A Theistic God - On Balance - Does NOT Exist

Greetings:Thanks n7.I like that we have kept the debate in the realm of Philosophy!I have been paying very close attention to the specific philosophical ideas and schemes. "..there may have been some misunderstanding ... I did not use dualism at all.."Whoa, whoa, whoa...In Round 2, your first & second premise [IS] Dualism: 1. The Mind Exists. 2. The Mind is not Physical. P1 : ""This one is quite obvious. You cannot doubt the mind’s existence. As that is a contradiction. To doubt the mind requires a mind. We are certain that there is thinking, we cannot deny this. This is famously stated by Descartes as “Cogito ergo sum” Or in English “I think, therefore I am". Premise one is justified, the mind exists.""In philosophy of Mind, Dualism is the position that mental phenomena are non physical [1][2][3].You even used Rene Descartes' famous quote, "I think, therefore I am" - "Cogito ergo sum" - Descartes is the father of modern Dualism.The quote is important for several reasons but you are still using it in a Dualist way here. P2 : [IS] Dualism - addressing the Mind-Body problem and Consciousness! As soon as we say the mind exists but it is not material you have clearly entered into classic Dualism.In Round 2, the first sentence of your Premise 3 admits that Dualism is used: ""So far, we’re at dualism.""Your use of Dualism is needed to establish the Mind as being real but not physical. However, you then want to reject Dualism for Idealism - BUT - after you have already selected the Mind-body problem - which is a dualist position for P1 & P2. Also, there is no clear distinction made from Dualism to argue for Idealism until Premise 3.So to now claim Dualism wasn't used at all is a bit disingenuous. I understand that Idealism is what you are trying to get to - but your supporting premise(s) is/are Dualist.P3 : "..Pro does not attack it.."I think you mistake subtlety for complete ignorance. Let's look closer.If P1 or P2 are false or if P3 cannot follow, your argument falls apart.P1 - Yes, the mind exists BUT... P2 - it (the Mind) is the product of a physical systems (the brain) [P2 is what is scientifically & philosophically suspect]. The evidence I have offered is not correlative. It is inductive. You mistake ontology of Mind with inductive scientific methodology if you assume Mind must be identified before we discover that it resides in the brain.In order to secure your P2 you would need to demonstrate and provide evidence that Mind can exist without a physical body! You do not. No evidence is offered or can be offered as no evidence exists objectively. You offered conceptual notions of ZOMBIES instead.You may have made mistake when you went on to say: "The zombie argument attacks physicalism because it’s attacking the claim that the mental is equal to the physical. A disembodied mind world is irrelevant to the argument. Dr. Torin Alter (Professor of philosophy from UCLA) says. “.....most agree that if zombies are metaphysically possible, then physicalism is false.” This is devastating for your case because Torin Alter's quote is intended to be rhetorical precisely because zombies aren't real! "A disembodied mind world is irrelevant.." Your Torin quote supports my case, not yours..! Torin is saying a body without a mind is irrelevant to the debate and used zombies to make the point. P3 - is where you attempt to argue Dualism is false after using Dualism for P1 & P2. You agree with me in P3 (in my answers to your P1 & P2) and even recognize the Casper the Friendly Ghost paradox by admitting: "Cartesian dualism states there is a physical world and a mental world. However, how can these two things interact? If a physical object causes a mental event, there must be some interaction." EXACTLY! - You then go on to mention epiphenomenalism but claim mental events can cause other mental events.. (?) ..then you suggest illusory ideas and go on to suggest ad hoc possibilities.. which leads to absurdities.. and then you end back at dualist-derivatives with issues like physical events being equal to mental events.. brain-states v. mental-states.. ..your rant then ends with a self-validating admission that this renders P3 justified and then you casually smuggle in the conclusion - PRESTO! - We are in the mind of a theistic god - having hilariously "tested" the waters with thought-mind-powers: "We can easily test this. When I conceive of something happening or try to make something happen with my mind, nothing happens.." [P3 cannot follow from P2 & P1]So, again, what would be the difference between saying we are in the mind of God from saying we were conceived in the minds of a race of super intelligent multi-dimensional beings from outside our universe - or a highly complex simulation? Your Answer: "The two aren’t mutually exclusive. The Maker could be running this simulation within his mind....Maybe this simulation is from something not mental. If this were true, then this would be dualism. How could they interact? So that is thrown out too. It still must be from a grand mind."I'm not sure you answered the question. Seems like you need to think about it more.How can we distinguish the difference between something that is truly supernatural from something that doesn't exist at all?Your Answer: "These questions are irrelevant."Round 3 Rebuttals:"One could say the same about mass and gravity. Gravity could just be a byproduct of mass."YES - gravity [IS] how space-time reacts (curves) in the presence of mass! That is exactly what gravity is! That's exactly why I used this example! My exact words were: At one time the Physics community was searching for the Graviton (a sub-atomic particle hypothesised to be responsible for the force of Gravity). A few short years later Relativity swooped in and explained an inexplicable phenomena in nature - gravity is a particle-less force as it is the curvature of space-time warped in the presence of matter. Similarly, much of metaphysics are the reactions of physical systems - our physical bodies (our brain) with and during internal and external stimuli (brain states).Consciousness is also particle-less reaction of physical systems in a material brain."..did not respond to my argument from both correlates.."Yes - Posteriori - and the evidence I have offered is not only correlative, its inductive. we have convergence of BOTH scientific data w/ subjective experience: objective neuroimaging while confirming someone is having a subjective experience (CAT & EEG scans while experience is happening) When a person dies we lose all data, both objective and subjective. This is not correlative, it is inductive. Brains can be observed and eventually die."..Dan Dennett ... how our brains fool us ... Pro never explains how this relates.."Almost - it is actually the other way around; our consciousness is fooled because our brains fail us. This is what we would expect if consciousness stems from an imperfect material brain. Dennett's work is important because this is exactly what we find. "..Amputees - Pro never responds to my rebuttal here.."Your rebuttal was only to decide that God simply chooses not to heal in the very specific cases of amputees. What would be the difference if a theistic god didn't exist? There would be no difference, so your rebuttal doesn't exactly answer anything. You only offer the nice idea that God simply chooses not to heal amputees so we can make our own advances in technology and medicine.This is a retreat to deism. Remember a theistic god is actively involved in Human affairs: healing the sick, answering prayers, etc., but when we isolate for specific cases to address healings which could be coincidental and ambiguous it is an easy out to simply decide - God just chooses not to.You should produce evidence of a amputated limb being miraculously regenerated due to a religious ritual prayer healing ceremony being preformed if you don't like my answer. The theistic god supporters have the burden of proof in this case. Its easier to claim God simply chooses not to than it is to try and provide evidence!A god in Idealism is a watered down theistic god indeed. Without evidence of God's interaction or suspension of the laws of physics in a physical world - the the god of Idealism is a god of deism - not theism."The Casper analogy isn’t that good with idealism." OR - maybe you haven't provided a good solution to the problem. There is no Strawman fallacy. It is an actual problem in philosophy of Mind and in cases for supernatural claims."..Pro’s other questions also fail to demonstrate atheism.." Where and how is Pro obligated to make a case for atheism?!?! Where did that come from?Pro is not obligated to make a case for atheism (check your definitions). A Deist can make the same exact case against theism. Don't confuse the two. Cited Source References:[1] Hart, W.D. (1996) "Dualism", in A Companion to the Philosophy of Mind, ed. Samuel Guttenplan, Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 265-7[2] http://plato.stanford.edu...[3] http://www.iep.utm.edu...[4] [Sam Harris] http://www.youtube.com...