The God Hypothesis is the best scientific explanation for the origins of existence (2)

"C1. The problem of evil" I never said that Evil or Good was subjective but I said that Evil and Good are subjective in CON's worldview. There is no such thing as objective morality because we are just molecules in motion. "C2. Problem of loving too much" Well Like I said before, the logical absolutes apply to God as well. This means , According the law of identity, A can ONLY be A . God who is supposed to be absolute/First cause can only be ALL-good by definition of being ALL-good. Its the "ALL" part that is important to understand here when claiming he can also be evil. This means based the definition of God, it excludes the idea that God can be evil as well by virtue of being absolute or perfect. As humans, we are not perfect because we are contingent beings. In other words, the law of identity by itself would not exclude the attribute of evil but the definition of God would exclude it and therefore the law of identity would exclude it in the process "C3. We know personal relationships must depend on some kind of similarity in sociology, but God is almost the opposite of us and all our limitations." I am not exactly sure why this is considered a logical contradiction so CON would need to elaborate on this. Nevertheless, in a materialistic sense, yes we would be the opposite of God. However, when it comes to the mind which I will argue in a moment is a separate entity, The only difference between God's mind and ours would be that one is absolute and the other is a contingent entity. Now, in terms of empiricism, I would argue that God has manifested himself in the person of Jesus Christ. However, since I would have to use the historical method and we are doing this within the realm of science, so I will abstain from that. "C4. Omnipotence paradox" According to the law of non-contradiction, God cannot be All powerful and not all-powerful at the same time "C5. Why us?" See item C3 "B5. If it's not an abstraction it must be a disembodied mind" Before I start to explain why we have no reason to believe CON's proposition that the mind/brain are identical, I am going to explain why we have every reason to believe that they are separate entities. However, I don't want people to be mistaken for the argument that the soul is completely independent from the brain as CON suggested. That is a separate claim. I'm arguing that the mind is a different entity that is causal in nature. Here we go: First, What neuroscience has done is provide us with a more detailed picture of how the human mind is influenced by certain events in the brain. It has not changed the general nature of that picture. The fact that much of what happens in our minds is influenced by what happens in our bodies was something known by the first self-conscious human beings. Second, not everything that goes on in our minds is causally determined by what goes on in our bodies. Sometimes what goes on in our bodies is a result of what goes on in our minds. For example, the movements of my fingers as I type this response is ultimately produced my mental events or Con choosing to accept my debate topic led to an intention to type up a response. Here we have mental-to-physical causation. What explains both this choice of mine and the physical events in my body that are ultimately produced by this choice? The explanation is the purpose that I provide an answer to your question. A purposeful explanation is a teleological explanation. It is well known that those who identify the mind with the brain typically deny that any of us freely (indeterministically) make choices for purposes. Materialists like CON are typically determinists who insist that the only legitimate kind of explanation is a non-teleological explanation. Causal explanations are the most well-known and frequently used kind of non-teleological explanations. Those who exclude the possibility of teleological explanations are often called naturalists. Third, I believe it is important to note that some of the world's foremost neuroscientists have believed that the mind is immaterial. These neuroscientists have been well aware that stimulating the brain can produce some intriguing psychological results. One of the pioneers in the field of neuroscience was Wilder Penfield. In his fascinating book The Mystery of the Mind, he writes the following: When I have caused a conscious patient to move his hand by applying an electrode to the motor cortex of one hemisphere, I have often asked him about it. Invariably his response was: "I didn't do that. You did". When I caused him to vocalize, he said:" I didn't make that sound". You pulled it out of me.When I caused the record of the stream of consciousness to run again and so presented to him the record of his past experience, he marveled that he should be conscious of the past as well as of the present. He was astonished that it should come back to him so completely, with more detail than he could possibly recall voluntarily. He assumed at once that, somehow, the surgeon was responsible for the phenomenon, but he recognized the details as those of his own past experience. (76) Penfield goes on to note that, "There is no place in the cerebral cortex where electrical stimulation will cause a patient . . . to decide (77). This is consistent with my point that choices are undetermined events with a teleological explanation. In light of his work as a neuroscientist, Penfield concludes the following: For my own part, after years of striving to explain the mind on the basis of brain-action alone, I have come to the conclusion that it is simpler (and far easier and logical) if one adopts the hypothesis that our being does consist of two fundamental elementsï¿½ (80). Another famous neuroscientist who believed that the mind is immaterial was Sir John C. Eccles. He and the widely respected philosopher of science Sir Karl Popper wrote a book entitled The Self and Its Brain in which they argued that the human mind is best understood along interactionist dualist lines (the mind and brain are separate entities that causally interact). In conclusion, neuroscience provides no evidence whatsoever that the mind is identical with its brain. Those who believe (like CON) that it does provide such evidence bring their naturalist convictions to the evidence. In other words, they are already naturalists (materialists) before they do their neuroscience. Fourth, we might ask why neuroscientists like Penfield and Eccles believed in the immateriality of the mind, even though they were well aware of the causal dependency of many psychological events on brain events. I believe that part of the answer is that they did not confuse the concept of the correlation of two events with the concept of the identity of two events. It simply does not follow from the fact that two events are correlated that they are identical. Correlation does not prove causation, so this is a logical fallacy on CON's part. There is the fact that movements of bodily limbs like arms and legs are correlated with events in the motor cortex of the brain. No one believes, however, that movements of arms and legs are identical with their causal antecedents in the brain. Upon reflection, it is just as obvious that there is no good reason to believe that psychological events are identical with brain events simply because the two are correlated. CON's claim that mind/brain is only the product of the universe and biochemical reactions is even self-refuting on his part. If These physical properties are limited only by other physical properties, then that means there is no such thing as logic in CON's worldview. Logic is the process of proper inference. If biochemical reactions are all CON is thinking, then all his counter arguments and supposed refutation of claims that what he perceives to be logically true and necessary is nothing more than chemical reactions in his brain. I ran out of space, So I will address the other objections later.