O rly?
That´s interesting. What did it look like, with no human eyes to see it? What did it mean, with no human mind to interpret it?
What the universe looked like can be inferred from what we know of the universe as it exists now. As for meaning, the universe doesn't mean anything. It just
is. Meaning is something
we do.
The truth is that we only know what the human mind can know. And we know, for certain, that the human mind doesn´t know things as they really are. The human mind knows things as things appear to the human mind.
Human senses aren't 100% foolproof I will admit, but that's a far cry from saying that they are useless for navigating and investigating reality outside of our minds.
So there´s no much point in speculating about whther matter can exist without ideas. What we know for sure is that matter cannot exist for human beings without ideas. And since we are human beings, that´s all we need to know.
Clearly there must be a universe that exists independently of our minds, because acting otherwise leads one to come a cropper. For example, assuming that gravity is merely a mental construction will not help when falling from a great height. Hitting the ground will still hurt/kill you no matter how hard you imagine the idea of slowing down and landing safely.
To seek to know further than that is in fact the definition of idolatry.
Not according to the definitions I've been able to find.
No we don´t. We create our experience by thinking about it. And in order to think about it, we need God.
Thinking is a kind of experience. You don't have to think to have experiences. You experience pain without thinking about it. If someone sneaks up to you and jabs you with a needle, you don't have to think about it in order for it to hurt.
I think you mean ¨historically specific¨ not ¨unnecessary.¨ If that is what you mean, you´re right. The Hebraic tradition uses God where the Greek tradition uses logos, for example.
No, I mean unnecessary. People have experiences, and all the available evidence points to humans having naturally evolved without divine intervention. Therefore God is unnecessary for humans to have experiences. People are capable of having experiences without any reference to God. Did people not have any experiences before monotheism became popular?
But no one would call either term ¨unnecessary.¨
No one except the significant amount of people who aren't your brand of monotheist.
The notion of God as the ¨concept of concepts¨is hardly ¨my word.¨ It originates with Plato. Who (and I´m sorry if I´m wrong), I´m starting to think you may not have read.
Very well then, why should we take Plato's word?
You're right, I haven't read Plato's work. Maybe that's why I'm finding your idealism difficult to get to grips with.
I don´t say that to score a point, but simply to note that my position is very ancient and entirely respectable, philosophically speaking. So it can´t really be opposed by saying ¨well that´s just your opinion...¨
So it's either an appeal to tradition or an appeal to the supposed authority of Plato? Surely if you've read Plato you can do better than that?
Yes, but they are not equally valid. One of them is more valid than the others. As we would expect.
But without reference to empirical evidence, how do we actually know that one concept is valid and the others bunk? Rationalist means alone are insufficient because one can rationalise anything given the right premises.
