Strict materialism/naturalism is proven false

#1 do they exist as physical or immaterial?

#2 if immaterial, then that means you are not a materialist/naturalist and agree there is an immaterial world?

also David, thanks for the info on Tin-man. i will apologize to him. thanks again and i look forward to some good exchange of ideas!

No the laws of nature and logic are not physical.
What’s your point. The laws of nature and logic are descriptive observations of the physical world in which we find ourselves. They are descriptive. Does that help you out? What’s your point?


Just about any topic is open to submission and examination.

Damn, I am experience the high-pitched whining sound again. WTF? I am also reminded of the “Bad Penny” adage…

Is that sentence even English David? Ahhh you have inserted a mental comma. Proof that it is not, is that you have an immaterial world. LOL Like an immateral world exists. Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha …
Each and every one of these are DESCRIPTIVE DEVICES we use to describe the world in which we find ourselves. They are descriptive and apparently restricted to the current time and place in which we fince ourselves. This universe, here and now. They describe the universe around us. They reference the material world in which we live.


you can’t have a description being the entity, you actually have universal conditions - laws that exist. they are conditions that restrict the universe in how it works. something that restricts something can’t be a description

@Cognostic summed that up very well.

I do not agree there is an immaterial world. If it is not material or descriptive observations of the physical world, then IMO it probably does not exist.

1 Like

skriten, i am sorry for accusing anyone of snitching. unknowningly, that was not a true statement. please forgive my ignorance and accusation. i was very wrong

1 Like

but the laws of nature are entities that restrict the activity of the universe. something that restricts things cannot be a description

thank you david. and also, if i get out of hand, please let me know. i’ll tone it down.

Please understand that I would never run into a church naked with a chainsaw in one hand and attempt to scream obscenities. This forum is a “safe” place for atheists mainly, but anyone and everyone.

If you ever have doubt follow this (my) golden rule.

Attack the argument, not the person.

1 Like

You are misusing the term ‘law.’ You are making an equivocation fallacy. “Laws” in science are observations. Laws are not “Conditions that restrict the universe.” The universe is in no way restricted by our “Laws.” All of our laws need modifications at Planck Time. Nothing happens the way our laws predict or the way our math predicts, or the way nature predicts. We do not yet understand physics beyond this point; however, it is most likely that we will merely add to our current version of physics as we discover new information. Just as we added non-Euclidian geometry to Euclidian geometry.

We can have descriptions and they are NOT the entity we actually have. They are descriptions of the entity. The number 2 is not the thing being counted. The laws of logic are not the things they referrence. You do not understand the world ‘Law.’


Which method did you employ in the proof? Proof by exhaustion? Will you be posting it here?

1 Like

WHAT! You said you were going to play Jason in our Christmas role play this year. Have you even read the script. Scene 3, act 2, “David… errr … Jason runs naked into the Church with a chainsaw in one hand screaming obsdcenities.” Have you been practicing your script. Are you going to be ready for the big AR Christmas role play. Does anyone else around this place care about this shit besides me? Fuck! If you don’t get off your ass and start studying your scripts, I’m never going to volunteer to direct one fo these damn Christmas role play dinners again!

But I was supposed to be wearing this …

So in my defense it isn’t really me, all nekked and chainsawy

1 Like

They are not physical. I’m more curious as to where are you going with this?

I already responded above - he has no place to go.

1 Like

That’s utter nonsense, and I reject that notion. The laws of nature as formulated by human research activites do not restrict the activity of the universe. They simply describe how nature and the universe behaves and act, and describes what we - to the best of our knowledge about nature and the universe - know about the behaviour of nature, and we can make predictions as to how nature will behave based on these rules. In the cases where the laws of nature make wrong predictions (which have happened several times), they are changed or amended to make better predictions, according to the scientific method.

In short: you are wrong.


only an intelligent being can create information, messages, and instructions that the DNA strand creates. this is not a random process, but a process transcendent to nature that is intelligent. God