Can materialism be meaningful?

Deutsche Version.

 

In a last post, I argued that materialism (the belief that everything which exists is reducible to particle and energy) is self-refuting because its truth itself cannot be identical to a bunch of interacting molecules.

ImageSeveral people told me my argument is fallacious because materialists believe that a “truth” does not objectively exist but is a subjective brain state corresponding to facts of the outside world.

That’s fair enough but what is the fact that materialism is identical to?

Normally the fact corresponding to a truth claim made it logically inevitable.

Take for example the truth S “The sun does not rotate around the earth”. The corresponding fact is the periodic movement of the earth around the sun. Given its reality, it naturally follows that S is true and it could not be otherwise.

ImageOr take for example the truth C: most cats fear hounds. Given the brain states of most cats, C logically follows, and this fact is incompatible with C not being true.

Image

Consider now the truth of materialism M: there is NO world containing non-material things.
The fact would be (for example)  the 10E+57754757785 particles of all existing universes.

But there is a huge problem here. The truth of materialism is not logically entailed by the particles themselves. For their existence is entirely compatible with the existence of a paralell world with non-material things.
I think that the problem lies in the words “everything” and “no other”. They  seem to be abstract concepts beyond the reach of materialism.

The fact that the particles are everything which exists cannot be contained within the particles themselves.

ImageIf I am right, it seems that materialists should give up their grandiose claims about the entire reality and limit themselves to definition such as “everything in our universe is reducible to matter.”

Now I am curious to see how I am going to be challenged, though I hope I am (at the very least) on to something 🙂

The transcendental Argument for God’s existence

Apologist Matt Slick of the CARM (a Conservative/Fundamentalist think-tank) used this argument in this short talk.

transcendence

Basically, it is as follows:

1)      If logic exists objectively, God exists

2)      Logic exists objectively

3)      Thus God exists

Of course, anyone knowing the history of philosophy knows that the conclusion does not follow from the premises since godless forms of Platonism are clearly possible.

But let us reformulate the argument in that manner:

1)      If logic exists objectively, materialism is wrong

2)      Logic exists objectively

3)      Thus materialism is wrong

I believe that a (consistent) materialist can only avoid the conclusion by denying premise 1)
Logic is just a construction of our mind, a concept invented for making sense of many properties of the real world, such as the fact that a rock is either black or non-black.

But this has a huge implication: a materialist has no way to know whether there could be a world where the law of non-contradiction does not hold, that is a world where A and non-A are true at the same time.

For saying that two contradictory propositions can never simultaneously hold is akin to asserting the objective existence of the law of non-contradiction.

And I truly don’t see what interacting particles this universal law could be IDENTICAL to.

Image

I have looked everywhere in the whole universe but could not find them, but maybe I missed something.

 

Thematic list of ALL posts on this blog (regularly updated)

My other blog on Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP)