processes of processes

[Anonymous No.20133585]

[Anonymous No.20133591]

Okay you convinced me, I'm going to go cut off my foreskin.

[Anonymous No.20133599]

>>20133585
according to picrel god is only a more complex material structure
these god of the gap arguments are always so weak and are only a cowardly retreat, instead of confronting reddit atheists with actual philosophy

[Anonymous No.20133601]

>>20133585
>The universe is the atomic structure of the gods!
This just founds a new religion. A religion first described by Epicurus. They don’t us, they don’t concern themselves with us. They do not want our worship.

[Anonymous No.20133605]

What exactly is the supernatural being that interacts with trees?

[Anonymous No.20133610]

>>20133599
Atheism was long refuted by Berkeley. It only exists because it's useful for those exploiting it and because it's easy to understand.

[Anonymous No.20133614]

Trying to refute atheism is like trying to refute marxism: it's pointless. It's already been done. It's not a rational position based on arguments, it's a childish position based on angst.

[Anonymous No.20133618]

>>20133610
What do you mean by "atheism"? Atheism isn't a belief system, it is a description of a position on a single point.

[Anonymous No.20133619]

>>20133614
>t. guy who is not able to substantiate his believes

[Anonymous No.20133623]

>>20133599
>>20133614
the picture isn't necessarily saying there is a God

[Anonymous No.20133624]

>>20133614
It takes you more time to say these silly "it's pointless trying to give you arguments!" declarations than it would to actually give these arguments (if you had them, that is).

[Anonymous No.20133625]

>>20133618
Atheism is the belief that God doesn't exist.
>>20133619
What's the point? Like I said, Berkeley already did it at length. Atheists just ignore it and continue being ignorant.

[Anonymous No.20133634]

>>20133625
So you think it is proven that "God" (whatever you may mean by that) does exist, how?

[Anonymous No.20133642]

>>20133624
The arguments are well known and obvious:
>Claim 1 - Matter doesn't exist
There's no evidence it does, and if it had existed, there's no explanation how matter becomes ideas.
>Claim 2 - Everything must then be ideas
>Claim 3 - Ideas require a mind
>Claim 4 - All objects we see are created by a mind
- Is it your mind? No, because some objects are new to you or you know you didn't create them so what is your mind if it has things "you" don't eve know about?
- Therefore is someone else's mind. Because that mind has to perpetually create all objects of sense, it is all-powerful.

Meantime, atheists just pose that there's no God and have no explanation for why matter would exist, how matter communicates with the mind, how everything started, etc. It's an intellectually bankrupt thesis based on nothing.

[Anonymous No.20133651]

>>20133634
It's the most rational position as explained here >>20133642

You believe in matter based on no evidence, which is irrational.

[Anonymous No.20133653]

>>20133642
Quality bait. I knew this was bait from the beginning but I was pleasantly surprised by the level of sophistication.

[Anonymous No.20133654]

>>20133653
That's about as much as I expected from atheists.

[Anonymous No.20133655]

>>20133651
I don't believe in matter, and I don't believe in ideas either. I challenge you to prove to me that ideas exist.

[Anonymous No.20133660]

>>20133655
I have ideas, therefore they exist. I assume you do too, but you refuse to admit because you're a sophist.

[Anonymous No.20133664]

I don't believe in physicalism but that doesn't compel me to buy into the desert jew bullshit. There most likely is some higher force at play, but to assume it's a personal entity is already baseless. I just go with the pure apophatic route.

[Anonymous No.20133669]

>>20133660
>it exists, therefore it exists
Come on, you can do better than that.

[Anonymous No.20133673]

>>20133664
Admitting atheism is nonsense and that there's an all-powerful God is already a step in the right direction, so good for you. Maybe one day you'll see the truth.
>>20133669
It's impossible to do better than a straight up tautology. You're a sophist.

[Anonymous No.20133674]

>>20133673
Do you have matter?

[Anonymous No.20133676]

>>20133585
thanks leibniz

[Anonymous No.20133679]

>>20133673
God does not exist, therefore God does not exist.

[Anonymous No.20133681]

>>20133673
>Maybe one day you'll see the truth.
lol, your patronizing condescension is laughable considering the ridiculousness of your beliefs. I'm fine with not being a cult member, thanks.

[Anonymous No.20133684]

>>20133623
but it is saying that molecules and trees are sentient beings

[Anonymous No.20133688]

>>20133610
> It only exists because it's useful for those exploiting it and because it's easy to understand.
That also applies to religion

[Anonymous No.20133689]

>>20133681
Well, like I said, at least you're not an atheist. There's time to learn more.

[Anonymous No.20133692]

>>20133642
Ideas don't exist
There is no evidence that they do, and even if they did, there is no explanation of how they interact with matter
Everything must then be matter

[Anonymous No.20133693]

>>20133688
Religion is anathema to today's principles, so no it doesn't.

[Anonymous No.20133694]

>>20133689
By your standards I am, and I don't care. I learned enough from the abrahamic nonsense, moved on to better things.

[Anonymous No.20133697]

>>20133692
Like I said, I have ideas. If you refuse to accept the products of your own mind, of course you'll also refuse to accept anything rational, so there's no point in engaing with you.

[Anonymous No.20133698]

>>20133673
(You) are evidently somewhat autistic in your refusal to accept different points of view as reasonable.
(You) are also blindly stupid if you think that atheism has somehow been 'refuted'.

[Anonymous No.20133700]

desu, the meaning behind the meme was to show that what we consider "supernatural" (as if impossible) is maybe just something not comprehended by us. the title was deceiving. but i like the idea of divine beings being complex systems

[Anonymous No.20133702]

>>20133698
Not at all, I'm very willing to accept any reasonable points. Now go ahead and demonstrate that believing in matter with no evidence is a reasonable belief.

[Anonymous No.20133703]

>>20133642
>matter doesn’t exist
How can you prove that?

[Anonymous No.20133705]

>>20133703
There's no evidence of it, so there's no rational reason to believe it. I can't perceive matter nor any of its supposed effects, therefore it doesn't exist.

[Anonymous No.20133712]

>>20133585
A higher order of beings isnt supernatural.

[Anonymous No.20133757]

>>20133705
Ok, but what if.... instaid of me having ideas, I actually am doing computations on a biological computer.

[Anonymous No.20133770]

>>20133757
I don't know what that means. It sounds like you want to use a different word for ideas because you're a sophist who wants to obscure evident truths.

[Anonymous No.20133776]

>>20133642

[Anonymous No.20133783]

>>20133684
So producing language = sentience? Ok I didn't realize my radio was sentient. LOL!

[Anonymous No.20133788]

>>20133585
Next frame: Jesus asks God "what if there exist supernatural beings which interact with us?" God replies "NONSENSE!"

[Anonymous No.20133792]

>>20133770
More the other way around, if everything is matter, then "ideas" are just a complex generated by matter interacting. You dont need the concept of ideas at all.

[Anonymous No.20133810]

>>20133585
Is anthropomorphizing good for you?

[Anonymous No.20133814]

>>20133792
Matter means something which exists without a mind. All that I experience is in my mind. You're just renaming ideas into matter because, like you well know, you're a sophist.

[Anonymous No.20133815]

>>20133788
maybe... two infinities aren't necessarily equal...

[Anonymous No.20133831]

>>20133814
>sophist

This proves you are a pseud. Its the other way around mate, clearly we dont need the concept of ideas or an observer if everything is just matter

[Anonymous No.20133833]

>>20133697
Like I said, I have matter. If you refuse to accept your own existence, of course you'll also refuse to accept anything rational, so there's no point in engaging with you.

[Anonymous No.20133836]

... and complexity brings the potential for even greater infinities. does there exist THE greatest infinity?

[Anonymous No.20133845]

>>20133831
>everything is just matter
Then prove that something can exist without a mind perceiving it.
>>20133833
>Like I said, I have matter.
Prove you have something that is not perceived by your mind.
> If you refuse to accept your own existence
Never did anything of the sort, you're illiterate.
>, of course you'll also refuse to accept anything rational
You never proposed anything like that.
>so there's no point in engaging with you.
That one is true: you clearly lack basic understanding of metaphysics and should not engage in discussions about this.

[Anonymous No.20133853]

>>20133810
Is showing a radio playing speech anthropomorphizing the radio? How do you know it's not the author's intention that there's something else causing the speech like in the case of the radio? It's probably the case? It was probably the case black swans didn't exist, and if you bet your life on that you'd had have died.

[Anonymous No.20133855]

>>20133845
>Then prove that something can exist without a mind perceiving it.
What mind? I am just a biological computer running a software programme, I dont have a mind.

[Anonymous No.20133868]

>>20133855
You're again making terminological distinctions instead of substantial distinctions, yet you still deny you're a sophist. Why are you replacing the word "mind" with a longer phrase? You never explained the differences between the two. It's like saying birds don't exist, flying animals with feathers and beaks exist. You never posted something intellectually substatial because your mind is incapable of producing anything worthwhile. That's incidentally also why you're an atheist.

[Anonymous No.20133873]

>>20133853
>radio playing speech anthropomorphizing the radio
This is faulty logic. The radio exists to host speakers and speech acts. Do atoms exist as human characters? Do trees?

[Anonymous No.20133876]

>>20133868
Mind requires an observers, matter does not, therefor matter is simpler

[Anonymous No.20133892]

>>20133876
You know what's simpler than matter? That nothing exists. Yet, to your shock, I perceive something. Therefore, if something is simpler it doesn't mean it must exist.

[Anonymous No.20133904]

>>20133618
>Atheism isn't a belief system, it is a description of a position on a single point.
Often times a single point is so important that to affirm or deny it implies a whole bunch of other things that you then have to contend with.
In this example, atheism is commonly defined as "absence of belief in God".
But it doesn't stop there. If you're an atheist, who does not believe in God, you must believe that the world, our minds, epistemology, ethics, metaphysics, language, logic, etc. can be explained without reference to a God. Then you must offer explanations for these things without invoking God, which will put you in a definite "belief system", the most common among atheists being empiricist materialism.
So you see, you can't just divorce the question of God from your overall worldview.

[Anonymous No.20133907]

>>20133892
Doesnt awnser my objections, clearly a material universe is both simpler and more logical, nothing is not logical, idealism is not simpler

[Anonymous No.20133916]

>>20133907
How is a material universe logical when I have a mind and all that I percieve is in my mind? Saying something which exists does not exist is illogical. You call the mind a "biological computer" which doesn't explain anything away.

[Anonymous No.20133922]

>>20133916
You dont have a mind, that observes, you are just a body mate.

[Anonymous No.20133925]

>>20133922
I clearly do as I have ideas in my head. You may not have one, that's true.

[Anonymous No.20133931]

>>20133925
No mate, you body or brain is calculating. Though very slowly in your case lol

[Anonymous No.20133942]

>>20133931
>calculating instead of thinking
Changing words doesn't change anything. You're too deep into sophistry to make any arguments.

[Anonymous No.20133961]

>>20133942
Yes it does, again mind needs an observer, matter does not. Awnser this you sophist!

[Anonymous No.20133984]

>>20133961
There's nothing to answer because you never made an argument. I know a mind exist through reflection and by perceiving my own ideas. There's no evidence nor need for matter. What do I care that a mind needs "an observer" which doesn't even mean anything. A mind needs a mind? Yes, a mind is a mind.

[Anonymous No.20133997]

>>20133984
>A mind needs a mind?
If your mind doesnt need a mind, then you are a defacto atheist. Good for you!

[Anonymous No.20134004]

>>20133873
Except you have no evidence that those are atoms or trees. What if they're radios made to look like atoms or trees? You have no evidence either way, and you can't use probability because black swan events can mean that there was a set of circumstances that you don't know of that led the author to draw what looked like atoms and trees but in his mind only looked like them and were in fact radios that looked like atoms and trees.

[Anonymous No.20134043]

>>20133997
fucking lmao; watch here (live) the absolute last physicalist on lit get btfo'd back to Hell

[Anonymous No.20134055]

>>20134043
He you cant awnser can you :) yup your an atheist.

[Anonymous No.20134122]

>>20133585
>supernature is just a higher order of nature
This says the opposite of what it’s intention seems to have been

[Anonymous No.20134143]

>>20133997
What? A mind is a mind.

[Anonymous No.20134145]

>>20134055
it's over

[Anonymous No.20134164]

>>20133585
why are molecules and trees talking?

[Anonymous No.20135743]

>>20133585
Picture is upside down desu...

[Anonymous No.20135757]

>>20133610
lol

[Anonymous No.20137028]

>>20133984
You both are asserting things you cannot prove. True we cannot prove material and all we have is in our mind. Yet we do not know what this mind is or ideas are. The other guy is saying mind is material, you are saying mind is ideal. Since we don’t know what mind is, you might both be right and or wrong. You are just babbling about nothing.

[Anonymous No.20137060]

>>20133585
the humans and the trees are on the same level. humans don't coalesce into some higher-order organism the same way the molecules and (to a lesser extent) the trees do. this type of thinking is gateway to "we are all one so lets bow down to one world government".

[Anonymous No.20137247]

>>20137028
Wrong, we know ideas exist so we also know a mind generates them.

[Anonymous No.20137266]

>>20137247
Cartesian foundation is literally just a cope to the obvious, desu.

[Anonymous No.20137446]

>>20137247
Yeah but you don’t know what generates mind or whether mind is stemming from material. Stop being a nigger faggot.

[Anonymous No.20137586]

>>20137446
>Yeah but you don’t know what generates mind or whether mind is stemming from material.
I don't see the relevance. I'm talking about we know to exist and that is ideas (through perception) and minds (through reflection). There's no equivalence between materialism and idealism. Idealism describes the world using our faculties, materialism invents concepts to attempt to describe the world and yet still fails.

[Anonymous No.20137593]

>>20137028
>you are saying mind is ideal.
No one said such thing. How could mind be an idea if I can't perceive my mind?

[Anonymous No.20137730]

>>20137586
You are denying the reality my man. Should have stopped before going full schizo or maybe not who am i to judge. Many such cases tho.

[Anonymous No.20137754]

>>20137730
>You are denying the reality my man.
Not one bit. You just don't seem to understand what we're discussing.

[Anonymous No.20137765]

>>20133585
Water and trees are incapable of thought howbeit.

[Anonymous No.20137770]

>>20137754
I understand it just fine but you just want to continue being a nigger. Your ideas are as baseless as materialism. Unironically read Kant.

[Anonymous No.20137779]

>>20137770
I already read Kant, so just saying "read X" and thinking that excuses you from making arguments doesn't work. Either provide arguments or don't bother.

[Anonymous No.20137813]

>>20137779
Ok so you are conscious and you are aware of your consciousness. You know you exist. You have some sort of information regarding a seeming outside world through your perception.
Materialists think these seemingly outside things, these phenomena are referencing the actual noumena which are the reality. And you your ideas your consciousness are also product of this noumenal reality namely the matter. There is no way as far as I know to prove that is the case.
Idealists to which you also belong whether admittedly or not, asserts that this seemingly outside world is not the reality and the phenomena are the product of the mind in relation to itself or other minds and so the reality is created by and dependent on mind(s) and mind(s) alone. There is no way as far as I know to prove that is the case either.
Cope seethe and dilate as much as you can.
>Verification not required.

[Anonymous No.20137907]

>>20137813
>Materialists think these seemingly outside things, these phenomena are referencing the actual noumena which are the reality. And you your ideas your consciousness are also product of this noumenal reality namely the matter. There is no way as far as I know to prove that is the case.
Correct, materialists posit something with no evidence.
>Idealists to which you also belong whether admittedly or not, asserts that this seemingly outside world is not the reality and the phenomena are the product of the mind in relation to itself or other minds and so the reality is created by and dependent on mind(s) and mind(s) alone. There is no way as far as I know to prove that is the case either.
What's there to prove? That ideas cannot exist without a mind? How can something exist without that which causes them? You already admitted to a consciousness that perceives, and all your ideas come from perceptions. You're asking for proof that what exists exists.

[Anonymous No.20137979]

>>20137907
Yeah mind causes ideas. You state the obvious no one denies that. The question is what causes the mind to which you have no answer.

[Anonymous No.20138021]

>>20137979
So if you agree with all that I said, you must also agree idealism can account for all that we perceive (and even that which perceives because you presupposed a consciousness) just fine. Meanwhile, you must also agree materialism cannot do that without resorting to also presupposing matter. So far, why would I lean towards materialism when idealism can explain all this without presuppositions based on no evidence?

Next, you ask me what causes the mind. Is that to tie the score between idealism and materialism? You said neither materialism or idealism can answer that, so it shouldn't be a point of comparison between the two when it comes to which metaphysics better explain our reality.

So then why do you equate the two? By your own admission and in your own words, idealism was able to explain all that materialism attempted but without having to presuppose matter. You also agree there's no evidence for matter. So there's no reason for matter whatsoever, yet materialism presupposes it. Why do you then not admit materialism is absurd and idealism is superior in its power of interpreting reality?

[Anonymous No.20138031]

ITT:
>atheist, you look hungry?

[Anonymous No.20138061]

>>20137979
>Yes 1+1 equals two but causes it to be like that? Just think about it. God. Now cut off your foreskin

[Anonymous No.20138104]

>>20138021
Truth is absolute. You cannot say one idea is truer than the other one. It’s not a spectrum. What you are doing is like saying this woman is more beautiful than the other one whilst all three of you sit in a dark room.

[Anonymous No.20138153]

>>20138104
Ah, so you're just going to resort to sophistry now? Can something not be closer to truth than something else? There's no difference between Newton's laws and random chance? There's no truth value in saying John Keats is superior to Rupi Kaur? We can't know the absolute truth, and, as you said, there's no spectrum of truth, which means there are no values and no reality. So, like all atheists, you've quickly found refugee into nihilism when your views are challenged. But despite claiming you don't believe in shades of truth, you still carry your lives according to reason and patterns. So you're lying to everyone and to yourselves when you claim to believe no idea is truer than the other. You do strongly believe that as you carry your daily lives, but as soon as you're shown the contradictions of your beliefs, you hide from reality and reject all that you previously accepted: that ideas exist and consciousness exists despite not having access to the so called absolute truth. You just renounced your entire position as it was demonstrated to be absurd and fled into the utmost absurdity: saying nothing exists while acting to the contrary. Well, you demonstrated one thing at least: you can't refute idealism without retreating into absurd, and no one can reason you out of the absurd as absurdity itself is rejecting reason.

[Anonymous No.20138175]

>>20138153
Nice head canon. Prove idealism and I believe. Yet only thing you could say was that it makes more sense than materialism. Which may be true but not enough since we are talking about the very nature of reality. As long as you cannot prove it to the end, there will be always be a room of doubt for materialism. Cope as you will.

[Anonymous No.20138194]

>>20138175
>Yet only thing you could say was that it makes more sense than materialism. Which may be true
Well, there you go. You accepted that which you set out to refute in >>20137813 . That idealism makes more sense than materialism and therefore they are not equivalent as far as reason can guide us. You also rejected your previous position that there is no spectrum of truth unless you think truth is independent of sense and reason.
> there will be always be a room of doubt for materialism.
Sure, just as much doubt as there is for there being a crocodile in my closet. It could be there, but I shall follow my reason while you continue chasing closet crocodiles.

[Anonymous No.20138254]

>>20138194
Truth is independent of sense or reason. Sense and reason are dependent on truth. Truth is absolute. Idealism is no truer than materialism as far as we know so far. It doesn’t matter if it is more plausible. I didn’t assert otherwise anyway. A philosopher should seek the truth. If you personally think you feel closer to the truth philosophizing in idealist framework go ahead but it doesn’t give you right to patronize over or belittle other thinkers such as materialists. In my view you are the same. I will continue to approach it from all different angles and complexities with all my might. Not knowing and staying neutral doesn’t make me a nihilist. There are other considerations and values. One can still have opinions on ethics aesthetics etc.

[Anonymous No.20138277]

>>20138254
>Sense and reason are dependent on truth.
And reason tells us idealism makes more sense but somehow this has no bearing on its truth despite sense and reason being dependent on truth! How do you even chase this mysterious absolute truth if you refuse to follow sense and reason? What other tools do you have mighty skeptic?

[Anonymous No.20138322]

>>20138254
>Not knowing and staying neutral doesn’t make me a nihilist. There are other considerations and values. One can still have opinions on ethics aesthetics etc.
Could you elaborate on this part? Does it mean you stay neutral so you can have opinions ethics and aesthetics?

[Anonymous No.20138334]

>>20138277
You should chase it by all means. Reason. Intuition. Contemplation. Meditation. Expression. Action. Even insanity. I have nothing against idealists. There are enough idealists in the world now and in the past. I choose to be more creative.

[Anonymous No.20138345]

>>20138322
No I mean about Keats etc. I can still have opinions even if I don’t know the truth.

[Anonymous No.20138385]

>>20138334
>You should chase it by all means. Reason. Intuition. Contemplation. Meditation. Expression. Action.
Are any of these in opposition to idealism? Because I found all these in harmony with it.
>Even insanity.
Then this must be our disagreement. Insanity rejects reason, so you pursue truth in an admittedly absurd manner (using reason and anti-reason at the same time). As long as you admit your system is absurd, I have no qualms with it. Similarly, I have nothing against materialists who admit their system is less rational than idealism. People can be absurd, that I admit. If that is so, I advise that when you argue with people about these things you advertise that you follow absurd notions, so the other person may know in advance that you don't value reason all that much. But what am I talking about? If you accept absurdity, you're a nihilist despite your previous renunciations, so how can I persuade you in any way if your path towards truth rejects reason as it admits insanity.

[Anonymous No.20138456]

>>20138385
You walk only the path of rationality. I walk both paths. Yea it is possible to do so. Our minds are capable of that. So I think I increase my chance in my quest. But good luck to you in yours.

[Anonymous No.20138466]

>>20133642
>Everything must then be ideas
But you later go on to reference the concept of a non-idea realm with your discussion on minds.
To satisfy this claim, you must conclude that minds are also ideas. But ideas cannot come from nothing, which is what you're getting at with your third claim; they need some kind of basis. The basis must be a mind in itself, not a mind as an idea. Why? Because how could the first mind as an idea come to be without a mind to think it? This contracts your third claim. But if we go with the former case, that minds cannot be ideas, it contradicts your second claim. Thus the argument is improper.

There are also some other things you should consider:
>because some objects are new to you or you know you didn't create them
Why can't my mind be deceiving me about these things? I forget things everyday, why couldn't it be that I have forgotten what I have seen before?
>Therefore is someone else's mind
This is just as unprovable as the claim that matter exists. Even if we ignore my last counterargument, all you're saying here is that there are things outside my experience which impart ideas upon my mind. But that doesn't necessitate the existence of another mind. It could be any kind of exotic thing that transmits sense-data to me which allows me to generate new ideas.
>Because that mind has to perpetually create all objects of sense, it is all-powerful
This is presumptuous. What if it transmitted a set of base ideas to me that I have used to assemble all complex ideas hence? It's possible to construct new ideas from old ones, for example, imagine a lion with a horse's head.
>and have no explanation
Of course because it's a position based on scepticism. Besides, theists recognize that certain things are unexplainable in their own way, or do you pretend to have access to the reasoning and justification behind all of God's machinations?

[Anonymous No.20138478]

>>20138456
Good luck to you too anon, thanks for your replies and don't stray too far lest you may only be able to walk the other path.

[Anonymous No.20138491]

>>20138478
Thanks to you too fren. And perhaps our paths will bring us to same place at the end of the journey.

[Anonymous No.20138504]

>>20138491
God bless you anon.

[Anonymous No.20138702]

>>20138466
Based.

[Anonymous No.20138740]

>>20138466
>But you later go on to reference the concept of a non-idea realm with your discussion on minds.
Yeah, the "everything must then be ideas" was referring to that which can be perceived. You're free to reject the concept of mind, but that's just different strains of idealism, not an argument for materialism.
>Why can't my mind be deceiving me about these things? I forget things everyday, why couldn't it be that I have forgotten what I have seen before?
It could, but do you think your mind creates all the universe that you interact with while at the same time forgets it as it perceives it? You may think that (objective idealism), but then you must have an absurd notion of what it means to be yourself because you are also what you are not.
>This is just as unprovable as the claim that matter exists. Even if we ignore my last counterargument, all you're saying here is that there are things outside my experience which impart ideas upon my mind. But that doesn't necessitate the existence of another mind. It could be any kind of exotic thing that transmits sense-data to me which allows me to generate new ideas.
This only makes sense if you reject the claim that everything [perceiveable] is ideas. On what basis are you rejecting it? It's either ideas or matter, so what's the evidence for matter that should trump the evidence for ideas?
>This is presumptuous. What if it transmitted a set of base ideas to me that I have used to assemble all complex ideas hence? It's possible to construct new ideas from old ones, for example, imagine a lion with a horse's head.
Your lion with a horse's head only exists as a consequence of your objects of sense you've experienced before, so it is derivative. Are you saying that which is derivative is superior to the originals? Excuse me if I don't find such a puerile imagination superior to creating all that exists around me.
>Of course because it's a position based on scepticism.
A position based on skepticism introduces a new concept (matter) with no evidence?

[Anonymous No.20139862]

>>20133642
Go sniff some ether or something. If you had ever taken anesthesia you would know that your mind basically shuts down for some time which is plainly caused by a material change.

[Anonymous No.20140400]

>>20133585
I don't understand how trees are supernatural

[Anonymous No.20140805]

>>20133642
Claims 1 and 2 are true however claims 3 and 4 are nonsensical.
>Ideas require a mind
>All objects we see are created by a mind
What does that even mean? We can establish the existence of ideas through introspection, however that's the limit of what we have access to. We can never inquire about what "causes" ideas because we never actually experience causes the way we experience ideas. The question "what causes ideas" presumes that ideas have causes and a cause is a thing that can exist.