Contender's Choice (Atheist vs? )

Since our discussion is focused on the proposition, "If God is immaterial, God therefore would not exist, " it is my onus and intention to refute it as the contender. This proposition presupposes a fundamentally materialist reality--i. E. Objects and phenomena which exist have material explanations. It should be noted that in the comments section, My opponent described himself as a naturalist, Not a materialist. I contend however that this distinction is semantic, Not conceptual, Given that naturalism is a monism which gauges nature using materialist principles (i. E. Nature is physical and falsifiable. ) Furthermore, Since my opponent asserts that God's being immaterial/supernatural renders God nonexistent (or to not exist, ) my opponent is clearly making an ontological argument contingent on an a priori posit, Which he will have to substantiate: supernatural/immaterial = nonexistent. Now let's consider this: I have two objects of identical composition (same element, Atomic/molecular structure, Mass/weight, Etc. ) However, One is in the shape of a tetrahedron and the other, A sphere. According to the materialist/naturalist perspective, There's no difference between these two objects; or, The difference between these two objects are supernatural, Immaterial, Or as my opponent would put it, "magical. " Since the shapes aren't falsifiable, No difference exists between them. In other words, The difference between the tetrahedron and sphere is not a natural occurrence and therefore isn't real. This naturally begs the question: how are we able to identify, Distinguish, And describe that which isn't real? One can see the differences in three dimensions between a tetrahedron and a sphere. Shapes are immaterial concepts which affect the physical--at the very least, Our perception of it. What about numbers? Numbers are abstract and immaterial, And the way in which we relate them (arithmetic) is abstract and immaterial, Too. Does mathematics have no affect on reality considering it's supernatural? Is Mathematics not real because one cannot falsify numbers in nature? What about consciousness? There has yet to be any material or natural explanation for consciousness. Naturalism/Materialism/Anti-"Magic" would posit that "you" don't exist; the only thing which exists is the matter of which you are composed. That means for example the love one has for family, Siblings, Relatives, Friends, The experience one gains, And/or the awareness one has for oneself isn't real because we can't falsify it using naturalistic standards. These inferences using naturalism are absurd when extended to their logical conclusions and I will address these absurdities as the discussion goes on. Through my reductios ad absurdum, I intend to convey moving forward that my opponent faces a conundrum: if reality is comprised of only natural occurrences, Then how would he explain the immaterial/supernatural/magical premises used to account for nature? And if he cannot explain how supernatural premises can account for nature, Will he then be willing to concede the condition God's allegedly being supernatural/immaterial doesn't necessarily render God to not exist? Hopefully we can hash this out through our rebuttals and rejoinders. (For the record, We did not presuppose a Christian God. I asked you that which you claimed you could prove as it relates to God's nonexistence. You selected the Christian God based on the description in the Bible being contradictory to natural laws and inconsistent with history. My question was meant to gauge the extent of your Atheism, Which would inform the selection of the topic, Not its content. If you desire to keep your focus on the Christian God, It would be all the same to me. The only thing we presupposed was that reality was real (e. G. 2=2) and this will come up again as our debate progresses. )