The materialism I am talking about is the metaphysics, the one that claims that material is all that is, and its corollary, physics and chemistry can explain everything.
Part of my personal view is that things that exist have mass. So in some vague sense every thing is physical. Then we can ask, "does atheism exist?" If it does, what is its mass? Its mass seems to be zero, but never the less, it exists. Where? In the mind. Hence we have some things that exist that have mass, and other things that exist that have no mass.
Now, of the things that exist, can they be explained by the laws of physics and chemistry? To provide a ground to answer this question I have the following challenge.
I am thinking of a machine X. It is made of steel, glass, plastic, wood, copper, and aluminum.
Given the laws of physics and chemistry at your disposal, what is the machine? here is a list of some or all of the laws of physics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientific_laws_named_after_people
For the chemistry part, you have to rely on the properties of the material the machine is made of.
Usually, people ask me what is the shape of the machine? how many parts and what do the parts look like? How do the parts fit together? and so on. You can't have that information because none of that information came from physics or chemistry. The shape of the machine, its parts, and how the parts fit together all came from the mind of the inventor - the creator - of the machine.
If it is true that physics and chemistry can explain everything, then one should be able to explain machine X without any reference to what came from the mind of the inventor/creator. But I say, it can't be done despite many vague claims by materialists, and those who believe in naturalism.
Now we can return to the idea that some things that exist have mass, and other things that exist have no mass, in this case, they are the ideas that constitute machine X. One needs to know the ideas, the purpose and the rules of operation that define machine X, in order to explain it. The rules of operation that define machine X are at a higher level than the laws of physics and chemistry, thus, the latter can not explain machines. All that is needed to explain a machine is the inventor/creators ideas and rules of operation that define the machine.
The fact that physics and chemistry can not explain machines has implications for other more complex entities that I may get to at a later date.
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
Light.
Wow! What a long -drawn out - selections of useless utterances....
Apollo Asked: "Does physics and chemistry explain everything?"
The easy answer is "No." That's why we can say "I don't know," instead of "God done it."
@ "Then we can ask, "does atheism exist?"
Meaning, does the idea have physical existence. This may be more true than you suspect.
"All of our observations that constitute the evidence for Thought involve physical mechanisms: records of behaviour (lights, camera, action!), electrophysiological studies (which, of course, can only be correlated with subjective descriptions of thought) and imaging studies all rely on the mundane things of the universe. Therefore, whatever thought is, we can only observe it manifesting in physical terms."
https://www.quora.com/Is-thought-a-physical-phenomenon
corporal about consciousness, you are in for the shock of your life.
Max Tegmark asserts "Consciousness is another state of matter." Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge
"“I conjecture that consciousness can be understood as yet another state of matter. Just as there are many types of liquids, there are many types of consciousness,” The brain creates consciousness. IT IS A THING according to Tegmark, and this "THEORY" has facts and evidence supporting it. It is also beginning to catch on quickly.? Consciousness is an emergent property of the brain just as voice is an emergent property of your vocal chords, sight an emergent property of the eyes or taste an emergent property of the tongue. If you think there is something spiritual or non-corporal about consciousness, you are in for the shock of your life."
Max Tegmark asserts "Consciousness is another state of matter." Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge
So.... Does Atheism exist within consciousness? It really does not matter, we are off in Woo Woo that neither of us understands. Fact of the matter is - "We get to say "I don't know." It is a legitimate position on stuff we just don't yet understand.
I think the ideal of consciousness being material responds to most of what you have asserted. Go look it up and read a bit.
@Apollo: The shape of the machine, its parts, and how the parts fit together all came from the mind of the inventor - the creator - of the machine.
And the mind of the inventor came from the brain of the inventor, which is a material object powered by chemical and electrical processes. If the inventor dies or suffers brain damage, the invention process ceases.
@ Apollo
Damn. I was hoping my trip to Thailand would mean you would not be here spewing your mystical diahrrea.
The only place metaphysics belongs is on a religious forum board. Not atheist. Remember, atheists have no beliefs in anything mystical. Including gods, metaphsics, and exceptionally dense Religous Absolutists.
However, everything also has energy, making it non-physical.
Yes. Rational Atheism does exist. So does the preposterous Religious Absolutism. I already pointed out that everything also has a non-physical quality. The mass of Rational Atheism and Religious Absolutism is that of the brain that thinks it. What is your point?
A human being.
The rest of you post is pointless dribble. A risible diatribe into inanity.
Question already answered.
What is your point?
Off to read other's replies...
rmfr
“Part of my personal view is that things that exist have mass.”
Yellow
Gravity
Music
Love
Intelligence
Five
I don't like the word materialism, simply because it seems to mean something different to everyone.
But I will say I endorse the view that information is stored physically (in the existence of or arrangement of things like particles or fields).
------------------------------------------------------
does physics ... explain everything?
In principle: maybe. In practice? No way. We can't even predict the known properties of gold atoms from first principles; simply because it would require too many calculations (it has been done successfully for elements with less parts). That is why predicting the details of your fictitious machine is impossible: you have too many moving parts for anyone to make a prediction about your ideas from first principles.
Re: OP (Before reading any other replies...)
Bwaaaaaa-haaaaaa-haaaaaa-haaaaaa....!!!!.... *bent over double holding tummy*.... Bwaaaaa-haaaaaa-haaaaaa....!!!
*wiping tears from eyes*....Phew.... *deeeeeeep breath*.... Okay, now that I got that out of my system, time to go see what others wrote.
To ask if Atheism exist , is like asking if religion exist. Both come from the mind.
Science can't prove metaphysics is real. Science requires objective evidence.
Metaphysics is a pseudoscience. Pseudoscience doesn't rely on objective evidence.
If something has tangible attributes, it can be described. Otherwise it does not meaningfully exist.
BRAIN FART!
Sapporo: "If something has tangible attributes, it can be described. Otherwise it does not meaningfully exist."
So… if "nothing" has no tangible attributes, "nothing" cannot be described; thus, "nothing" does not exist.
Therefore "something" has always existed.
Thus, the Universe is infinitely old.
>:P
rmfr
Unless of course there is something besides something or nothing. You can't prove there isn't something between something or nothing. That would be God. A giant blue bunny rabbit that only appears blue to us because of the development of our eyes but is actually shining gold to those who have the ability to see. I know this from personal experience.
:p a vacuum can be meaningfully described, although it is unnatural for such a thing to exist.
We cannot meaningfully describe things that exist outside of time.
If nature is a system in which nothing is created or destroyed, then it must be the case that it is eternal. But such a view would be a brute fact that cannot be falsified.
And even pure vacuums are full of particles of matter and fields. Every second, 65 billion neutrinos from the Sun pass through each square centimeter of the Earth at almost the speed of light. Space itself is a thing. It is everywhere. Do you imagine they are confined to the universe and the Higgs Field? Then why would particles magically appear from nothing and vanish? Current theory holds that energy entering the field, slows and becomes material before burning up. What we know is that the universe is an amazing place. Where is this vacuum? It does not appear to be outside the universe.
Vacuum is just the ground state.
The consensus seems to be phjysics and chemistry can't explain everything.
“Can’t”? Or “does not yet”?
Why on Earth would you think otherwise? At best "any explanation" is just an appeal to a postulate. The only thing that makes it notable is its predictive power, despite the sand it seems to be built upon.
It's humans that can't explain everything, not physics.
That's why the correct answer is "I don't know." and not "God Done It."
"Part of my personal view is that things that exist have mass. So in some vague sense every thing is physical. Then we can ask, "does atheism exist?" If it does, what is its mass?"
I think I just squeezed out a little piss. Funniest stupidest post ever. Do ideas have mass? Christ almighty but you are dumber than a bucket of hair.
Here's something new and interesting from Biology https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/schroedingers-bacterium-could...
Still ain't falling for your trap...
rmfr
Good job! You spelled biology correctly. Now go back and change the big 'B' to a little'b' and remember to always end a sentence with a little dot ( . ).
Physics and chemistry is not the complete picture. There are other factors such as data that is also VERY relevant in describing something or a state.
Thus the OP begins with what may appear common sense, but is actually a false dichotomy. Then the OP plunges head-first into the unprovable creator argument.
Sorry Apollo, you are just attempting to construct the "designer" argument without using any facts or empirical evidence.