Exposing Atheistic Myths

[abaddon]

Since you understand the argument and you still call it nonsense, then please tell me how you empirically verified things CAN exist independently of minds.

I don't really see that as the problem in Berkeley's thought. If it's true that I know nothing but my first-person experience, I am more than fine with that.

So, "things independent of mind" is not where our quarrel is. And, again, undermining certainty in materialism is no problem for atheism.

But Berkeley's strict empiricism is a problem for theism. Because if you're interested in being empirical, you've got no observation of any deity. You left your strict empiricism behind when you failed to stick to first-person experience and entered into metaphysical speculation. God's a rationalization, not an observation.

I'm not seeing a good reason to get metaphysical about this and leave empiricism so far behind. If stuff ceases existing when I close my eyes, that stuff pops back into existence again when I open my eyes. The floor's there when I get out of bed in the morning. There's no logical necessity to have a big picture view of all reality to explain that- a view so big I can't empirically verify it. The regularity or the "realness of things", which the "mind of God" stuff is supposed to give back to the world, is at least seemingly there anyway (to my empirical knowing). So why rationalize a God into existence to a solve a problem that doesn't exist?

 

[Keith&Co.]

i mean, you can prove perceptions of existing properties can vary between individuals, then jump straight to "there are no properties if no one is there to observe them."
That's a logic fail.
You might say there are no perceptions without a perciever, but that is not evidence the proprrty itself is observer dependent. i notice how your example was not 'what the piece IS,' but 'how the piece looks.' To two people. With kniwn dofferences in their perceptions. That does not change how a mass spectrometer in either person's hands will measure the piece.

You're cheating.

Something can be both 3 feet and 10 feet at the same time?

If we want to make this analogous to your colorblind example, yes. If we get an engineer and a sculptor, one with a great deal of experience estimating sizes, and one who just sucks at it, yes, two people can look at the same thing and make different estimates of the size. That does not mean they will get different numbers when they use a tape measure.

You're not making sense, Keith.Properties are based on the mind.

nope. Perceptions occur in the mind. Properties are based on the components of an object, and the condition it is in.
At least, you are fucking hopeless to prove otherwise.

If there are no minds, you are on the hook to explain the properties of things that are only known through minds.

Sure. You conflate perception and properties.
They exist independently of minds.

Size is only known through the mind, just like the yellow of a banana. If you have a plane on a runway it will measure very long. You will not disagree with this, Keith. But, once the plane is in the air flying high, I can hold up that same tape measure and it will look like the plane is about 1 inch long.

Is the plane simultaneously both lengths at the same time? Il'l give you a hint: NO!

Oh, isn't that cute. Halfie has ALMOST discovered relativity.

You're still bogged down in confusing the implications of differences in perception being differences in reality. You really must clear that up to make any progress.

Because one then has to ask about this objective observer and relativity. Why would God's view of how time works vary depending on where you're standing? How does God keep track of how time flows for the orbital space station and keep a different flow in mind for where NASA is talking to them?


You've got another problem, too.
Halfie said 'Jesus said...' and could never find Him saying that.
Halfie said 'studies show...' and could only find a survey.
Halfie said 'Science calls it a defect' and that was a mistruth.
Halfie said 'Locke said...' and no one can find that, anywhere.
So when Halfie says, "Berkeley says..." why would anyone give that any credit?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

i mean, you can prove perceptions of existing properties can vary between individuals, then jump straight to "there are no properties if no one is there to observe them."
That's a logic fail.
You might say there are no perceptions without a perciever, but that is not evidence the proprrty itself is observer dependent. i notice how your example was not 'what the piece IS,' but 'how the piece looks.' To two people. With kniwn dofferences in their perceptions. That does not change how a mass spectrometer in either person's hands will measure the piece.

You're cheating.

Something can be both 3 feet and 10 feet at the same time?

If we want to make this analogous to your colorblind example, yes. If we get an engineer and a sculptor, one with a great deal of experience estimating sizes, and one who just sucks at it, yes, two people can look at the same thing and make different estimates of the size. That does not mean they will get different numbers when they use a tape measure.

You're not making sense, Keith.Properties are based on the mind.

nope. Perceptions occur in the mind. Properties are based on the components of an object, and the condition it is in.
At least, you are fucking hopeless to prove otherwise.

If there are no minds, you are on the hook to explain the properties of things that are only known through minds.

Sure. You conflate perception and properties.
They exist independently of minds.

Size is only known through the mind, just like the yellow of a banana. If you have a plane on a runway it will measure very long. You will not disagree with this, Keith. But, once the plane is in the air flying high, I can hold up that same tape measure and it will look like the plane is about 1 inch long.

Is the plane simultaneously both lengths at the same time? Il'l give you a hint: NO!

So that means the observation of the mind of the plane has no influence on the actual plane.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

This entire exchange from Halfie was supposedly an attempt to prove god exists.

Magic friends need to be proven, real friends don't. One might say that magic needs to be proven, reality does not. That's why Halfie is here, for the former.

 

[Atheos]

I've been reading this thread for some time waiting for Half-Life to come up with a point. This Berkley nonsense is useless precisely because it "proves" nothing. Arguing that it cannot be proven that anything exists outside of a mind leads inevitably to the conclusion that "my mind is the only thing that exists." It in no way implies that a god exists, because that would be something that existed outside one's own mind, and it cannot be proven that anything exists outside of one's own mind. The entire world is nothing but my mind's delusion.

Since my mind is the only thing that exists and Half-Life is obviously just one more figment of my imagination, I have to say my imagination certainly comes up with a rich variety of characters. I've imagined smart folks like Stephen Hawking, talented folks like Penn Gilette, super villains like Osama Bin Laden, beautiful folks like Jessica Alba and scary folks like Pablo Escobar. But I don't know if I've ever imagined a character who makes worse arguments than this imaginary character going by the name of Half-Life. Takes the cake.

 

[Half-Life]

I've been reading this thread for some time waiting for Half-Life to come up with a point. This Berkley nonsense is useless precisely because it "proves" nothing. Arguing that it cannot be proven that anything exists outside of a mind leads inevitably to the conclusion that "my mind is the only thing that exists." It in no way implies that a god exists, because that would be something that existed outside one's own mind, and it cannot be proven that anything exists outside of one's own mind. The entire world is nothing but my mind's delusion.

Since my mind is the only thing that exists and Half-Life is obviously just one more figment of my imagination, I have to say my imagination certainly comes up with a rich variety of characters. I've imagined smart folks like Stephen Hawking, talented folks like Penn Gilette, super villains like Osama Bin Laden, beautiful folks like Jessica Alba and scary folks like Pablo Escobar. But I don't know if I've ever imagined a character who makes worse arguments than this imaginary character going by the name of Half-Life. Takes the cake.

Yes, the argument is so nonsensical that John Locke had to invent a mysterious substratum of matter that underlies all substance.

Wonder why Locke tried so hard to disprove it.

 

[Half-Life]

Since you understand the argument and you still call it nonsense, then please tell me how you empirically verified things CAN exist independently of minds.

I don't really see that as the problem in Berkeley's thought. If it's true that I know nothing but my first-person experience, I am more than fine with that.

So, "things independent of mind" is not where our quarrel is. And, again, undermining certainty in materialism is no problem for atheism.

But Berkeley's strict empiricism is a problem for theism. Because if you're interested in being empirical, you've got no observation of any deity. You left your strict empiricism behind when you failed to stick to first-person experience and entered into metaphysical speculation. God's a rationalization, not an observation.

I'm not seeing a good reason to get metaphysical about this and leave empiricism so far behind. If stuff ceases existing when I close my eyes, that stuff pops back into existence again when I open my eyes. The floor's there when I get out of bed in the morning. There's no logical necessity to have a big picture view of all reality to explain that- a view so big I can't empirically verify it. The regularity or the "realness of things", which the "mind of God" stuff is supposed to give back to the world, is at least seemingly there anyway (to my empirical knowing). So why rationalize a God into existence to a solve a problem that doesn't exist?

The problem of things existing independently of minds (in a materialist universe) is that it can't be shown. Nobody can prove, know, or think of something that exists independently of minds. Thus, in order for the world to make sense, an eternal mind must always be observing.

I really don't see why people say this is stupid.

As Berkeley summed it up, "Not believing in matter doesn't lead to skepticism. Believing in matter leads to skepticism." After all, if things can exist independently of minds, what use is there for God?

 

[Rhea]

The problem of things existing independently of minds (in a materialist universe) is that it can't be shown. Nobody can prove, know, or think of something that exists independently of minds. Thus, in order for the world to make sense, an eternal mind must always be observing.

I really don't see why people say this is stupid.

What's stupid about it is that you have to make up a magical eternal mind that you can't prove because that makes you more happy than living in a material world that you can't prove.

You admit that if you can't prove things, magic feels better than reality.

And yes, that sounds really stupid.

 

[Half-Life]

The problem of things existing independently of minds (in a materialist universe) is that it can't be shown. Nobody can prove, know, or think of something that exists independently of minds. Thus, in order for the world to make sense, an eternal mind must always be observing.

I really don't see why people say this is stupid.

What's stupid about it is that you have to make up a magical eternal mind that you can't prove because that makes you more happy than living in a material world that you can't prove.

You admit that if you can't prove things, magic feels better than reality.

And yes, that sounds really stupid.

No, you are wrong. If we KNOW that things are only known through minds, then why make something up such as, "things exist independently of minds?"

1. Things are only known through minds.
2. Therefore, things exist independently of minds.

This is an invalid syllogism.

Time and time again, I have repeatedly shown that materialism requires more evidence to justify it than immaterialism does. Since atheists are empiricists (for the most part) they should go with the conclusion that requires the least amount of justification.

 

[skepticalbip]

I really don't see why people say this is stupid.

That's easy. People say it is stupid because it is really, really stupid. Inventing an even more unprovable magic critter to explain something else unprovable crosses the line into inanity.

.... what use is there for God?

Now that is a great question.

 

[Half-Life]

I really don't see why people say this is stupid.

That's easy. People say it is stupid because it is really, really stupid. Inventing an even more unprovable god to explain something else unprovable crosses the line into inanity.

.... what use is there for God?

Now that is a great question.

What is unprovable about immaterialism? Do you disagree with the statement, "things are only known through minds?" If you agree with this, then right here we have the evidence we need for immaterialism.

 

[Atheos]

First, my imaginary friend, prove to me that you actually exist and aren't a figment of my imagination. After that you can work on proving that somehow this imaginary friend of yours is relevant.

 

[skepticalbip]

That's easy. People say it is stupid because it is really, really stupid. Inventing an even more unprovable god to explain something else unprovable crosses the line into inanity.

Now that is a great question.

What is unprovable about immaterialism? Do you disagree with the statement, "things are only known through minds?" If you agree with this, then right here we have the evidence we need for immaterialism.

You are still refusing to reason. "Things are only known through minds" does not preclude anything outside the mind. It only limits what we can know, not what is or may be.

 

[Half-Life]

That's easy. People say it is stupid because it is really, really stupid. Inventing an even more unprovable god to explain something else unprovable crosses the line into inanity.

Now that is a great question.

What is unprovable about immaterialism? Do you disagree with the statement, "things are only known through minds?" If you agree with this, then right here we have the evidence we need for immaterialism.

You are still refusing to reason. "Things are only known through minds" does not preclude anything outside the mind. It only limits what we can know, not what is or may be.

aha! But, what makes you conclude things exist independently of minds when you have ZERO EVIDENCE for this assumption?

Did you use your mind to come to this conclusion?

 

[Atheos]

I've been reading this thread for some time waiting for Half-Life to come up with a point. This Berkley nonsense is useless precisely because it "proves" nothing. Arguing that it cannot be proven that anything exists outside of a mind leads inevitably to the conclusion that "my mind is the only thing that exists." It in no way implies that a god exists, because that would be something that existed outside one's own mind, and it cannot be proven that anything exists outside of one's own mind. The entire world is nothing but my mind's delusion.

Since my mind is the only thing that exists and Half-Life is obviously just one more figment of my imagination, I have to say my imagination certainly comes up with a rich variety of characters. I've imagined smart folks like Stephen Hawking, talented folks like Penn Gilette, super villains like Osama Bin Laden, beautiful folks like Jessica Alba and scary folks like Pablo Escobar. But I don't know if I've ever imagined a character who makes worse arguments than this imaginary character going by the name of Half-Life. Takes the cake.

Yes, the argument is so nonsensical that John Locke had to invent a mysterious substratum of matter that underlies all substance.

Wonder why Locke tried so hard to disprove it.

See what I'm talking about? My imagination is so pervasive that it has invented a rich history of dumbass philosophers who couldn't tell their belly button from a hole in the ground. Some of them were so blindingly ignorant (again according to the fiction my imagination has deluded me into believing is a world) that they actually bought in to vapid arguments like this. I sure can concoct some real boneheads. Glad I was also able to come up with the likes of Newton, Einstein, Feynman, Hawking et. al. Otherwise I'd be forever trapped in a world like the imaginary movie I created called Idiocracy.

 

[skepticalbip]

You are still refusing to reason. "Things are only known through minds" does not preclude anything outside the mind. It only limits what we can know, not what is or may be.

aha! But, what makes you conclude things exist independently of minds when you have ZERO EVIDENCE for this assumption?

Did you use your mind to come to this conclusion?

Again with the strawman?

What would make people 'conclude' that things can not exist outside their perception? I agree that they can only know what they can perceive but do these people believe that they are omniscient, and perceive everything in the universe?

 

[Rhea]

The problem of things existing independently of minds (in a materialist universe) is that it can't be shown. Nobody can prove, know, or think of something that exists independently of minds. Thus, in order for the world to make sense, an eternal mind must always be observing.

I really don't see why people say this is stupid.

What's stupid about it is that you have to make up a magical eternal mind that you can't prove because that makes you more happy than living in a material world that you can't prove.

You admit that if you can't prove things, magic feels better than reality.

And yes, that sounds really stupid.

No, you are wrong. If we KNOW that things are only known through minds,

Stop right there.

We do not KNOW that.

Why do you keep saying it as if it’s a fact with evidence? It’s not.
That’s what makes this so stupid.

then why make something up such as, "things exist independently of minds?"

1. Things are only known through minds.
2. Therefore, things exist independently of minds.

This is an invalid syllogism.

Time and time again, I have repeatedly shown that materialism requires more evidence to justify it than immaterialism does. Since atheists are empiricists (for the most part) they should go with the conclusion that requires the least amount of justification.

 

[Half-Life]

You are still refusing to reason. "Things are only known through minds" does not preclude anything outside the mind. It only limits what we can know, not what is or may be.

aha! But, what makes you conclude things exist independently of minds when you have ZERO EVIDENCE for this assumption?

Did you use your mind to come to this conclusion?

Again with the strawman?

What would make people 'conclude' that things can not exist outside their perception? I agree that they can only know what they can perceive but do these people believe that they are omniscient, and perceive everything in the universe?

The conclusion of that is not "things can not exist outside perception," but "we have no evidence things can exist outside of perception," considering we only know through perception.

 

[Half-Life]

No, you are wrong. If we KNOW that things are only known through minds,

Stop right there.

We do not KNOW that.

Why do you keep saying it as if it’s a fact with evidence? It’s not.
That’s what makes this so stupid.

I am very curious (and excited!) to find out how you stopped using your mind to analyze things!

What other method are you using?!?!?!?

 

[skepticalbip]

Again with the strawman?

What would make people 'conclude' that things can not exist outside their perception? I agree that they can only know what they can perceive but do these people believe that they are omniscient, and perceive everything in the universe?

The conclusion of that is not "things can not exist outside perception," but "we have no evidence things can exist outside of perception," considering we only know through perception.

And we have no evidence that things do not exist outside our perception. Your conclusion that you have repeatedly and continually declared is that there is nothing physical outside our mind.