Why the Atheists Always Lose to Good Theist Debaters

[scientist]

Coin In a Box

In most major debates with atheists, the "coin in a box" argument is something that always wins. It has never been refuted.

It defeats the atheist principle "The scientific method is the absolute rule on determining reality." Which simply means, someone or something must be detected by scientific instruments, or the five senses, or both to be considered reality. The atheists believe only physical evidence of someone/something is what they consider reality.

There are three levels of reality that make this atheist principle an utter failure:


1) Physical reality

The coin in a box. I hide it deep within the earth (beyond detection), and according to the atheists, if scientific instruments or their five senses cannot detect someone/something, it does not exist.

Well, I hold the coin in my hand and it is real.

"To see is to believe" never worked anyway.


2) Mental reality (this always wins against atheists in major debates)

Let's assume:

If every person in the world thought of an ice cream at exactly 1pm on the very same day, that is mental reality. It is just as real as physical reality. It occurred in a point in time, and would be part of historical reality.

Whether science detected their thoughts at that time or not can never make that mental reality disappear. So if you ask every person who thought of the ice cream if he/she really thought of an ice cream, you would of course get a positive answer.

But wait, by their definition of reality, the atheists MUST say this event did not occur. It cannot be verified because it it is impossible to detect their thoughts by a scientific instrument nor by the five senses.

So how can atheists even argue that only physical reality is reality? There is such a thing as mental, non-physical reality just as real. If it happened, then it's real. This truth is logically impossible to refute by any atheist.

It only shows the atheist view of what reality/truth is about is fundamentally flawed. "To see is to believe" cannot stand when attacked well.

Some atheist argue that thoughts are from the brain only and therefore not reality. This is a fallacious argument. Whether you touched a pencil (physical reality) or thought of a pencil (mental reality), both are reality only because our brain processes it. Both physical and mental reality use brain signals anyway.

Any event that occurred at a point in time (you can look back and remember it) is considered reality. You cannot deny these two examples (above) happened in the past and are part of reality.

You can measure the size of the brain, brain cells, etc. but why can't you measure the size of the ice cream (see above example) I thought about? If it's from the brain alone, then it should be physically measurable as well. We can thus observe that the mind exists and can exist independent of the brain (we can even argue this is at least partial evidence of the existence of a soul).

It is self-evident that thoughts come from the mind. To say that thoughts come from the brain alone is a fallacy.


3) Spiritual reality

The public miracles at Fatima were witnessed by a large number of people in real-time, a first of its kind. That and all miracles take a very long time to be confirmed as truth by the Catholic Church.

Why? Because the Church invites scientists (theist and atheist, agnostic, etc.) to do an independent study on the miracles. If you research online well, the names of some of these experts are given to the public. There is no conspiracy here, just truth.

These are supernatural events with physical evidence, credible observers and an independent scientific study encouraged by the Catholic Church.

 

[sandandfoam]

With respect I don't think the debate has ever been won or lost. It just trundles along.

 

[Magic Man]

Coin In a Box

In most major debates with atheists, the "coin in a box" argument is something that always wins. It has never been refuted.

I've never heard the "coin in a box" argument, but I'm pretty sure if it's been brought up, it's been refuted.

It defeats the atheist principle "The scientific method is the absolute rule on determining reality." Which simply means, someone or something must be detected by scientific instruments, or the five senses, or both to be considered reality. The atheists believe only physical evidence of someone/something is what they consider reality.

If you can't detect something, it's as good as it not existing. That's all there is to it. What's the difference between something we can't detect in some way and something that doesn't exist? Practically speaking, nothing.

1) Physical reality

The coin in a box. I hide it deep within the earth (beyond detection), and according to the atheists, if scientific instruments or their five senses cannot detect someone/something, it does not exist.

Well, I hold the coin in my hand and it is real.

"To see is to believe" never worked anyway.

"To sense is to believe" has always worked. Do you just automatically assume it's true when someone tells you "Chicago burned down today"? I'm hoping you wait for actual evidence that you can see before believing people's claims.

This "coin in a box" argument isn't very good. If you put a coin in a box deep in the earth, we'd know it's there because someone would have put it there. If you really wanted to get technical, scientists could come up with a way (if they don't already have a specific one) to detect the box and coin down there.

And even if not, this still doesn't refute the fact that the scientific method is the best possible way for us to learn about our reality.

2) Mental reality (this always wins against atheists in major debates)

I'm going to guess it doesn't win so much as you think it wins.

Let's assume:

If every person in the world thought of an ice cream at exactly 1pm on the very same day, that is mental reality. It is just as real as physical reality. It occurred in a point in time, and would be part of historical reality.

What is just as real as physical reality? Is the ice cream real? I don't understand.

Whether science detected their thoughts at that time or not can never make that mental reality disappear. So if you ask every person who thought of the ice cream if he/she really thought of an ice cream, you would of course get a positive answer.

But wait, by their definition of reality, the atheists MUST say this event did not occur. It cannot be verified because it it is impossible to detect their thoughts by a scientific instrument nor by the five senses.

So how can atheists even argue that only physical reality is reality? There is such a thing as mental, non-physical reality just as real. If it happened, then it's real. This truth is logically impossible to refute by any atheist.

It only shows the atheist view of what reality/truth is about is fundamentally flawed. "To see is to believe" cannot stand when attacked well.

Some atheist argue that thoughts are from the brain only and therefore not reality. This is a fallacious argument. Whether you touched a pencil (physical reality) or thought of a pencil (mental reality), both are reality only because our brain processes it. Both physical and mental reality use brain signals anyway.

Any event that occurred at a point in time (you can look back and remember it) is considered reality. You cannot deny these two examples (above) happened in the past and are part of reality.

You can measure the size of the brain, brain cells, etc. but why can't you measure the size of the ice cream (see above example) I thought about? If it's from the brain alone, then it should be physically measurable as well. We can thus observe that the mind exists and can exist independent of the brain (we can even argue this is at least partial evidence of the existence of a soul).

It is self-evident that thoughts come from the mind. To say that thoughts come from the brain alone is a fallacy.

You should support your last statement. Nothing you've said so far leads to that conclusion. As for the rest of this part, you seem to be confused about some things. Yes, thoughts and dreams exist. We know that because we have them. This does not go against the idea that the scientific method is the best way to learn about our reality. As far as thoughts and dreams go, since you can't reproduce them for others, everyone just has to take your word for what they are. I could say I just pictured a dragon. The only evidence I can give you is my word on it.

3) Spiritual reality

The public miracles at Fatima were witnessed by a large number of people in real-time, a first of its kind. That and all miracles take a very long time to be confirmed as truth by the Catholic Church.

Why? Because the Church invites scientists (theist and atheist, agnostic, etc.) to do an independent study on the miracles. If you research online well, the names of some of these experts are given to the public. There is no conspiracy here, just truth.

These are supernatural events with physical evidence, credible observers and an independent scientific study encouraged by the Catholic Church.

Physical evidence? Can you show me the physical evidence of one of these miracles? All I know is that things like Fatima were witnessed by a bunch of people, but it's hardly surprising. It's easily possible for a big group of people to hallucinate due to the desire to see what they think they're supposed to.

 

[St Giordano Bruno]

Coin In a Box

In most major debates with atheists, the "coin in a box" argument is something that always wins. It has never been refuted.

It defeats the atheist principle "The scientific method is the absolute rule on determining reality." Which simply means, someone or something must be detected by scientific instruments, or the five senses, or both to be considered reality. The atheists believe only physical evidence of someone/something is what they consider reality.

There are three levels of reality that make this atheist principle an utter failure:


1) Physical reality

The coin in a box. I hide it deep within the earth (beyond detection), and according to the atheists, if scientific instruments or their five senses cannot detect someone/something, it does not exist.

Well, I hold the coin in my hand and it is real.

"To see is to believe" never worked anyway.


2) Mental reality (this always wins against atheists in major debates)

Let's assume:

If every person in the world thought of an ice cream at exactly 1pm on the very same day, that is mental reality. It is just as real as physical reality. It occurred in a point in time, and would be part of historical reality.

Whether science detected their thoughts at that time or not can never make that mental reality disappear. So if you ask every person who thought of the ice cream if he/she really thought of an ice cream, you would of course get a positive answer.

But wait, by their definition of reality, the atheists MUST say this event did not occur. It cannot be verified because it it is impossible to detect their thoughts by a scientific instrument nor by the five senses.

So how can atheists even argue that only physical reality is reality? There is such a thing as mental, non-physical reality just as real. If it happened, then it's real. This truth is logically impossible to refute by any atheist.

It only shows the atheist view of what reality/truth is about is fundamentally flawed. "To see is to believe" cannot stand when attacked well.

Some atheist argue that thoughts are from the brain only and therefore not reality. This is a fallacious argument. Whether you touched a pencil (physical reality) or thought of a pencil (mental reality), both are reality only because our brain processes it. Both physical and mental reality use brain signals anyway.

Any event that occurred at a point in time (you can look back and remember it) is considered reality. You cannot deny these two examples (above) happened in the past and are part of reality.

You can measure the size of the brain, brain cells, etc. but why can't you measure the size of the ice cream (see above example) I thought about? If it's from the brain alone, then it should be physically measurable as well. We can thus observe that the mind exists and can exist independent of the brain (we can even argue this is at least partial evidence of the existence of a soul).

It is self-evident that thoughts come from the mind. To say that thoughts come from the brain alone is a fallacy.


3) Spiritual reality

The public miracles at Fatima were witnessed by a large number of people in real-time, a first of its kind. That and all miracles take a very long time to be confirmed as truth by the Catholic Church.

Why? Because the Church invites scientists (theist and atheist, agnostic, etc.) to do an independent study on the miracles. If you research online well, the names of some of these experts are given to the public. There is no conspiracy here, just truth.

These are supernatural events with physical evidence, credible observers and an independent scientific study encouraged by the Catholic Church.

I think I have read this before HERE

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Oh boy, here we go...

Coin In a Box

In most major debates with atheists, the "coin in a box" argument is something that always wins. It has never been refuted.

Well, let's have a crack at it.

It defeats the atheist principle "The scientific method is the absolute rule on determining reality."

Excuse me?

Firstly, there is no such thing as an "atheist principle" to begin with. Secondly, even if there was, that certainly wouldn't be one of them. I've never met any atheist (or scientist, for that matter) that would say anything like "the scientific method is the absolute rule on determining reality". What atheists and scientists do tend to say, however, is that "the scientific method is the most reliable method for distinguishing fact from fiction". Do you understand the difference?

Which simply means, someone or something must be detected by scientific instruments, or the five senses, or both to be considered reality. The atheists believe only physical evidence of someone/something is what they consider reality.

This is still a strawman, but I'll see where this leads.

There are three levels of reality that make this atheist principle an utter failure:


1) Physical reality

The coin in a box. I hide it deep within the earth (beyond detection), and according to the atheists, if scientific instruments or their five senses cannot detect someone/something, it does not exist.

Well, I hold the coin in my hand and it is real.

"To see is to believe" never worked anyway.

This is some pretty false logic. You just said "I hold the coin in my hand and it is real". If you hold the coin in your hand, then clearly you have a means of physically demonstrating that it is real. You just went full circle and admitted that seeing is believing.

What's more, no atheist (at least, none that I know) would conclude that if we cannot detect something it does not exist. What they do conclude is that if we cannot detect something we cannot assume or believe that that thing exists. To use your coin in a box analogy, if nobody knew or had any means of demonstrating that there was a coin in a box hidden underground, then they would have no reason to accept the proposition to be true. It doesn't mean they reject the proposition outright or believe that the coin and box could not possibly exist, it just means that there is insufficient evidence or reason to conclude that the box and coin DO exist.

2) Mental reality (this always wins against atheists in major debates)

Let's assume:

If every person in the world thought of an ice cream at exactly 1pm on the very same day, that is mental reality. It is just as real as physical reality. It occurred in a point in time, and would be part of historical reality.

Whether science detected their thoughts at that time or not can never make that mental reality disappear. So if you ask every person who thought of the ice cream if he/she really thought of an ice cream, you would of course get a positive answer.

But wait, by their definition of reality, the atheists MUST say this event did not occur. It cannot be verified because it it is impossible to detect their thoughts by a scientific instrument nor by the five senses.

Except that this is an extremely hypothetical and unlikely situation. You might as well say "if a dragon landed in my backyard then instantly vanished from the Universe forever, and I told lots of people about it, they wouldn't believe me - even though it happened in reality!"

What's more, we can test to see if people thought the same thing. You can just ask someone and see if they can remember what they were thinking about at a particular time, or you could monitor brain activity. It may be difficult, but it is testable.

So how can atheists even argue that only physical reality is reality? There is such a thing as mental, non-physical reality just as real. If it happened, then it's real. This truth is logically impossible to refute by any atheist.

Except that thinking something doesn't make something true, and we know that thoughts exist because we can express them and inquire about them. What we think does have tangible, testable qualities. Indirect qualities, to be sure, but testable nonetheless.

It only shows the atheist view of what reality/truth is about is fundamentally flawed. "To see is to believe" cannot stand when attacked well.

Then you're more than welcome to overthrow the last 100 years of scientific research if you think you have a better system than the scientific method.

Some atheist argue that thoughts are from the brain only and therefore not reality. This is a fallacious argument. Whether you touched a pencil (physical reality) or thought of a pencil (mental reality), both are reality only because our brain processes it. Both physical and mental reality use brain signals anyway.

Any event that occurred at a point in time (you can look back and remember it) is considered reality. You cannot deny these two examples (above) happened in the past and are part of reality.

Once again, thinking can have testable qualities.

You can measure the size of the brain, brain cells, etc. but why can't you measure the size of the ice cream (see above example) I thought about? If it's from the brain alone, then it should be physically measurable as well. We can thus observe that the mind exists and can exist independent of the brain (we can even argue this is at least partial evidence of the existence of a soul).

Er, no we can't. You might as well assert that this is evidence that we're all steam-powered mechanoids piloted by magical fairies.

It is self-evident that thoughts come from the mind. To say that thoughts come from the brain alone is a fallacy.

The mind is a construct of the brain.

3) Spiritual reality

The public miracles at Fatima were witnessed by a large number of people in real-time, a first of its kind. That and all miracles take a very long time to be confirmed as truth by the Catholic Church.

Because it takes time for a small, anecdotal incident to spread and be exaggerated by gossip and become obscured enough to sound magical.

Why? Because the Church invites scientists (theist and atheist, agnostic, etc.) to do an independent study on the miracles. If you research online well, the names of some of these experts are given to the public. There is no conspiracy here, just truth.

These are supernatural events with physical evidence, credible observers and an independent scientific study encouraged by the Catholic Church.

Then please present sources.

 

[ninerbuff]

Trolling along.

 

[waitasec]

I think I have read this before HERE

:biglaugh:
and the truth will set them free

 

[HonestJoe]

It defeats the atheist principle "The scientific method is the absolute rule on determining reality." Which simply means, someone or something must be detected by scientific instruments, or the five senses, or both to be considered reality. The atheists believe only physical evidence of someone/something is what they consider reality.

That isn't true.

First, atheist doesn't mean scientist. Someone can (and often do) not believe in the existence of any gods entirely independently of scientific method or logic.

Secondly, your term "to be considered reality" is somewhat misleading. Scientific method implies that something without evidence for it's existence (not exclusively via physical senses or equipment) hasn't been proven to exist. Scientists don't state anything definitely doesn't exist on the basis of lack of evidence alone though they will work on the principal that it doesn't unless the evidence changes.

The coin in a box. I hide it deep within the earth (beyond detection), and according to the atheists, if scientific instruments or their five senses cannot detect someone/something, it does not exist.

According to you too. If there is a coin buried deep in your garden, you would be acting exactly the same way as you would if there wasn't. You have no evidence to suggest it's there so you act as if it isn't.

This isn't claiming that nothing undetectable (or yet undetected) doesn't exist, only that you can't react to it existing until you have some kind of evidence that it does.

But wait, by their definition of reality, the atheists MUST say this event did not occur. It cannot be verified because it it is impossible to detect their thoughts by a scientific instrument nor by the five senses.

Not true. There would be evidence that everyone perceived thinking of ice cream at that time - it would be clear that something happened. What scientists wouldn't do is make any assumptions as to exactly what happened without further evidence.

So how can atheists even argue that only physical reality is reality?

I don't but then thoughts are functions of the physical anyway.

It is self-evident that thoughts come from the mind. To say that thoughts come from the brain alone is a fallacy.

Where do you think the mind comes from? Isn't "mind" is just a collective term for the functions of the brain?

The public miracles at Fatima were witnessed by a large number of people in real-time, a first of its kind. That and all miracles take a very long time to be confirmed as truth by the Catholic Church.

I don't disagree that in many of these kind of cases, something occurred as witnessed by a number of people. Exactly what caused these real experiences is, as yet, unknown.

These are supernatural events with physical evidence, credible observers and an independent scientific study encouraged by the Catholic Church.

But there is zero evidence for a "supernatural" cause for these events. That is speculation.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I suppose the only atheists he's debated are children.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I think I have read this before HERE

And here.

And here.

And here.

And here.

It seems that scientist has put a lot of effort into selling his argument, but nobody's buying it.

 

[Smoke]

In most major debates with atheists, the "coin in a box" argument is something that always wins. It has never been refuted.

It's not worth refuting. I don't argue that I have disproven god, and I don't know any atheist who does. I argue that you have failed to prove god, or even provide any credible evidence for him, and there is no doubt that you have.

The coin in a box. I hide it deep within the earth (beyond detection), and according to the atheists, if scientific instruments or their five senses cannot detect someone/something, it does not exist.

Well, I hold the coin in my hand and it is real.

If you hold the coin in your hand and it is deep within the earth, beyond detection, then you couldn't have started this thread.

I was going to make a more detailed response, but I'm too tired. Your OP comes down to, "Nyah, nyah, you can't prove a negative, so I win."

Rookie mistake.

Welcome to RF.

 

[Eliot Wild]

In most major debates with atheists, the "coin in a box" argument is something that always wins. It has never been refuted.

Just out of sheer curiosity--and granted, you obviously bear no obligation whatsoever to provide an answer--but just out of sheer curiosity, why do you and many other theists struggle so earnestly for a 'WIN' against atheists? And what does that even mean, anyway?

And let me qualify my question a bit: First of all, I don't think you have a real clear understanding of atheism. Granted, there are many atheists who assert absolutely that there is NO god(s). But atheism, in the stictest sense, is not a refutation of the divine. It is merely a lack of belief due to a lack of conclusive proof.

Now, your 'coin in the box' analogy is certainly not a winning hand in the ongoing debate between atheism and theism, if there is such an ongoing debate to begin with. And you have no better third-party referee than myself, an agnostic who desperately wants to find conclusive proof of the divine. Trust me when I tell you, you have no fairer judge to guage the running score in this age-old argument than someone such as myself. And I can tell you right now, this 'coin in the box' trump card you think your holding proves nothing to me, not that there is a God nor that theism, as a general perspective on reality, is more reasonable than atheism.

Furthermore, your 'coin in the box' analogy seems to fail to consider a few things. For starters, science doesn't say, if something can't be detected then it absolutely doesn't exist. I have never heard any atheist or any scientist, atheist or not, say something so irrational and unreasonable. People who rely on science know very well that it is not a perfect field of study. It is not a perfect medium for knowing everything. There are certainly things we have yet to discover or that we have yet to understand comprehensively. There most likely always will be.

So, you are actually trying to claim a win against atheism, for whatever reason I still don't fully fathom, by attributing to all atheists a singular position that I personally have never even heard one single atheist claim.

Why? And to be honest, such poor arguments as this, only indicate to me a certain desperation, a frenzied and impetuous, almost childlike rashness, to chalk up some kind of 'win' against that which you believe to be in opposition to your own beliefs. I daresay, if you are a theist who knows for certain in your own mind that a God exists, then atheists are not your opponents, mortal enemies who need to be 'beaten' and proven wrong--they are merely thoughtful skeptics who you have yet to convince with compelling evidence the merits and truth of your own theist position. And you certainly aren't going to do that by attributing things to ALL of them that perhaps only a fraction of their numbers truly believe.

 

[jarofthoughts]

Holy Strawman Batman!!! :sarcastic

In most major debates with atheists, the "coin in a box" argument is something that always wins. It has never been refuted.

I must say I have never encountered this "argument" before, but I'll be happy to refute it for you now if that's ok.
Let's deal with your strawmen first shall we?

It defeats the atheist principle "The scientific method is the absolute rule on determining reality."

I have never heard an atheist make this claim. I have however myself made the argument that the Scientific Method is the best way we humans have come up with to figure out how the Universe, and consequently reality works.
Considering the track record of scientific advances I'd like to see you refute that if you can. But your premise is, in short, a Strawman.

Which simply means, someone or something must be detected by scientific instruments, or the five senses, or both to be considered reality.

Not accurate. But it is true that if something hasn't been detected by scientific instruments of some kind, or if something's existence can be inferred from available evidence, then there is no reason to think it exists. See Russel's Teapot for a good example. Again, your premise is a strawman.

Refuted on the basis of being a fallacy.

The atheists believe only physical evidence of someone/something is what they consider reality.

While that might be a somewhat accurate description of how I consider reality, that is not in any useful way a correct description of all atheists. An atheist is simply someone who doesn't believe in any god or gods. Everything else is still potentially on the table.

There are three levels of reality that make this atheist principle an utter failure:

You have three "levels" of reality? Wow... I make due with just one.

1) Physical reality

The coin in a box. I hide it deep within the earth (beyond detection), and according to the atheists, if scientific instruments or their five senses cannot detect someone/something, it does not exist.

Well, I hold the coin in my hand and it is real.

"To see is to believe" never worked anyway.

If there is no evidence that the box in the ground exists, then there is no reason to think that it does. It doesn't mean that it unequivocally and with 100% certainty does not exist. It merely means that there is no reason to think it does. Again, a strawman type argument.

Refuted on the basis of being a fallacy.

2) Mental reality (this always wins against atheists in major debates)

Let's assume:

If every person in the world thought of an ice cream at exactly 1pm on the very same day, that is mental reality. It is just as real as physical reality.

The thought is real. The ice cream is not. Big difference.
Reality is reality. You can disbelieve the laws of Gravity as much as you like, but you will still get your face smashed in when you jump from that rooftop.

Whether science detected their thoughts at that time or not can never make that mental reality disappear. So if you ask every person who thought of the ice cream if he/she really thought of an ice cream, you would of course get a positive answer.

You do know that statistical material also counts as scientific evidence, right?
In fact, all of science is based on statistical probability, but you already knew that I suppose.

But wait, by their definition of reality, the atheists MUST say this event did not occur. It cannot be verified because it it is impossible to detect their thoughts by a scientific instrument nor by the five senses.

Once again, a strawman. There is nothing that compels atheists to say this did not occur. While highly improbable, it is physically possible for people to share a thought, and if backed up statistically it would indeed be taken notice of. Investigations would ensue.

So how can atheists even argue that only physical reality is reality? There is such a thing as mental, non-physical reality just as real. If it happened, then it's real. This truth is logically impossible to refute by any atheist.

Strawman, and one that betrays a lack in scientific understanding. The processes of the brain, including those that induce thoughts, are physical phenomena and detectable by the right instruments, for instance fMRI machines.

It only shows the atheist view of what reality/truth is about is fundamentally flawed. "To see is to believe" cannot stand when attacked well.

Strawman. I've never heard an atheist make that argument and also, seeing is not necessarily believing. For instance, if I saw a being of light descend from my roof at this very moment and told me that there is a god and that I should worship him I would sooner think that I had gone mad than to think what I saw was real. I need verifiable independent evidence. My own eyes and my own brain are too easily fooled to be a reliable guide when it comes to such highly improbable sights.

Some atheist argue that thoughts are from the brain only and therefore not reality. This is a fallacious argument. Whether you touched a pencil (physical reality) or thought of a pencil (mental reality), both are reality only because our brain processes it. Both physical and mental reality use brain signals anyway.

Incorrect. Thoughts are from physical processes in the brain and the existence of thoughts are of course thus not in question. That doesn't mean that whatever you can think of has to be real, but the thought of it certainly is. See the difference?

Any event that occurred at a point in time (you can look back and remember it) is considered reality. You cannot deny these two examples (above) happened in the past and are part of reality.

Memories are fickle things and quite malleable. I'd be a fool to completely trust my memories of some distant event. And again, no-one would deny that thinking the thoughts took place. But that is not necessarily so with regards to what the thoughts were about.

You can measure the size of the brain, brain cells, etc. but why can't you measure the size of the ice cream (see above example) I thought about? If it's from the brain alone, then it should be physically measurable as well. We can thus observe that the mind exists and can exist independent of the brain (we can even argue this is at least partial evidence of the existence of a soul).

Nonsense. There is no evidence that the mind can exist independent of the brain and your conclusion has nothing to do with your premise.

It is self-evident that thoughts come from the mind. To say that thoughts come from the brain alone is a fallacy.

Why? Do you have evidence that thoughts come from some other source than your brain?

3) Spiritual reality

The public miracles at Fatima were witnessed by a large number of people in real-time, a first of its kind. That and all miracles take a very long time to be confirmed as truth by the Catholic Church.

Why? Because the Church invites scientists (theist and atheist, agnostic, etc.) to do an independent study on the miracles. If you research online well, the names of some of these experts are given to the public. There is no conspiracy here, just truth.

These are supernatural events with physical evidence, credible observers and an independent scientific study encouraged by the Catholic Church.

I have yet to see any scientific journal publish a study that confirms any form of miracle. Sure there are sometimes things that are unexplained and perhaps mysterious, but you need more, a lot more than that to invoke some sort of supernatural event.

 

[Willamena]

It is self-evident that thoughts come from the mind.

"Mind" is thoughts. It's not self-evident, it's self-referencing.

 

[Krok]

Coin In a Box

In most major debates with atheists, the "coin in a box" argument is something that always wins. It has never been refuted.

Maybe in your deluded brain. In reality the “coin in a box” argument is a straw-man argument. It does not describe what atheists think.

It defeats the atheist principle "The scientific method is the absolute rule on determining reality."

Straw-man. That’s not what atheists think.

Which simply means, someone or something must be detected by scientific instruments, or the five senses, or both to be considered reality.

Straw-man. That’s not what atheists think.

The atheists believe only physical evidence of someone/something is what they consider reality.

Straw-man. That’s not what atheists think.

There are three levels of reality that make this atheist principle an utter failure:

1) Physical reality
The coin in a box. I hide it deep within the earth (beyond detection), and according to the atheists, if scientific instruments or their five senses cannot detect someone/something, it does not exist.

Straw-man. That’s not what atheists think.

Well, I hold the coin in my hand and it is real.

When it’s real, it’s real. No atheist would deny that.

"To see is to believe" never worked anyway.

Straw-man. That’s not what atheists think.

2) Mental reality (this always wins against atheists in major debates)

In your dreams. Any reference to one of the debates won, or are you making it up?

Let's assume: If every person in the world thought of an ice cream at exactly 1pm on the very same day, that is mental reality.

OK, I’ll. Play your game. Let's assume: If every person in the world thought that they won the national lottery at exactly 1pm on the very same day, that is mental reality.

It is just as real as physical reality.

So every person in the world can go and check their bank-balances and see that they won the lotto? If they did it would be physical reality.

It occurred in a point in time, and would be part of historical reality.

A thought is real, but the ice-cream is not. The money neither. Still not physical reality.

Whether science detected their thoughts at that time or not can never make that mental reality disappear.

The ice-cream is still not real. The money is still not real. Neither the ice-cream nor the money will disappear, because they never existed in the first place. Just a thought existed.

So if you ask every person who thought of the ice cream if he/she really thought of an ice cream, you would of course get a positive answer.

Only deluded people would say that the ice-cream and the money they had in their brains are real. In real life, any person who thinks that the ice-cream or the money in the brain is real belongs in some mental institution. It’s called insanity.

But wait, by their definition of reality, the atheists MUST say this event did not occur.

What are you saying now? Atheists think that people can’t think?

It cannot be verified because it is impossible to detect their thoughts by a scientific instrument nor by the five senses.

Again, are you saying that atheists ignore the fact that people can think?

So how can atheists even argue that only physical reality is reality?

Easy, the physical phenomena of thinking is a fact, the objects contained in their dreams are not facts.

There is such a thing as mental, non-physical reality just as real.

No, there’s not. It’s called delusion if you think the objects in the thoughts are real. Mentally insane, actually.

If it happened, then it's real. This truth is logically impossible to refute by any atheist.

What, are you trying to say that if everyone thinks he or she won the lottery the money will appear in their bank accounts?

It only shows the atheist view of what reality/truth is about is fundamentally flawed.

It only shows that I don’t have all that money in the bank and that some theists are mentally insane.

"To see is to believe" cannot stand when attacked well.

I’ll believe my dream when I see all that money in my bank.

Some atheist argue that thoughts are from the brain only and therefore not reality.

That’s what my bank balance indicates.

This is a fallacious argument.

Tell that to my bank manager. Convince him that because I thought of all that money in my bank account, he should put millions into it.

Whether you touched a pencil (physical reality) or thought of a pencil (mental reality), both are reality only because our brain processes it.

When you touch the money then it is a physical reality. When you think of the money it is a mental reality, but it does not turn it into a physical reality where you can touch the money.

Both physical and mental reality use brain signals anyway.

Tell that to my bank manager. He really would be impressed to learn that.

Any event that occurred at a point in time (you can look back and remember it) is considered reality. You cannot deny these two examples (above) happened in the past and are part of reality.

Of course you can deny the fact that I won the lottery even if I think I did. That’s called reality.

You can measure the size of the brain, brain cells, etc. but why can't you measure the size of the ice cream (see above example) I thought about?

You can measure the size of the brain, brain cells, etc. but why can't you measure the amount of money (see above example) I thought about? Maybe because the money only exists in your thoughts and not in reality?

If it's from the brain alone, then it should be physically measurable as well.

Great, you can tell me how much money I won and deposit it into my bank account.

We can thus observe that the mind exists and can exist independent of the brain (we can even argue this is at least partial evidence of the existence of a soul).

How can you say this? Every little piece of evidence we have indicates that when the brain ceases to exist, your mind does too. They are interlinked. The mind can’t exist without the brain. Reality is tough on the deluded, isn’t it?

It is self-evident that thoughts come from the mind.

And it is self-evident that the mind comes from the brain.

To say that thoughts come from the brain alone is a fallacy.

To dream that thoughts don’t come from the brain is a delusion.

3) Spiritual reality

The public miracles at Fatima were witnessed by a large number of people in real-time, a first of its kind. That and all miracles take a very long time to be confirmed as truth by the Catholic Church.

A group of people staring into the sun would actually start seeing weird things. It really can’t be good for the eyes.

Why? Because the Church invites scientists (theist and atheist, agnostic, etc.) to do an independent study on the miracles. If you research online well, the names of some of these experts are given to the public. There is no conspiracy here, just truth.

Everybody knows that staring into the sun is bad for you. You don’t need scientists to tell you that.

These are supernatural events with physical evidence, credible observers and an independent scientific study encouraged by the Catholic Church.

Along with playing with little boys. That’s the only physical reality in the Catholic Church.
It seems that your whole argument is something along the lines of that if you can think about something, that something physically exists. Your argument basically boils down to: if I can think of Allah, then Allah exists. Is this a good summary of your argument?

 

[tumbleweed41]

In most major debates with atheists, the "coin in a box" argument is something that always wins. It has never been refuted.

 

[The_Evelyonian]

In most major debates with atheists, the "coin in a box" argument is something that always wins. It has never been refuted.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Yeah, I don't see why anyone bothered to post long rebuttals to such a weak OP.

 

[Midnight Pete]

With respect I don't think the debate has ever been won or lost. It just trundles along.

Yes, circular arguments can be sustained indefinitely.

 

[Magic Man]

Yeah, I don't see why anyone bothered to post long rebuttals to such a weak OP.

I didn't want to make too long a reply, so I kept it medium. But I replied at all because I'm bored. It was fairly obvious without seeing the other places this has been posted that he's most likely nothing more than a troll, but this is what happens when I have nothing better to do.