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.