Faith is not evidence. This is why atheism has more of an advantage.

[Thermos aquaticus]

I don't know how to make this clearer. Say that I believe the sun is made of cheese. I say it's made of cheese because it's yellow, and there's no other possible explanation. You explain that this is wrong, there's plenty of explanations! So I say "well prove an alternative!"

At which point you could cite mountains of evidence demonstrating that the Sun is made of hydrogen and helium. That's how it works. You claim to have an alternate explanation, AND THEN YOU SUPPLY EVIDENCE FOR THAT EXPLANATION.

As soon as you say that you have an alternate explanation, then the burden of proof shifts to you. You have to supply evidence for that other explanation.

You're claiming materialism is true because of a connection between mind and brain, and pretending this can only support materialism (it doesn't).

False. I am saying that all of the evidence we have shows that the mind is the physical manifestation of the physical brain. I have seen no evidence demonstrating that the mind is independent of the physical brain, so I see no reason to conclude that the mind is independent. I am not ruling out other explanations, simply pointing out the complete lack of support for those other explanations. As the Hitch was famous for saying, assertions made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

 

[1137]

At which point you could cite mountains of evidence demonstrating that the Sun is made of hydrogen and helium. That's how it works. You claim to have an alternate explanation, AND THEN YOU SUPPLY EVIDENCE FOR THAT EXPLANATION.

As soon as you say that you have an alternate explanation, then the burden of proof shifts to you. You have to supply evidence for that other explanation.

That is indeed true, if I say like "materialism is wrong because substance Dualism is right," we now both have burdens. I haven't. Idk what alternative may be correct, my only claim was that we don't have the support to be validated in believing materialism.

False. I am saying that all of the evidence we have shows that the mind is the physical manifestation of the physical brain. I have seen no evidence demonstrating that the mind is independent of the physical brain, so I see no reason to conclude that the mind is independent. I am not ruling out other explanations, simply pointing out the complete lack of support for those other explanations. As the Hitch was famous for saying, assertions made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

But first off this is wrong. Your ignorance on het mind-body problem doesn't make it or it's arguments magically go away. That's like me saying the sun MUST be Ra because I don't understand chemistry or science. Does that really invalidate the science? You're confusing "not allowing you to switch the burden of proof / objecting to your position" with "claiming an alternative position. "

Now I'm still more than willing to talk about the evidence for other positions, but not while you're standing here refusing to engage in proper, honest logical debate.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

That is indeed true, if I say like "materialism is wrong because substance Dualism is right," we now both have burdens. I haven't. Idk what alternative may be correct, my only claim was that we don't have the support to be validated in believing materialism.

You are claiming that the alternative is the mind being independent of the brain.

Other than that, you are bordering on denial. Imagine if there was a murder trial where there was fingerprint, shoeprint, tire print, hair, fiber, and DNA evidence all tying the defendant to the murder. A witness gets up to the stand and says that all of that evidence is also consistent with magical leprechauns planting evidence at the crime scene. Therefore, none of that forensic evidence can be used to determine guilt. Would you think that is a valid argument? I wouldn't, and yet that is the very argument you are making.

You are inventing some unevidenced and unobserved mechanism that supposedly produces the same exact evidence as known and observable mechanisms, and using this unevidenced and unobserved mechanism to cast doubt on conclusions. Occam would cut that neatly with his razor.

But first off this is wrong. Your ignorance on het mind-body problem doesn't make it or it's arguments magically go away.

The lack of evidence for the mind being independent of the physical brain is what makes that argument go away.

 

[1137]

You are claiming that the alternative is the mind being independent of the brain.

Other than that, you are bordering on denial. Imagine if there was a murder trial where there was fingerprint, shoeprint, tire print, hair, fiber, and DNA evidence all tying the defendant to the murder. A witness gets up to the stand and says that all of that evidence is also consistent with magical leprechauns planting evidence at the crime scene. Therefore, none of that forensic evidence can be used to determine guilt. Would you think that is a valid argument? I wouldn't, and yet that is the very argument you are making.

You are inventing some unevidenced and unobserved mechanism that supposedly produces the same exact evidence as known and observable mechanisms, and using this unevidenced and unobserved mechanism to cast doubt on conclusions. Occam would cut that neatly with his razor.



The lack of evidence for the mind being independent of the physical brain is what makes that argument go away.

You feel free to keep believing whatever you want without the evidence and without looking into other positions

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

You feel free to keep believing whatever you want without the evidence and without looking into other positions

Do you think the forensic scientist doesn't have evidence because magical leprechauns could plant fingerprints at crime scenes? Is the forensic scientist close minded because he won't consider magical leprechauns?

 

[1137]

Do you think the forensic scientist doesn't have evidence because magical leprechauns could plant fingerprints at crime scenes? Is the forensic scientist close minded because he won't consider magical leprechauns?

Now you're just embarrassing yourself by making insane straw men not even slightly relevant to the points at hand, on topics you haven't looked into haha.

My offer still stands: any materialists may request a 2 sided 1:1 debate with me or may provide evidence that suggests only materialism. Until then...

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Now you're just embarrassing yourself by making insane straw men not even slightly relevant to the points at hand, on topics you haven't looked into haha.

My offer still stands: any materials may request a 2 sides 1:1 debate with me or may provide evidence that suggests only materialism. Until then...

You are embarrassing yourself again. I never said that the evidence rules out something other than materialism. What I said is that all of the evidence supports the mind being the physical product of the physical brain, and no evidence I have seen indicates otherwise. Do you have any evidence that indicates otherwise? Yes/No?

 

[1137]

You are embarrassing yourself again. I never said that the evidence rules out something other than materialism. What I said is that all of the evidence supports the mind being the physical product of the physical brain, and no evidence I have seen indicates otherwise. Do you have any evidence that indicates otherwise? Yes/No?

Indeed, like I said it's nit only presented earlier in this thread but across the internet. You could literally Google it if you were actually interested in truth. Your claim "all the evidence supports the brain is physical is incorrect, you've apparently only seen one thing suggesting that and I've explained ad nauseum that it's not actually evidence for what you claim.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Indeed, like I said it's nit only presented earlier in this thread but across the internet. You could literally Google it if you were actually interested in truth. Your claim "all the evidence supports the brain is physical is incorrect, you've apparently only seen one thing suggesting that and I've explained ad nauseum that it's not actually evidence for what you claim.

I am interested which is why I am asking you for the evidence.

 

[1137]

I am interested which is why I am asking you for the evidence.

Which I'm fine giving once you understand why you have utterly failed to support materialism in any way, shape, or form.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Which I'm fine giving once you understand why you have utterly failed to support materialism in any way, shape, or form.

We both agree that there are material aspects to the mind. You are claiming there is an additional non-material mind which you have yet to present evidence for.

 

[1137]

We both agree that there are material aspects to the mind. You are claiming there is an additional non-material mind which you have yet to present evidence for.

Not necessarily, idealism may be true. Don't assume I'm as closed minded it jump to conclusions as fast as materialism requires, that's projecting.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Not necessarily, idealism may be true. Don't assume I'm as closed minded it jump to conclusions as fast as materialism requires, that's projecting.

Again, it goes back to the magical leprechauns who plant evidence. If you are going to claim that dualism may be true, you need to present evidence that would differentiate between a material mind and a non-material mind, not simply point to evidence that they share. It comes down to Occam's Razor which slices away the evidence-free assumption of a non-material mind in preference for the observed and known material brain.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Again, it goes back to the magical leprechauns who plant evidence. If you are going to claim that dualism may be true, you need to present evidence that would differentiate between a material mind and a non-material mind, not simply point to evidence that they share. It comes down to Occam's Razor which slices away the evidence-free assumption of a non-material mind in preference for the observed and known material brain.

I usually go with the concept of scientific evidence. That is defined as evidence that supports or opposes a scientific hypothesis or theory. It appears that materialism can be made into the form of a scientific hypothesis. By that standard there is scientific evidence for materialism:

Scientific evidence - Wikipedia

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I can lie too guys. "All evidence supports creationism!!!!" So now you're a creationist? Your ignorance on alternatives doesn't make yours default to true lol.

Okay then, please present the evidence for your assertion.

Right, this is a good analogy. Materialism has one piece of "evidence" that actually doesn't support materialism over other positions, and everything else we know of it suggests otherwise. The issue is that you think if the creationist is ignorant/closed minded and doesn't know the evidence for evolution their creationism is magically validated.

Good analogy for you and your materialist peers actually, well done!

I notice a distinct lack of evidence for your assertion that the mind is non-physical despite my argument being explicitly about that very thing.

But, never mind that. It was only the entire point.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

I usually go with the concept of scientific evidence. That is defined as evidence that supports or opposes a scientific hypothesis or theory. It appears that materialism can be made into the form of a scientific hypothesis. By that standard there is scientific evidence for materialism:

Scientific evidence - Wikipedia

As part of the scientific method, you also don't have to disprove every other explanation out there. You only have to find support for the hypothesis you are testing. A scientist trying to figure out how lightning works doesn't have to disprove the existence of Thor or Zeus in order to construct a scientific explanation for lightning.

 

[Polymath257]

We can't *prove* that the planets don't orbit the sun because they are pushed by angels. if they push in *exactly* the way predicted by the scientific laws of motion, there is no way to test their existence either.

And that is the point: ALL scientific ideas have to be testable. Any that are not should be discarded as meaningless. If two outlooks are the same in terms of observations, the one with fewer assumptions is the preferred one.

That means that under the currently available evidence, the proposition that consciousness is a product of the physical brain is the preferred one. Any suggestion of a non-physical component is an *additional* assumption (actually a whole host of additional assumptions), which in the absence of testable consequences, is to be discarded as meaningless.

 

[Subduction Zone]

As part of the scientific method, you also don't have to disprove every other explanation out there. You only have to find support for the hypothesis you are testing. A scientist trying to figure out how lightning works doesn't have to disprove the existence of Thor or Zeus in order to construct a scientific explanation for lightning.

Right. People of faith often demand unreasonable levels of "evidence" by others when they have no such evidence themselves. As Polymath just said in the sciences one cannot 'prove' anything. In the sciences one makes a testable claim and does two things, see if it passe that test and if there is evidence that supports the theory. Materialism is testable and has evidence for it. It may not be "unique to materialism" but that is beyond the point. To see if an opposing idea has scientific evidence it too must first meet the criterion of having a test that it can fail if it is wrong. Without at least such a test then that side cannot claim to have scientific evidence.

That is one reason that creationists cannot claim to have scientific evidence. At least in my experience they are afraid to put creationism into the form of a testable hypothesis. The scientific hypothesis is one of the "put up or shut up"s of the sciences. Materialism can meet that, Can other ideas do the same?

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Right. People of faith often demand unreasonable levels of "evidence" by others when they have no such evidence themselves. As Polymath just said in the sciences one cannot 'prove' anything. In the sciences one makes a testable claim and does two things, see if it passe that test and if there is evidence that supports the theory. Materialism is testable and has evidence for it. It may not be "unique to materialism" but that is beyond the point. To see if an opposing idea has scientific evidence it too must first meet the criterion of having a test that it can fail if it is wrong. Without at least such a test then that side cannot claim to have scientific evidence.

That is one reason that creationists cannot claim to have scientific evidence. At least in my experience they are afraid to put creationism into the form of a testable hypothesis. The scientific hypothesis is one of the "put up or shut up"s of the sciences. Materialism can meet that, Can other ideas do the same?

“Tell people there's an invisible man in the sky who created the universe, and the vast majority will believe you. Tell them the paint is wet, and they have to touch it to be sure.”--George Carlin

 

[tas8831]

If you believe that science has a much stronger argument for our existence, then perhaps science would like to tell us how life just popped into existence one day for no apparent reason, and then proceeded to morph itself (again for no apparent reason) into all that lives and breathes on this planet.

Go ahead and tell us how life just popped into existence one day for no apparent reason, and then proceeded to morph itself (again for no apparent reason) into all that lives and breathes on this planet. And all within 6000 years with nobody noticing.

Science too has writings in books and interpretations of evidence that humans want to promote.

And religion relies entirely on human interpretations of ancient numerologists rantings.