Argument for God(s) Second Edition - please critique

[sayak83]

I think it is your turn to do some supporting and demonstrating.

Your set of premises. You have to demonstrate.

Furthermore, scientists do not actually know how cloud formation happens by condensation of water vapor in the atmosphere. Nobody thereby says that cloud formation occurs by immaterial non-physical processes. There are billions of natural phenomena happening throughout this universe for which we lack adequate first principle based explanation. That itself shows nothing at all.

 

[atanu]

Truer ?
I haven't claimed that material forms are any 'truer' than consciousness. What are you talking about ?

I pointed out a generality that is the common thinking. I also pointed out that 'mind' which is a bundle of thought, is not equal to consciousness, which is the ability for knowledge.

 

[sayak83]

I pointed out a generality that is the common thinking. I also pointed out that 'mind' which is a bundle of thought, is not equal to consciousness, which is the ability for knowledge.

Correct definitions:-
consciousness refers to the awake state (vs. dreamless sleep or coma) and also to subjective perceptual awareness, which can shift, change, and move around, e.g. modulated by attention or in "altered states of consciousness".

The mind, which is a cultural term that is debated in philosophy and used in clinical psychology, generally refers to consciousness plus autobiographical memory,personal identity, sense of personal agency (voluntary control over actions),accurate introspection, and ability to control one's thoughts.

 

[Koldo]

I pointed out a generality that is the common thinking.

A generality in common thinking ?
I haven't ever heard about that. Can you cite a source ?

I also pointed out that 'mind' which is a bundle of thought, is not equal to consciousness, which is the ability for knowledge.

I am not interested on semantic arguments.

 

[McBell]

I think it is your turn to do some supporting and demonstrating.

Still waiting for you and atana to support your claims.

I am not holding my breath though.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

I think it is your turn to do some supporting and demonstrating.

Asks for critique...

...Gets salty when argument is blown to smithereens.

There's a meme here somewhere.

 

[1137]

Gladly I will. What do you want me to support or demonstrate ?

I would like to know the mechanism by which the brain creates the mind, and I would like physical evidence of a mind that does not first rely on material reductionism.

 

[1137]

Unless you're giving up on your argument in the OP, it's still your turn... and it will continue to be your turn to demonstrate your position until each premise is fully supported and you have demonstrated that each step in your argument logically flows from the previous steps. Until you do this, it's perfectly reasonable to give your argument no weight whatsoever. This how logical arguments work.

Nope. Logical arguments are a two way street, the burden of proof is a childish game. If you're unsatisfied with the argument you can put forth evidence to the contrary, but I'm well aware materialism hasn't a leg to stand on!

 

[1137]

Your set of premises. You have to demonstrate.

Furthermore, scientists do not actually know how cloud formation happens by condensation of water vapor in the atmosphere. Nobody thereby says that cloud formation occurs by immaterial non-physical processes. There are billions of natural phenomena happening throughout this universe for which we lack adequate first principle based explanation. That itself shows nothing at all.

It's astonishing that absolutely every materialist I debate with, without fail, refuses to defend materialism. A bit of advice: if you're too embarrassed to defend your position, or have no defense, you should so some questioning.

 

[1137]

Still waiting for you and atana to support your claims.

I am not holding my breath though.

We have, and you've rejected our supports, yet refused to submit alternatives. As always we find the materialism has no defense for their position, or is not confident enough to provide it.

 

[McBell]

Nope. Logical arguments are a two way street, the burden of proof is a childish game. If you're unsatisfied with the argument you can put forth evidence to the contrary, but I'm well aware materialism hasn't a leg to stand on!

Interesting how those who cannot meet the burden of proof are so quick to dismiss it....

 

[McBell]

We have, and you've rejected our supports, yet refused to submit alternatives. As always we find the materialism has no defense for their position, or is not confident enough to provide it.

I am not required to provide alternatives.
I am merely interested in you supporting your claims.
Since you have failed, that is the end of it.

The only purpose of all your baiting at this point is to distract from the fact that even you know you failed to support your claims.

 

[jeager106]

Interesting how those who cannot meet the burden of proof are so quick to dismiss it....

I like the $ell outa that post^^^^^^.

Still I must say that faith requires no proof. That is the nature of faith.
I still have faith that the Cleveland Browns will win a Super Bowl in my lifetime
but, sigh, that ain't likely.

 

[1137]

Interesting how those who cannot meet the burden of proof are so quick to dismiss it....

I've defended my arguments in several ways, over several threads, with several examples. You have shook your head screaming "nuh-huh" without addressing how these are incorrect or supporting any alternatives. It's amazing how those with no logical support avoid the burden of proof like the plague!

I am not required to provide alternatives.
I am merely interested in you supporting your claims.
Since you have failed, that is the end of it.

Lol, I guess creationism is true because those creationists think that the arguments and evidence fail. Lucky for them, there's people like you who don't believe a position needs to be supported.

The only purpose of all your baiting at this point is to distract from the fact that even you know you failed to support your claims.

I didn't realize someone claiming that claims were incorrect, without providing the slightest suggestion of why to believe otherwise, made a claim objectively incorrect. This is beneath you.

 

[McBell]

I've defended my arguments in several ways, over several threads, with several examples. You have shook your head screaming "nuh-huh" without addressing how these are incorrect or supporting any alternatives. It's amazing how those with no logical support avoid the burden of proof like the plague!



Lol, I guess creationism is true because those creationists think that the arguments and evidence fail. Lucky for them, there's people like you who don't believe a position needs to be supported.



I didn't realize someone claiming that claims were incorrect, without providing the slightest suggestion of why to believe otherwise, made a claim objectively incorrect. This is beneath you.

I understand your desperation, but you really should quit while you are ahead.

 

[1137]

I understand your desperation, but you really should quit while you are ahead.

A dodge that also is a childish jab, very nice!

 

[McBell]

A dodge that also is a childish jab, very nice!

I do not apologize for not falling for your diversion tactic.

I gave a freindly piece of advice.
It is up to you to take it or leave it.

I wonder if your ego will allow you to even consider what is posted is not a direct jab?
I doubt it.

Your "argument" failed.
Why not take it back to the drawing board?

If nothing else you should be able to really wow the choir...

 

[sayak83]

It's astonishing that absolutely every materialist I debate with, without fail, refuses to defend materialism. A bit of advice: if you're too embarrassed to defend your position, or have no defense, you should so some questioning.

No. Too busy doing other things. I recommend you read books. Your claim amounts to "a mysterious entity is the cause of this unexplained phenomena through a mysterious process" , which can be dismissed without any arguments whatsoever. If you can provide an argument why, among the entire millions and millions of unexplained phenomena, the one which is called consciousness cannot be explained by natural processes, then I can make a comment. Just saying that its not a natural phenomena merely because it is unexplained is ridiculous.

Especially because we have such good observational evidence that shows the consciousness is very likely a brain process and the path to a full explanation goes through understanding how the brain works, and we are quite ignorant on that front.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

I claim that apples are the best fruit, and since nobody is defending oranges I guess I don't actually need a sound argument for why apples are best.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Nope. Logical arguments are a two way street,

No, they really aren't. Until you demonstrate that your conclusion MUST be true, the reasonable thing is to treat it as maybe true and maybe false.

"Maybe true and maybe false" is what we had before you even attempted an argument.