Thread replies: 14
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1
File: Ascension-of-Our-Lord.jpg (31KB, 450x528px) Image search:
[Google]
31KB, 450x528px
Hold me, /lit/, I think my whole materialist world view is breaking apart.
Why is spacetime? I always took it for granted, but I'm now asking myself these questions, since we seem to be on a quest of finding what is within each smaller order of particles.
None of that matters though, because we still don't know why these things exist, why they are. Could it simply be that they are, without another materialistic explanation?
Materialism doesn't appear to fully explain reality and if that is true, then I am afraid my inner atheist may be challenged. I mean, if the metaphysical parts of reality, that clearly exist such as consciousness, dreams and spacetime, require a different set of explanations, then is that.. god?
>>
>>9129476
>Why is spacetime?
because of God or you go to hell for eternity
>>
>>9129476
What do you think of this video?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2ULF5WixMM
>>
>>9129476
>Why is spacetime?
Because your biology demanded it. The meat and nerves you are made of can experience spacetime many ways: memory, deja vu (faulty memory), dreams, waking, boredom, unconsciousness (no-time), death, etc.
>>
>>9129502
I'll give it a Not Carli Claire out of 10.
>>
>>9129502
You know this whole causality bullshit escapes me to this day. Hume's skepticism is correct here, too.
Only because we as observers seem to put a notion of A+B=C, therefore C-B=A onto this grand picture of reality, does not mean that is how reality really is. It is just our own bias to view it that way, by which method can we determine causality is independent of human observers? We can't.
Therefore to argue that the universe is built on only a causal principle is so dumb to me, exactly for the reasons OP tried to show. If materialism was able to give correct explanations, there could not be any other principle other than causality.
>>
>>9129476
Honestly OP nobody knows. Materialism is a very reliable hypothesis (especially in the sciences) but it is not logically rigorous whatsoever. As many have pointed out Hume hit the nail on the head centuries ago concerning causation. All you can hope for is probable knowledge and at that you will be left unsatisfied.
>>
>>9129519
>Carli Claire
unrelated but pls don't bully her
>causality, Hume, etc
Sure, you can be infinitely skeptical, to the point where it's impossible to prove anything. That's not incredibly useful, however. The cosmological argument assumes that you accept basic principles of formal logic first: if you don't then it probably won't convince you.
Also note that Causality != PSR, at least not exactly. It's the difference between X causes Y and Y has an explanation.
>>
Read up on TOE
Also we are mostly empty space if we just look at it from the atomic level. Quantum is more fucked up.
>>
>>9129476
This OP is so retardedly confused I don't know where to begin
>>
Carl Jung, OP. He has the answers you need as the doubting atheist you are.
>>
>>9130170
How does Jung cover this?
>>
>>9129476
>None of that matters though, because we still don't know why these things exist, why they are. Could it simply be that they are, without another materialistic explanation?
just stop trying to impute meaning into everything, problem solved
Thread posts: 14
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1