- #141
FZ+
- 1,604
- 3
Certainly, that is the view of the materialist. It seems generally absurd to talk about spiritual entities - materialists would be much more comfortable talking of unknown physical objects and such like. If they did not think this way, materialism would be wholly inconsistent with progressive science, and very few people will be materialist. Someone said once that materialist science has in fact found thousands of fairies and gods - they simply choose to call them Gravity, or Energy, or Relativity.If everything that is measurable and "can be shown to exists" then becomes physical and material by definition, why would anyone ever reject materialism?
The idea that anyone would reject materialism is that they would reject the idea of the identicalness of:
influence = existence
For example, Iachuss rejects materialism because he sees existence as being something else, perhaps something in the world of ideas, or as a wholing subjective notion, with influence being a subsidiary consequence rather than the precise moment the thing became real.
And thus these people consider that something can exist without doing anything, or that the material should be bounded somehow not to include some things. In short, they do not agree with the definition, or indeed the axiom of what it means to be real, or to be material.If something that exists is by definition material then why would anyone believe that something non-material actually exists when if it did exists it would be material by definition? Why would people believe in something that cannot exists?