Does anyone have a convincing argument for the existence of a non material reality?

[George-ananda]

Does anyone have a convincing argument for the existence of a non material reality?

For me the most convincing argument is the mountain of anecdotal, investigative, experimental and personal experiences with the paranormal showing things that just do not fit in a materialist understanding of the universe.

 

[GoodbyeDave]

I think, therefore I have a mind. That's non-material reality for me. And if any materialist wants to assert that my mind is material, I'll reply "prove it".

 

[WalterTrull]

I don't think there has been a convincing argument for a material reality.

 

[sealchan]

Are there good scientific or philosophical reasons to be a non materialist?

You can skim this beginning of this next video.

Is energy materialistic? Energy, from a purely matter specific perspective, is a sort of information state or configuration of matter. So is this make any energic description of reality non-materialistic?

 

[1137]

Are there good scientific or philosophical reasons to be a non materialist?

You can skim this beginning of this next video.

How about that there's literally no rationality or evidence supporting materialism, and all rationality and evidence supporting non materialism? There's property Dualism and the law of identity, two way causality, the UPR, the the existence of logic and math, the axiom of self existence... Literally all reason and evidence. Materialism is on par with the like of flat/hollow Earth, young Earth Creationism, and reptile aliens running the world. Any person who questions the position and still ends up a materialist is a modern fideist, end of story.

Great thread, I love watching materialism get destroyed. Now bring on the materialists with selective amnesia to say nothing against materialism has ever been presented

 

[osgart]

Is energy materialistic? Energy, from a purely matter specific perspective, is a sort of information state or configuration of matter. So is this make any energic description of reality non-materialistic?

Since the energy and matter science knows is only 8% of the universe perhaps there is else things that exist.

Energy is physical and is interchangeable with matter, so i would say energy is not non material.

 

[PureX]

I don't know if it's good or not argument, but I've heard many times over the years some argue that mathematics exists in some ideal universe of forms...basically a Platonic or Neo-Platonic world of the Ideal.

The realm of consciousness: the recognition and conceptualization of patterned effect in matter and energy. Consciousness is a metaphysical reality.

 

[leroy]

Based on the evidence that we have to date, it seems obvious that the universe (all material reality) had a beginning.

If the universe had a beginning, it follows that it had a cause, and the cause of the universe (material reality) by definition has to be “non-material”

 

[Segev Moran]

Are there good scientific or philosophical reasons to be a non materialist?

Of course.
Our reality is only as it is due to non material things.

Energy.
Gravity.
Strong and Weak forces.
Electromagnetic force.
Light.

These are (and there are many more) all non material realities.

Thoughts are non material (although they "emerge" from a material device).

 

[Segev Moran]

Based on the evidence that we have to date, it seems obvious that the universe (all material reality) had a beginning.

If the universe had a beginning, it follows that it had a cause, and the cause of the universe (material reality) by definition has to be “non-material”

Although i agree our universe was created with a specific reason, your statement is wrong.
The fact our universe had a beginning doesn't mean what caused it was non material.
It can be (as an idea) a material event that created a new material event.

The fact the universe had a beginning only proves it had a cause, it does not provide any insight about what caused it.

 

[oldbadger]

I dont think i would call it supernatural. Only that currently undetectable realities exist that have no physical properties; Anything other than matter or energy that exists.

I mean space exists, but what if all of energy and matter was removed from space?

Perhaps idealism is true!

What about antimatter and negative energy?
Dark matter? Dark Energy?

There may be many and varied planes of existence, possibly?

I can't show any provenance, but I don't expect that anybody can show proofs against?

 

[Valjean]

If the universe had a beginning, it follows that it had a cause, and the cause of the universe (material reality) by definition has to be “non-material”

This doesn't follow.

 

[sealchan]

Since the energy and matter science knows is only 8% of the universe perhaps there is else things that exist.

Energy is physical and is interchangeable with matter, so i would say energy is not non material.

What if we consider the fact that the Standard Model of physics indicates that all forces are "carried" by their particles? What if all matter has an intrinsic amount of energy in it? What if all sub-atomic waves are also discrete particles?

It seems to me that energy and matter are inseparable. This is acknowledged by the science of physics.

But perhaps the real question behind the OP is is there non-scientifically examinable phenomenon or are there non-matter, non-energy phenomenon that demonstrably exist?

 

[leroy]

This doesn't follow.

To say that the universe begun to exist without a cause is logically incoherent.


Therefore the universe (if it had a beginning) necessarily had to have a cause

 

[leroy]

Although i agree our universe was created with a specific reason, your statement is wrong.
The fact our universe had a beginning doesn't mean what caused it was non material.
It can be (as an idea) a material event that created a new material event.

The fact the universe had a beginning only proves it had a cause, it does not provide any insight about what caused it.

Well for example the cause of the first computer by definition had to be a “non-computer” otherwise it wouldn’t be the first computer, (if the origin of computers where other preexisting computers, then it wouldn’t really be the origin of computer)……by the same logic:

If we define “universe” as all the material world, then by definition the cause of the universe has to be “non-material” otherwise it wouldn’t be the cause of material reality.

If “X” caused “Y” and “Y” includes all the material world, then by definition “X” can’t be material.

 

[siti]

To say that the universe begun to exist without a cause is logically incoherent.

Therefore the universe (if it had a beginning) necessarily had to have a cause

But by the same token, to say that the cause of the existence of the universe didn't have a cause is equally logically incoherent. And in any case, we really don't know whether the universe had a beginning. I know William Lane Craig insists that it did because his entire "philosophical" career hangs on the idea that universe "began to exist" - but the fact that a theologian who subscribes to the notion of theistic creation misinterprets science should not weigh too heavily in any serious debate I think.

 

[leroy]

Of course.
Our reality is only as it is due to non material things.

Energy.
Gravity.
Strong and Weak forces.
Electromagnetic force.
Light.

These are (and there are many more) all non material realities.

Thoughts are non material (although they "emerge" from a material device).

Well these are just definitions, but I am pretty sure that in the context of the OP “Material reality” refers to the entire “physical world”, including matter, energy, gravity, dark energy, strings, parallel worlds.etc

 

[leroy]

But by the same token, to say that the cause of the existence of the universe didn't have a cause is equally logically incoherent. And in any case, we really don't know whether the universe had a beginning. I know William Lane Craig insists that it did because his entire "philosophical" career hangs on the idea that universe "began to exist" - but the fact that a theologian who subscribes to the notion of theistic creation misinterprets science should not weigh too heavily in any serious debate I think.

The argument is not that everything requires a cause, the argument is that everything that begins to exist requires a cause.

If the cause of the universe didn’t begin to exist (but has always excised) then it wouldn’t necessarily require a cause.


This is not special pleading, traditionally many scientists have claimed that the universe is eternal, it has always excised, and therefore it would not require a cause. But in the last 100 years the evidence for a beginning became overcalling, making the idea of an eternal universe almost certainly wrong.

 

[siti]

The argument is not that everything requires a cause, the argument is that everything that begins to exist requires a cause.

If the cause of the universe didn’t begin to exist (but has always excised) then it wouldn’t necessarily require a cause.


This is not special pleading, traditionally many scientists have claimed that the universe is eternal, it has always excised, and therefore it would not require a cause. But in the last 100 years the evidence for a beginning became overcalling, making the idea of an eternal universe almost certainly wrong.

No - the evidence for a significant event giving rise to the current space-time reality of the universe we are currently (at least in principle) able to observe happening about 13.8 billion years ago became "overcalling"...but the creationists' "upping the ante" and placing all their bets on this being proof of God is a bluff - you've got a poor deal and when the chips are down and all the cards are dealt, you're going to find there is no "ace in the hole" after all. The Big Bang almost certainly wasn't the beginning of anything except a new phase of an already ancient and possibly eternal physically (and 100% natural) universe.

And the suggestion that this proves that there is a non-material reality is an even worse bet - it proves nothing of the sort because even if you are right and 'this' universe had a beginning, that neither proves that it was the first universe or that its cause was non-material.

Looks like at best you've got a 2 and a 7 of different suits. You're not likely to get a winning hand off that. But you can continue to bluff is you like - you never know.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

If the universe had a beginning, it follows that it had a cause

Why?