A Theistic God - On Balance - Does NOT Exist

May the Maker watch over you. Dualism Pro still suggests I’m arguing for dualism. Yes I quoted Descartes, but this doesn’t mean I agree with absolutely everything he said. For example, Pro quoted Dan Dennett, who is an Eliminative materialist. However, Pro himself agrees with premise one, so he’s only using Dennett’s argument, not position. Dualism contains the premise that the mind is non-physical, but it’s a fallacy of composition to claim every position that claims the mind is non-physical is dualism. Pro’s sources demonstrate he is using a texas sharpshooter fallacy, The term ‘dualism’ has a variety of uses in the history of thought. In general, the idea is that, for some particular domain, there are two fundamental kinds or categories of things or principles…...In the philosophy of mind, dualism is the theory that the mental and the physical—or mind and body or mind and brain—are, in some sense, radically different kinds of thing. [1] Where did I argue for such a thing? My argument is clearly arguing for the mind and brain being the same. IEP says “Dualists in the philosophy of mind emphasize the radical difference between mind and matter. They all deny that the mind is the same as the brain, and some deny that the mind is wholly a product of the brain.”[2] There really is no way I can use such a thing. Some dualists use these arguments to demonstrate dualism, but it doesn’t follow that these argument use dualism, as that’s a fallacy of composition. For example, Pro could use his argument to demonstrate atheism and I’m sure atheists use his argument, however this doesn’t mean Pro is using atheism. I also clearly said what I meant by “so far we’re at dualism”. In the last round I did. “What I was implying was that premise 2 leaves open dualism. Refuting dualism closes that hole, leading us to idealism.” Premise two Pro continues to assert with no evidence that zombies are not enough to demonstrate premise two. He has yet to provide any philosophical support and he continues to ignore my support against this. Let me explain this again. If A=B, then what’s true for A is true for B. If the mind is identical to the physical, then conceiving of world that has a physical identical me, would automatically have consciousness. However, we can conceive of a world in which I exist, but not my consciousness. Then the mind is not identical to the brain. I presented this in my second round and Pro has yet to show why this is doesn’t support P2. He then speculates without support about Alter’s quote. Pro has not shown Alter’s quote was “intended to be rhetorical precisely because zombies aren't real!”. However Alter was defending the conceivability of zombies from an argument [3]. He never shows how Alter is supporting him. Pro in fact said “Torin is saying a body without a mind is irrelevant to the debate and used zombies to make the point.” Let quote Torin. “the claim that zombies are conceivable may have considerable significance” [3] Alter is clearly saying they have relevance. He claims I confuse the ontology of the mind with scientific induction. Pro is attempting to derive the ontology from science, which I am arguing against and have been arguing against. A colorblind neuroscientist cannot look at the neurons in the brain and conclude he knows what red is. In the correlations part, he just restates his argument. I’m not sure how else to say this. You’re not responding to my argument, you’re just restating your argument. Pro is begging the question, you can’t defend your argument by restating your argument. Furthermore my argument that idealism can have correlations went unaddressed. Later on he talks about how gravity is a byproduct of mass. Even if I said this was true, it’s only trivially true, as it’s an analogy. Nothing would really be proved. Anyway, gravity isn’t a byproduct in the way Pro wants the mind to be. Pro wants the mind to be something like digestion of the body. Something epiphenomenal. Which I’ve responded to. Premise three I think Pro read too much into me saying he didn’t attack this premise. I didn’t mean that Pro must attack it, I was just following my format I set up in R2. This wasn’t meant as a critique. Although he does talk about some things I’ve said later on. He never addresses anything. He does vaguely criticize it. However, it is very vague and is complete assertion. Dan Dennett Pro’s argument here is completely self-refuting. Something I brought up in the last round, but was never addressed. How can I trust Pro when he’s saying “our consciousness is fooled because our brains fail us” when he is using his fooled consciousness to say that. Pro has put himself in a box of epistemological paralysis. Pro’s Questions Q 1&5: Problem of interaction It seems Pro dropped this argument. He only says the Casper analogy with idealism is not good because idealism isn’t good. However, this is ignoring my justification for this. The differences went unaddressed. Pro attempts to respond to me in Q5 by saying “I'm not sure you answered the question. Seems like you need to think about it more.” Does Pro bother to explain how I didn’t answer the question? No. We know the difference because this appealing to polytheism does nothing for him and a highly complex simulation is irrelevant or gets us to dualism. Pro’s argument is refuted, he has dropped it and ignored my justification for the differences between idealism and Q 2&3: Epistemology of the Supernatural Completely dropped by Pro. Q4: Amputees Claiming The Maker doesn’t interact with humanity in one case doesn’t mean we doesn’t interact at all. It is a fallacy of composition to claim because we have no evidence of The Maker interacting in one area of life, he doesn’t interact at all. Furthermore, his argument is an argument from ignorance. In fact under idealism, every time physical systems interact, that is an interaction of The Maker. Since The Maker projects reality. So a deistic Maker isn’t the same as an idealistic Maker. Atheism It appears this is a minor error on my part. Pro does not have to make a case for atheism, only against theism. I still contend that Pro’s case against theism fails. Dropped Arguments Pro has dropped a ton of arguments. * It seems like he was trying to make some point in the “Universe” section, however he never makes it. * My argument from the general absurdity of mental be caused or equal to the physical was unaddressed throughout the debate. * He never responded fully to me in the problem of interaction. * He drops entirely his 2nd and 3rd question from the epistemology of the supernatural. * He drops entirely his argument that it’s obvious that there is an objective reality * He never addressed my argument that idealism can have mind-body correlations * He drops all his questions about death and animals. Now to Pro for his final. Sources [1] http://plato.stanford.edu... [2] http://www.iep.utm.edu... [3] http://www.disputatio.com... Blessings of Andraste