Materialists: "There is no God because Science has never observed any evidence of him"

is it possible for God to know the future, and still allow humans to have free will? I think so.

perhaps god can see time splayed out like a book, but the characters within still have their moral agency.

this is a good example of humanity's struggle to understand something it can't fully know. it's ok, but it's folly to dismiss it as impossible because we can't comprehend it.

>there is god, free will, and maybe even paradise
>no explanation for any of them but i'm really hope i'm correct.
wishful thinking in it's worst form

I choose both. Both beliefs are justified even if the second happens to be false.

How is it arrogance? Isnt it actually pretty humble to not just make huge assumptions but rather rely on our "limited understanding" of the things we can observe?

If human beings are incapable of understanding God why do you believe and I don't? What causes your belief? Assuming that you do believe in a God.

If the sims were self aware thinking beings, they could observe a player all the time

>the reason for the metaphor is to point out the limits of science
That doesn't show the limits of science, it shows the limits of knowledge in general. Solipsism has been around for a very long time. Scientists have never claimed to achieve absolute truth, only approximations of the truth. They are the best approximations we can have.

>and the arrogance of materialism to declare that all that exists must be perceivable by finite humans capable only of limited understanding.
All that we can *know* to exist must be perceivable by us. There could be a magic unicorn that always turns invisible when you look at it. Is that a concept worth exploring? Does it truly show the limits of science? Or is it just mental masturbation? The difference of course being that this entire line of discussion is a petty conceit to justify your pet beliefs which you take more seriously then an invisible unicorn. Yet they have the same logical weight.

>Just like the SIM is incapable of understanding completely what Player One is, human beings are incapable of truly understanding what an infinite, eternal, uncaused God really is, except in the ways that God has chosen to reveal himself to us.
Just as humans are incapable of understanding Absighbg the Magic Invisible Unicorn. Such magic is just outside the realm of human logic and understanding. If you don't believe in Absighbg then clearly you have fallen prey to limited materialism.

Do you understand what I mean by saying that your argument is not distinctive? Why do you believe in God with certain attributes but not every other non-evidenced possibility? Because this isn't actually about logic, it's about your insecurity in your own beliefs.

>This is not a positive argument for any specific religion but it is a defeating argument against materialism as a worldview.
No it's not, because it could be applied regardless of the merits of materialism, or any other worldview. It cannot distinguish between anything.

Materialism, as a worldview, rules out the possibility that anything exists beyond the meaningless flux of atoms. That in itself is a huge assumption. It doesn't allow for the possibility that there might be something humans are incapable of perceiving.

As long as you acknowledge the possibility of God, then we are not disagreeing.

>If humans were god-like creatures, they could observe God all the time

Human beings are probably incapable of FULLY understanding God. We can still know him in the ways he has chosen to reveal himself (his Son, his Word, and in creation)

>Materialism, as a worldview, rules out the possibility that anything exists beyond the meaningless flux of atoms. That in itself is a huge assumption. It doesn't allow for the possibility that there might be something humans are incapable of perceiving.
I don't see the point in thinking about what we cannot perceive. If we cannot perceive it, then we cannot know anything about it. We have no way of distinguishing between a world in which such a thing exists and a world in which such a thing does not exist. So they might as well be the same world. You have no way of distinguishing between a world in which your belief in God is true, and a world in which your belief in God is false, so why believe it?

Could it be possible that God does not exist? If yes, then by your own argument you just "destroyed" the worldview that God exists.

>>If humans were god-like creatures, they could observe God all the time
no no no. Thats not at all, what I meant. In order for your analogy to make sense, the sims must be able to observe their world and form thoughts about it. If the can do this, they can observe lots of evidence for some force acting on their world.

>We can still know him in the ways he has chosen to reveal himself (his Son, his Word, and in creation)
So is God perceivable or is God not perceivable? If the former, then it is within the realm of empirical science to test for God's existence. If not, then he could not have revealed himself to humans. Which one is it?

>That in itself is a huge assumption
no it isnt. by definition. Assuming what? Assuming that not every conceivable bullshit is a part of the universe? Materialism makes no assumptions. thats the thing

>That doesn't show the limits of science, it shows the limits of knowledge in general. Solipsism has been around for a very long time. Scientists have never claimed to achieve absolute truth, only approximations of the truth. They are the best approximations we can have.

you're just playing semantics. the point remains the same: what "exists" is not defined by what our finite senses and reasoning is capable of perceiving.

Again, it is materialism that makes the bold claim that nothing exists beyond mere matter. It sounds like you don't accept this as truth, so really, this argument isn't for you.

>No it's not, because it could be applied regardless of the merits of materialism, or any other worldview. It cannot distinguish between anything.

This last response is just a non-sequitur. I don't think even you know what you are trying to say here.

Again, im not here to defend any specific religion the point is show materialists how close minded their world view is. They are the ones making bold claims about there being nothing supernatural.

No, it explicitly assumes all there is is what's in front of us. that's a very big assumption, especially when you can't even tell me what matter is

It isnt an assumption. Disregarding things that have no evidence is not making an assumption. Believing some untestable bullshit without evidence would be making an assumption. Materialism doesnt claim to be a complete model of the universe or anything

switching to a name to clarify who's responding to who

well said

the analogy still makes sense: it is foolish for a "lesser" being to rule out the existence of a higher being because it is incapable of fully understanding it.

God is perceivable in the ways he has chosen to reveal himself to us. As finite beings, humans are incapable of fully comprehending God.

Materialism and scientism is like this:

Imagine someone who has absolutely zero conception of an outside world locked up in a house. All he can do is study the house.

It doesn't matter if you say the structure of the house is made of "wood" or "blorbadoop", the result is the same: some substance x with properties y that this person is not equipped to understand because he has no frame of reference for what wood actually is.

Doesn't matter if he finds out wood is made of xiglaborgs which are made of olikarbs, doesn't matter what he calls them, the point is without some understanding of the house AS a house in the real world, he's just stuck studying the same properties and materials without any idea of their true nature as such.

The house is the universe. Without some extra-systemic frame of understanding, we're stuck talking about wood without the slightest idea thatvwood comes from these things called trees

>Materialism doesnt claim to be a complete model of the universe or anything

yes it literally does

>Materialism is a form of philosophical monism which holds that matter is the fundamental substance in nature, and that all phenomena, including mental phenomena and consciousness, are results of material interactions.

>Materialism is closely related to physicalism, the view that all that exists is ultimately physical. Philosophical physicalism has evolved from materialism with the discoveries of the physical sciences to incorporate more sophisticated notions of physicality than mere ordinary matter, such as: spacetime, physical energies and forces, dark matter, and so on. Thus the term "physicalism" is preferred over "materialism" by some, while others use the terms as if they are synonymous.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism

No, being is evidence for a Power, source, principle, mechanism, potentiality, ground, whatever, of being, and that is what we call God. You're treating God like Bigfoot, like he's some thing we're going to eventually find (or not) if we turn over enough experimental rocks. your autism is blinding you.

Why is it foolish to rule out the existence of something until we have evidence or at least any kind of observation/measurement of it? I really dont follow, because I think the opposite is foolish. By that logic literally anything can exist.

>Allegory of the Cave for dummies
neat.
But until we find a tree, I think it is reasonable to keep talking about wood

It doesnt. The things you quoted prove my point. It is just a philosophical notion about obtaining knowledge. The second quote even shows, that most people agree, that it includes non-material things like forces and spacetime

There's plenty of stuff that humans are incapable of perceiving. But we can still investigate them using machines that can measure them or by observing their effects on things that we can perceive (e.g. black holes blocking out light from stars ). If something could not be observed by any means, if it doesn't cause any interactions with other things that we can observe then it doesn't seem like that thing could be said to exist for any meaningful definition of existence.

If you disagree with the above then feel free to believe that there's a dragon standing 2 feet to the left of you that has:no mass, no volume, no energy, no charge, and is invisible, inaudible and permeable to touch.

That does not prove that God existing is a tautology

>You're treating God like Bigfoot
I dont. There are very plausible scenarios for Bigfoot to exist.

>you're just playing semantics. the point remains the same: what "exists" is not defined by what our finite senses and reasoning is capable of perceiving.
This does not respond to what I said.

>Again, it is materialism that makes the bold claim that nothing exists beyond mere matter.
It is bolder to claim that something exists which you cannot show exists. Materialism is the least bold claim.

>This last response is just a non-sequitur. I don't think even you know what you are trying to say here.
You are projecting your lack of understanding. I've already said this several times and you have failed to respond to it each time. The argument that anything could be true does not have any power to distinguish between worldviews. Materialism could be true, or it could not be. How does this "destroy" materialism? Does the argument that God may or may not exist "destroy" the worldview that God exists?

But God is more plausible because if we're speaking of the ground of being, there needs to be being in the first place

>God is perceivable in the ways he has chosen to reveal himself to us.
Then your entire argument is moot. Your entire argument against evidence serves no purpose, as you then claim to know God exists through evidence. If God is perceivable then there is material evidence of his existence which allows us to distinguish between a world in which God does not exist and a world in which God does exist. So present this evidence.

>what "exists" is not defined by what our finite senses and reasoning is capable of perceiving
If you include any kind of machine/instrument into "finite senses", then yes, this is how it is defined. If I am wrong, please tell me about something that exists, that doesnt follow this definition

Care to ellaborate? I really hope it is not the "someone had to make the univers" """argument""".

And Bigfoot is much more plausible, because discovering a new species already happened a lot of times. While highly unlikely, it is at least possible

> getting your values from something that has never been observed

Do you understand what I'm saying? Something exists; there is Being. The ground, cause, determinative principle of Being is something necessarily beyond Being, which is called God. The qualities of this transcendence are associated with conventionally good moral actions, although it is not equivalent to these actions. For example, since such a ground is beyond all properties and therefore contingencies of Being (hence its transcendence), a person seeking "divine grace" in this adopts a larger and more compassionate perspective on the world. It'd an active identification with something higher. Boom. Science and the divine are not opposed

You seem to be mistaking this thread for a Christian defense thread. Either refute the idea that materialism is an incomplete worldview or don't.

Just because God can and does reveal himself in our universe doesn't mean we can prove it through the scientific method. But there is plenty of evidence for God existing, and I'm a Christian, so I accept the historical evidence of Jesus Christ and find the teachings of Christianity to be the most complete worldview available.

the point of this thread, though, was to point out how shortsighted anybody claiming to be a materialist is.

yes, any kind of machine/instrument is included by our "finite senses".

Do you have a time machine yet? Do you have a way to measure the human soul or to calculate free will? Or are these things that perhaps we can't fully understand?

>If I am wrong, please tell me about something that exists, that doesnt follow this definition

God

What now, atheists?

you must be pretty dense to read that definition and not read it as a "complete model of the universe"

No one can understand what the bloody fuck you are saying with all those buzzwords

>the last Earth I played had the characters pray to the sky whenever bad shit happened

there is plenty of evidence for the existence of an uncaused creator.

materialism immediately rules out the possibility of God by sticking it's head in the sand and declaring "all that exists is what we can understand"

great post. and when materialists finally come around to admitting something eternal, or uncaused must exist, all they really do is try to expand their definition of "house" to include God

Give evidence then.

ex nihilo nihil fit

You're basically just arguing which definition of existing or "being" is better

I like how this guy made a great argument relevant to the thread and everyone is ignoring it because they can't refute it.

Not samefagging here btw, I just notice that a long and well-reasoned response has no replies.

I've already responded you just aren't getting the point. Materialism makes the positive argument here. The whole point of my post was to point out that materialism is an incomplete worldview, when it purports to be complete. It is fundamentally flawed because it assumes that man is capable of perceiving everything that exists.

I'm not advancing any other worldview here. I'm not trying to distinguish anything. A lot of people on this board subscribe to materialism and i'm just trying to get them to think.

Here we go again...

>You seem to be mistaking this thread for a Christian defense thread.
>Human beings are probably incapable of FULLY understanding God. We can still know him in the ways he has chosen to reveal himself (his Son, his Word, and in creation)
Gee, sure sounds like a Christian defense thread to me.

>Either refute the idea that materialism is an incomplete worldview or don't.
Where did you show materialism is an incomplete worldview? You merely claimed it was. The burden of proof is on you. I have already explained why materialism is the least "bold" worldview.

>Just because God can and does reveal himself in our universe doesn't mean we can prove it through the scientific method.
Then how do you intend to show me that God revealed himself? The fact is that you can't, because you merely believe he did with no way of distinguishing between what is real and what is not. So you don't actually know God has revealed himself. You can't have it both ways, "I believe God is real because of so and so evidence" but then say "but the evidence can't be rationally investigated". You have to choose one and only one. Once you do so you will fail as we both know you have no way to show anything you believe is true.

>the point of this thread, though, was to point out how shortsighted anybody claiming to be a materialist is.
In order to show that someone is shortsighted, you should show them proof. Not simply claim that there is something out of their sight. I can claim your vision is not 20/20 but until I test it you have no reason to believe me. Not to mention that, as I have pointed out several times and you have repeatedly ignored, your own argument can be used against your beliefs.

If something isn't perceivable does it exist?

lol pleb

ITT: SO WHAT OP I CANT REFUTE ANYTHING YOU SAY BUT IT DOESN'T MATTER

It might exist, and some priests made it up in order to maintain social order in their societies, therefore it must exist.

im gonna put this as simply as possible for you

Materialism goes a step further than it should.

It claims all that exists is material.

If materialism was what you seem to think it is, "the least bold worldview", that would be fine, but it declares that nothing supernatural can possibly exist, and why? because we material beings have not perceived it.

it is fundamentally flawed. again, if it stopped short of ruling out God or the supernatural, and added an asterisk that said "of course, we can't rely on materialism to disprove God", then we wouldn't have a problem.

but people like to rely on this worldview to discredit the existence of god when it simply falls short (see analogy in orignal post)

I can't refute what you're trying to say because it's difficult to make out what you're trying to say. You cannot prove that x is y without properly defining what x and y--this is the problem with debates/arguments, neither parties agree upon common axioms and definitions

When we perceive something supernatural then I will reject Materialism.

when you use materialism to rule out the possibility of God, it becomes a problem.

As i've said elsewhere in this thread, God reveals himself to us in certain limited ways, but as finite beings we are incapable of fully comprehending what God is. That's why arguments against God like "miracles cant happen" or "how can something be eternal" or "magic sky fairy" fall short of being a good argument.

What's wrong with the sim concluding that there is no player one if there's no evidence to the contrary? It may not be a true belief but it is justified.

>yfw you realize supernatural events are disbelieved everyday because it conflicts with materialism

How does God reveal himself?

>Materialism makes the positive argument here.
What does positive argument mean in this context?

>The whole point of my post was to point out that materialism is an incomplete worldview
Your argument does not support this point. Again, simply claiming that materialism could be missing something is not an argument. It's a non-sequitur. Any worldview may or may not be false. This says nothing. And in order to successfully argue that materialism is incomplete, you should show what it misses, not simply claim it misses something. I don't understand why I have to keep repeating this. It seems like a very easy thing to understand yet you completely fail to address it with every post.

>It is fundamentally flawed because it assumes that man is capable of perceiving everything that exists.
So what exists that man cannot perceive? Assuming that there is something which man cannot perceive is even more flawed. One or the other must be true, and materialism is the simpler assumption.

>I'm not advancing any other worldview here.
Well it's a little late for that since you already have. Unless the various posts which respond to my replies are not you. But they clearly are.

>I'm not trying to distinguish anything.
Yet you think you have "destroyed" materialism. Now you seem to be pretending to be solipsist.

>A lot of people on this board subscribe to materialism and i'm just trying to get them to think.
The discussion here has only served to convince people that materialism is the best assumption to make. You failed.

>Again, it is materialism that makes the bold claim that nothing exists beyond mere matter. It sounds like you don't accept this as truth, so really, this argument isn't for you.

Materialism can mean a lot of different things depending on the context, but the general idea that everything we observe is consistent with the (mundane) materialistic account of nature. Without evidence, the remainder lacks the ability to compel by symmetry. Anything that is consistent with our limited perception could be true.

But should I believe there is a christian, wiccan, or buddhist god(s), that this is a solipsitic dream of the eternal dreamer, that I am in a simulated earth in some future iteration of earth, etc ad nauseum? Does it not compel you in the slightest that these extra-material theories are all the kinds of stories that clever monkies would tell, that is, create anthropomorphic narratives?

Materialism doesn't claim to be a unified and ultimate ontological theory. It doesn't have to be: look around you, any other metaphysical theory is surplus to requirements.

through creation, through His son Jesus Christ, through the Bible, and through the Holy Spirit in believers

>yfw you realize 'supernatural events' are disbelieved because there are much simpler explanations that don't contradict the sum total of human knowledge.

he can't really "conclude" there is no Player One he can only choose to believe there is not

>God is the only explanation for these things
>implying

You didn't answer my question.

If the something does not interact with a set of objects and rules, it does not exist(at least not to that particular set). It may exist within another set of objects and rules but that doesn't mean anything to the set in question. Does this make sense to you, OP?

>yfw you realize the sum total of human knowledge is based on an assumption that humans can perceive everything that exists

>If materialism was what you seem to think it is, "the least bold worldview", that would be fine, but it declares that nothing supernatural can possibly exist, and why? because we material beings have not perceived it.
I don't see why this is a problem. Again, if you want to show me that materialism is flawed, prove that something exists which is not material. Until you do that, it will be the simplest assumption, the only things which we know to exist are material things. The step too far is to say there is something beyond even though we have no way of knowing that.

>again, if it stopped short of ruling out God or the supernatural, and added an asterisk that said "of course, we can't rely on materialism to disprove God", then we wouldn't have a problem.
There is no need to disprove what there is no evidence for in the first place. Do you feel the need to disprove invisible unicorns? No, you simply *assume they don't exist*. Actually you don't even do that, you just don't even think about it. And that's what you should do for God or any other such thing.

>but people like to rely on this worldview to discredit the existence of god when it simply falls short (see analogy in orignal post)
As well they should. The existence of God is discredited by the complete lack of any evidence for God. The correctness of materialism is supported by the complete lack of any evidence for non-material things. This is logic you employ all the time in real life, except for some arbitrary, silly beliefs you happened to encounter.

GTFO, meme-monkey

A logically fallacious way to reason about facts.

stop answering retarded threads

sage

So. Why do you think your god exists but not others?

sage this bait thread

No, it's quite likely that there are subatomic phenomena that are very important, that we will never be able to perceive in a meaningful way. This does not mean that your pastor is right about the age of the universe.

if you are so incapable of abstract thought that you honestly can't apply the sim analogy in this context, congratulations, you are an autist

>Again, if you want to show me that materialism is flawed, prove that something exists which is not material.

ex nihilo nihil fit

something eternal and uncaused must exist necessarily. nothing like that exists in our world yet materialists insist matter is eternal without really knowing what matter is or what eternity means

If you want something to exist, there has to be proof or evidence of it., that is how existence works. The analogy of the Sims characters not being able to perceive player one is pointless because Sims, which are ultimately potential differences running across a circuit board, are not sentient beings. They do not do anything other than follow the programming of the game, which can be changed at a whim. Sims are nothing but a Rube Goldberg machine that follow the intricacies of their construction, only electronic.

Your apparent Christian god, among thousands, do not exist because there has been absolutely no pure evidence of them. The mere fact that a being that supposedly exists but cannot be measured is by definition non-existent. If you claim there is a physical god, then you must provide physical proof, whether it be his cock in my face or an absorption spectra of it.

well if you've read the thread at all you've noticed i've said multiple times this is not a Christian defense thread, but a bunch of fedoras got their worldview ruined and insist on having a theological discussion

as long as you accept that science is limited by human understanding, and that by definition, a higher being could possibly exist and science will never be able to refute that, then we agree

>when you use materialism to rule out the possibility of God, it becomes a problem.
But no one uses materialism to rule out God. Materialism is a conclusion which is reached from the fact that we have no evidence for non-material things. The nonexistence of God is simply a part of that conclusion. It is not determined *from* materialism. It is determined from the lack of evidence for non-material things including God. Do you understand?

>As i've said elsewhere in this thread, God reveals himself to us in certain limited ways
OK, so show me what you think these reveals are and how they distinguish between a world in which God exists and a world in which God does not exist. Remember, if they can't distinguish between the two worlds then they aren't evidence. They are merely projections of your belief.

>That's why arguments against God like "miracles cant happen" or "how can something be eternal" or "magic sky fairy" fall short of being a good argument.
LOL, no one has ever argued "God does not exist because miracles can't happen". This is a strawman you have in your head. I assume miracles can't happen because no evidence of them exists. I assume God does not exist no evidence of God exists. If you show me actual evidence I will change my mind. Again, materialism is the conclusion, not the argument.

lol how different is a "sentient" being from a SIM if all that exists is nothing more than the meaningless flux of atoms in a vacuum?

you betray your deep down NEED for meaning in this life

>christian god
>physical

wew

>An assumption that's yet to be proven wrong
>"well its just an assumption you can't prove it lel"

>something eternal and uncaused must exist necessarily.
So the universe is eternal and uncaused. Where is the evidence for God?

>nothing like that exists in our world yet materialists insist matter is eternal without really knowing what matter is or what eternity means
I think many of them know far better than you.

A teapot could be orbiting Mars right now, and nobody can prove that there is or isn't one, but that kind of supposition isn't useful or meaningful.

Despite claiming that this isn't a Christian defense thread, you're relying heavily on degenerate epistemology in which something exists if you want it to be unless someone can absolutely 100% prove otherwise.

Do you really believe that materialism implies that's there no difference between a sim and a human being?

you got me there

He didn't say the analogy can't be applied, he said it's logically fallacious.

>So the universe is eternal and uncaused. Where is the evidence for God?

Slow down there, Stephen Hawking! What in your materialist worldview accommodates your newfound belief in something uncaused? have you or science ever OBSERVED anything that is eternal and uncaused?

Sounds like you believe in something that isn't bound by the physical restraints of the world as we know it!

...

Not everything is this world is sentient you moron. The chair you are sitting on cannot speak ill of your dumb ass or have an argument with you because it is not sentient. Sims do not form their own opinions, thoughts, or feelings. You can write your own damn program that will randomly recite back to you whatever it is that you told it to recite. You also assume that there is a need to have a purpose in life beyond living. We are able to make our own decisions just like any other animal and live as we want, there doesn't need to be an absolute meaning to life.

>matter is all that exists, we know this because we haven't observed non material things ... ergo God definitely doesn't exist

You're begging the question here. Materialism has an epistemic boundary, not free reign to pronounce the existence or non-existence of anything outside of its mechanistic formulation of empirical reality.

God is meaningless only relative to materialism, because materialism is empirical by definition. God is non-empirical. Not irrational but arational. Do you get it?