Wilberforce1860 wrote:-

Well, what were people saying? It seemed to me they were saying things like "how does a thought differ from a hurricane?", for example. A hurricane is certainly material. The implication was that if a thought is no different, it is also purely material. The same logic was implied by the comparison with rocks and walking. How is a thought different than a walk? How is a thought different than a rock? Am I missing something?

Thoughts take energy Wilberforce, just like a hurricane. Energy and matter are material ie E=mc2

Therefore a dead human or cockroach can't have thoughts. If you believe they can, then provide the mechanism and evidence of how this is done. Simple really.

Wilberforce1860 wrote:

ADParker wrote:

Wilberforce1860 wrote:I could have used your help when others were saying that rocks, walking and hurricanes had the same properties as thought!

Literally no one said that.

Well, what were people saying? It seemed to me they were saying things like "how does a thought differ from a hurricane?", for example. A hurricane is certainly material. The implication was that if a thought is no different, it is also purely material. The same logic was implied by the comparison with rocks and walking. How is a thought different than a walk? How is a thought different than a rock? Am I missing something?

Go back and read my exposition on processes again. It's manifestly needed here.

Wilberforce1860 wrote:

ADParker wrote:

Wilberforce1860 wrote:It shows more. It shows 20 characteristics of thoughts and emotions, one being that they can exist without being detected, unless voluntarily revealed. This quality is different from other material things, and seems pretty immaterial to me. It exists, but we cannot detect its content.

Something as trivial as a stone hidden behind my back "can exist without being detected, unless voluntarily revealed". this quantity is the same as other material things, and seems absolutely material to me. It exists, but we cannot detect its content.

Something like a stone that is not visible is not the same as a thought.

But in this instance, it possesses the same properties that you continue to assert are purportedly unique to thoughts. Which refutes that assertion of yours full stop.

Wilberforce1860 wrote:In your example, your could say it is similar, in that I can't detect it until you open your hand. This is certainly true of other things in your possession that you have concealed. But the stone does not possess the other properties of thought (4, 5, 6, 7, 9, and 10-20) (refer to table on page 20, posts #385 and #389).

So what? It means that your attempt to use concealment as some sort of unique, distinguishing property of thoughts fails.

Wilberforce1860 wrote:

ADParker wrote:

Wilberforce1860 wrote:The products of our thought can be bought and sold, with a value greater than the media on which they are represented.

"Value" is actually another noteworthy example of a often problematic word. Do those thoughts truly have "a value greater than the media on which they are represented"? Do they actually have any value at all? Or is it more accurate to say that people value those products to various degrees?

Like anything else, the value is subject to supply and demand.

Wrong, as any economist will tell you. This is high school level material. Supply and demand are functions of price. Economists simply don't bother with value, because it can't be measured using a universally agreed scale, which, incidentally, is one of the reasons why Marx failed. Instead, they use price, which can be measured using a universally agreed scale. What happens is that price determines how many units of a commodity a supplier is willing to make, and how many units of a commodity a customer is prepared to buy. Where the two resulting curves intersect, the resulting agreement then fixes the price for that commodity. However, if the customer base suddenly becomes rich enough to afford the same commodity at a higher price, the supplier will move to push that price up. Likewise, if the customer base becomes poorer, the supplier will be forced to lower the price in order to maintain volume.

Of course, this elementary analysis doesn't take into account marginal cost, elasticity or fungibility, which are introduced later in an economics syllabus, but the mere fact that you confuse value and price in this manner alone says much about your thinking.

Wilberforce1860 wrote:

ADParker wrote:The proper response to the question "what is the value of this orange" is "too whom"?

Again, I would say its value is a function of supply and demand.

See above.

Wilberforce1860 wrote:

ADParker wrote:Cut up that orange and you will find not a molecule of value. Does that make value immaterial?

Value is simply what you are willing to give for the object, usually in money, but it could be labor or some other commodity.

No, this is price. As any Economics 101 textbook will tell you.

Wilberforce1860 wrote:The value is determined by mutual agreement between buyer and seller. We refer to the value as a price.

Wrong. What value a particular commodity may have for any particular individual, need not have any relation to price whatsoever. It's possible for someone to value a low price commodity highly, possibly because that commodity confers huge benefits, whilst not valuing an expensive commodity very highly at all, possibly because that commodity turns out, upon use, to be far less fit for purpose than the price nominally suggested at purchase time.

Wilberforce1860 wrote:And yes, until someone actually buys the orange, the price is just an idea, and hence immaterial.

Yawn. Go back and read my discourse on processes again.

Wilberforce1860 wrote:But as soon as the purchase is made, something we typically view as a medium of exchange, for example, money, is changes hands. Money is typically viewed as a liquid asset, easily convertible to a tangible or intangible asset.

You do realise that I and others here were mastering these concepts at 11 years of age?

Wilberforce1860 wrote:

ADParker wrote:Or does it rather simply mean that value is something people does in regards to objects like oranges; they value then to various degrees depending on the circumstances (for example the value of the same orange is far greater too someone in greater need of substance that for someone without hunger.) With thoughts and feelings and value alike one can not find any material hints of them because they are functions of material objects, not objects ("material" or otherwise.)

But okay, so thoughts are private unless we willingly or unwillingly expose them. What of it?

Only that, because we have an example (thoughts and feelings) of something that exists, but cannot be detected unless voluntarily revealed, there may be other such things. It doesn't mean that there are, but it points to a direction to investigate.

No it doesn't. Not least because those neuroscientists are waiting to destroy your apologetics again.

Wilberforce1860 wrote:Just because we can't observe or detect something, it doesn't mean it isn't real. Of course, we need some reason to believe

Here's a clue for you. We don't "do" belief. I think it should be pretty obvious why, particularly if you've read any of my numerous posts on the subject.

Wilberforce1860 wrote:some type of evidence.

Oh wait, when we have evidence to support a postulate, belief is superfluous to requirements and irrelevant. Another elementary concept for you to learn.

Wilberforce1860 wrote:But that is not the subject of this thread.

Given that this thread has covered a pretty wide remit thus far, from cosmology to economics, I think your attempts to dictate the content thereof are futile.

Wilberforce1860 wrote:This is just a point for future reference.

Thus far, I'm still waiting to see where this grand exercise in circumlocution you're pursuing is purportedly leading. Unless this is an extremely long-winded attempt at apologetics of the sort we've seen before, consisting of "immaterial entities exist, therefore material based science doesn't have all the answers, therefore my magic man is real".

Is this the point you're taking the mother of all scenic routes to reach?

So has Wilberforce presented any rational arguments yet?
Or are we still in the interminable fase of incessant wibbling?

Wilberforce1860 wrote:It seemed to me they were saying things like "how does a thought differ from a hurricane?",

We have been looking for your justification for your claims that minds, thoughts/feelings or whatever are some kind of immaterial objects... or whatever you are trying to say.

Wilberforce1860 wrote:for example. A hurricane is certainly material.

It is indeed.

Wilberforce1860 wrote:The implication was that if a thought is no different, it is also purely material.

If a thought was no different then it would be a hurricane. The point being made with all such examples was that some of your "special" criteria for minds also fit into things we know to be material things. That your distinctions don't mean what you seem to think they do.

Wilberforce1860 wrote:Something like a stone that is not visible is not the same as a thought. In your example, your could say it is similar, in that I can't detect it until you open your hand. This is certainly true of other things in your possession that you have concealed. But the stone does not possess the other properties of thought (4, 5, 6, 7, 9, and 10-20) (refer to table on page 20, posts #385 and #389).

What you are doing here is trying to shift the goal posts. That point was in response to you contention that one particular property "they can exist without being detected, unless voluntarily revealed" was special to thoughts/feelings. It had nothing to do with other properties.

Wilberforce1860 wrote:

ADParker wrote:
Cut up that orange and you will find not a molecule of value. Does that make value immaterial?

Value is simply ...{snip}

Irrelevant.
The thing is that "value" is a bit like "mind". People have traditionally, and now commonly, use the words as if referring to something about an object in one way (that "value" is a property of the object, or that the object has a part like a mind as if a physical part like a kidney or brain) even long after people stop (if they ever started) believing it to really be that way.

Language is often like that, some words and terms become somewhat 'stuck' and fixed. A simple example is the word "atom" used to label and refer to those objects (you know the ones), based on a thought that they may be the fundamental and indivisible stuff that everything else is made up of. The word "Atom" from the Greek meaning "indivisible". The name has stuck, even though we now know full well that the things we call atoms are not indivisible at all.
Likewise we still speak of the mind as if a physical part, even though it is generally understood as referring to the functions and processes of the brain, not an object/organ in its own right.

Wilberforce1860 wrote:

ADParker wrote:
{snip}
But okay, so thoughts are private unless we willingly or unwillingly expose them. What of it?

Only that, because we have an example (thoughts and feelings) of something that exists, but cannot be detected unless voluntarily revealed,

Or involuntarily revealed...or revealed through scans of neural activity...
And can be altered, destroyed or even introduced through alterations of brain chemistry and/or physical brain alteration (brain injury etc.)...

Wilberforce1860 wrote: there may be other such things. It doesn't mean that there are, but it points to a direction to investigate.

Investigation is fine. But your direction seems to involve a great deal of the investigation that has already (and continues to be) done being ignored. Which does not seem to point in the direction you imagine it should. In fact your direction seems to be squarely set on looking only toward your already held belief position. Confirmation bias this is called (among other things).

Wilberforce1860 wrote:Just because we can't observe or detect something, it doesn't mean it isn't real.

It doesn't imply that it is real either.
Don't play that idiotic apologetics game of trying to imply that a belief is rational simple because it has not yet been proven false.

Wilberforce1860 wrote:Of course, we need some reason to believe, some type of evidence. But that is not the subject of this thread. This is just a point for future reference.

So what does this have to do with creationism already?!

Wilberforce1860 wrote:I believe I have been straightforward about the ground I stand on, though I haven't mentioned every possible source of knowledge. It is your ground that interests me. I prefer not to prejudice your answers. To get an idea of where you go for the answers to questions that science does not provide, I listed five questions on p. 11, #207. They are:

1. How to comfort a child that is afraid of a thunderstorm?
2. How to convince a child there are no monsters under his bed, so that he/she can fall asleep?
3. How to convince a woman I am in love with to marry me?
4. How to forgive someone who has hurt me?
5. Tell me why to forgive someone who has hurt me?”

As I said to ADParker, it is curious to me that no one has yet given simple answers to these common situations. They all deal with human relationships. I am interested in people's answers, and in where they learned what they know.

#1-4 I have managed to do successfully, and all were learned thru the scientific method, in the broader sense of the term that I have used earlier. From what you have said, you have also learned them thru the scientific method. You just refuse to call it that because it is inconvenient for your world view to do so, just as you ignore all of the evidence inconvenient for your adherence to Young Earth Creationism.

I reject your premise that #5 is an answerable question. It is merely a question upon which one can have any of a number of opinions, any of which might strike one as more or less convincing.

Shrunk wrote:

Wilberforce1860 wrote:

Shrunk wrote:

Wilberforce1860 wrote:

There are also a variety of subatomic particles that have been identified in the last 120 years or so, that we were previously unaware of. But something that we didn't know about that we subsequently detect, is not the same as something we DO know about, but cannot detect.

That is a contradiction. If we know of the existence of something, we can detect it.

It is all a matter of timing, or so it seems to me. I am sitting talking with a friend. I have just asked him a question. He is pausing to consider his answer. I know he is thinking, because he just said to me, please give me a minute to think about that. I do not yet know the content of his thought. Nor will I, unless he provides it to me. I know that the thought is going on, but without his help, I can't detect its content.

This does not address my comment at all. It is merely more evidence that you lack sufficient reading comprehension and critical thinking skills to engage in a discussion of this sort.

Perhaps I did not understand your comment. Later in this post you discuss abstract immaterial objects of thought versus immaterial concrete objects, such as God. This is the first post in which I remember, or perhaps, in which it has sunk into my thinking, that you are discussing these things. I don't view (the Christian) God as being immaterial. Is this your interpretation of Christianity? The Bible doesn't speak about what God is "made of", but it does give us a hint, in that it says man is made in God's image. This implies that whatever he is made of, man has some of it. Quite possibly more than we (Christians) might think. We know we are finite, and he is said to be infinite. We do not appear to have this quality. After the incarnation, when God took on a human form, he retained it when Christ returned to heaven. Christ had, and by implication, still has, a body. Christians believe that they will take on this new form of body as well. I would classify a body, of the old or the new kind, as material. So I would classify God as material. Since I believe he is the author of all that is, in some sense he defies classification, as well as a complete understanding. Not that we understand life on earth with any completeness. I believe God has revealed enough about himself for us to understand what we need to know.

Because we do not normally "see" God, except perhaps in a vision, it is easy to conclude, or slip into thinking, of him as immaterial. I do not think of God as immaterial.

Shrunk wrote:

Shrunk wrote:

Wilberforce1860 wrote:


I listed 20 attributes, at least 10 of which distinguish them from the other options mentioned on this thread. I described how we treat them as immaterial (without physical substance), both legally (intellectual property), and in accounting (intangible assets). If you don't want to call them "immaterial", that is certainly your choice. The point is that they are real, you KNOW they exist, and they are not detectable (unless voluntarily revealed). This implies that there MAY be other things that are real, that are not detectable, unless voluntarily revealed (as opposed to things we simply haven't encountered yet, or learned how to detect yet).

What would happen if, today, you conceded this point? What would this change?

It would mean I had lost my ability to think logically and critically.

The error you are making here is equivocating on the meaning of the word "immaterial". What your are describing when you talk about intellectual property and such are abstract immaterial entities. Numbers are other examples. No one disputes that these "exist", in a sense, but only in the abstract, as ideas. They can only be thought of. They do not interact with the universe in any direct way and do not exist except as things that can be thought about.

Yes, like any other thoughts, right?

No, wrong.

It would be helpful it you could elaborate on the difference, in your view, of "things that can be thought about", which you refer to as abstract ideas, and other thoughts. In your view what are examples of "abstract immaterial entities", and what are their characteristics? What are examples of "thought that is not an abstract immaterial entity", and what are its attributes?

Shrunk wrote:

Shrunk wrote:
When you say God is "immaterial", you are claiming the existence of a concrete immaterial entity. That's a very different thing, and by accepting the existence of abstract concepts one is not committed to accepting the existence of such a thing.

I think what you are referring to as "abstract concepts", I have referred to as "thought products", or "objectified thought", as illustrated by mathematics, designs, a song, a painting, etc. I have observed that these "products of thought", or "abstract concepts" if you will, can only be detected if voluntarily revealed to us by the thinker. I have concluded that other things which are real, but are not detectable unless voluntarily revealed, could possibly exist. I have not said that they actually do. I would need to provide some kind of evidence for that. I have not yet attempted to do so.

They are not products of thought. They are objects of thought. They "exist" whether or not someone ever thought about them.

You needn't waste your time providing evidence for these immaterial, undetected things whose existence you are trying to prove, because it is obvious you do not understand enough of the basic concepts and and lack the skills required to do so. You should, instead, take the opportunity of participating in this discussion to improve your critical thinking skills.

I have asked above for clarification on what you see as "objects of thought", versus thought. Also, it would be useful to hear you explain why a song, a painting, or a design, is not a "product of thought". What would you call it?

Shrunk wrote:

Shrunk wrote:
This is, I'm sure, too difficult for you to grasp, so perhaps a simpler example. Does Santa Claus exist? Of course he does. He exists in the form of a mythological character, a fantasy held by children, a character depicted in songs, stories and advertisements.

So when you say God "exists", do you mean it in the same sense as Santa Claus exists?

No.

Umm, great. That was a rhetorical question, it didn't really require an answer. But thanks for clarifying, anyway.

Shrunk wrote:
If you ask me if God "exists" in the same manner that Santa Claus "exists", then I would agree with you. But would it then be correct to say that I believe in God, as an actually existing being, the same way you do? Of course not. That would be dishonest.

And this is the same sort of dishonesty you show when you say that, because people accept the existence of immaterial abstract objects like numbers, they also believe in the existence of immaterial concrete objects like the Christian god.

But I would not say that. I would simply say God might exist (even though he has not revealed himself to you), not that God did. At least, not without additional evidence.

And I'm not talking about God, either. I'm talking about the existence of immaterial concrete objects, which you are already arguing exist, and of which you claim thoughts and feelings are examples. My point is that these do not qualify as such entities,

If you view God as an example of an "immaterial concrete object", could you elaborate on what, exactly, an "immaterial concrete object" is, and provide an example of one, if there is one?

And for the record, I am not arguing, at present, that God is anything at all.

Shrunk wrote:
that you have yet to demonstrate the existence of concrete immaterial entities,

I don't even know what you are talking about. What is a "concrete immaterial entity"?

Shrunk wrote:
and since this seems to be an important part of your eventual argument for the existence of God (and, I suppose, eventually for creationism ) you need to realize that this part of the argument has failed. Badly.

I have made no argument for the existence of God. I have been making the case that thoughts and emotions exist, but cannot be detected unless revealed.

To me, this means that other things can exist, which we cannot detect, because they haven't been revealed. Or quite possibly, they haven't been recognized, or accepted for what they are. That raises the question of what kind of evidence might exist for such things?

I am simply using the example of thoughts and feelings to open the door to consideration of other things we cannot detect, and possible evidence for them. I haven't said anything about the things, or the evidence. I don't believe I have made an argument about said things or the evidence, yet, so I am not sure how it has already failed!

Shrunk wrote:

Shrunk wrote:
Once again, then, my rock on a distant planet is immaterial. Except it isn't. It is very, very much material. As are thoughts and feelings.

Wilberforce1860 wrote:
We are agreed it is immaterial, in that it is a thought.

Shrunk wrote:
No, we are not agreed on that. I am talking about a rock that actually exists, right now, this moment. It has colour, weight, size, etc. If it was in front of it you could see it, feel it, pick it up, throw it, etc.

To be more accurate, I am talking about any of the billions of billions of rocks that exist on planets that we cannot detect, rather than a specific one of these. Perhaps that is what is confusing you.

I am not confused.

Something which you imagine, (and that is what you are discussing), is a thought. Call that black.
Something material that you know exists, because of actual evidence, like a photo, or its presence, or the testimony of someone who has seen it, is real. Call that white.

You appear to be saying that black is white, and white is black. And therefore, they are the same.

Your are confusing your ability to imagine the existence of something, with that something, and saying that because you can imagine it to exist (with what you view as a high degree of probability), that it actually does exist. However, until you can demonstrate that it exists, you don't have anything other than your imagination. Your are imagining the real rock. But that is not the same thing as the real rock.

I am not sure why you are continuing this line of argument. Are you attempting to say that there is no difference between a thought, and a rock? Thus there is no difference between the immaterial and the material? That doesn't agree with the attributes of thought, versus the attributes of a rock, that I provided in tables on page 20 (#385 and #389).

Shrunk wrote:

Wilberforce1860 wrote:
You are also claiming that it is more than a thought, that it is a real rock made out of some type of elements. Perhaps it is. But you cannot demonstrate that as a fact. It is not observable, and does not merit classification as anything of substance. Do we catalog new stars before we actually observe them? No. Until we observe them, how do we know they are there? We don't. Do we classify a new type of tropical fish before we observe it? No. Until we observe it, how do we know it is there? We don't. We might think they are there, as you think the rock is there. But no one is going to give us credit for our discovery, until we show it to them.

Shrunk wrote:
All of those criticisms you give there apply equally to what you claim are concealed thoughts that other people have. You just believe they exist, you don't know that they actually do. The evidence for their existence is no stronger than that for a rock on an undetectable planet. (Though, in both cases, the evidence is very strong as to be practically certain). So congratulations. You have just refuted your own argument.

My friend tells me he is thinking about the answer to my question. Should I not believe him? He certainly appears to be thinking. He has been reliable when responding in this way in the past.

Let's compare that to your hypothetical rock on the undetectable planet, which you claim is both immaterial (I can't see it) and material (it is really, really there, hypothetically).

I have a friend in front of me, who I know to be truthful, who tells me he is thinking about an answer to my question. He then reveals it to me. This confirms that I was right in believing he was thinking about the answer to my question.

You have an idea, a thought, an imagination. You believe it is there, but have no confirmation.

Which is more real?

The rock. Sorry, was that a trick question?

I've already explained, in a separate post, that most of those characteristics apply to the other items in your list.

Shrunk wrote:
Entirely besides the point. One more time: The existence of abstract immaterial entities does not demonstrate the existence of concrete immaterial entities. You are trying to prove the existence of the latter, so arguing that the former exists does nothing.

Already discussed above.

Wilberforce1860 wrote:I have made no argument for the existence of God. I have been making the case that thoughts and emotions exist, but cannot be detected unless revealed.

Which I think has pretty conclusively and repeatedly been refuted. Instead some of them are generally not detected unless revealed. As you yourself admitted; we often show our thoughts, and even more so; our feelings, without intentionally revealing them. And on the flip side; that physical items can likewise be hidden from detection unless revealed. For example some cherished keepsakes hidden in a safe or some secret hideaway. Yes there is something different about mental processes (thoughts and feelings) from physical objects. For a start they are processes not physical objects.

Moving on.

Wilberforce1860 wrote:To me, this means that other things can exist, which we cannot detect, because they haven't been revealed.

This simply does not follow (The very definition of "non sequitur" by the way). That one thing is (or any particular number of things are) of a certain nature, that in no way "means" that more things can be as well. There might be, but the former does not "mean" the later.

Wilberforce1860 wrote: Or quite possibly, they haven't been recognized, or accepted for what they are. That raises the question of what kind of evidence might exist for such things?

A fair enough question. Lets' get to it.

Wilberforce1860 wrote:I am simply using the example of thoughts and feelings to open the door to consideration of other things we cannot detect, and possible evidence for them.

No one ever had any problem with that.
If you had started by claiming that "there might be some things that exist but we cannot detect", I think everyone would have said what amounts to "agreed, there probably are, go on".


So, okay; you claim that thoughts and feelings are special in that they cannot be detected unless revealed. Whether this is true or not (it really doesn't matter) there might be things other than those that exist but cannot be detected unless revealed. Please proceed from there.

Still waiting for an explanation on how Zombie cockroaches and immortal, disembodied souls work. If these are indeed claims made by Wilberforce,and innocent of good argument, evidence or mechanism, I suggest Wilberforce withdraws them as facts, and admit here is making mere claims. Thanks.

Wilberforce1860 wrote:I have made no argument for the existence of God. I have been making the case that thoughts and emotions exist, but cannot be detected unless revealed.

To me, this means that other things can exist, which we cannot detect, because they haven't been revealed. Or quite possibly, they haven't been recognized, or accepted for what they are. That raises the question of what kind of evidence might exist for such things?

I am simply using the example of thoughts and feelings to open the door to consideration of other things we cannot detect, and possible evidence for them. I haven't said anything about the things, or the evidence. I don't believe I have made an argument about said things or the evidence, yet, so I am not sure how it has already failed!

You are still going on about this? What makes you so certain that thoughts and emotions can't be detected? We detect them all of the time.

I am in a room
My eyes are closed
I am thinking "I will steal the cookie on the table"

Why do you think this is undetectable?

SpeedOfSound wrote: You are still going on about this? What makes you so certain that thoughts and emotions can't be detected? We detect them all of the time.

I am in a room
My eyes are closed
I am thinking "I will steal the cookie on the table"

Why do you think this is undetectable?

I then walk into the room.
I cannot detect that you are thinking about stealing a cookie from the table, not until you reveal that thought.

That's the 'profound' point of this claim...I think.

But of course:
You are in a room
You are lying on top of a cookie.
I then walk into the room.
I cannot detect that you are lying on a cookie, not until you reveal that cookie.


Yes, there is a fundamental difference between the two cases Wilberforce1860; the cookie is a material object, while the thought is a mental process (of a material object).

Wow, at this rate, I guess Wilberforce will have the concepts of astrophysics, abiogenesis and evolution down pat by 2026.

Varangian wrote:Wow, at this rate, I guess Wilberforce will have the concepts of astrophysics, abiogenesis and evolution down pat by 2026.

And I think you are being extremely overly optimistic there (that's only 12 years away).

Wilberforce1860 wrote:Perhaps I did not understand your comment.

Gee, what are the odds of that?

Later in this post you discuss abstract immaterial objects of thought versus immaterial concrete objects, such as God. This is the first post in which I remember, or perhaps, in which it has sunk into my thinking, that you are discussing these things. I don't view (the Christian) God as being immaterial. Is this your interpretation of Christianity? The Bible doesn't speak about what God is "made of", but it does give us a hint, in that it says man is made in God's image. This implies that whatever he is made of, man has some of it. Quite possibly more than we (Christians) might think. We know we are finite, and he is said to be infinite. We do not appear to have this quality. After the incarnation, when God took on a human form, he retained it when Christ returned to heaven. Christ had, and by implication, still has, a body. Christians believe that they will take on this new form of body as well. I would classify a body, of the old or the new kind, as material. So I would classify God as material. Since I believe he is the author of all that is, in some sense he defies classification, as well as a complete understanding. Not that we understand life on earth with any completeness. I believe God has revealed enough about himself for us to understand what we need to know.

Because we do not normally "see" God, except perhaps in a vision, it is easy to conclude, or slip into thinking, of him as immaterial. I do not think of God as immaterial.

Well, this is a bit of a surprise. It seems your ignorance extends as much to Christian theology as it does to science, philosophy and the understanding of plain written English. Of course, given the last of these I guess you can be forgiven for the others.

The Christian god, if it existed, would be immaterial.

http://www.theopedia.com/List_of_God%27 ... attributes

Wilberforce1860 wrote:

Shrunk wrote:

Shrunk wrote:


It would mean I had lost my ability to think logically and critically.

The error you are making here is equivocating on the meaning of the word "immaterial". What your are describing when you talk about intellectual property and such are abstract immaterial entities. Numbers are other examples. No one disputes that these "exist", in a sense, but only in the abstract, as ideas. They can only be thought of. They do not interact with the universe in any direct way and do not exist except as things that can be thought about.

Yes, like any other thoughts, right?

No, wrong.

It would be helpful it you could elaborate on the difference, in your view, of "things that can be thought about", which you refer to as abstract ideas, and other thoughts.

I didn't say that. I referred to things that "can only be thought of." That one word makes a crucial difference, as anyone who knew how to read would understand.

In your view what are examples of "abstract immaterial entities", and what are their characteristics?

I already gave you examples, in the very passage you quote. Learn to read. It's going to be difficult to have a productive discussion until you do that.

What are examples of "thought that is not an abstract immaterial entity", and what are its attributes?

All thoughts. Since thoughts are not immaterial (which is the position I am defending,) there can't fucking well be immaterial thoughts, can there? Again, LEARN TO FUCKING READ!

Wilberforce1860 wrote:

Shrunk wrote:

Shrunk wrote:
When you say God is "immaterial", you are claiming the existence of a concrete immaterial entity. That's a very different thing, and by accepting the existence of abstract concepts one is not committed to accepting the existence of such a thing.

I think what you are referring to as "abstract concepts", I have referred to as "thought products", or "objectified thought", as illustrated by mathematics, designs, a song, a painting, etc. I have observed that these "products of thought", or "abstract concepts" if you will, can only be detected if voluntarily revealed to us by the thinker. I have concluded that other things which are real, but are not detectable unless voluntarily revealed, could possibly exist. I have not said that they actually do. I would need to provide some kind of evidence for that. I have not yet attempted to do so.

They are not products of thought. They are objects of thought. They "exist" whether or not someone ever thought about them.

You needn't waste your time providing evidence for these immaterial, undetected things whose existence you are trying to prove, because it is obvious you do not understand enough of the basic concepts and and lack the skills required to do so. You should, instead, take the opportunity of participating in this discussion to improve your critical thinking skills.

I have asked above for clarification on what you see as "objects of thought", versus thought. Also, it would be useful to hear you explain why a song, a painting, or a design, is not a "product of thought". What would you call it?

OK, I admit I was not clear here. I was referring primarily to mathematics, which you describe as a "product of thought", but which is not. 2 + 2 + 4 is an objective truth that existed long before there was anyone around to think about it, and would in fact exist even if the universe did not. A song, painting, etc. is of course a product of thought.

If you view God as an example of an "immaterial concrete object", could you elaborate on what, exactly, an "immaterial concrete object" is, and provide an example of one, if there is one?

AFAIK, no such thing exists. A hypothetical example would be something like a spirit or a ghost, which had consciousness and will but was not made up of matter or energy. Such a being, however, is incoherent in light of physics.

The god of Christianity (in which you do not appear to believe) is another example.

And for the record, I am not arguing, at present, that God is anything at all.

Not true. You just said it is not immaterial, for one.

Wilberforce1860 wrote:Because we do not normally "see" God, except perhaps in a vision, it is easy to conclude, or slip into thinking, of him as immaterial. I do not think of God as immaterial.

Interesting. A Hel of a lot of creationist apologists do see God as immaterial. I guess you won't be arguing for God as the creator of matter then, seeing as you believe that matter already existed as soon as God did (if you God always existed then it follows that matter always existed).

ADParker wrote:

SpeedOfSound wrote: You are still going on about this? What makes you so certain that thoughts and emotions can't be detected? We detect them all of the time.

I am in a room
My eyes are closed
I am thinking "I will steal the cookie on the table"

Why do you think this is undetectable?

I then walk into the room.
I cannot detect that you are thinking about stealing a cookie from the table, not until you reveal that thought.

That's the 'profound' point of this claim...I think.

But of course:
You are in a room
You are lying on top of a cookie.
I then walk into the room.
I cannot detect that you are lying on a cookie, not until you reveal that cookie.


Yes, there is a fundamental difference between the two cases Wilberforce1860; the cookie is a material object, while the thought is a mental process (of a material object).

I protest at either classification but that's a bigger discussion that Wiberforce1860 would never be able to understand.

Doesn't matter. process or object there are many things that have to be revealed to us before we know them. In fact the things we know amounts to the infinitesimal few. So I don't get why he thinks a persons thinking or plotting or whatever is any different to other things we don't know like the cookie laying beneath me that you simply can't see.

My guess is that he wants to make a parallel with a god-thingy that has thoughts and intents that are not revealed to us. Good guess. He would call my telling you my thoughts another way of knowing. Science can't tell I'm going to steal the cookie so my voice is another way of knowing.

But it's not the only way of knowing my intent to steal cookie. Nor is science helpless in this matter.

So. His whole approach will not work and when he gets to the next stage it will e even worse for him. He wants to give justification for believing in a personal god-thingy, call him bob, by other means of knowing than our usual seeing bob standing in the room.

Which of course fails when you explain it that way.

SpeedOfSound wrote:My guess is that he wants to make a parallel with a god-thingy that has thoughts and intents that are not revealed to us. Good guess.

Yes, it seems like a very good guess. Is that the point to which you are (laboriously) working, Wilberforce1860?

Christians get their kicks watching atheists nibble on the worm.

SpeedOfSound wrote:Christians get their kicks watching atheists nibble on the worm.

And some atheists get their kicks from watching the Christians get all excited at the prospect of one of us actually biting, when in fact we know just how hard to nibble to make him yank his empty line out of the water. If we're really good, we even swim off with the worm.

Of course, the Christian has to first figure out which end of the line goes into the water. The process can become very protracted while wait for him to figure that out....

Shrunk wrote:

SpeedOfSound wrote:Christians get their kicks watching atheists nibble on the worm.

And some atheists get their kicks from watching the Christians get all excited at the prospect of one of us actually biting, when in fact we know just how hard to nibble to make him yank his empty line out of the water. If we're really good, we even swim off with the worm.

Of course, the Christian has to first figure out which end of the line goes into the water. The process can become very protracted while wait for him to figure that out....

Last I saw of him he was thrashing around in the brush looking for the lake again. No worm today I fear.

ADParker wrote:Yes, there is a fundamental difference between the two cases Wilberforce1860; the cookie is a material object, while the thought is a mental process (of a material object).

Which, of course, means the thought is also material, (which I state just in case Wil misunderstands your meaning, as he is very likely to do, and thinks you are agreeing with him).

The thought is immaterial in much the way that the taste of the cookie is immaterial. Which is to say, neither is at all immaterial.