Contender's Choice (Atheist vs? )

Double Rejoinder #1 "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. " Perhaps, But your statement is an abstract which isn't falsifiable; you're presuming this under the premise that the brain is responsible for an infinite variety of thoughts in response to a single stimulus. Not only have you not provided substance to this statement, But also you've undermined the very naturalist perspective on which you base your arguments of reality--i. E. To verify and falsify, Not argue abstracts. Double Rejoinder #2 "I don't understand what you meant here. " The scientific method consists of experimentation, Controlling for variables, And reproducing results; that is, After all, How we gauge nature. Yet none of this has been used to explain choice or self-awareness. You've thus far stated a syllogistic fallacy--i. E. The brain is physical; therefore the mind (consciousness) is physical; hence thoughts are physical. You've used abstract thoughts to substantiate allegedly physical observations. Double Rejoinder #3 "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. And how do we falsify "experience"? Experience has meaning--whichever meaning one ascribes it--only when we give it description. We don't have have to experiment, Control, Or reproduce this. All evidence doesn't show that thoughts come as a result of a brain's biochemistry; all evidence points to the brain producing bioelectrical activity, The "sensation" of which is given description by the individual. There's yet to be evidence which observes a person's thinking let alone the content of that which one is thinking. Biolectrical activity in the brain is correlated and categorized based on the description of the individuals involved. "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. . . Yes it does change your underlying point. As I stated above, The EEG doesn't observe the thought. It observes the activity in the brain in response to the stimulus, And relies on correlates to give description to the activity. The description isn't physical, That is, We're not observing any form of matter. And this matters (no pun intended) because your syllogism doesn't allow correlation; it allows only for causes--i. E. The brain is physical; therefore the physicality of the brain causes (not correlates with) the mind to be physical; hence, The mind causes (not correlates with) the thought to be physical. All you've done to provide substance to that syllogism is to proffer abstract generalities. Final Rejoinder "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. . . 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. " And Marvel character, "Thanos, " is an extension of paper panels and color pencils. God is an extension of papyrus and iron gall inks. If the extension you argue makes that which you state (a thought) a "natural occurrence, " then why does the physicality of the aforementioned not extend to that which you allege is fiction? What meaning is derived from acknowledging that a thought has a yet to be discovered material explanation while postulating that the thought manifests from the brain? That would be like my saying "The occurrences in Marvel Movies aren't 'real, ' but the images themselves are generated by computers. " Making this connection doesn't make Mathematics, Shapes, Or even the scientific method any less immaterial concepts. "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. " How does one perceive something without thinking about it? Weren't you the one who stated above that a thought reflects the brain's constant augmenting and mapping of neural pathways as it reacts to stimuli? Your statement makes no sense. "Obviously, This cannot be proven to an absolute, Nothing can. " No one is asking for absolutes; only for sound information toward the effect which you argue. " 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. " There are a few things wrong with this statement. Immaterial things aren't physical by definition; So any correlation you argue is meaningless less you suppose that the immaterial is material by extension--a contradictory supposition. Second, Your conclusion "Therefore, An immaterial God does not exist" is a non sequitur denoting a logical fallacy known as argument from ignorance, particularly argument from self-knowing where you suppose existence is contingent on your autoepistemic standard. In other words, Your awareness is irrelevant. And last, The proposition over which we argue, Once again, Is "If God is immaterial, God would therefore not exist. " You seek to qualify this by adding "unless they are correlated back to a physical entity. " Not only have you demonstrated no significance in this correlation you allege, But also it makes no sense: no conception of God is without thought. Material or Immaterial, Human thought is in the equation. Closing Arguments 1. My opponent contradicted his own position in the very first round when he stated "It is possible for immaterial things to exist in non-physical ways. " His onus is to affirm the proposition he allowed me to select, Which was "If God is immaterial, God therefore would not exist. " By having stated the possibility of immaterial existence, He clearly undermined his own affirmation. 2. When introduced to the absurd prospect that his position would infer the non-existence of mathematics and shapes, Concepts on which his materialist/naturalist position is premised, My opponent backpedaled and proposed an insignificant correlation between the manifestation of thought and the brain. I state this as insignificant because he still acknowledges that thoughts aren't physical, Despite his attempt to extend the physicality of the brain to thoughts. 3. I refuted his affirmation by demonstrating the absurdity in his proposition's argument (reductios ad absurdum) which would infer mathematics, Shapes, Numbers, Love, Experience, Our own self awareness, Even the standard which he uses to ontologically argue nonexistence, As nonexistent because they aren't falsifiable in nature. Thank you, Killshot. And thank you, Onlookers. Vote well.