Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 85
  1. #1
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Glasgow UK
    Posts
    346
    Post Thanks / Like

    An Argument against Immaterialism and Power

    Here is an argument I was presented with on Google+
    It is an attempt to argue that if X is immaterial then X has no power and if X has no power it could not create the universe.

    P! Immaterial things have no mass. power is mass * acceleration * velocity.
    P2 Immaterial being has no power.
    P3 A creator must have power.
    C1 An immaterial, spaceless, and timeless entity is powerless to create anything, nor could it interact in a physical world.

    I have made my own response to this of the lines of equivocation on the word power and also counter-examples where immaterial things are proposed to exist and have power (logic, mathematics, possibly as platonic forms) but would welcome other responses r discussion on it?
    Do what you can, where you are, with what you have

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Posts
    321
    Post Thanks / Like

    An Argument against Immaterialism and Power

    How does "logic" have power as you define it (mass*acceleration*velocity)? Or for that matter "mass", "accelerating" or "velocity"?
    Last edited by SadElephant; June 13th, 2016 at 05:20 AM.

  3. #3
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Glasgow UK
    Posts
    346
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: An Argument against Immaterialism and Power

    Quote Originally Posted by SadElephant View Post
    How does "logic" have power as you define it (mass*acceleration*velocity)? Or for that matter "mass", "accelerating" or "velocity"?
    My first response to this argument is that the individual is equivocating on the word 'power', using it in the sense in physics and not as in common usage.
    On the common usage the fundamental laws of thought (not our formalisation of them) have power to cause humans to state whether or not a proposition is true or false.
    Do what you can, where you are, with what you have

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Posts
    321
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: An Argument against Immaterialism and Power

    Quote Originally Posted by Scotsmanmatt View Post
    My first response to this argument is that the individual is equivocating on the word 'power', using it in the sense in physics and not as in common usage.
    On the common usage the fundamental laws of thought (not our formalisation of them) have power to cause humans to state whether or not a proposition is true or false.
    Yes, I agree with your reasoning about equivocation. Unfortunately, that's a common practice when discussing theism - using a dictionary to bridge one idea to another.

    However, I would probably say that logic doesn't have power per se: it is us, the reasoners that use logic, that supply the power. Logic is a tool, just like a lever, it only works as well as the people who use it. We supply the power to logic by mutually agreeing to use it, frame the real world into it, and then taking it's results as true or false.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

  5. #5
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Glasgow UK
    Posts
    346
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: An Argument against Immaterialism and Power

    Quote Originally Posted by SadElephant View Post
    Yes, I agree with your reasoning about equivocation. Unfortunately, that's a common practice when discussing theism - using a dictionary to bridge one idea to another.

    However, I would probably say that logic doesn't have power per se: it is us, the reasoners that use logic, that supply the power. Logic is a tool, just like a lever, it only works as well as the people who use it. We supply the power to logic by mutually agreeing to use it, frame the real world into it, and then taking it's results as true or false.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
    If logic (the fundamental laws of thought, not our formalisation of them) is 'us, the reasoners that use it, that supply the power, a tool like a lever that only works as well as the people who use it'. then:

    Could a thing be other than itself when there was no us?
    Could a thing be a and ~a at the same time and in the same context when there was no us?

    Examples:
    Could the sun be other than the sun where there was no earth or us?
    Could the sun be both hot and ~hot at the same time and the same respect when there was no earth or us?
    Do what you can, where you are, with what you have

  6. #6
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    390
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: An Argument against Immaterialism and Power

    Quote Originally Posted by Scotsmanmatt View Post
    Here is an argument I was presented with on Google+
    It is an attempt to argue that if X is immaterial then X has no power and if X has no power it could not create the universe.
    Aren't there things without mass that have power? Does a gravitational field have mass?
    I think the idea of immaterial and a being that is immaterial is just ill-defined.

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Posts
    321
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: An Argument against Immaterialism and Power

    Quote Originally Posted by Scotsmanmatt View Post
    If logic (the fundamental laws of thought, not our formalisation of them) is 'us, the reasoners that use it, that supply the power, a tool like a lever that only works as well as the people who use it'. then:

    Could a thing be other than itself when there was no us?
    Could a thing be a and ~a at the same time and in the same context when there was no us?

    Examples:
    Could the sun be other than the sun where there was no earth or us?
    Could the sun be both hot and ~hot at the same time and the same respect when there was no earth or us?
    Sure. Boolean or classical logic is only one possible kind of reasoning system we use. It's just a convention and no more special that any other convention we choose to adopt.

    I work a lot with SQL a language used to process and query data. There, we have a multi-variate logic system whereby you have true, false or unknown.

    There's also fuzzy logic and neural networks which are also systems that take inputs and produce truth values.

    Or if we have a system that removes the law of the excluded middle. It's all about what we as humans choose to base our decisions upon.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  8. #8
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    72
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: An Argument against Immaterialism and Power

    Quote Originally Posted by Scotsmanmatt View Post
    Here is an argument I was presented with on Google+
    It is an attempt to argue that if X is immaterial then X has no power and if X has no power it could not create the universe.

    P! Immaterial things have no mass. power is mass * acceleration * velocity.
    P2 Immaterial being has no power.
    P3 A creator must have power.
    C1 An immaterial, spaceless, and timeless entity is powerless to create anything, nor could it interact in a physical world.

    I have made my own response to this of the lines of equivocation on the word power and also counter-examples where immaterial things are proposed to exist and have power (logic, mathematics, possibly as platonic forms) but would welcome other responses r discussion on it?
    Logic is only useful when applied to reality. You have just successfully argued that god is not a part of reality. So unfortunately have also shown that logic is the wrong tool for this job.
    God may be immaterial but it is also supernatural and the laws of physics that make your premise true apply only to the natural.
    If your argument is correct then god is mere imagination and therefore can not only accomplish the creation of the universe but can do it wearing his underwear on the outside if i so imagine it.

    Why are you using logic against something that is only bound by the illogical rules of whatever i imagine?

  9. #9
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,155
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: An Argument against Immaterialism and Power

    Quote Originally Posted by Scotsmanmatt View Post
    Here is an argument I was presented with on Google+
    It is an attempt to argue that if X is immaterial then X has no power and if X has no power it could not create the universe.

    P! Immaterial things have no mass. power is mass * acceleration * velocity.
    P2 Immaterial being has no power.
    P3 A creator must have power.
    C1 An immaterial, spaceless, and timeless entity is powerless to create anything, nor could it interact in a physical world.

    I have made my own response to this of the lines of equivocation on the word power and also counter-examples where immaterial things are proposed to exist and have power (logic, mathematics, possibly as platonic forms) but would welcome other responses r discussion on it?
    Where is god (any god) assumed to be immaterial? Does god consist of no matter? Is god the sum of all matter? If we are going to break god down into a physics problem, then it is up to the presenter of the logic to explain how he has derived god's being. If he cannot support his first premise, then his conclusion must fail. However, if he can prove that god is or is not material, then by very virtue of the proof of his non-existence, he has proven that god exists.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  10. #10
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    390
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: An Argument against Immaterialism and Power

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Where is god (any god) assumed to be immaterial? Does god consist of no matter? Is god the sum of all matter? If we are going to break god down into a physics problem, then it is up to the presenter of the logic to explain how he has derived god's being. If he cannot support his first premise, then his conclusion must fail.
    The OP seems to be a response to the common claim by theists that their deity is non-contingent on the universe, as an explanation of how that deity was supposed to have created it - hence the immaterial, space-less, & timeless nature of that deity.

    A better way to phrase is might be that the argument is working with the unstated premise that a claim for an immaterial creator deity has been made, and that the deity's being has been derived from that claim.

    I would also question the value of discussing the cause of the universe without considering physics at all, regardless of what cause is claimed.
    However, if he can prove that god is or is not material, then by very virtue of the proof of his non-existence, he has proven that god exists.
    This would depend on how one defines "exist" for the purposes of using the word to describe an immaterial being. At first glance it seems that "proof of non-existence leads to proof of existence" has a number of issues with it. Would you care to elaborate?
    Last edited by futureboy; June 14th, 2016 at 02:34 PM.

  11. #11
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    72
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: An Argument against Immaterialism and Power

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Where is god (any god) assumed to be immaterial? Does god consist of no matter? Is god the sum of all matter? If we are going to break god down into a physics problem, then it is up to the presenter of the logic to explain how he has derived god's being. If he cannot support his first premise, then his conclusion must fail. However, if he can prove that god is or is not material, then by very virtue of the proof of his non-existence, he has proven that god exists.
    Basic theology one-o-one. immaterial is a listed attribute of god in any theopedia. That at least some christians must take the view that god is immaterial so the argument is sound ( all premises are true) for those that do. Your opinion on gods state being different, as far as this argument goes, is immaterial.

  12. #12
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    West / East Coast
    Posts
    3,350
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: An Argument against Immaterialism and Power

    Quote Originally Posted by Scotsmanmatt View Post
    I have made my own response to this of the lines of equivocation on the word power and also counter-examples where immaterial things are proposed to exist and have power (logic, mathematics, possibly as platonic forms) but would welcome other responses r discussion on it?
    Well, you can also consider the principle of quantum entanglement, where we have two particles that can be separated by a universe or a few hundred yards, it matters not, with no mass of any kind connecting them. Yet with no material substance of any kind or an electrical power outlet charging them, the two particles can interact with each other regardless of their distance. Einstein use to call this “spooky action at a distance,” but entanglement has now been proven time and time again. We’ve started using this amazing power in quantum computation.

    Then on a more fundamental note, here's my two cents with the argument:

    P! Immaterial things have no mass. power is mass * acceleration * velocity.
    That doesn’t mean the immaterial is not a type of energy (force).

    P2 Immaterial being has no power.
    or Immaterial (energy) IS power, depending on its state.

    P3 A creator must have power.
    The Creator is an energy state (frequency) that cannot be created or destroyed.

    C1 An immaterial, spaceless, and timeless entity is powerless to create anything, nor could it interact in a physical world.
    An immaterial, spaceless, timeless energy state can transcend any lower, temporal physical state that is formed by and/or through it. Just like light can pass and interact with a prism.
    Close your eyes. Fall in love. Stay there.
    Rumi

    [Eye4magic]
    Super Moderator
    ODN Rules

  13. #13
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    390
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: An Argument against Immaterialism and Power

    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    The Creator is an energy state (frequency) that cannot be created or destroyed.
    Could you explain this in more detail, since frequencies are not usually, if ever, referred to as energy states? Afterwards, can you demonstrably prove that what you call "the creator":
    A. exists
    B. is an energy state
    C. a being with agency

    An immaterial, spaceless, timeless energy state can transcend any lower, temporal physical state that is formed by and/or through it.
    Please provide some support for these higher and lower "temporal physical states".

  14. #14
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,155
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: An Argument against Immaterialism and Power

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    The OP seems to be a response to the common claim by theists that their deity is non-contingent on the universe, as an explanation of how that deity was supposed to have created it - hence the immaterial, space-less, & timeless nature of that deity.

    A better way to phrase is might be that the argument is working with the unstated premise that a claim for an immaterial creator deity has been made, and that the deity's being has been derived from that claim.

    I would also question the value of discussing the cause of the universe without considering physics at all, regardless of what cause is claimed.
    This would depend on how one defines "exist" for the purposes of using the word to describe an immaterial being. At first glance it seems that "proof of non-existence leads to proof of existence" has a number of issues with it. Would you care to elaborate?
    See, I usually hear religious folks who believe in god express him as omnipresent, not immaterial. I think if someone is going to offer a premise that god is immaterial, then they need to explain how they got there.

    ---------- Post added at 08:13 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:12 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by SoylentGreen View Post
    Basic theology one-o-one. immaterial is a listed attribute of god in any theopedia. That at least some christians must take the view that god is immaterial so the argument is sound ( all premises are true) for those that do. Your opinion on gods state being different, as far as this argument goes, is immaterial.
    Basic argumentation b.s. If you wish to claim is immaterial, then please support your claim.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  15. #15
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    72
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: An Argument against Immaterialism and Power

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post

    Basic argumentation b.s. If you wish to claim is immaterial, then please support your claim.
    What support do i need but to make the claim? Is there a higher authority anywhere whose claim has any more support than mine or any who make the claim?
    The basic problem with being logical about theism is that the application of logic is to something that does not exist and so is not bound by any rule of logic.
    As a good rebuttal as the Op logic is, its only real use is as a momentary stop to one train of thought only to open another ie; from immaterial too also being supernatural.

  16. #16
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    390
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: An Argument against Immaterialism and Power

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    See, I usually hear religious folks who believe in god express him as omnipresent, not immaterial. I think if someone is going to offer a premise that god is immaterial, then they need to explain how they got there.
    Omnipresent, immaterial, omnipresent but not immaterial, immaterial but not omnipresent, omnipresent and immaterial ... all the colours of the rainbow!
    I can definitely say I've heard all in pretty much equal measure, with usually little variance in how they support it. Generally, the whole "non-contingent" part is used to explain how they get to "immaterial".
    In any case, why theists may or may not claim their deity is immaterial is not really germane to the discussion of this counter-argument (the actual OP).

  17. #17
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,155
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: An Argument against Immaterialism and Power

    Quote Originally Posted by SoylentGreen View Post
    What support do i need but to make the claim? Is there a higher authority anywhere whose claim has any more support than mine or any who make the claim?
    The basic problem with being logical about theism is that the application of logic is to something that does not exist and so is not bound by any rule of logic.
    As a good rebuttal as the Op logic is, its only real use is as a momentary stop to one train of thought only to open another ie; from immaterial too also being supernatural.
    That is not the point though. Someone offered an attempt to logically prove god does not exist. I am simply pointing out that the logic is based on a false per-condition. The argument is based on some assumption that god is literally immaterial. However, it appears to be a straw man since I do not believe any religion truly describes their god in this sort of mundane fashion.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  18. #18
    ODN's Crotchety Old Man

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Location, Location
    Posts
    9,450
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: An Argument against Immaterialism and Power

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    However, it appears to be a straw man since I do not believe any religion truly describes their god in this sort of mundane fashion.
    ...

    Literally two seconds on Google:

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporeality

    "Incorporeal or uncarnate means without a physical body, presence or form. It is often used in reference to souls, spirits, and God in many religions including Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. In ancient philosophy, any attenuated "thin" matter such as air, ether, fire or light was considered incorporeal.[1] The ancient Greeks believed air, as opposed to solid earth, to be incorporeal, in so far as it is less resistant to movement; and the ancient Persians believed fire to be incorporeal in that every soul was said to be produced from it.[2] In modern philosophy, a distinction between the incorporeal and immaterial is not necessarily maintained: a body is described as incorporeal if it is not made out of matter."

  19. #19
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,155
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: An Argument against Immaterialism and Power

    Quote Originally Posted by Dionysus View Post
    ...

    Literally two seconds on Google:

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporeality

    "Incorporeal or uncarnate means without a physical body, presence or form. It is often used in reference to souls, spirits, and God in many religions including Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. In ancient philosophy, any attenuated "thin" matter such as air, ether, fire or light was considered incorporeal.[1] The ancient Greeks believed air, as opposed to solid earth, to be incorporeal, in so far as it is less resistant to movement; and the ancient Persians believed fire to be incorporeal in that every soul was said to be produced from it.[2] In modern philosophy, a distinction between the incorporeal and immaterial is not necessarily maintained: a body is described as incorporeal if it is not made out of matter."
    So, is god incorporeal like air or literally immaterial?
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  20. #20
    ODN's Crotchety Old Man

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Location, Location
    Posts
    9,450
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: An Argument against Immaterialism and Power

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    So, is god incorporeal like air or literally immaterial?
    "In modern philosophy, a distinction between the incorporeal and immaterial is not necessarily maintained: a body is described as incorporeal if it is not made out of matter."

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporeality

 

 
Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. The power of vulnerabiity
    By eye4magic in forum Shootin' the Breeze / Off-Topic
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: September 16th, 2013, 05:47 AM
  2. Replies: 322
    Last Post: April 4th, 2012, 11:45 AM
  3. Papal Power!
    By Mr. Hyde in forum Hypothetical Debates
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: May 17th, 2007, 09:02 AM
  4. The power and prestige
    By Meng Bomin in forum ODN Polls
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: February 8th, 2005, 03:01 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •