Contender's Choice (Atheist vs? )

Rebuttal #1 "Your examples about shapes and numbers and arithmetic were hinged on the stapling argument that concepts are not material. I clearly conceded in my opening argument that there are things that exist, Such as a thought or concept (I literally spelled it out), That have no physicality and would be considered immaterial. I feel like you may have ignored that entirely and stormed on with your argument. " No, I have not ignored that you stated a thought or concept can exist in non-physical ways. In fact, I'm holding you to that assertion. I'm also holding you to your assertion that "reality is comprised of natural occurrences. " Furthermore, You are ignoring the nature of the proposition of which you agreed to argue in favor, "If God is immaterial, God therefore would not exist. " What does this suggest? It presupposes a materialist reality (I've already mentioned as much. ) This is not semantics or "obfuscation. " It's pretty straightforward. So any consideration of thoughts or concepts as immaterial is an epistemological insignificance as it concerns your position, Or a metaphysical posit of a truth which you have yet to substantiate. Rebuttal #2 "We exist and reality is real, As we agreed. " We agreed reality is real. That much was made clear in the comments section and in round 1. Any addition to this presupposition is post hoc. Rebutal #3 "It seems to me that a concept is intrinsically dependent on the mind that creates it. Do we have any examples of concepts without a mind? I would contend that without a mind, Concepts would not exist. Our mind is physical, Therefore, Concepts are an extension of our physicality. " Seem is not an argument; seem is an impression. If you're going to state that the mind is physical you're going to have to substantiate this. Not to mention, If you sustain that thoughts and concepts are physical, Then they are material, Rendering any consideration for thoughts as immaterial irrelevant or false. If the mind is physical and thoughts and concepts are conceived to express and extend the physicality of our brains, Then why are thoughts distinguishable? How can we give description and meaning to these distinctions despite no changes in the physicality of our brains? If thoughts are nothing more than matrices of synaptic processes and bioelectrical activities, Why are thoughts and concepts not reproducible? Case in point: I punch my brother in the arm, And he yelps; the second time, I punch him just as hard, He remains silent and attempts to punch me in return. Why? After all, The stimulation of C-fibers are the same; the brain activity is the same; yet a different thought manifests? (Less you intend to respond that this difference is not testable and therefore does not exist. ) Or is there no conceptual difference between yelping and retaliation? Case in point #2: What is the difference between two and four? Two and four are abstractions that are not falsifiable in nature. They are subjective forms that give description and meaning to our perception--meaning which is not reproducible by any brain activity. Even emotions which are assigned to particular patterns of brain activity are abstractions which give description to neurotransmitters like dopamine and secretion of hormones like oxytocin. Case in point #3: Let's use your own statements, "It is possible for immaterial things to exist in non-physical ways. God could exist as a concept or a thought, For example. That would not be reducible to any form of physicality once it's been reduced beyond the anatomical level of the mind and it's sub components. I am not aware of any examples of immaterial things that can have physical affects on our reality. This is not to say it is impossible, But it's delusional to our understanding of reality from a naturalistic view. " So then, How can a thought exist outside of its extension of physicality if as you state "thoughts and concepts are extensions of our physicality? And if you're going to use naturalist argument as a metaphysical posit of existence and reality, You must substantiate this. If your posit is made a priori, Then you must concede that your concept of naturalism needs not be tested to be real, Undermining the concept of naturalism. Rebuttal #4 "Existence is an ontological, Empirically observable property of being, Referring to the ability of an entity to directly or indirectly, Interact with the reality. Concepts interact with reality through their extended physicality in our mind. Thoughts and concepts have physical neural directives that invoke biological function. Therefore, A thought can indirectly interact with reality and it meets the definition of existence. Does an immaterial God? You mentioned nothing else, Except an immaterial God. I can't conceive of a way in which that could interact with reality either directly or indirectly. If it does, Then it's detectable and would be considered to exist, Otherwise it doesn't exist by definition. " If we subscribe to this definition, Then how do you account for the existence of mathematics? You stipulated a presupposition that reality is reality, Particularly using as an example 2=2. Why? What distinction in neural directives distinguishes the abstraction of 2=2 and 2=3, Or 2=4? Once again, Numbers are abstractions that are not falsifiable in nature--meaning you can't "test" for 2. You can test for matter, But relating them by assigning quantity is a subjective form. In other words, I cannot observe the number 2 independent of objects to relate. And I can't relate them without assigning meaning to the distinction; and there has yet to be physical evidence which informs these distinctions, Yet you posit a fallacious syllogism that the mind is physical, The expression of conscious mind is conceived through thought and concept, Therefore the thoughts and concepts, Including their descriptions and distinctions, Are physical. In your presupposition you Rebuttal #5 "I would contend that it most certainly wouldn't, Because the Christian God is not the abstract immaterial most basic definition of a God imaginable. The Christian God intervenes with reality and has real natural effects on our reality that would be detectable scientifically. " It's all the same to me because regardless of which God you choose, You have to provide information to the proposition, "If God is immaterial, God therefore would not exist. " If the Christian God substantiates your position, Then I'll leave you to it. If it doesn't, That is a concern you'll have to address. It is my obligation to refute your argument. That is, God's alleged immaterial being does not necessarily render God nonexistent. I'm doing this by taking your premises to their logical conclusions, And demonstrating their absurdity (reductio ad absurdum. ) Rebuttal #6 "Sources: https://en. Wikipedia. Org/wiki/Existence" Use a precise source. Wikipedia is a composite of information using multiple sources. Please reference your information directly.