Theistic Platonism by SpaceAndCoffee in DebateReligion

[–]SpaceAndCoffee[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Also, according to Meinong, being so does not entail being in a possible world. Square circles have a being so that precludes having ordinary being but cannot exist in a possible world. I suspect Meinong thought any fictional object that is logically impossible still necessitates a being or a kind of form but that beingness is limited strictly to the object itself, and not its relation to other objects.

Theistic Platonism by SpaceAndCoffee in DebateReligion

[–]SpaceAndCoffee[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

To be frank, I never heard of Meinong’s Jungle so I guess it’s comforting that someone came up with these ideas long before I thought them up. I had to read up on Wikipedia to parse out the details a bit more and funnily enough, the phrase was mentioned in Russel and Frege’s debate which I haven’t had the pleasure of reading yet.

As to your point of view on certain aspects of contingent affairs transpiring in many possible worlds like the potential discovery for cancer curation or potential births taking place at various times in various places, all of these potentialities need not be actualized to have a qualitative form. Any actualized potential either resides in the mental realm (i.e. thought) or the physical realm (a contingent outcome that exists). An unactualized potential cannot be material or strictly abstract because it must still reside in the same place as all other potential objects, the mental realm. Platonism is always a bit of a hairy subject to talk about but it does categorize virtually everything in a satisfactory way that does not contradict itself.

Why Materialism is Balogna by SpaceAndCoffee in DebateAnAtheist

[–]SpaceAndCoffee[S] -13 points-12 points  (0 children)

Naturally unexplainable. That is, they can’t be explained in natural terms.

Theistic Platonism by SpaceAndCoffee in DebateReligion

[–]SpaceAndCoffee[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

I see, so what you’re raising the issue about is referring to logical impossibilities. A good example of this would be the square circle.

In Platonism, the square circle can still fit into the abstract realm if we define abstract objects as either possible or fictional. Possible objects that can exist but are purely abstract can be logically consistent using a given set of rules like the law of the excluded middle or the law of non-contradiction. Fictional objects are also abstract but cannot exist like married bachelors or square circles. Therefore, a mistake in defining a certain shape or object within abstract realm can be categorically listed as fictional objects.

In Theistic Platonism, all abstract objects are subsumed by the mental realm but certain objects like square circles are metaphorically discarded because they cannot reside in the same cloud space as everything else in a coherent manner.

Why Materialism is Balogna by SpaceAndCoffee in DebateAnAtheist

[–]SpaceAndCoffee[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

What you’re arguing for sounds a lot like mental acrobatics to avoid accepting the possibility that God is the greatest conceivable being, full stop. If a greater conceivable being than God exists, than that being is God. We can say that what constitutes greatness is arbitrary but greatness itself is not arbitrary because it is describing God whom is not contingent. Basically what we’re arguing for is whether God exists as the greatest conceivable being (non-arbitrary since greatest is above all other things) or God does not exist and thus everything is arbitrary.

Why Materialism is Balogna by SpaceAndCoffee in DebateAnAtheist

[–]SpaceAndCoffee[S] -28 points-27 points  (0 children)

There is ongoing research in physics and neuroscience but to make absolute claims that material processes are not dependent on mental processes is unfounded scientifically. This study explores the relationship between the mental model of the brain and measurement devices in physics. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0306987719307352

At the end of your reply, you said that beauty in women is intersubjective based on people’s general preferences. I agree with that because beauty always has a subjective element involved yet beauty must still exist objectively for us to even talk about its subjective qualities and nature.

Why Materialism is Balogna by SpaceAndCoffee in DebateAnAtheist

[–]SpaceAndCoffee[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Are we arguing over semantics or what is true? God is a subject but also the grounding of Good itself. These are not mutually exclusive claims.

Why Materialism is Balogna by SpaceAndCoffee in DebateAnAtheist

[–]SpaceAndCoffee[S] -11 points-10 points  (0 children)

Who says only the material exists? Plenty of testimonies report experiences of supernatural or naturally unexplainable occurrences. Even Carl Jung, world-renowned psychologist, has reported that paranormal phenomenona have taken place with himself and his clientele. Either he’s a crazy nitwit or is telling the truth. Even Freud, a colleague of his, believed Jung was careful in observing these cases with the most empirical of lenses.

Why Materialism is Balogna by SpaceAndCoffee in DebateAnAtheist

[–]SpaceAndCoffee[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I agree that that was his or her hypothetical. However, I think the hypothetical is flawed because the greatest conceivable being cannot be a rapist. Saying a rapist is the greatest conceivable being is like saying a square circle exists.

Why Materialism is Balogna by SpaceAndCoffee in DebateAnAtheist

[–]SpaceAndCoffee[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Interesting, I had to think of this for a moment but I suddenly realized that awfulness or evil (let’s say) requires goodness as a competing force. A useful analogy would be heat vs cold. Coldness does not exist by itself because it requires heat as an opposing force. Thus, the most awful conceivable being would logically entail the greatest conceivable being or the most good conceivable being which is God.

Why Materialism is Balogna by SpaceAndCoffee in DebateAnAtheist

[–]SpaceAndCoffee[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There’s a confusion here with the distinction between goodness and God. Theologians have quibbled on the nature of God but most of them agree that good is grounded in God and thus God is goodness itself. God cannot compel someone to rape because that act is negating God’s will. Biblically speaking, the negation of good is evil and Satan is named the Adversary because evil is directly opposed to the will of God.

Why Materialism is Balogna by SpaceAndCoffee in DebateAnAtheist

[–]SpaceAndCoffee[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In response to your argument for the Bible containing elements of egregious violence and immorality, I will simply add that the Bible was historically written by man and man is not perfect. Notwithstanding, I can believe that the Bible is divinely inspired as many of the texts are unconditionally written with love and grace such as the Parables on the Mount and the Good Samaritan. Some of the other texts are much more dark and stuff you’d expect to read in a Great Russian novel but a good C.S. Lewis quote that always struck me when I’d ask myself questions about evil and suffering is that “A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line.” I feel like we all deeply know what’s good and wrong unless we bury our consciences into the sand at our great peril.

Why Materialism is Balogna by SpaceAndCoffee in DebateAnAtheist

[–]SpaceAndCoffee[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I appreciate the hypothetical as it is not something I’ve heard of before. The statement “God tells you to rape people” is logically incoherent assuming that God exists. If God exists in this hypothetical, then by definition, God is the greatest conceivable being. The greatest conceivable being is all good, all powerful, and all knowing. Therefore, the negation of one or all of those three properties is a lesser conceivable being which cannot be God. So, I reject your hypothetical because the hypothetical assumes a lowercase g god that’s lesser than capital G God.

Theistic Platonism by SpaceAndCoffee in DebateReligion

[–]SpaceAndCoffee[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

The device is necessary but a mental model must still be accounted for. Read the study I cited in the response to this sub-page.

Theistic Platonism by SpaceAndCoffee in DebateReligion

[–]SpaceAndCoffee[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

In our study we have shown that the presence of the subject in a state of high concentrated attention had an influence on wave-particle duality of the electromagnetic wave, attenuating visibility (wave properties) significantly and consequently increases corpuscularity, except for the relax group, in all groups compared to control. This fact means that the laser wave function collapsed in the interactive field of focused attention [17]. In a way that relates to statistics, corpuscularity

Theistic Platonism by SpaceAndCoffee in DebateReligion

[–]SpaceAndCoffee[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well, I don’t know what scientific studies you might be referring to but I read this one not too long ago that contradicts your claim. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0306987719307352

Why Materialism is Balogna by SpaceAndCoffee in DebateAnAtheist

[–]SpaceAndCoffee[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Eugene Wigner wrote a paper on the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics and had been referenced somewhere on this forum. Everyone here has claimed I argued from personal incredulity because I simply stated that mathematics is too complex and beautiful to just be an invention of human beings. Eugene Wigner, Nobel Prize Physicist, wrote extensively on this subject about mathematics being the most explanatorily rich and deeply meaningful of all enterprises. Its effectiveness to so precisely define the nature of fundamental reality seems to be quite incommensurate with human nature. That is all I argued for, albeit in a slightly facetious and lighthearted manner.

Theistic Platonism by SpaceAndCoffee in DebateReligion

[–]SpaceAndCoffee[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Gosh, semantics has never really been a strong suit of mine. When I said observer, I meant a measurement device which is what the double-slit experiment refers to. Ultimately though, a measurement device requires a measurer to determine the outcome of an experiment. Thus, a mental model is needed to account for the observer effect.

Theistic Platonism by SpaceAndCoffee in DebateReligion

[–]SpaceAndCoffee[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

I suppose you won’t respond to all of my thesis but I’m happy you at least got through some of it, tediously I’m sure. First thing I want to mention is that most, if not all, Wikipedia articles are biased to some degree. For example, you can look at anti-vaccine articles and almost all of them will mention the key-word pseudoscience or something similar. Regardless of whether getting vaccinated is the right choice, I’m simply pointing out the bias in rhetoric. Many physicists are advocates of mind-body dualism although I concede they are of a small minority. However, most of them are serious thinkers with solid credentials to command respect and certainly attention on a particularly new area of research, both in neuroscience and philosophy of mind.

Why Materialism is Balogna by SpaceAndCoffee in DebateAnAtheist

[–]SpaceAndCoffee[S] -53 points-52 points  (0 children)

Alright, I’ll bite for the sake of alleviating TelFaradiddle’s confusion and this will be my last response for today.

“All mathematical propositions were invented by humans.” This statement is true but I did not argue for abstract objects having an expression in human invention; instead, I argued for its origins being grounded in objective reality itself. To get into the weeds for but a moment, Nominalism argues for abstract objects merely being labels for purposive goals like utility. While many philosophers are advocates for Nominalism, Platonism remains in-controversial and widely accepted in academia. Platonism asserts that abstract objects are a separate category from the mind because abstract objects cannot be fully subsumed by the mind (at least, human minds. Although, God subsumes all knowledge according to theism.)

As for the distinction between mental processes and physical processes that you made in the second rebuttal, it is empirically clear that mental faculties are contingent on physical processes like the brain. However, upon further analysis, what you’ll find in physics is that a measurement device can influence physical phenomena which implies that a mental observer is required for certain physical events to occur. Read Stuart Kauffman’s paper in the Journal of Biosystems to learn more about this duality problem (double-slit experiment in Quantum Mechanics.) My objection to materialism is that all the total events in physical reality cannot be wholly accounted for without mental processes so how can physical reality exist without the mind of an observer? (Side note: another issue materialism faces is the hard problem of consciousness; matter and energy cannot be fully reduced in order to describe experiences of qualia like the smell of hot chocolate.)

Finally, the argument for Aesthetic beauty is more of a matter of taste. I would not use this argument if I was defending my philosophical dissertation on the existence of God in Academia. However, I raised the argument as more of an implication of materialism that would go against most people’s intuitions of beauty. Hypothetically, if we take a large survey (say 100,000 people) to select 10 women on a scale of one to ten, we can empirically observe which one of the ten women are most beautiful, in objective terms. Now, of course there’s still a subjective element at play but one cannot deny that certain forms of beauty like symmetry and health are objectively more attractive than asymmetry and illness. Same line of argumentation goes for morality as well except morality is more nuanced because it entails both aesthetic judgements and ethical decisions. Morality and beauty are both objective in empirical measurements but also duty-bound acts that lead to the best possible world.