MATERIALISM SELF-CONTRADICTS FROM THE OUTSET, BY THE MERE ACT OF PHILOSOPHISING:
I never saw you write this but anyway, l already anticipated it as a possible way out for my opponent (rather than the rage response he instead elicited) as follows:
That said, the contradiction is not the fault of my spiritualist POV - it is an irony innate to Materialism. It faceplants itself from the outset.
THE FUNDAMENTAL RED LINE BETWEEN MATERIALISM & SPIRITUALITY IS WHAT UNITES THEM - NUMBERS DON’T EXIST! NUMBERS EXIST! ¯_(ツ)_/¯ THEY ARE BOTH UNFALSIFIABLE BUT MATERIALISM MUST NOT DO FAITH!
OK I have updated my views accordingly to an extent. However, there’s one red line:
You say numbers don’t exist as concrete objects. Of course this would be a Reductio ad Absurdam, except l can push the boat out and try to understand how you might have a point (in my own personal rules: a key requirement for anybody to debate anybody is that they try to see how the opponent could be right, plus one must also ENJOY being proven wrong).
So, l think you have just shown where the red line is:
- To a Materialist, the world of Platonic Archetypes is null. Numbers don’t exist in any way.
- To the Spiritual, the world of Archetypes is within the Presence of God. It is the perfectness of Heaven. It is the robes (which are worth more than this world and you would stand in awe just gazing at the clothes for centuries) and the Virgins, a whole new creation that we haven’t even seen. The world of Archetypes is also a key argument against Trinitarian Xtianity, because God says in the Qur’an that he could have chosen a partner from his Presence, i.e. the world of Archetypes, if he wanted, rather than a human:
21:17 If We had wished to find a pastime, We could have found it in Our presence - if We ever did.
The bottom line, the red line, has already been outlined in the formal debate:
Our mutual positions were unfalsifiable, and thus a matter of faith. However, the Materialist should not pivot anything on faith, the entire point of Materialism was to find hard answers.
- I hope people can see that Materialism will always, always, always, use self-contradictory terms, anathema to Materialism, pseduoscientific “Woo” to Materialsim, such as:
Consciousness
Purpose
maybe other terms - see the Formal Debate.
They have zero basis in Materialism. Sure, Materialism is a spectrum of views, but they are called Materialism because they pivot on the primacy of matter.
- I also hope people can see that my opponent in the debate cavilled his way through and gave up no meaninful objections, which is quite unlike him. It was like stealing candy from a baby (which l have done; l gave it back though, but my point is, it was that easy).
CLOSING COMMENTS:
-
I have deleted my password but had to recover it to log back in again to distribute a few final replies. I’m going away again, as time is money, sowwee.
Thank you. This is good stuff.
No, that was my opponent, l am on the Spiritual side.
Cringe. See above and please be embarrassed.
@greenfuse Sorry but you are too angry and you have nothing to teach me. I have learned nothing from you. I hate to say this but you are insulting my intellect quite a bit, thanks to God l have a modicum of grey matter yet you speak to me as if there were none. Your task as an opponent is to educate me in good faith. Instead your arguments are unknown, l honestly don’t know what you are saying to me, l just feel intense gamma ray bursts from you.
- If anybody is interested in my scheme of how numbers can exist and how this universe can come about despite God lacking nothing, please see a post in an earlier formal debate, here:
Interrogating Islam - #5 by LampAndNightingale