Philosophy Now Forum

cpuproc68 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 02, 2024 3:01 pm Although, to be honest, the shape of this microgrid remains a mystery for now.

The absolute idealist synthesises idealism and materialism with the claim that man and other minds are the creator of everything in the relative world.

Neither idealism nor materialism address the question of eternity. Eternity however does not imply supernatural.

I have a solution! Let's cut the baby in half!

Belinda wrote: ↑Wed Oct 02, 2024 5:50 pm
Neither idealism nor materialism address the question of eternity. Eternity however does not imply supernatural.

What we call supernatural can also be called natural.

cpuproc68 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 08, 2024 9:49 am Only the absolute can be eternal, and the only sensible proposition of what the absolute is is the statement that nothingness is the absolute (and is eternal).

Nothingness is the absence of any qualities or properties - it can't even be. Let alone be absolute; or eternal.

You've arrived at the wrong end of the road - Nihilism.

Rejecting, nihilism on its very grounds. Bishop Berkeley was perception and existence is a second predicate. Perceiving, of a material substance, then the unperceived does not exist. Depending, on the mind. This just leaves more of a Bishop Berkely, "Veil of perception" argument. You should have interacted with this argument in a introduction to philosophy class. Though thanking, you for the thoughts and research.

cpuproc68 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 08, 2024 9:49 am

Belinda wrote: ↑Wed Oct 02, 2024 5:50 pm
Neither idealism nor materialism address the question of eternity. Eternity however does not imply supernatural.

Only the absolute can be eternal, and the only sensible proposition of what the absolute is is the statement that nothingness is the absolute (and is eternal).

Collin's dictionary lists many definitions of the noun 'absolute' as in "the absolute.
The meaning I referred to is defined by Collins " viewed independently; not comparative or relative; ultimate; intrinsic
absolute knowledge".
Please consider time, space, force(causation) as relative circumstances. If these relative circumstances are constantly present as in everyday life then everyday life is relative to time, space, and force.

Nobody experiences absolute existence i.e. existence in the absence of time, space, and force. However it stands to reason that absolute existence is existence that lacks time, space, and force. N.B. absolute existence is not nothing, but is absolute .(like Skepdick said)
('Eternity' is usually taken to refer to absence of time but not of space or of force, and eternal is not a synonym for everlasting.)

cpuproc68 wrote: ↑Mon Dec 09, 2024 4:59 pm Perhaps the small amount of matter hiding in my theory is the matter of God Himself (what He is made of).

Pantheism is compatible with reason.

cpuproc68 wrote: ↑Thu Nov 30, 2023 2:40 pm Cosmical modeling can refer to idealism and materialism. In the geocentric model, matter has a significant advantage over mind.

There is no way to reconcile the dualism of idealism versus materialism on a epistemological basis.

What is Idealism?

Idealism in philosophy, also known as philosophical idealism or metaphysical idealism, is the set of metaphysical perspectives asserting that, most fundamentally, reality is equivalent to mind, spirit, or consciousness; that reality is entirely a mental construct; or that ideas are the highest type of reality or have the greatest claim to being considered "real".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealism

Let's say, whatever is idealism is "somehow" connected with the human mind.

What is Materialism?

However, an answer that captures what exactly it is that Berkeley rejects is that material things are mind-independent things or substances.
And a mind-independent thing is something whose existence is not dependent on thinking/perceiving things, and thus would exist whether or not any thinking things (minds) existed. Berkeley holds that there are no such mind-independent things, that, in the famous phrase, esse est percipi (aut percipere) — to be is to be perceived (or to perceive).
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/berkeley/#2

From the above it is impossible to reconcile Idealism with Materialism.
Since Idealism is somehow related to the human mind and
materialism is 'absolutely'* independent of the human-mind,
there is no way 'related to mind' can reconcile with absolutely independent of mind.
* would exist whether or not any thinking things (minds) existed = absolutely.

Thus your OP is a non-starter.

How we can reconcile Idealism versus materialism is to reduce them to the common factor within psychology, neuropsychology, evolutionary psychology and critical philosophy [Kantian].

Your above also cannot proceed further to be realistic because you simply and merely ASSUME God exists without justifications nor 'prove' that God is real.