The first valid evidence that god does NOT exist

[Immanuel Can]

What you mean is there's no particular reason to believe that Idealism is true.

No, I mean what I said:

...I've been very clear, idealism is an underdetermined hypothesis which is, to my mind, completely consistent with the evidence.

And I've asked, "What evidence?" And astonishingly, it seems you can't think of any to suggest.

The answers to all philosophical questions, such as whether god exists, are speculative;

The difference between an tenable theory and a mere speculation is clear: it's evidence. If a theorist has none, then all he's got is speculation. If he's got some, there's a chance he has an actual theory worth considering. If he's got plenty, then that's a serious theory. But so far, we don't have anything from you that makes Idealism a serious theory, or even one worthy of being entertained. Your objection is a mere speculation.

And you'd have to grant this much to the critics: that everybody is naturally, by default, some sort of Common Sense Realist. That's how things appear to us to be, it's the first epistemic orientation a toddler discovers, and it's the way ordinary folks take things to be, and it's the way everybody assumes in their daily actions. They don't assume, "The cliff in front of me is really just an idea in my head," or "There may be no cliff in front of me, because all I've got is the idea of a cliff." Or if they assume that, they generally aren't around long enough to be of concern. So the default assumption, the a priori, is some kind of Realism, and thus, your burden is to show that Idealism is a serious challenger to that, and to do so by way of evidence.

Where's the beef, Will?

[seeds]

I am not appealing to the authority of David Hume but to Hume's power of reason. Don't you know there is in Edinburgh a statue of David Hume that is located where Hume calmly outfaces a similarly -sized statue of John Knox.
Philosophers today regard Hume as a giant of philosophy.
Seeds, I had not placed you as an anti-intellectual.

I am not an "anti-intellectual."

No, I am an "anti-buying into false conclusions" type of person who, based on my own explorations and studies, can see when someone (such as Hume) doesn't know what they're talking about.

Hume may have been an eloquent and highly respected philosopher who put forth many good ideas,...

...however, if from the depths of his reasoning he came to the conclusion summarized in the following quote from Wikipedia (emphasis mine),...

Hume denied that people have an actual conception of the self, positing that they experience only a bundle of sensations and that the self is nothing more than this bundle of perceptions connected by an association of ideas.

...then he simply wasn't awake enough to see (or visualize) the "self" (the "I Am-ness") for what it really is.
_______

When I introspect I feel that Hume's bundle notion of the self is credible. You don't.

You say the self is "I Am-ness" and add that I Am-ness accompanies a sort of wakefulness. Seeds, for philosophers , wakefulness is reason not mystical consciousness. Mysticism is not usually addressed by mainstream analytic philosophy as mysticism is impervious to reason.

From Merriam-Webster (emphasis mine),,,

mystical

adjective

1 (a): having a spiritual meaning or reality that is neither apparent to the senses nor obvious to the intelligence

In this case, what is "not obvious to the intelligence" is how there can be a "bundle of perceptions" (let's call that a "bundle of qualia") without the existence (or presence) of "something" that is capable of "experiencing" (i.e., seeing, feeling, hearing, smelling, and tasting) those perceptions/qualia.

Hume's denial of the self...

(which, for the purposes of this immediate argument, means the denial of the "thinker" of thoughts)

...while insisting that the self is...

"...nothing more than this bundle of perceptions connected by an association of ideas..."

...is the equivalent of presuming that there can somehow exist the multi-sensory features of a vivid dream without the existence of the "dreamer" of the dream.

Such presumptions are nonsense.

And just because some famous philosopher (a fallible human) from the 18th century had nothing better to do than to devise a clever argument that denies the very existence of the deviser of the argument that the deviser of the argument is devising, doesn't mean that that famous philosopher wasn't wrong.

How is that not obvious to the introspecting "I" that calls itself Belinda?
_______

[seeds]

Oh. You just mean, "People have ideas."

No, I mean what I said:

...I've been very clear, idealism is an underdetermined hypothesis which is, to my mind, completely consistent with the evidence.

But Idealism, the philosophical system, is much more than that. It has both epistemological and ontological varieties, neither of which is unproblematic. So to help with the basics of philosophy, here you go: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/idealism/

Well, if you had read that article you would understand that:

"...neither Moore nor Russell claimed to have demonstrated that the universe or what exists or can be known to exist is not spiritual or mental. All that they take themselves to have shown is that there are no good philosophical (in contradistinction to, e.g., theological or psychological) arguments available to support such a claim. Moore especially is very explicit about this point. He devotes the first five pages of his famous piece from 1903, “The Refutation of Idealism”, to assuring the reader over and over that

I do not suppose that anything I shall say has the smallest tendency to prove that reality is not spiritual. … Reality may be spiritual, for all I know; and I devoutly hope it is. … It is, therefore, only with idealistic arguments that I am concerned; … I shall have proved that Idealists have no reason whatever for their conclusion. (Philosophical Studies, pp. 2 f.)

From a Google search of the definition of idealism (emphasis mine)...

idealism

noun

Philosophy:
Any of various systems of thought in which the objects of knowledge are held to be in some way dependent on the activity of mind. Often contrasted with realism.

Clearly, at the time when that assertion in your Moore quote was published (1903), G.E. Moore had not the slightest clue that (the yet to be formalized) quantum physics would suggest (at least to the metaphysician) that the very foundational substance from which the stars and planets are created seems to be "mind-like" in nature,...

...in that it is capable of being formed into absolutely anything "imaginable," just like the substance from which our own thoughts and dreams are formed.

Indeed, in some interpretations of quantum mechanics, it is theorized that mind (or consciousness) may somehow be involved in the process that explicates phenomenal reality into existence from (noumenal-like) fields of information, thus nullifying Moore's self-alleged "proving" that idealists...

"... have no reason whatever for their conclusion...".

And just to clarify things, I took this issue up with Google's AI Overview (emphasis mine)...

Me:
According to G.E. Moore, what do idealists conclude about idealism?

AI Overview:
According to G.E. Moore, idealists conclude that reality is spiritual and that the material world is not as it appears, but rather a mental construct dependent on consciousness. Idealists argue that "to be is to be perceived" and that an object's existence is reducible to its being perceived by a mind, while Moore argues against this by claiming the object of experience is distinct from the experience of it.

• Critique of idealism: Moore argued that the idealist premise that an object is nothing more than its perception is unsupported. He contended that the object of an experience (like a "blue" object) is distinct from the experience of "sensing blue," and that we are aware of external objects directly, not just our mental states.

And the reason for this clarification is to point out that Moore is correct in proclaiming that the phenomenal features of the universe are indeed distinct (exist independently) from our perceptions of them.

However, their reality (their very existence) is nevertheless still dependent upon the existence of the mind (or personage/"I Am-ness") to whom the objects of perception belong. And in this case, we're talking about God's mind/"I Am-ness".

Thus, "Idealism" still prevails.

Where's the beef, Will?

What the forum's own version of Clara Peller cannot seem to get into his thick skull is that by having a "beef" against Idealism, he is arguing against what is probably the only logical and plausible means by which God could have created the universe.

I mean, what does Clara think that all of the stuff described in Genesis: 1-3 is made of...

1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

...if not the infinitely malleable substance of God's very own mind?
_______

[Will Bouwman]

...I've asked, "What evidence?" And astonishingly, it seems you can't think of any to suggest.

Well, clearly it hasn't sunk in that the evidence for two or more underdetermined hypotheses is exactly the same. So, any evidence you suppose supports materialism, or whatever your metaphysical beliefs may be, supports idealism equally well.

[Immanuel Can]

Oh. You just mean, "People have ideas."

No, I mean what I said:

...I've been very clear, idealism is an underdetermined hypothesis which is, to my mind, completely consistent with the evidence.

But Idealism, the philosophical system, is much more than that. It has both epistemological and ontological varieties, neither of which is unproblematic. So to help with the basics of philosophy, here you go: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/idealism/

Well, if you had read that article you would understand that:

"...neither Moore nor Russell claimed to have demonstrated that the universe or what exists or can be known to exist is not spiritual or mental. All that they take themselves to have shown is that there are no good philosophical (in contradistinction to, e.g., theological or psychological) arguments available to support such a claim. Moore especially is very explicit about this point. He devotes the first five pages of his famous piece from 1903, “The Refutation of Idealism”, to assuring the reader over and over that

I do not suppose that anything I shall say has the smallest tendency to prove that reality is not spiritual. … Reality may be spiritual, for all I know; and I devoutly hope it is. … It is, therefore, only with idealistic arguments that I am concerned; … I shall have proved that Idealists have no reason whatever for their conclusion. (Philosophical Studies, pp. 2 f.)

From a Google search of the definition of idealism (emphasis mine)...

idealism

noun

Philosophy:
Any of various systems of thought in which the objects of knowledge are held to be in some way dependent on the activity of mind. Often contrasted with realism.

Clearly, at the time when that assertion in your Moore quote was published (1903), G.E. Moore had not the slightest clue that (the yet to be formalized) quantum physics would suggest (at least to the metaphysician) that the very foundational substance from which the stars and planets are created seems to be "mind-like" in nature,...

...in that it is capable of being formed into absolutely anything "imaginable," just like the substance from which our own thoughts and dreams are formed.

Indeed, in some interpretations of quantum mechanics, it is theorized that mind (or consciousness) may somehow be involved in the process that explicates phenomenal reality into existence from (noumenal-like) fields of information, thus nullifying Moore's self-alleged "proving" that idealists...

"... have no reason whatever for their conclusion...".

And just to clarify things, I took this issue up with Google's AI Overview (emphasis mine)...

Me:
According to G.E. Moore, what do idealists conclude about idealism?

AI Overview:
According to G.E. Moore, idealists conclude that reality is spiritual and that the material world is not as it appears, but rather a mental construct dependent on consciousness. Idealists argue that "to be is to be perceived" and that an object's existence is reducible to its being perceived by a mind, while Moore argues against this by claiming the object of experience is distinct from the experience of it.

• Critique of idealism: Moore argued that the idealist premise that an object is nothing more than its perception is unsupported. He contended that the object of an experience (like a "blue" object) is distinct from the experience of "sensing blue," and that we are aware of external objects directly, not just our mental states.

And the reason for this clarification is to point out that Moore is correct in proclaiming that the phenomenal features of the universe are indeed distinct (exist independently) from our perceptions of them.

However, their reality (their very existence) is nevertheless still dependent upon the existence of the mind (or personage/"I Am-ness") to whom the objects of perception belong. And in this case, we're talking about God's mind/"I Am-ness".

Thus, "Idealism" still prevails.

Where's the beef, Will?

What the forum's own version of Clara Peller cannot seem to get into his thick skull is that by having a "beef" against Idealism, he is arguing against what is probably the only logical and plausible means by which God could have created the universe.

I mean, what does Clara think that all of the stuff described in Genesis: 1-3 is made of...

1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

...if not the infinitely malleable substance of God's very own mind?
_______

Wow. I've rarely seen so much discourse with so little to the point.

The question is, "What is the evidence that turns Idealism from a mere speculation into a serious challenge to Common Sense Realism?" And so far as I can see, Will hasn't even yet told us if he's an epistemological or ontological Idealist, or whether he actually believes in Idealism at all. He seems to have thrown it into the discussion as a vague possibility, rather than as a serious contender.

[SpheresOfBalance]

1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

...if not the infinitely malleable substance of God's very own mind?

Who wrote this absurdity in this forum? As if words of mere men prove there's a god. You people are fools to trust the words of fallible men, men that lie, men that fear death, men that will do almost anything to survive. Especially those of archaic times, that were relatively ignorant by today's standards. Boy do you people severely lack intelligence.

[Age]

No, I mean what I said:


Well, if you had read that article you would understand that:

"...neither Moore nor Russell claimed to have demonstrated that the universe or what exists or can be known to exist is not spiritual or mental. All that they take themselves to have shown is that there are no good philosophical (in contradistinction to, e.g., theological or psychological) arguments available to support such a claim. Moore especially is very explicit about this point. He devotes the first five pages of his famous piece from 1903, “The Refutation of Idealism”, to assuring the reader over and over that

I do not suppose that anything I shall say has the smallest tendency to prove that reality is not spiritual. … Reality may be spiritual, for all I know; and I devoutly hope it is. … It is, therefore, only with idealistic arguments that I am concerned; … I shall have proved that Idealists have no reason whatever for their conclusion. (Philosophical Studies, pp. 2 f.)

From a Google search of the definition of idealism (emphasis mine)...

idealism

noun

Philosophy:
Any of various systems of thought in which the objects of knowledge are held to be in some way dependent on the activity of mind. Often contrasted with realism.

Clearly, at the time when that assertion in your Moore quote was published (1903), G.E. Moore had not the slightest clue that (the yet to be formalized) quantum physics would suggest (at least to the metaphysician) that the very foundational substance from which the stars and planets are created seems to be "mind-like" in nature,...

...in that it is capable of being formed into absolutely anything "imaginable," just like the substance from which our own thoughts and dreams are formed.

Indeed, in some interpretations of quantum mechanics, it is theorized that mind (or consciousness) may somehow be involved in the process that explicates phenomenal reality into existence from (noumenal-like) fields of information, thus nullifying Moore's self-alleged "proving" that idealists...

"... have no reason whatever for their conclusion...".

And just to clarify things, I took this issue up with Google's AI Overview (emphasis mine)...

Me:
According to G.E. Moore, what do idealists conclude about idealism?

AI Overview:
According to G.E. Moore, idealists conclude that reality is spiritual and that the material world is not as it appears, but rather a mental construct dependent on consciousness. Idealists argue that "to be is to be perceived" and that an object's existence is reducible to its being perceived by a mind, while Moore argues against this by claiming the object of experience is distinct from the experience of it.

• Critique of idealism: Moore argued that the idealist premise that an object is nothing more than its perception is unsupported. He contended that the object of an experience (like a "blue" object) is distinct from the experience of "sensing blue," and that we are aware of external objects directly, not just our mental states.

And the reason for this clarification is to point out that Moore is correct in proclaiming that the phenomenal features of the universe are indeed distinct (exist independently) from our perceptions of them.

However, their reality (their very existence) is nevertheless still dependent upon the existence of the mind (or personage/"I Am-ness") to whom the objects of perception belong. And in this case, we're talking about God's mind/"I Am-ness".

Thus, "Idealism" still prevails.

Where's the beef, Will?

What the forum's own version of Clara Peller cannot seem to get into his thick skull is that by having a "beef" against Idealism, he is arguing against what is probably the only logical and plausible means by which God could have created the universe.

I mean, what does Clara think that all of the stuff described in Genesis: 1-3 is made of...

1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

...if not the infinitely malleable substance of God's very own mind?
_______

Wow. I've rarely seen so much discourse with so little to the point.

The question is, "What is the evidence that turns Idealism from a mere speculation into a serious challenge to Common Sense Realism?"

"common sense realism". LOL Who's "common sense realism" are you referring to "immanuel can"?

For surely absolutely any one who believes that a thing with a penis created absolutely every thing, all at once, does not have any 'common sense', at all.

Do you, still, believe, and insist, that God is a "he"?

And so far as I can see, Will hasn't even yet told us if he's an epistemological or ontological Idealist, or whether he actually believes in Idealism at all. He seems to have thrown it into the discussion as a vague possibility, rather than as a serious contender.

And, you have, once again, attempted to deflect, and thus are attempting to be very deceitful, as usual.

[Age]

1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

...if not the infinitely malleable substance of God's very own mind?

Who wrote this absurdity in this forum? As if words of mere men prove there's a god. You people are fools to trust the words of fallible men, men that lie, men that fear death, men that will do almost anything to survive. Especially those of archaic times, that were relatively ignorant by today's standards.

So, you trust the words of the current fallible human beings, of those who lie, fear death, and who will do almost any thing to survive just because they are not of previous times.

Boy do you people severely lack intelligence.

I agree you people do severely lack intelligence, at times.

Imagine how lacking of intelligence people would have to be to keep bickering and fighting over whether God exists, or not, when the definition of 'God', Itself, had not yet even been discussed, agreed upon, and accepted.

[seeds]

1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

...if not the infinitely malleable substance of God's very own mind?

Who wrote this absurdity in this forum? As if words of mere men prove there's a god. You people are fools to trust the words of fallible men, men that lie, men that fear death, men that will do almost anything to survive. Especially those of archaic times, that were relatively ignorant by today's standards. Boy do you people severely lack intelligence.

Good grief, what kind of a boneheaded response was that?

Did you not read and understand the context in which those words were offered?

They were reflecting what "Clara" (IC) holds to be true. And if he holds them to be true, then the point was that "Idealism" (something that Clara rejects) would seem to be the only plausible means by which the God of the Bible could have created the universe.

In other words, it was offered as a refutation of his refutation of Idealism by holding up a mirror to his own belief system.

Try paying closer attention to context next time before you chime-in on something, otherwise, it is you who comes off as a fool.
_______

[Will Bouwman]

...so far as I can see, Will hasn't even yet told us if he's an epistemological or ontological Idealist, or whether he actually believes in Idealism at all.

Well, there's all the times I have stated my agreement with the foundational Cartesian observation that all we can know is that there are thoughts, which I suppose puts me in the epistemological idealist basket. Ontologically, there's this from just two days ago:

I happen think the best explanation for reality is some version of quantum field theory; quantum fields are not physical in the 'common sense' that Moore appealed to for challenging idealism. Having completed my philosophical chops, I know enough not to insist that I know the metaphysical nature of quantum fields, assuming of course, that they exist. It is only in the philosophical vacuum of cranks and nut jobs that such certainty exists.

The failure is not that I haven't made my position clear, it is with those who do not remember, or understand what I have said.

[Immanuel Can]

...so far as I can see, Will hasn't even yet told us if he's an epistemological or ontological Idealist, or whether he actually believes in Idealism at all.

Well, there's all the times I have stated my agreement with the foundational Cartesian observation that all we can know is that there are thoughts, which I suppose puts me in the epistemological idealist basket. Ontologically, there's this from just two days ago:

I happen think the best explanation for reality is some version of quantum field theory; quantum fields are not physical in the 'common sense' that Moore appealed to for challenging idealism. Having completed my philosophical chops, I know enough not to insist that I know the metaphysical nature of quantum fields, assuming of course, that they exist. It is only in the philosophical vacuum of cranks and nut jobs that such certainty exists.

The failure is not that I haven't made my position clear, it is with those who do not remember, or understand what I have said.

Well, and it doesn't really solve the problem. For "quantum" and "ideas" are not the same thing at all. So you'd have to establish something we know about quantum physics argues that ideas are the substance of reality. I'm unaware of any such line of argument.

But you say you're not even sure that quantum fields "exist." That's surely a terribly weak way to argue, even if you were just sticking to quantum mechanics itself as a subject. It certainly won't help with the more extended idea of Idealism.

So again, what is this "evidence" that Idealism is capable of explaining better than the alternatives? If it's not at least better, then it's not a real objection to anything at all, is it?

As for Descartes, if you understand him, you know his radical skepticism is just an heuristic. It's not the case that Descartes believed that nothing but his thoughts existed: he's performing a thought-experiment, using radical skepticism to try to discern if there is any kind of knowledge at all that is absolute. He's not saying, "The only thing that can possibly exist is whatever I find at the bottom of my heuristic," which is the only way Descartes would help the case for Idealism. So I think you've misunderstood his project. And I think we can argue that from the text itself, which I happen to have on hand, if you ever wish to do so.

Carry on, then.

[SpheresOfBalance]

1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

...if not the infinitely malleable substance of God's very own mind?

Who wrote this absurdity in this forum? As if words of mere men prove there's a god. You people are fools to trust the words of fallible men, men that lie, men that fear death, men that will do almost anything to survive. Especially those of archaic times, that were relatively ignorant by today's standards. Boy do you people severely lack intelligence.

Good grief, what kind of a boneheaded response was that?

Did you not read and understand the context in which those words were offered?

They were reflecting what "Clara" (IC) holds to be true. And if he holds them to be true, then the point was that "Idealism" (something that Clara rejects) would seem to be the only plausible means by which the God of the Bible could have created the universe.

In other words, it was offered as a refutation of his refutation of Idealism by holding up a mirror to his own belief system.

Try paying closer attention to context next time before you chime-in on something, otherwise, it is you who comes off as a fool.
_______

No I didn't and I don't. I was clearly taking a shot that the words, it matters not what the context was, or who copied them here. I know where they came from, I've read Genesis many times. If I meant to argue ALL the points in question in this particular thread, I would have done so. If you think that I'm liable for not following the entire scope of this contention, think again. My Point was my quote and my argument, whether someone can yell
ad hominem or not is also immaterial, because there are in fact idiots, morons, numbskulls, etc, etc. All one has to do is think for a few moments to know that so far on planet earth THERE HAS BEEN NO PROOF OF A OR MANY GODS, PERIOD! It's all in peoples IMAGINATION, their duel with DEATH. Read Ernest Becker's, (PhD in Cultural Anthropology), Pulitzer Prize winning book, "Denial of Death" to understand the mind of humans to get a grip on why we do some of the things we do, it weigh's heavy. Science Reins Supreme, simple belief (faith) is for people that simply can't apply logic to thinking and would rather follow the ridiculous beliefs of ancient cultures that died out long ago. In the past the church was all about power and control. Thanks to people like Kierkegaard and Nietzsche, to name just two, that helped deliver us from their grasp.

Another thing that one can do is follow "Closer to Truth" a TV show and website where the host talks to several current day philosophers as well as TOP RELIGIOUS FIGURES many of which HONESTLY recant many religious beliefs of the past in the name of PHILOSOPHY. I hope that Rick doesn't see this as competition and realizes, like I do, that all of philosophy should band together. And no, I'm not affiliated in any way, just a fan of all that tries to answer the Truth of Things. The truth is what gives me personal power to keep on living, and peace of mind!

Crap, back in his day, the church forced Galileo to recant what he said was true due to his observations, today the church has one of the largest and expensive terrestrial telescopes in the world.

Time after time, after time, the church recants things that Science proves false.

Look I'm an agnostic, knowing that neither camp knows, but I hope there is a god. Probably not, but it would be nice if there were. Because I have a lot of questions.

[Age]

Who wrote this absurdity in this forum? As if words of mere men prove there's a god. You people are fools to trust the words of fallible men, men that lie, men that fear death, men that will do almost anything to survive. Especially those of archaic times, that were relatively ignorant by today's standards. Boy do you people severely lack intelligence.

Good grief, what kind of a boneheaded response was that?

Did you not read and understand the context in which those words were offered?

They were reflecting what "Clara" (IC) holds to be true. And if he holds them to be true, then the point was that "Idealism" (something that Clara rejects) would seem to be the only plausible means by which the God of the Bible could have created the universe.

In other words, it was offered as a refutation of his refutation of Idealism by holding up a mirror to his own belief system.

Try paying closer attention to context next time before you chime-in on something, otherwise, it is you who comes off as a fool.
_______

No I didn't and I don't. I was clearly taking a shot that the words, it matters not what the context was, or who copied them here. I know where they came from, I've read Genesis many times. If I meant to argue ALL the points in question in this particular thread, I would have done so. If you think that I'm liable for not following the entire scope of this contention, think again. My Point was my quote and my argument, whether someone can yell
ad hominem or not is also immaterial, because there are in fact idiots, morons, numbskulls, etc, etc. All one has to do is think for a few moments to know that so far on planet earth THERE HAS BEEN NO PROOF OF A OR MANY GODS, PERIOD! It's all in peoples IMAGINATION, their duel with DEATH. Read Ernest Becker's, (PhD in Cultural Anthropology), Pulitzer Prize winning book, "Denial of Death" to understand the mind of humans to get a grip on why we do some of the things we do, it weigh's heavy. Science Reins Supreme, simple belief (faith) is for people that simply can't apply logic to thinking and would rather follow the ridiculous beliefs of ancient cultures that died out long ago. In the past the church was all about power and control. Thanks to people like Kierkegaard and Nietzsche, to name just two, that helped deliver us from their grasp.

Another thing that one can do is follow "Closer to Truth" a TV show and website where the host talks to several current day philosophers as well as TOP RELIGIOUS FIGURES many of which HONESTLY recant many religious beliefs of the past in the name of PHILOSOPHY. I hope that Rick doesn't see this as competition and realizes, like I do, that all of philosophy should band together. And no, I'm not affiliated in any way, just a fan of all that tries to answer the Truth of Things. The truth is what gives me personal power to keep on living, and peace of mind!

Crap, back in his day, the church forced Galileo to recant what he said was true due to his observations, today the church has one of the largest and expensive terrestrial telescopes in the world.

Time after time, after time, the church recants things that Science proves false.

Look I'm an agnostic, knowing that neither camp knows, but I hope there is a god. Probably not, but it would be nice if there were. Because I have a lot of questions.

There is God, now what are these questions, exactly, which you have?

[Will Bouwman]

So again, what is this "evidence" that Idealism is capable of explaining better than the alternatives? If it's not at least better, then it's not a real objection to anything at all, is it?

Well, clearly it hasn't sunk in that the evidence for two or more underdetermined hypotheses is exactly the same. So, any evidence you suppose supports materialism, or whatever your metaphysical beliefs may be, supports idealism equally well.

As for Descartes, if you understand him...

That you cannot understand underdetermination, not a complicated idea, doesn't inspire confidence that your understanding of Descartes might be any better.

[Skepdick]

So again, what is this "evidence" that Idealism is capable of explaining better than the alternatives? If it's not at least better, then it's not a real objection to anything at all, is it?

Well, clearly it hasn't sunk in that the evidence for two or more underdetermined hypotheses is exactly the same. So, any evidence you suppose supports materialism, or whatever your metaphysical beliefs may be, supports idealism equally well.

As for Descartes, if you understand him...

That you cannot understand underdetermination, not a complicated idea, doesn't inspire confidence that your understanding of Descartes might be any better.

Materialism isn't underdetermined. It's demonstrably false on its own terms. Matter is anything that has mass and takes up space by having volume.

Photons are the obvious counter-example to "everything is matter".