind of sentimental feeling-faith.
The beauty is we can pit one law against the other. Gravity is a universal law but the laws of aerodynamics can be used to overcome gravity. So we fly in heavier than air planes.
If violating the laws of nature is evidence for the divine then are we not gods to ancient people?
So evidence for the divine shouldn't be sought in miraculous events. This, to me, is the argument from ignorance.
X can't be explained.
So it must be divine.
We forget that, sometimes, the correct answer is ''We don't know what it is (yet)''.
We must look to the definition of ''God'' to seek him/her. Personally, I like omnibenevolence. Love is a four-letter word and is the most difficult to achieve given the way our world is. Omnipotence and ommiscience are pointless without omnibenevolence. We can imagine the devil being omnipotent and omniscient but can the devil ever be omnibenevolent?
So, look for true unconditional love. That is God.
Yes, that's what I heard too.
Quoting Bitter Crank
That is how the story generally goes. Let's quickly recall how the story came to be.
First, whoever wrote these stories seemed to have something on the ball, as evidenced by the fact that the stories are still in use 2,000 - 3,000 years later, a remarkable accomplishment for any author.
Second, the intended audience for these stories was all mankind. More specifically the audience in the time the stories were written were typically "salt of the earth" uneducated peasants.
Point being, perhaps we shouldn't assume that the stories were ever intended to be literally true, just because a great many highly mediocre clerical commentators have asserted this to be the case.
The stories might be better compared to a novel or play, where one uses an entirely fictional tale to illuminate deep truths about the human condition. Given the intended audience, everybody on Earth, such fictional tales would necessarily have to be fairly simple.
As with art, the strength of such stories may be that they open the door to many different interpretations. I have my theories, you have yours, as do millions of others, and from such diversity a global conversation on the state of the human condition is built. This is how a skilled philosophy professor would conduct their class. They wouldn't give us The Answer, but instead set a stage upon which the class can conduct their own investigation.
So, in your story above, the message could be...
"Let go of the rope, because when you do you'll discover there was never any separate, alone, vulnerable, isolated entity holding the rope."
One interpretation....
The whole enterprise of religion was a very early high point in human artistic achievement. We created the gods: this is an easy concept for the religious to accept about heathen religions, blasphemy when it applies to their own. Apollo or Odin, yes of course. YHWH or Allah? Burn him at the stake!
The gods were invented and their supporting literature was composed by mortal men who worked subtle and plain themes into compelling, inspiring, (sometimes readily) believable tales whose themes have endured for at least 5 millennia. (We don't know a lot about all the oral traditions that preceded the written tradition.)
The "Let go of the rope" story is less extreme than the story of Abraham and his son Isaac. Probably human sacrifice was a part of the proto-religion that produced Judaism and numerous other religions. It must have been a horror for the parents. The story of Abraham and Isaac still shakes people up.
The invented gods and their various religions flourished and became institutional, long before people started complaining about it. There is an unpleasant underbelly of religion. James C. Scott's Against the Grain: A Deep History of the Earliest States explains (Scott's theory) how the very early proto-state encouraged the rise of agriculture and urbanization, places like Jericho around 10,000 years ago. Why? Because the proto-state "demiurge" needed something to tax and controlled people to produce the grain. Grain was good for the proto-state because it ripened all at once predictably, could be gathered and stored, and could feed many people. The many people could be put to work weaving wool for the finer garments of the proto-state officialdom, trade, and more taxes.
The early proto-states were city-states were scattered around the fertile crescent and while not initially very stable stayed in business for quite a while, eventually producing more complex states that encompassed much more territory with much more complex economies and societies.
OK, so where does religion fit into all that? The early religions came to serve the early state early on, buttressing the authority of whoever-the-fuck-was-in-charge-of-the-palace and linking the power of the priest to the power of the potentate. And so it has remained, more or less, in various guises, ever since.
Your post sketches the history of religion being a powerful force, which like any powerful force, was often hijacked by those concerned primarily with exercising power. Sometimes the power trippers were political types, and sometimes the power trippers were clerical types, and as you say, these two power tripping groups often forged alliances. Agreed.
What your post doesn't address is the question of why religion is such a powerful force. Well, you do in part by reminding us religion has often been backed up by the power of the state, clearly an important factor in expanding the influence of religion.
But still the question remains unanswered. How did religion accumulate such power that it became a valuable property which the state would want to hijack?
There are many ways to answer this but as we dig down through the pile I believe the bottom line we arrive at is the impact of religion at the personal level, with social/political phenomena being symptoms of the underlying personal level experiences.
As example, Marxism is just one of many political ideologies which have come and gone over the course of Judeo-Christian history in the West. Marxism was a powerful ideology hijacked by the state in two of the world's largest nations, but it has already faded away in influence, while Christianity remains still standing, as it has so many times before.
Point being, there must be more going on with religion than just another ideology being hijacked by power trippers to serve their own agendas.
Yes, agreed.
1) We might reflect upon the spectacular success of these mortal writers in creating tales which have survived the test of time. As example, no collection of words from science is likely to match this accomplishment.
2) The agreed upon fact that mortal men wrote these tales tells us little about whether something like gods exist. Or rather it tells us little about whether something unseen exists which tribal mortal men from thousands of years ago could only describe by referencing the King concept which was dominant during their time.
The leading theory in my mind is that the supernatural concept is referring to real phenomena within the laws of nature that are so far outside of our current ability to grasp that they SEEM to be outside the laws of nature.
As example, for the vast majority of human history we had no knowledge of the microscopic, atomic and quantum realms. Those realms were always there right in front of our faces, but for a long time we couldn't see them. So if we were to attempt to explain the quantum realm to an audience from 1,000 years ago it would surely SOUND supernatural to them, because such things would be so far beyond their own experience and knowledge. But as we now know, these realms are not supernatural, but instead just an example of reality being far more interesting than even our imaginations can sometimes grasp.
As a thought experiment, imagine that the complexity of reality was explained by a number scale going from 0 - 1,000. Over the last 500 years we've made remarkable progress in understanding, which when compared to previous understandings make we moderns feel like geniuses. But maybe we're progressed up the complexity number scale from 7 to 23. There may be vast territory as yet not even imagined, let alone explored or understood.
In a clumsy childlike manner the stories about the supernatural may be referring to this vast realm of unexplored reality.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulation_hypothesis
If we are really all living in a Simulation, that could explain some of the reports of the super-natural; it could be just the 'super-users' messing around in our lives.
I never understood this question. If the only thing that counts as evidence is something physical (i.e. something you see, hear, touch, smell, or taste), then the only thing you can know is physical. So, if I hear a voice from the great beyond calling my name, declaring himself God, and even doing what appear to be miracles, then all I can know from that are those physical manifestations. I would have no reason to assume an underlying non-physical entity any more than I do now when I experience physical phenomena. What I would seek to do is reconsider what I thought to be the physical laws in existence and alter that to account for this new phenomenon.
For example, if I were to find a material that instead of becoming a gas under high heat, it became more solid, I would not assume a supernatural force, but I would seek to find a physical explanation for it, even if it meant altering my prior views of certain physical laws.
The problem with the inquiry is the lack of clear definition of what constitutes physical and non-physical (or natural and supernatural). It seems to me that the real difference between the two when dissecting how words are used is that natural events are those that we can predictably observe and usually replicate, whereas supernatural events are those events that sporadically occur, cannot be replicated, and for some very odd reason cannot be recorded because we never seem to have a camera or recorder around when we need it, and if we do, the recording is fuzzy, blurred, or filled with static, like when they try to capture pictures of the elusive Bigfoot.
The notion that the physical world is all that there is, posits a big, blatant brute-fact:
I've often and amply discussed that brute-fact, and an alternative to it.
Why is there that physical universe that's all that there is, on which all else supervenes?
And the notion that science, logic and words describe all, is a questionable assumption.
To give a few familiar examples;
No finite dictionary can non-circularly define any of its words.
Can you write down a complete description of your experiences?
Your Materialism is a questionable faith-based religion.
Michael Ossipoff
Quoting Michael Ossipoff
No it's not. My materialism is a philosophical position.
I didn't ask you to respond. In particular, I didn't ask you to respond to the statements in my post.
But yes, I did ask a question. I asked:
Quoting Michael Ossipoff
That's a question, not "bullet-point". If you can't answer it, I won't pretend to be surprised. Don't worry about it.
I merely meant what i said.
Call it what you want. According to definitions in Merriam-Webster and Houghton-Mifflin, of Materialism and religion, Materialism is a religion.
It's a "philosophical position" about an alleged ultimate-reality, a supposed objective and fundamental reality on which all else supervenes. A belief about all-that-is, amounts to a religion.
Maybe I should quote Merriam-Webster for you again:
Materialism:
A theory that matter is the only or fundamental reality, and that all being and processes and phenomena can be explained as manifestations or results of matter.
Religion:
Commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance.
Religious:
Relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity.
[end of dictionary definitions]
So yes, by those definitions, Materialism is a religion.
But your belief that this physical world is all of reality, the ultimate reality on which all else supervenes, and "by which all being and processes and phenomena can be explained" amounts to a religion, by a reasonable interpretation based on something that religions have in common. Merriam-Webster agrees, as does Houghton-Mifflin..
Michael Ossipoff
Quoting Purple Pond
When I first answered that question, in a recent post to this thread, I assumed that your "supernatural" translates to "nonphysical".
But "supernatural" is a funny word. What could be more natural than God?
Is all of Reality itself other than "natural" ?
I doubt that anything would convince you. It hasn't been my purpose to convince you, or other aggressive-Atheists. What I say is for the benefit of others who have heard you. I merely have wanted to ask you questions about what you mean, in regards to Theism. ...and,in regards to Materialism, to ask what you mean by "objectively-existent", "objectively real", "substantial", "substantive", and "actual". ...and in what context, other than its own, you want or claim this physical universe to be "real" or "existent".
...and to remind you that your Materialism posits a blatant brute-fact (...as i've discussed here many times).
Michael Ossipoff
This is just a gross false equivalency. Live by the sword die by the sword, how about another definition showing your false equivalency:
de·vo·tion
d??v?SH(?)n/Submit
noun
love, loyalty, or enthusiasm for a person, activity, or cause.
Materialism does not include love, nor loyalty nor enthusiasm, any of those things that a materialist feels towards Materialism, is a trait about him and not Materialism. No where in your definition of Materialism does it mention any of those things. But of course there is more, the focus of the word must be a person, activity or cause. Materialism is also none of these things either.
Intentional or not, this a false equivalency. Materialism is not a religion.
Quoting Michael Ossipoff I don't know. And I have a question for you: Why is there something rather than nothing?
Quoting Michael Ossipoff
The form of the question was like a bullet point. I guess I'm supposed to feel stupid now, right? Because I can't answer one of the big questions.
Quoting Michael Ossipoff
Maybe you shouldn't because dictionary definitions aren't wholly reliable. There are different dictionaries with different meanings of the words "materialism" and "religion". So I would take it with a grain of salt. I personally don't agree with the definition of religion that you mentioned. The fact that a mere philosophical position such as materialism can logically be called a religion, in my opinion, acts as a reductio ad absurdum to those dictionary definitions.
Quoting Michael Ossipoff
I don't understand the reasoning here. Just because materialism may have something in common with religion doesn't mean it is a religion.
After the discovery of other planets in our solar system, we (including scientists) imagined them to be exactly like our earth in their constitution. Many years later, we have terms like 'gas' planets to describe some of them. Even though they are physical, they are far less dense than our earth. Could you imagine what kind of life-forms they would have, if they did? Consider the ratio of our earth's density to human density, 5.5 g/cm3 (earth) to 0.985 g/cm3 (humans). Imagine the implications if that translated directly to those gas planets or if the life-forms could have a much less relative density. It might mean there could be other civilisations out there progressing parallel to ours and beyond our perception.
What if worlds and life-forms were not limited to solids, liquids and gases? Suppose configurations of much higher vibrational energies into magnetic/gravitational (or any other kind of energy) fields like planets, suns, etc.
We have a very limited spectrum of interaction, therefore, our observations, investigations, experiences, etc are very limited. We have historical evidence that, there has always been more to discover, it's just a matter of time. :sparkle: The truth is out there. :sparkle:
Pondering Miracles, Medical and Religious .
I’d posted the following Merriam-Webster definitions. (Merriam-Webster is the premier dictionary in the U.S.)
.
[i]”Materialism:
.
A theory that matter is the only or fundamental reality, and that all being and processes and phenomena can be explained as manifestations or results of matter.
.
Religion:
.
Commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance.
.
Religious:
.
Relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity.”— Michael Ossipoff[/i]
.
.
You’ve conveniently missed the presence, in that definition, of the word “commitment”.
.
“Commitment” has a well-established, widely-used, broad range of meanings.
.
…such as emotional involvement or investment. Or espousal of a view. Anyone who espouses Materialism has committed himself to it. …in the dictionary-definition sense of revealing a view.
.
Also, the amount of time that Materialists and aggressive atheists devote to promoting their their cause, in these forums, tautologically tells us that they’re devoted to it.
.
.
One can be committed to Materialism, as described above. The advocacy of Materialism is very obviously a cause for some people here. Likewise advocacy of Atheism.
.
Of course a core belief of Materialists is that materialism is “scientific” instead of religious. That’s a tenet of that religion.
.
You see, only other religions are religions :D
.
Michael Ossipoff
.
I certainly don’t forbid you from doing so. In fact, I encourage you, and anyone else, to reply. That should be the spirit of forum-posts. …according to the forum-guidelines, and according to what we mean by the word “forum”.
.
But I never meant to obligate you to reply, or to imply that you should, or to criticize you if you’re unable to.
.
[i]”But yes, I did ask a question. I asked:
.
Why is there that physical universe that's all that there is, on which all else supervenes?”
— Michael Ossipoff — Michael Ossipoff[/i]
.
.
Thank you for your honest answer.
.
In other words, then, your Materialism posits a brute-fact.
.
.
I’ve discussed that before, but I’ll repeat as much as is feasible in this post, without making the post too long. (Then I’ll save it in Word, in case the question is asked again.)
.
In the describable realm, the world of describable things, there are abstract implications, in the sense that we can mention and refer to them. I don’t claim any other “existence” or “reality” for them. Nor do I claim that there’s anything else in the describable realm.
.
I’ve spoken of complex systems of inter-referring abstract implications about hypothetical propositions about hypothetical things, and asked Materialists in what verifiable way they believe that this physical world is other than that.
.
…and in what context, other than its own, they want or believe this physical universe to be existent and real.
.
If you, as a Materialist regard abstract implications as “nothing”, then I don’t claim that there’s anything, in the describable realm.
.
Someone could ask “But why are there abstract facts, such as abstract implications?
.
(As I’m using “implication”, an implication is an implying of one proposition by another proposition. That’s a state-of-affairs, and it’s a relation among things (…two popular definitions of “fact”)).
.
(Propositions are things. Things are what can be referred to.)
.
Someone pointed out that if there were no facts, then it would be a fact that there are no facts.
.
Someone else answered that there could be a fact that there are no other facts, other than that one fact that there are no other facts.
.
But that would be a particularly blatant ad-hoc brute-fact, calling for an explanation, which would be impossible, because there’d be nothing else, by which to explain it.
.
Besides, I’ve pointed out that any notion that facts share a continuum of interaction, such that there can be a fact that forbids all other facts, a fact that has jurisdiction or authority about all other facts, is an unsupported assumption. …an assumption that there’s no particular reason to believe, and whose falsity is the natural default presumption.
.
A complex system of inter-referring abstract facts neither has nor needs any “reality” or “existence” in any context other than its own inter-referring context. Each such system is quite entirely isolated, separate, and independent of any outside context. There’s no common “medium” or “continuum” that they all share, like some kind of potting-soil.
.
That’s why there are abstract facts, including abstract implications, and complex systems of inter-referring abstract implications about hypothetical propositions about hypothetical things.
.
I don’t claim that they have any reality or existence other than in their own context. And I don’t claim that they have any reality or existence other than that we can mention and refer to them.
.
…and I don’t claim that there’s anything else in the describable realm, the world of describable things.
.
That’s my answer to your question, Why is there something instead of nothing.
.
.
No, you’re just supposed to admit that Materialism implies a great-big blatant brute-fact.
.
The metaphysics that I’ve outlined above, and described in detail in the “How do you feel about religion” thread, neither needs no has any assumption or brute-fact.
.
.
That’s why looked it up in Houghton-Mifflin, in addition to Merriam-Webster. Merriam-Webster, as I’ve said, is the premier dictionary in the U.S.
.
In order to communicate in a language, we have to have at least some loose consensus about what words mean. To that end, dictionaries report on usage. But I admit that there can be widely used and accepted definitions that didn’t happen to make it into dictionaries, maybe due to space considerations, etc.
.
I agree that we needn’t share the same definitions. But, with its beliefs about the ultimate reality, Materialism is so religion-like, that it’s pointless to quibble about definitions that say it is or isn’t a religion. I merely quoted Merriam-Webster (and I’ll quote Houghton-Mifflin and SEP if you want) to show that there’s a reported consensus about the meanings of “Materialism” and “Religion” by which Materialism is a religion.
.
.
See directly above.
.
Michael Ossipoff
Now you are just backing further into the weeds sir. Anything you are committed to is a religion now? You are certainly free to dilute the word religion so that all human endeavours are religions, but its clear you are doing so only to prop up this false equivalency.
Further, your point about materialists and aggressive atheists has already been refuted. I repeat, you are talking about certain people, not Materialism. Your problem with certain individuals is not relevent to Materialism being or not being a religion. Its a conflation you are making in order to once again, prop up this false equivalency.
You reiterate this point twice more before the end of your post. It is irrelevant, but it does show a devotion of your own to this false equivalence of yours. Is it your religion? My guess is that you would be happy to call it religion if it meant that in so doing you get to continue treating Materialism (and atheism, which I suspect is what this is really about.) as a religion as well.
I get it, there is a cleverness, an amusing irony to calling someone who does not believe in religion a religious person but your claim is none the less quite fallacious.
Anyway, since your argument is clearly with certain people rather than Materialism or atheism I suggest you take it up with them. From what I can tell (Im new to the forum) you will be accommodated.
Thanks for the discussion :)
.
No, I didn’t say that. Re-read the dictionary definitions that I posted.
.
.
Repeat it all you want, but I’ve been talking about Materialism. It has a big, blatant brute-fact. …and, by the dictionary definitions that I posted, it’s a religion. But, as I said, we needn’t quibble about that. We can agree that, with its belief about ultimate reality, it’s certainly so religion-like that definitional-quibbles aren’t important.
.
Michael Ossipoff
You’ll have to forgive me, I didnt know I was wading into part of an overall agenda you are devoted to pushing. Referencing some of the other threads you posted in I see it now, Im content to move on from this and let those other discussions bear thier fruit.
Quoting Michael Ossipoff
No, just because I don't have an explanation of the physical universe it doesn't follow that my materialism posits a brute fact. And even if did posit a brute fact, I don't see any reason why there can't be any brute facts.
Quoting Michael Ossipoff I did not see a clear and concise answer.
You cannot prove anything using only a dictionary. I repeat you cannot wholly trust the dictionary. People use words Incorrectly and their meanings are often added to the dictionary. https://thewalrus.ca/can-you-trust-your-dictionary/
No, it's just a faith-based belief in a particular version of the ultimate reality. :D
You’d said:
.
I don't know. […why there’s the objectively-existent, fundamentally-existent, physical universe on which everything supervenes…that Materialists believe in.]
.
I replied:
.
.
You say:
.
.
Then what do you think “brute-fact” means??
.
A brute-fact is an alleged fact whose advocate(s) can’t explain, or tell an origin or cause of.
.
In contrast, the metaphysics that I propose doesn’t need, involve or have any brute-fact or assumption.
.
(I’ll describe it in more detail in an immediately-subsequent post.)
.
.
I didn’t say that there can’t be a brute-fact. I merely said, correctly, that Materialism has and needs one. …or is one.
.
…and that my Eliminative Ontic Structural Subjective Idealism metaphysics doesn’t.
.
Brute-facts are disapproved-of when they’re unnecessary. If there’s a metaphysics that needs and posits a brute-fact, &/or other assumptions, and if there’s one that doesn’t, then there’s no need for the one that does.
.
But no, I can’t prove that your brute-fact isn’t true, because it’s one of those unverifiable, unfalsifiable propositions that we hear about.
.
.
“Clear”:
.
In the post that you were replying to, I only briefly referred to my metaphysics. I didn’t fully describe it or really define it. I referred to another thread (“How do you feel about religion?”) where there’s a fuller description.
.
So yes, you’re right, that I didn’t really define my metaphysis in the post that you were replying to.
.
So, immediately after I post this message, I’ll copy into an immediately-subsequent post, my earlier post that more fully defines and describes my metaphysics.
“Concise”:
.
If a description/explanation/definition is complete, it will be fairly long.
.
My metaphysics-defining post (to be posted here immediately after this posting) starts out with a concise statement of its premises, followed by a concise statement of the metaphysical proposal. …followed by examples, answers to likely questions, and discussion of details. …things that are needed for a complete and clear explanation. …things that make it fairly long.
.
.
My metaphysics doesn’t depend on anything proved by using a dictionary.
.
But, if you’re referring to my statement that Materialism is a religion, then I’ll repeat something that I said about dictionaries:
.
Communication requires at least some consensus about what we mean by the words that we use. Dictionaries report the popular usage-consensus as well as possible. Yes of course there are usages in use that, for one reason or another (space-considerations, new-ness, etc.) don’t make it into dictionaries.
.
Merriam-Webster is the premier dictionary in the U.S.
.
I said that, by definitions of Materialism and religion, in Merriam-Webster and Houghton-Mifflin, Materialism is a religion. I stand by that statement.
.
You can disagree with those two dictionaries’ definitions, and that’s fine. But, regardless of definitions, Materialism is a faith-based belief in a certain particular version of ultimate-reality.
.
(No one denies that there’s, in some sense, a physical universe that’s real in its own context and in the context of our lives. Materialists take it farther, and want to make it into the ultimate reality, on which all else supervenes. That’s their faith-based belief.)
.
As I said, an immediately-subsequent post will more fully define and describe my metaphysics.
,
Michael Ossipoff
Here's a definition and description of my metaphysics:
9/29/18
First two premises that we all agree on:
.
1. We find ourselves in the experience of a life in which we’re physical animals in a physical universe.
.
2. Uncontroversially, there are abstract implications, in the sense that we can speak of and refer to them.
.
I claim no other “reality” or “existence” for them.
.
By “implication”, I mean the implying of one proposition by another. By “abstract implication”, I mean the implication of one hypothetical proposition by another hypothetical proposition.
.
So there are also infinitely-many complex systems of inter-referring abstract implications about hypothetical propositions about hypothetical things, with the many consistent configurations of mutually-consistent hypothetical truth-values for those hypothetical propositions.
.
Among that infinity of complex hypothetical logical systems, there’s one that, with suitable naming of its things and propositions, fits the description of your experience in this life.
.
I call that your “hypothetical life-experience-story”. As a hypothetical logical system, it timelessly is/was there, in the limited sense that I said that there are abstract implications.
.
There’s no reason to believe that your life and experience are other than that hypothetical logical system that I call your hypothetical life-experience-story.
.
Just as I claim no “existence” or “reality” for abstract implications, so I claim no “existence” or “reality” for the complex systems of them, including your hypothetical life-experience-story.
.
Each of the infinitely-many complex systems of inter-referring abstract implications about hypothetical propositions about hypothetical things is quite entirely separate, independent and isolated from anything else in the describable realm, including the other such logical systems.
.
Each neither has nor needs any reality or existence in any context other than its own local inter-referring context.
----------------------------
Any “fact” in this physical world implies and corresponds to an implication.
.
“There’s a traffic-roundabout at the intersection of 34th & Vine.”
.
“If you go to 34th & Vine, you’ll encounter, there, a traffic-roundabout.”
---------------------------
Every “fact” in this physical world can be regarded as a proposition that is at least part of the antecedent of some implications, and is the consequent of other implications.
.
For example:
.
A set of hypothetical physical quantity-values, and a hypothetical relation among them (called a “physical hypothesis, theory or law) together comprise the antecedent of a hypothetical implication.
.
…except that one of those hypothetical physical quantity-values can be taken as the consequent of that implication.
.
A true mathematical theorem is an implication whose antecedent includes at least a set of mathematical axioms.
---------------------------
Instead of one world of “Is”…
.
…infinitely-many worlds of “If”.
.
We’re used to declarative, indicative, grammar because it’s convenient. But conditional grammar adequately describes our physical world. We tend to unduly believe our grammar.
--------------------------
You, as the protagonist of your hypothetical life-experience-story, are complementary with your experiences and surroundings in that story. You and they comprise the two complementary parts of that hypothetical story.
.
By definition that story is about your experience. It’s for you, and you’re central to it. It wouldn’t be an experience-story without you. So I suggest that Consciousness is primary in the describable realm, or at least in its own part(s) of it.
.
That’s why I say that you’re the reason why you’re in a life. It has nothing to do with your parents, who were only part of the overall physical mechanism in the context of this physical world. Of course consistency in your story requires that there be evidence of a physical mechanism for the origin of the physical animal that you are.
.
Among the infinity of hypothetical life-experience-stories, there timelessly is one with you as protagonist. That protagonist, with his inclinations and predispositions, his “Will to Life”, is why you’re in a life.
.
The requirement for an experience-story is that it be consistent. …because there are no such things as inconsistent facts, even abstract ones.
.
Obviously a person’s experience isn’t just about logic and mathematics. But your story’s requirement for consistency requires that the physical events and things in the physical world that you experience are consistent. That inevitably brings logic into your story.
.
And of course, if you closely examine the physical world and is workings, then the mathematical relations in the physical world will be part of your experience. …as they also are when you read about what physicists have found by such close examinations of sthe physical world and its workings.
.
There have been times when new physical observations seemed inconsistent with existing physical laws. Again and again, newly discovered physical laws showed a consistent system of which the previously seemingly-inconsistent observations are part. But of course there remain physical observations that still aren’t explained by currently-known physical law. Previous experience suggests that those observations, too, at least potentially, will be encompassed by new physics.
.
Likely, physical explanations consisting of physical things and laws that, themselves, will later be explained by newly-discovered physical things and laws, will be an endless open-ended process…at least until such time as, maybe, further examination will be thwarted by inaccessibly small regions, large regions, or high energies. …even though that open-ended explanation is there in principle.
.
Michael Ossipoff
.
"No, just because I don't have an explanation of the physical universe it doesn't follow that my materialism posits a brute fact. And even if did posit a brute fact, I don't see any reason why there can't be any brute facts."
I don't either. The "brute fact" that I start with is something like reality exists. It's just kind of a given in my thinking, based on the evidence of my life. The thing that has always struck me (and motivated my interest in philosophy) is that reality is profoundly mysterious. The job of philosophy and science are to try to understand it.
Terms like "physical universe" and "materialism" create difficulties. What is the distinction between "physical" and "non-physical"? "What is "matter" and what is "materialism" really asserting?
I guess that materialism originated in the idea that the only thing that exists is tangible "stuff", not unlike the tables and the chairs. So we got those 17'th century theories of mechanistic materialism where reality consists of hard little unchanging lumps like billiard balls and that all change is the result of the dynamical motions of those atoms.
Physicalism seems to be an extension of materialism that holds that reality consists of nothing beyond the inventory of current physical theory. So objects only have physical properties, things like spatial-temporal location, mass, size, shape, motion, hardness, electrical charge, magnetism, and gravity. What's more, all of reality can be understood in terms of those kind of concepts. So reality need not be restricted to little lumps of physical matter (and time and space, I guess), but can also includes things like fields (and even spooky quantum entanglement). A difficulty that arises there is that we can't really know the outermost boundaries of 'physical' conception, what may or may not be posited by future physics.
I suppose that the best justification for a belief like this might be epistemological. Our windows to reality around us seem to be our senses. So one might want to argue that reality only consists of those things that we can know, either directly through our senses or indirectly by inference from sensory information. Empiricism may or may not embody that idea. Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be any good argument for why reality has to be limited to what can be known by beings like us.
So I'm inclined to think that while empiricism is reasonably good justification for the heuristic of methodological naturalism in the physical sciences, it's perhaps weaker as an ontology.
Purple Pond says:
"You cannot prove anything using only a dictionary. I repeat you cannot wholly trust the dictionary. People use words incorrectly and their meanings are often added to the dictionary."
I couldn't agree more. The first thing they tell students studying philosophy at the university level is don't try to philosophize by quoting dictionary definitions. Besides, anyone who has studied the philosophy of religion knows that scholars have been trying to define the word 'religion' for well over a century, without notable success. So I'm hugely skeptical that a dictionary editor is in any position to solve philosophical problems simply by fiat, problems that philosophers (and theologians and anthropologists) have been arguing about for generations.
You quote Blue-Pond:
.
.
Nonsense. That’s a definitional truism that no one, of any persuasion, would deny. Reality means “all that is”.
.
But Materialists equate reality (as a whole) with this physical universe, claiming that this physical universe is all of reality, and that all supervenes on it. Ask them why there’s this objectively existent, fundamentally-existent physical universe that is the ultimate-reality, and on which all supervenes, and they’ll say, “There just is it.”
.
And yes, that’s a brute-fact.
.
.
See above.
.
.
What he’s trying to say here is that his life gives him evidence that there’s a physical universe (which he calls “reality”, seemlingly without realizing that he’s making a big assumption that this physical universe is all of reality).
.
No one, denies that there’s this physical universe. Idealists don’t deny it. I don’t deny it. This physical universe is real and existent in its own context.
.
To repeat a question that Materialists seem unable to answer:
.
In what context, other than is own, do you want or believe this physical universe to be existent and real?
.
.
Yes, Materialists have trouble defining “physical” or “objectively-existent” or “objectively-real” or “actual” in a way that isn’t circular when they’re claiming that our physical universe is those things.
.
As for “Materialism”, written definitions are available, and you might want to check them out.
.
.
See above. Sorry you don’t like references to written or agreed-upon definitions, but communication is difficult without agreed-upon definitions.
.
.
Yes, and then physics advanced, and physicists began having a lot to say about fields, and eventually some began calling Materialism “Physicalism”, to emphasize the inclusion of all that’s physical, instead of just matter.
.
The problem is that “Physicalism” also refers to a philosophy-of-mind position. I’ve had people here object, for that reason, when I called Materialism “Physicalism”.
.
But it’s well-understood now, that when someone says “Materialism”, they’re not saying that matter is all there is, or the basis of all. They’re saying that the physical universe is all there is, and is the basis of all. …in other words, they’re using Materialism to mean the same thing as metaphysical “Physicalism”. …while avoiding “Physicalism” ‘s double-meaning problem.
.
So, if I say “Materialism”, take it to mean “metaphysical Physicalism”.
.
.
See above.
.
.
He probably isn’t even aware that he’s stating an assumption rather than an established fact. His assumption is called “Materialism” or “metaphysical Physicalism”. It’s faith-based belief in a brute-fact about its version of ultimate-reality.
.
Why is there that physical universe that’s the ultimate reality? Why does the ultimate reality consist of a physical universe? It’s called a “brute-fact”.
.
.
But that doesn’t stop Materialists from declaring this physical universe (including any physically-inter-related multiverse it’s part of) to be the ultimate reality :D
.
.
No, physical observation doesn’t support that notion. Physical experiments and observations of the physical universe don’t distinguish between metaphysicses. Idealists don’t deny there’s a physical world, real and existent in its own context. Observation of the physical universe doesn’t provide any support for Materialism.
.
An early advocate of Ontic Struturalism was physicist Michael Faraday, in 1844, when he pointed out that there’s no reason to believe that this physical world consists only of mathematical and logical structural-relation, and that there’s no reason to believe in Materialism’s objectively-existent, fundamentally-existent “stuff”.
.
.
Yes, one might want to argue for that unverifiable, unfalsifiable brute-fact assumption.
.
.
That doesn’t seem to stop Materialists from declaring that Reality consists of this physical universe (and what supervenes on it and has it as an underlying basis.).
.
.
Word meanings have changed tremendously over the centuries. Languages have branched out into different versions that are no longer mutually-intelligible. Continual change is the nature of language. A dictionary is a useful guide to the rough current consensus of meanings.
.
.
Your philosophy-teacher was mistaken if he told you that dictionaries don’t (at least make a genuine effort to) keep up with and chronicle and report current usage-consensus. He’d be mistaken if he told you that communication doesn’t need some agreement about definitions.
.
And, though I quoted Merriam-Webster’s and Houghton-Mifflin’s definitions, and told their conclusion, I didn’t use dictionary-definitions as philosophical arguments.
.
.
Dictionarists don’t write “by fiat”, but rather they do their best to report current usage-consensuses….the ways that a word is currently being widely-used.
.
.
That’s nice, but I was merely stating the popular usages that Merriam-Webster and Houghton-Mifflin report.
.
Anyway, as I’ve already said at least twice here: Then don’t worry about the dictionary definitions. Quibbling about the definition of religion won’t change the fact that Materialism posits, or is, a faith-based unverifiable, unfalsifiable brute-fact.
.
Michael Ossipoff
No, a brute is a fact that cannot be explained in principle. A brute fact doesn't mean a fact that yet eludes my explanation.
Quoting Michael Ossipoff
This isn't logical. Even if your metaphysics don't posit any brute facts nor assumptions(which I doubt) doesn't give me reason to prefer yours over mine. My metaphysics may be better in other ways.
Quoting Michael Ossipoff
It's not a faith based belief, but it's a rational belief. What's faith based about not including extraneous things into my ontology until further evidence calls for it?
As for you metaphysics, you'll excuse me for not delving into into your particular metaphysics. I don't have the concentration nor the patience.
I was the only one to actually witness it snagging (in poor light) I immediately called a halt but was unable to disentangle it, on inspection it became obvious to the eight or nine of us present that it was physically impossible for the line to have finished up where it did. Oddly just a couple of minutes before the snag I had the most overwhelming de ja vu experience, it lasted a good two minutes and I was transfixed by it.
It was all a very spooky experience, it made me realise 'something' else is going on behind the scenes and totally changed my outlook leading me to pursue the nature of reality, but here's the funny part, I had the distinct and confident feeling that 'I', whoever that really is, somehow engineered the whole thing!
This argument is posted in here, and I've started a blog that starts out with the argument. However, what would convince you depends on many factors, and those factors may have nothing to do with good arguments or good evidence.
https://consciousnessanddeath.quora.com
.
Using your definition, you’re saying that the objective fundamental existence of this physical universe, as the ultimate-reality, all of reality, and the basis of all else, on which all else supervenes—is something for which an outside reason might, in principle, be found?
.
That’s odd, because Materialism, by definition, doesn’t allow for there being anything else by which to explain there being the physical universe that I described in the paragraph before this one.
.
By its definition, Materialism, posits a brute-fact, even by your definition of “brute-fact”.
.
.
Sorry Purple Pond, but saying that you doubt something doesn’t count as an argument against it.
.
.
…such as?
.
Anyway, I didn’t say that your unfalsifiable brute-fact can’t be superfluously, unverifiably true. I merely said that it’s a brute-fact.
.
No one can criticize your faith in it.
.
.
No, it’s just a belief in an unverifiable, unfalsifiable brute-fact. :D
.
.
That means supportable by rational argument. It’s easier to say it’s supportable than to actually support it.
.
.
There’s no evidence to support your belief. It’s faith-based because it’s a belief in an unverifiable, unfalsifiable brute-fact.
.
…where “extraneous” means extraneous to your ontology.
.
No one’s suggesting that you “include” any assumptions. The uncontroversial premises of my metaphysics aren’t assumptions, and don’t call for “including” anything. …such as the brute-fact assumption that you “include” and believe in.
.
And, by the way, maybe you think that observation of this physical universe is evidence for Materialism. It isn’t. Idealists don’t deny that this physical universe “exists” in its own context, and in the context of our experience and lives. That experience doesn’t contradict Subjective Idealism, such as the Ontic Structural Subjective Idealism that I propose, and it isn’t evidence for Materialism.
.
It typically isn’t possible to distinguish between metaphysics on the basis of physical experiments and observation of the physical world. Your Materialism amounts to a brute-fact assumption that is an unfalsifiable proposition.
.
.
Consider yourself excused.
.
.
Then don’t delve.
.
For one thing, my metaphysics and its premises are concisely stated in the first few paragraphs of my posted description of it. The remainder of that post consists of examples, further clarification, details, and answers to objections.
.
Yes, tv-watchers want everything in soundbites.
.
For another thing, no one asked you to post about my metaphysics. In fact, it would be better if you didn’t post about it without reading it.
.
Michael Ossipoff
Quoting Michael Ossipoff
Again, what do you mean by "anything else"? Do you mean something immaterial? I think you are equivocating here again. Surely there is a difference between "something other than what's in the physical universe", and "any explanation at all".
Quoting Michael Ossipoff
Such as being more parsimonious.
Quoting Michael Ossipoff
It never was intended to be.
Quoting Michael Ossipoff
You keep saying that, as if the more you say it, the more likely it is to be true.
Quoting Michael Ossipoff
You are. You're suggesting that I include immaterial things into my ontology which I see no reason for.
I see that you already made a thread about your metaphysics, yet from what I saw they seem far from uncontroversial as you claim. But I digress, I don't think this the place to discuss your metaphysics. You can discuss it here, obviously, it isn't against the rules, but they will fall on deaf ears.
Quoting Michael Ossipoff
No, but if society observing the universe far and wide for years and years and not finding anything that is immaterial that is a good reason to adapt materialism.
Quoting Michael Ossipoff
This is a non-sequitur.
.
Alright, if this physical universe (including any physically-inter-related multiverse that it might be part of) is “all that there is” (to use your wording), then, even in principle, how could there be an explanation for why there is this physical universe.
.
By your own definition, without an explanation possible, even in principle, the “existence” of your physical universe is a brute-fact.
.
Here’s what you said in your initial post:
.
.
So, if, as you believe, this physical world is all that there is, then how could there be an explanation for why there is it, even in principle?
.
You believe in the existence of something whose existence is unexplainable in principle.
.
You believe in a big brute-fact.
.
With its brute-fact? …when my metaphysics doesn’t have one? (Oh that’s right—You wouldn’t know about that, because you haven’t read it :D )
.
At the beginning of my description of my metaphysics, I stated its two premises, neither of which is a brute-fact.
.
One of the premises is that there are abstract implications in the limited sense that we can mention and refer to them. I’m not saying that that means that they exist or are real. I’ve repeatedly emphasized that I make no claim that they, or all the complex inter-referring systems of them, exist or are real, whatever that would mean.
.
So the abstract implications can’t be called a brute-fact, if I make no claim that they “exist”.
.
.
No, see above, to find out why it’s true.
.
.
I make no claim for the existence of anything describable, including the immaterial things that you refer to.
.
You’re the one with an assertion about “existence”, the brute-fact objective fundamental existence of this physical world, that exists as “all that there is” (to use your words). ….which you believe exists in some unspecified objective way, other than just in its own context.
.
I’m not saying that the “immaterial things” are real or existent (whatever that would mean). I’m just saying that there’s no reason to believe that your physical universe consists of more than those “immaterial things”.
.
You’re the one who advocates independent and concrete existence for something whose existence is, even in principle, unexplainable.
.
.
My (not original*) suggestion that life and this physical world have such a tenuous metaphysical basis is highly controversial in the sense that it’s contrary to the beliefs of most people, including most people at these forums.
.
However, it’s uncontroversial in the sense that it’s supported by uncontroversial statements. If you think that I’ve made a specific incorrect statement, in the premises or argument, or drawn an unwarranted conclusion, then feel free to specify it (Oh, but that’s right, you haven’t read it).
.
*It goes back at least to Michael Faraday, in 1844, and has more recently been espoused by Frank Tippler and Max Tegmark (…though they’re Ontic Structural Realists, not Ontic Structural Subjective Idealists).
.
In fact, my main argument consists of questions:
.
1. If you think this physical world is “objectively-real” or “objectively-existent”, “actual”, “substantive” or “substantial” in a way that makes it more than what I’ve proposed that it is, then feel free to specify in what way, and what you mean by “objectively-real”, “objectively-existent”, “actual”, “substantive”, or “substantial”.
.
2. In what context, other than its own, and the context of our lives, do you want or believe this physical universe to exist or be real?
.
.
No, this isn’t the place to discuss metaphysics, when your initial post asked this:
.
.
:D
.
…but it isn’t permissible to suggest an alternative to your metaphysical belief, even though you asked for examples?
.
You also asked me:
.
.
So I was supposed to answer that without speaking of metaphysics? :D
.
.
By all means, be deaf if you want to. But someone who doesn’t listen shouldn’t talk so much.
.
.
:D
.
Why would you expect observation of the physical universe to find something immaterial?
.
No one, including Ontic Structural Subjective Idealists, would deny that, in its own context and in the context of our lives, there is this physical universe.
.
But you don’t just believe that. You believe in something that physical observations and experiments don’t establish or even suggest:
.
You believe that this physical universe objectively, fundamentally exists, whatever that would mean,, as “all that there is”. (Your wording), …or as other Materialists sometimes word it, as the ultimate-reality, the basis of everything, on which everything supervenes.
.
Of course it “exists” in its own context, and that of our lives. But you want to make it into a metaphysics.
.
…not supported by any evidence, but faith-based.
.
You, typically of Materialists, think that you’re being “scientific”, but your confusion of science with metaphysics amounts to turning science into pseudoscience.
.
Michael Ossipoff
I don’t want it to seem as if I’ve evaded the below-quoted passage from Purple Pond. It’s just that I didn’t and don’t know what he was saying. Nevertheless, to avoid an appearance of evasion, I’ll comment on it and answer it, to the extent that I can decipher its meaning:
.
.
Right, then Purple Pond isn’t saying that, even in principle, this physical universe could have anything else that could give it a reason or explanation. That’s a brute-fact.
.
.
So then, Purple Pond is hinting that, at least in principle, this physical universe has or could have an inside-reason. …that it’s its own reason. That’s quite a claim. …that there’s something about this physical universe, this collection of matter, fields, events and physical laws about their inter-relation, that provides a reason and explanation for why there is it. That sounds quite mystical for a Materialist. He’s saying that maybe this physical universe is somehow its own reason for being.
.
…a “necessary material thing”?
.
…maybe borrowing from Scholastic religious arguments, but trying to apply them to a thing, a material thing.
.
But Purple-Pond isn’t religious, is he. :D
.
And remember that this mystical grand principle and necessity to be, this intrinsic necessity to materially exist, must itself be material, because, as a Materialist, Purple-Pond says that material things are all that there is.
.
Figure that one out :D
.
Michael Ossipoff
When Purple-Pond says that material things are all that there is, then he’s also saying that this physical universe exists in no describable metaphysical context other than its own.
.
…which of course is what I’ve been saying.
.
And, if it has no other describable metaphysical existence than that, then what would it mean for anyone to say that its existence is “objective’ or a “actual” as opposed to “hypothetical”?
Declaring the lack of any reason or explanation other than itself, Purple-Pond seems to be borrowing from the notion of a necessary being, but positing instead a “necessary bunch of stuff”. :D
.
Michael Ossipoff
List of prizes for evidence of the paranormal.
Quoting Harry Hindu
Right, Clarke's 3rd law: any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
I'd probably bet on tech.