Hello my (philosophically-minded) friends!
Several weeks ago, I developed an ontological argument against materialism lotharlorraine.wordpress.com/201 … eaningful/ and I would really like to learn your opinions on this.
Since it is very tricky, it is worth reading the comments there and my response to them.
Now I’d like to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of my argument with you HERE, on the philosophical section of the forum.
Lovely greetings in Christ.
Have you considered fictionalism with regards to abstract objects? What are your views on that? William Lane Craig believes for instance that abstract objects are just useful fictions, having no mind-independent reality.
The purpose of my argument was to show that IF fictionalism holds, materialism can never be true.
Since the concept of “everything” does not exist, the claim “everything which exists is material” becomes meaningless.
If factionalism holds then abstract objects aren’t real. In which case your argument fails. Your argument is based on the idea that abstract objects are real and beyond the reach of materialism.
“Your argument is based on the idea that abstract objects are real and beyond the reach of materialism.”
No, my argument assumes that materialism is true and that fictionialism is also true, that is to say truth claims only exist in our mind, BUT correspond to a fact, that is a real state of affairs of the world, which makes their negation impossible.
I then went on saying that unlike the rotation of the earth around the sun, there CAN be no such fact for materialism, given the truth of fictionalism and the non-existence of abstract properties.