Two Atheists Run Through Christians On Metaphysics And Naturalism

[@benduhova1643]

Measuring a coast line is a close representation of a mandrel set. The more precision used the longer the coast line gets

[@TH3-MONK]

...ad infinitum, apparently. For example, if you were to use a ruler to measure any coastline, you could simply cut the ruler in half which would allow the ability for an even more precise measurement. Then cut that ruler in half, measure again, and so on... You can continue cutting the ruler in half until you get to the atomic level, by then you're measuring the coastline atom by atom.

[@ianchisholm5756]

Reification: treating abstract concepts such as maths, logic, knowledge and metaphysics as unchanging *things* that exist independent of minds.

[@realBreakfasttacos]

Great point!

[@KEvronista]

universally subjective does not equal objective. KEvron

[@realBreakfasttacos]

That is a great point!

[@garrgravarr]

This is a great conversation

[@realBreakfasttacos]

I am glad you enjoyed it! I thought so too!

[@Bubblewench42]

Enjoyed this conversation, CGJeff is one of my favorites but he got put on Darth troll list early and I've had spotty coverage of him thanks for covering him.😁

[@realBreakfasttacos]

Coolguyjeff is one of my favorites as well.

[@Peter_Wendt]

Science.

[@realBreakfasttacos]

Science is amazing!

[@cseggerman]

Nerd quibble: while the star might be moving on its own, our perception of it moving is caused by the Earth revolving. I constantly catch myself clarifying this when explaining it to my kids. It's baked into the language of rising and setting, when it's really us turning towards and away from the sun.

[@realBreakfasttacos]

Right

[@TaylorWalston]

People make stuff up. The correct answer to , is this made up, is not please explain everything about reality.

[@realBreakfasttacos]

Yes they do!

[@Uryvichk]

"Everything has a function" is presupposition of teleology. Things DO STUFF, but that's different than saying everything has a "function." Function implies it exists for the purpose of doing whatever it does. Also, the notion that "pretty much everyone finds a sunset beautiful" is stupid. His objection is that, apparently, people should just randomly find or not find sunsets beautiful entirely subject to seemingly random aesthetic tastes. Except everyone who looks at a sunset is a human being, meaning our brains are extremely similar due to shared biology and evolutionary history. It would be surprising if human aesthetic tastes were entirely random with respect to broad aesthetic scenarios like a sunset. (Plus, the fact he had to hedge to "pretty much everyone" means he knows some people do not find sunsets beautiful, hence it isn't a universal.) It's like saying you find it surprising that pretty much all wolves appear to enjoy the taste of deer meat; there probably is the rare wolf that finds the taste discomforting or displeasing, but we'd expect most wolves to prefer to eat the thing they evolved to eat. If instead we randomly sampled among all living organisms whether they enjoy the taste of deer meat, we'd probably get a much less predictable selection of preferences. But there would be nothing surprising about "deer and gerbils do not enjoy the taste of deer meat, wolves and jaguars do, lichen and trees have no opinion."

[@realBreakfasttacos]

Yeah, I thought appealing to aesthetics was really weird too.

[@snowcat9308]

"What does naturalism say about [physics, logic, and math]?" is such a nonsense question. Physics are the fundamental mechanics of our reality, whereas math and logic are both systems humans invented to better understand reality. I feel like you'd be hard-pressed to find a naturalist that doesn't believe that logic and math are invented.

[@realBreakfasttacos]

Great point!

[@Petticca]

Ah, philosophy.. It's been a gift and a curse for humanity. So many intelligent people have spent their lives desperately trying to philosophize into rational discussion, some formal, credible reason to hold onto a belief in a 'it's all for me (you too, I guess)' creator god, in spite of the comically erroneous source material from which such concepts originated. It's a tragic state of affairs that grown-ups are clinging to positions where to defend them they first need to assert that abstract, human derived concepts, are inherently part of and manifest in reality, such as morality, logic, or even more bizarrely (I think) numbers. I find it particularly bonkers if people do try arguing that numbers are some 'real' inherent property of reality, I don't even know what they think they're arguing for when someone throws that out there. I guess philosophizing while on religion is a lot like a young 'un philosophizing while on drugs... There is some discussion about the awesome vastness of it all, and our sense of place it in, but there is mostly absolutely nonsensical 'well, what if....' concepts, that unfortunately are given credence when the individual throwing it out there is on religion.

[@realBreakfasttacos]

I think philosophy is best when done as a joke.

[@puckutubesux7356]

If you don't believe those concepts have any basis in reality, you have destroyed the possibility of knowledge.