[gore3000]

I don't have a materialist cause, as I am not a philosophical materialist, I am a rigorous philosophical naturalist, which means I'm neutral about immaterial causes. Which means, incidently, that I don't have a hypothetical, either, since I'm indifferent. Oh, and I don't have a cause either, except to see that science is taught in the science classroom. Other than that, though, your response is right on the mark.

Don, please, let's be honest, your interest goes a lot deeper than 'science'. Anyways, I really do not see any difference between your postings and what is normally called materialist. Please elucidate the difference, I sure can't figure it out.

The imaginer is still an intelligent being and your reality (and mine) still depends on the rules set by that intelligent being.-me-

You don't know that.

Of course I know that. To even imagine such a complex world must require a tremendous amount of intelligence. Also it is undeniable that there are certain rules in this world we live in - gravity for example - and many others. So yes, I do know that even under your supposition, this would be true.

And we've been through this before. You have no proof that the imagineer is intelligent, if intelligent, you have no indication that suggests to what level of detail the imagineer had to understand the details of what he was imagining for it to work out. You have no proof that the imagineer isn't caught in an endless loop where she imagines up something that in turn imagines her up. When you propose immaterial causes, you can't be disproved, but for the same reasons, you can't pin them down with any persuasive authority.

You are being totally ridiculous. For one thing we are definitely intelligent beings, even if we were someone's dream that person/being would have to be at least as intelligent as us. Science has also more than proven that there are definite rules in this world we live in. So even if it is the figment of someone's imagination, it does have rules.

[donh]

Don, please, let's be honest, your interest goes a lot deeper than 'science'. Anyways, I really do not see any difference between your postings and what is normally called materialist. Please elucidate the difference, I sure can't figure it out.

I have already done that, addressed to you, twice. Kindly address your posts to someone else if you can't do even this tiny amount of homework.

[donh]

You are being totally ridiculous. For one thing we are definitely intelligent beings, even if we were someone's dream that person/being would have to be at least as intelligent as us.

I am being totally unanswered. Post your proof that the world is not the dream of an infinitely more interesting and complex entity than we are--as far above being intelligent as we are above having primative tropisms.

Science has also more than proven that there are definite rules in this world we live in. So even if it is the figment of someone's imagination, it does have rules.

So? Post your evidence that dreams can't have rules.

[donh]

Don, please, let's be honest, your interest goes a lot deeper than 'science'

Let's leave the rude presumptuousness to exmarine, he's better at it. Nothing is "deeper" or more interesting than science to me.