• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Materialism Proven

Well... not quite. I like everyone to read his sig.

I love my friends, and I am proud of my enemies.
 
I propose the theory "immaterialism" instead. The premise of my theory is that, what anyone else says is 'immaterial' because it's just their opinion. No matter how much they say it is based on 'facts' or 'evidence'. With this thinking, everyone is right and thus it will promote blissful ignorance worldwide. If you don't accept this theory, I will decide that you actually do but are just denying it. If you persist in your self-delusion, I will point out that, since you refuse to embrace the reality of immaterialism, you are pretending that truth does not apply to you and therefore in practice have already acknowledged the validity of immaterialism. Nothing to refute = irrefutable. Besides, I'll just ignore you...
 
ReFLeX said:
Then what?

Suppose hypothetically that materialism was proved tomorrow. There is a lot of argument about it on the forums, but what I am wondering is, what would change if we knew that it was true? Other than one's understanding of the world... I don't think religious people would have any trouble rejecting such a proof as a Devil Trick. So is there an extrinsic motive to argue for materialism? Or is it really as pointless as it seems to me?
Click to expand...

I guess my question is - What's to prove? I have in my mind the picture of unmaterialist repeating to himself "there is no bat" as he smacks himself in the head and into oblivion with one. It seems to me a just end for such a person.
 
Dark matter

Explorer said:
II's definition does not cover "Dark Matter" which cannot be seen or touched, and neither can it be detected by any machine. It has to exist to explain the mechanics of the universe, but is it material?
Click to expand...

Hasn't the notion of dark matter been superceded? I think they have come up with a better hypothesis that does not require dark matter.
 
There is always discussion and dispute - that is the nature of science after all - but I think that dark matter is still accepted by a majority of reputable scientists.
 
I thought materialism was disproved as early as Lavoisier, when he discovered that matter was comprised of elements that could not be refined past a certain point. Even further, we can divide atoms into subatomic particles which are not all the same. This would disprove the theory that the universe is all made up of one thing. Otherwise there would be no variety.

That's because materialism is by definition a form of monism, and it assumes that the universe is entirely composed of one uniform thing. It's just that so many confuse it with not believing their extraordinary claims, I thought I should straighten it out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom