Contender's Choice (Atheist vs? )

Rejoinder #1 "Your analogy of being punched multiple times is flawed. It's evidently clear that the human brain is constantly augmenting and mapping neural pathways as it reacts to stimuli. It's a giant neural network that is being fed stimuli from multiple sensory preceptors. So being punched multiple times and having a different thought to the repeated stimuli is not an earth shattering concept. " 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. "Not to mention, Being punched in the same spot has a physiological affect in the area such as bruising and swelling. This reaction is triggered autonomously by the brain. " Never stated that it was the same spot. That would would be a different stimulus. "Repeating stimuli is not necessarily going to give the same result every time. Carrot/stick conditioning I would argue is analogous to this as well. " That's exactly my point. All that be can stated are abstracts with yet to be discovered physical information Rejoinder #2 "Can a thought or a concept exist without a mind? I would argue no, Because they are extensions of the physicality of the mind. Underlying biological functions manifest these abstract 'entities', Or however you would like to label them. " 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 clear in EEG's and other tests that show the brain has a physiological reaction to things such as arithmetic, Empathy, Etc. These conceptual entities are extensions of biological processes in the brain. This is of course different from a logical absolute. Logical absolutes are still true regardless of whether there is a mind to conceive of them. " The EEG's convey correlates not causes. "An immaterial God, Unless we're referring to it as being a logical absolute or a conceived extension of the mind, Has no basis in reality and therefore does not exist by definition. If we are talking about the concept or the thought of an immaterial God, Sure, That abstract exists as an extension of the mind, But the entity it's referring to does not, Because it has no physicality in reality. " 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.