Contender's Choice (Atheist vs? )

I want to prefix this last round with a thanks to @Athias for being a fun contender. Although we disagree, At least for the purposes of debate, This has been fun and challenging and I'd love to do it again sometime. Thanks :)Yes, But this augmentation is undefined as a reproducible occurrence. It isn't earth shattering that a different thought occurred, But his reaction particularly the second time around was subject to choice. He could've yelped again. Why didn't he? And if he had, Would this mean that his brain was not augmenting and mapping neural pathways as it reacts to stimuli? You say it's an extension of physicality but there's yet to evidence which informs the content of a thought, Let alone the subjective meaning we ascribe them. It may have been his direct choice or it could have been a autonomous defensive mechanism. Either way, This is just speculatory. My point was - brains learn and change and therefore can/do produce variaties of thoughts/reactions. Never stated that it was the same spot. That would would be a different stimulus. Fair enough. That's exactly my point. All that be can stated are abstracts with yet to be discovered physical informationI don't understand what you meant here. The ordinal connection between the physicality of the brain and that of concept is a presumption made a priori. It is not evidence-based. One could argue the converse and state that the physics of the brain cannot exist without the concept which informs it. This is true. It is an a priori presumption. But this presumption is based on what we experience in reality, Which we agree is real. The converse is not possible in our reality, As far as we can discern. All evidence shows that thoughts come as a result of the brains bio-chemistry. I'm not saying that with absolute positivity, Because I can't say anything with absolute positivity, But I am making a reasonable assertion based on the facts of the reality we co-experience. The EEG's convey correlates not causes. They are physiological reactions to stimuli that can be reproduced in a lab. It is true that the EEG demonstrates correlates, But that doesn't change my underlying point. When a person is fed stimuli and reacts with a thought, It can be demonstrated in EEG's and other tests. The thought came after the brain's initial stimuli. Thoughts are clearly extensions of the physiological mind, Even we if don't understand all of the mechanisms involved. There is a clear correlation here that shows intangible thoughts manifest from a physical mind. That was my point. This argument contradicts your other argument, "Because [thoughts] are extensions of the physicality of the mind. "Which is it? According to your suggested description, Even the thought or concept of God would be an extension of the mind's physicality or an "augmentation and mapping of neural pathways as it reacts to stimuli. " Therefore God is a natural occurrence. If however you choose to acknowledge a quality to thought and its distinctions in content which is not informed by natural/material explanation, Then your argument falls apart, And you'd have to concede your position would infer that even abstracts like shapes and mathematics, Concepts which inform the natural sciences, Would not exist because they themselves are immaterial. That is not what I was saying, Or at least not what I meant, Let me clarify. There are things that, For all intents and purposes, "exist" that are immaterial, Such as thoughts. This is an age old philosophical conundrum, Which is why I carefully predicated my opening argument with it. There are also logical absolutes that "exist". Logical absolutes I would argue have no physicality, Whatsoever. Logical absolutes were however contrived by the mind, Which kind of puts them in a gray area (chicken/egg situation) for me, But that's a different subject. Either way, I recognize they exist because we use them in our reality. A thought to me is clearly a subsequent manifestation of the brains biology and it's an extension of that. So although the thought itself has no physicality, It only exists as an extension of something that does have a physicality. However, If the immaterial God we are debating about is not a thought or logical absolute, Then it has no basis in our reality and it doesn't exist by definition. Obviously, This cannot be proven to an absolute, Nothing can. But, Assuming reality is real, Immaterial things do not exist, Unless they are correlated back to a physical entity, Such as a brain. Based on our shared experiences in reality, I am unaware of anything that "exists" that isn't a derivitive of the mind. Therefore, An immaterial God does not exist.