Originally posted by heusdens
Not so. It ain't a conclusion, it is the very premise of your hypothese that everything that exists outside of your mind, is 'mind-stuff'. Which you haven't proven in the least, in fact you have not even proved, just assumed, you had a mind yourself.
You can't go around like that building a conclusion into the assumptions that lead to the conclusion, and assuming anything that were not previously proven, while starting criticizing other ideas (materialism) for not having proven it's premises. You have never proven materialism is wrong, and can't proof that. The only thing you done is provide circular reasoning for 'something else' that builds up from the assumption that God exists, and then concludes that what was what assumed. That won't do at all.
I intend to post a summary later, if I have time. I will try to cover all relevant complaints and confusions which relate to my original argument.
Perhaps you should ponder the fact that despite the large volume of your responses, I will not be including any reference to a single thing you have said. Everything you have said is either incorrect or irrelevant.
For the benefit of my own summary, and to render meaningless everything you have said, I shall repeat a post which I made on page 20 of this thread:-
"I can promise the readers that not one single argument can be formulated, using logic, to show that an external reality exists.
Indeed, anybody who wants to formulate an argument for the existence of external reality, actually has to do it via the method I have used (page-9, in my argument against the sense of an external reality), whereby the logic of motion and real-space is addressed. If it makes sense, then so would an external-reality. But as an external reality does not make sense (see the argument for details), I can actually conclude (myself) that there is no sense in an external reality.
Hence, I have reason for my own stance... and reason which destroys yours. Whereas you have no reason to destroy the Mind-reality. And you only have beliefs to defend materialism. That's right:
beliefs.
My point is that there is nothing which you have said which constitutes a logical argument to support materialism. You either have to do that by the aforementioned method, above. Or you have to build an argument which starts exactly like mine. For, let's be clear about this:- a philosopher who doesn't realize that sensory-experience is the only means of confirming existence (apart from the mind-attributes of reason; will; emotion), can easily start to convince his audience that existence is so-much-more than "sensory-experience".
They'll tell us things like existence is external, because things are interacting independently of 'my' mind. But they're not acting independently to the mind - because they're happening directly within your awareness!
I absolutely-declare that there's not one single statement that can be made for the defense of materialism, which cannot be shown to be a mistake. Tom made the same mistake too, when he said that science takes us outside of our heads. You thought that getting killed by a bus was some sort of proof. Somebody mentioned that "sceince works".
But so what? Science works upon data obtained from the senses. Science is the reason of sensation. Science is an inner-practise. A practise of the mind. Or rather, a practise of reason upon the sensations we are having.
Everything which you have said is meaningless. Simply because everything you have said is a mistake. It doesn't validate material-reality; no more than the three examples I gave, above, did either.
I an not BSing anyone here. We only have an inner-reality. It's the only thing which can be confirmed by reason.
And from this fact, my argument did proceed. Please address it. Let's forget this defending of materialism nonsense. Because there is no justification for an external reality. None whatsoever."
If you cannot honestly acknowledge the shortcomings of materialism, as mentioned above, then I can only suggest that your posts are reflective of somebody not interested in 'debate', but in preserving the status-quo which materialism has presided over for the last couple of centuries.
