Does Matter Really Exist?

[Iacchus]

Have you ever flown in an aeroplane?

Yes, a few times.

Or driven a car?

All the time.

 

[CFLarsen]

Yes, I do in fact live here in America. So, what does that have to do with whether Christopher Columbus discovered it or not?

Because his account was supported by others. What he found, was supported by later findings. It's not as if we have his account of America and nothing else.

Matter exists, because you get hit with the brick. It exists, because you have flown in an aeroplane and driven a car - and so have others.

Your OP is answered. But I seriously doubt that you understand.

 

[Iacchus]

You do know what a metaphor is don't you?

If not then you might want to avoid the bible and literature in general until you do.

Oh really, I thought that because materialists assume that only material things exist, you were only capable of taking things literally. Sorry, my mistake.

 

[Iacchus]

Because his account was supported by others. What he found, was supported by later findings. It's not as if we have his account of America and nothing else.

Yes, this is what I read in a book and, is what my teachers told me.

Matter exists, because you get hit with the brick. It exists, because you have flown in an aeroplane and driven a car - and so have others.

Your OP is answered. But I seriously doubt that you understand.

And do you remember this? ...

But that wasn't the question. You asked if matter exists.

Which, of course is just a round about what way of asking what "is" matter? If it is not the basis of all that exists, as the materialists seem to suggest, then it doesn't really exist in "that sense" now does it?

Now, all I'm suggesting is that it doesn't exist in the sense that we think it exists, not that it's not there.

 

[Kopji]

Was he? And why is it that you must assume this?...

Because I didn't reach the same conclusion Max did even though he said I must. His conclusion seems in addition to being wrong, unimaginative. He seems like a smarter guy than that though, maybe the show took him out of context. It would be nice to see the original source material.

Yes, this would be entirely true if, God does not exist. So, why must we assume this?

Don't let me stop you from assuming God exists. I'm not the one making assertions though. So what is God like? Is he kind? Strong? Big? Small?

Which, would be entirely contingent upon what we assume, now wouldn't it?

I can agree that there is a sense in which we 'create' our world by how we view it. Attitude matters and is an agent of creative change. At a deeper level it is always good to understand how things really are, not just as we would choose to see them. That seems axiomatic: that knowledge represents understanding something as it really is and not only as it appears to be. Even if you argued that there were only 'appearances', that represents a deeper knowledge doesn't it? Solipsism and relativism seem to end in this kind of circular reasoning that refutes them.

Are ideas like 'God' simply perspectives that have served to help us survive through our evolution? If so it is good to know that is the way it is. Because this god survives on our sacrifices.

 

[Iacchus]

Because I didn't reach the same conclusion Max did even though he said I must. His conclusion seems in addition to being wrong, unimaginative. He seems like a smarter guy than that though, maybe the show took him out of context. It would be nice to see the original source material.

Well, maybe he didn't expect people to be so affronted by what he said at that time? You know, back in the days when people were still fresh and naive, and had a spirit of wonder about things?

Don't let me stop you from assuming God exists. I'm not the one making assertions though. So what is God like? Is he kind? Strong? Big? Small?

I don't know, I can't say that I know Him personally. Which, isn't to say I can't know of Him through what I am. Or, if I was to say anything, I would say that He is very patient.

I can agree that there is a sense in which we 'create' our world by how we view it. Attitude matters and is an agent of creative change. At a deeper level it is always good to understand how things really are, not just as we would choose to see them. That seems axiomatic: that knowledge represents understanding something as it really is and not only as it appears to be. Even if you argued that there were only 'appearances', that represents a deeper knowledge doesn't it? Solipsism and relativism seem to end in this kind of circular reasoning that refutes them.

Yes, I believe that reality is absolute.

Are ideas like 'God' simply perspectives that have served to help us survive through our evolution? If so it is good to know that is the way it is. Because this god survives on our sacrifices.

Yes, at the very least ...

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Well, if it is "all" comprised of the same thing, then it must be consciouness, because consciousness is the only "thing" that will speak to us about it.

I do not know what this means.

Me either, yet I await your defense of your standpoint that thought does not exist.

I can't find where I said this.

According to Mr. Planck, consciousness encourages a state of vibration, which is a state of "on" versus "off," and a state of "on" again, etc., etc. Which is to say, it's capable of accompanying a state of awareness versus the lack thereof at the same time.

I do not know what this means.

~~ Paul

 

[RandFan]

Yes, and the earth is flat.

Not based on any objective evidence. There is objective, demonstrable, emperical data that the world is round (spherical).

Beyond your ability to reason about it I would say none.

This is non-responsive. I'm not asking about our ability to reason. I'm asking IF there is a A reason. By "reason" I mean,

A.) Demonstrable data.

B.) Logical proof.

Do you have any demonstrable data or do you have a logical proof?

Look,

1.) I have many reasons to believe the world is roughly spherical.

2.) I have reason to believe that mater is as it appears.

3.) I have no reason to believe that the world was created by a fire breathing dragon.

One more time, and let me be crystal clear is there logical *reason to suppose that god created the world? Please see the dictionary definition below for my usage of the word. Based on this definition, is there reason?

rea.son Pronunciation Key (r

z

n)
n.

An underlying fact or cause that provides logical sense for a premise or occurrence: There is reason to believe that the accused did not commit this crime.

 

[RandFan]

Oh really, I thought that because materialists assume that only material things exist, you were only capable of taking things literally. Sorry, my mistake.

Perhaps you shouldn't assume what others believe.

 

[RandFan]

Iacchus, the point about the earth being flat better supports Randfan's point than yours. Well, this is how I see it anyway:

There was a time when people didn't know much about the world. They only had so much data to go on. That data being their immediate surroundings. Their experience through their life.

The earth is a very large sphere. Any local measurement will not be precise enough to discover the curvature, especially amidst all the noise of hills and valleys.

So, from the data that they collected they could say something - the curvature of their local area, when factoring out the noise, was within certain bounds. By extension it could be hypothesized that the rest of the planet followed a similar curvature.

But the hypothesis that the earth is flat goes further. It says - our observational evidence is accurate only to this degree X, but we go beyond that and suppose that it is actually flat, rather than simply saying what the evidence can tell us, that the curvature falls within certain bounds.
The fallacy comes about from an unwillingness to admit ignorance. That some fact must be given, in spite of the fact that none is supported.

And that is exactly what you are doing with God. The evidence says that any number of things could be true. You take that to mean that God exists. It's no different from the evidence saying that curvature could fall anywhere along a spectrum and taking that to mean that it is flat, rather than simply near-flat.

Very good response.

 

[Iacchus]

Perhaps you shouldn't assume what others believe.

Exactly.

 

[Iacchus]

Because I didn't reach the same conclusion Max did even though he said I must. His conclusion seems in addition to being wrong, unimaginative. He seems like a smarter guy than that though, maybe the show took him out of context. It would be nice to see the original source material.

Well, it looks like we might be getting closer ... I think?

From this page

The German version (presumably the original) is also abundantly quoted on the Web without citation, but several pages say that Planck said this in a talk entitled "Das Wesen der Materie" (the essence/nature/character of matter) he gave in 1944 in Florence:

Or, try Googling this ... Max Planck, during a lecture in Florence, Italy ... matrix of all matter

While here's the same search on AltaVista ...

 

[RandFan]

Exactly.

? Could you be more cryptic?

 

[Iacchus]

? Could you be more cryptic?

You have no idea where the hell I've been. So, why do you assume otherwise?

 

[bruto]

Iaccus, with regard to Columbus. It's just ridiculous and foolish to suggest if we doubt the Planck quotation we should doubt Coumbus's voyages because we've only read it "in a book." I have read more than one book that mentions Columbus and his discoveries, and his rather sordid subsequent history. The voyages of Columbus were of international importance when he made them, and even if details of the reporting turn out to be incorrect, it would take a wild stretch of the imagination to suggest that they didn't happen. Are you suggesting that we should discount all history because we have not lived it ourselves? Numerous persons with different agendas and different points of view have written numerous books and articles on Columbus and his history, sufficient to make it reasonable to assume that things happened more or less as reported. Maps were drawn, records kept.

One has the right to question your use of a quotation from Max Planck if you cannot come up with a better attribution, though I'm not sure it ultimately matters, since we have no more reason to consider Planck an authority on God than we do anyone else.

That being said, it's my understanding that Planck was strongly religious, and that the quotation would not be out of character. What that means for philosophy, though, is approximately nothing if, as it appears, Planck was a Christian all his life, and managed to reconcile science with religion as many have. I have found no evidence that his religious beliefs were derived from his scientific work, and if there's any evidence that Planck ever asserted that his religious convictions arose out of his scientific inquiries, or his conception of God was derived, somehow, from scientific evidence (rather than simply being found to fit in with it), I have certainly not seen it, and if you intend to imply it you'd do well to dig it up yourself.

What we have so far is a lifelong Christian who also happened to be a great physicist, stating his personal belief. I find that mildly interesting but otherwise pretty unproductive.

 

[Iacchus]

What we have so far is a lifelong Christian who also happened to be a great physicist, stating his personal belief. I find that mildly interesting but otherwise pretty unproductive.

Yes, and of course, you are merely speaking for yourself.

 

[RandFan]

You have no idea where the hell I've been. So, why do you assume otherwise?

? This doesn't follow from anything that I have said. I make no such assumptions. Why do you suppose that I do?

 

[Iacchus]

? This doesn't follow from anything that I have said. I make no such assumptions. Why do you suppose that I do?

No, why do you assume that I know any less about God than you do? Why do you, and others like you, assume that nothing is known about God? Isn't this in effect what you have said? And yet you turn around and have the gall to say ...

Perhaps you shouldn't assume what others believe.

So, why do you continue to promote such a fallacy? And, before you consider asking me to provide any evidence for, whatever reason must be deemed empirical, consider what I just said.

 

[Iacchus]

One more time, and let me be crystal clear is there logical *reason to suppose that god created the world? Please see the dictionary definition below for my usage of the word. Based on this definition, is there reason?

Yes, but how can you explain such reasoning if, God does exist? Are you telling us all that you don't know God exists but, that it's okay to assume that He doesn't anyway? You see, you would much rather assume that I don't know what I'm talking about.

 

[Roboramma]

"Iacchus is wrong about the point he is making in this thread, as in most others." - Albert Einstein.

I have no evidence that he did in fact say this, but Occam's razor suggest that since I said it, it is most likely true. Anyway, until someone can show otherwise, I'll just treat it as though it were.

Clearly the correct asumption is that he did in fact say this.

So, Iacchus, what do you have to say to Mr. Einstein?