addem wrote:ne would think an immaterialist (I assume that's the same thing as an idealist) would still believe in atoms, just re-construed in an idealist framework.
I accounted for that possibility in my last post. Once again, it depends on whether they are perceptible or are by definition perceiving as to whether I would allow for them as entities with an actual existence.
addem wrote:And even in that case, you couldn't prove that the universe isn't one second old
Well, I would argue that occasionalism is corollary to immaterialism (which is the negative form of phenomenal idealism, the other name for my position), so in a sense the universe is continuously generated into existence; however, if you mean simply the origination of the earth, I am skeptical of many bold claims regarding the age of the earth as assuming theories of physical causation that are inherently fallacious.
addem wrote:created by an evil demon in such a way as to trick you into believing that it's older.
This was the argument used against Rene Descartes's conception of God (I see you are acquainted with philosophy); however, my position is immune to this critique, for my position argues for God's existence as a direct metaphysical necessity and does not allow for any other Supreme minds. Of course, you will get a chance to contend this with me soon, for in the next week or so, I will be posting my argument for Phenomenal Idealism and Trinitarian Theism.
addem wrote: So with that kind of sweeping skepticism
I would say my position combines a healthy dose of skepticism where it is needed most, but also serves as the greatest defense of what skepticism was most employed to oppose; True Religion
B0ycey wrote:You have been taking in too much influence from your 'flat-earther' wife.
Interestingly enough, my wife's flat-earth views are something I have cautioned her on based on an appeal to our common meta-physic, for as an Idealist, I deny not only flat-earth, but also round-earth, geo v. helio-centric, and all such theories as speculative and logically flawed. What I perceive is what I perceive, the objectivity of all else resides in the Consciousness of God, and how such is constructed in His Mind is something I could never fully verify. Her response to this is that some sort of model ought to be used for practical purposes, and she favors a flat-earth. I remain blissfully agnostic on the matter and don't particularly care in all honesty.
B0ycey wrote:I assume you don't accept E=mc2 then?
I tend to be critical of a lot of things that Einstein affirmed.
B0ycey wrote:Matter exists VS. Look all around you. Only the perception of matter is questionable.
You are equivocating, I do not deny percepts, objects that are sensible, I affirm that any percept (lets say, a table) is made up sensations: (i.e. browness, hardness, etc.,), but all such are reducible to mental content. What I deny when I say that I deny matter, is that which is by definition imperceptible which is what is implied in the philosophical definition of matter: "self-existent, philosophically basic, epistemological irreducible, neither perceiving or perceived, and eternal" I deny the existence of this specific. I also deny physical causation, for one cannot infer a necessary relationship from observed correlations between percepts.
Please do not assume my position is so simple and silly as "you deny what we all experience." You would be gravely mistaken.
“The act of defending any of the cardinal virtues has today all the exhilaration of a vice.”
“Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.”
- G. K. Chesterton