Total Posts:73|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Atheism has a fundamental problem

Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2015 9:58:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Something mental cannot interact with what is non-mental.

(1) If atheism is true, the fundamental reality is non-mental.

(2) If the fundamental reality is non-mental, nobody could ever conceive of it.

(3) If we can never conceive of our fundamental reality, all worldviews that seek to explain the fundamental reality are illusory.
Rubikx
Posts: 226
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2015 10:17:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/16/2015 9:58:27 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Something mental cannot interact with what is non-mental.

Not true. Using technology today people are able to manipulate machines using only their minds.

(1) If atheism is true, the fundamental reality is non-mental.

Why? What is the connection between the two?

(2) If the fundamental reality is non-mental, nobody could ever conceive of it.

Why? We perceive or "conceive" a non-mental reality around us all the time.

(3) If we can never conceive of our fundamental reality, all worldviews that seek to explain the fundamental reality are illusory.

What are you trying to demonstrate here? how is atheism and a (non)mental universe related? are you saying that if atheism means a non-mental universe that religion means that we are making are own version of the universe? What is the purpose of this post?
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2015 10:22:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/16/2015 9:58:27 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Something mental cannot interact with what is non-mental.

(1) If atheism is true, the fundamental reality is non-mental.

(2) If the fundamental reality is non-mental, nobody could ever conceive of it.

(3) If we can never conceive of our fundamental reality, all worldviews that seek to explain the fundamental reality are illusory.

Are you writing fortune cookies? Working up for a debate with Vi_sp??

This is meaningless.
SNP1
Posts: 2,404
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2015 10:25:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
The universe is non-mental, our senses allow us to get an image of that universe, and mental processes are physical, thus we have a "mental image" of the universe around us.

Now, if you want to argue that the senses are not reliable, you can. Thing is, that also works to destroy theism. If we want to push it back there is only one thing that can be known with absolute certainty, that you are a thinking being.

Ben, you used to at least make good point. It was rare, but it happened. Now? It is all crap.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2015 10:37:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/16/2015 9:58:27 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Something mental cannot interact with what is non-mental.

(1) If atheism is true, the fundamental reality is non-mental.

(2) If the fundamental reality is non-mental, nobody could ever conceive of it.

Question begging. We all accept that we can conceive of reality, so your argument is nothing more than "a non-mental reality cannot be conceived of because I say so".

BTW, placing the word "fundamental" in front of "reality" is incoherent. For the 100th time... There is just "reality".
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2015 10:37:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/16/2015 10:17:25 PM, Rubikx wrote:
At 4/16/2015 9:58:27 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Something mental cannot interact with what is non-mental.

Not true. Using technology today people are able to manipulate machines using only their minds.

Something physical is still mental. Mental means "of or relating to the mind".

(1) If atheism is true, the fundamental reality is non-mental.

Why? What is the connection between the two?

Because the mental realm emerged from a non-mental state.

(2) If the fundamental reality is non-mental, nobody could ever conceive of it.

Why? We perceive or "conceive" a non-mental reality around us all the time.

That's oxymoronic. Anything that can be conceived is mental.

(3) If we can never conceive of our fundamental reality, all worldviews that seek to explain the fundamental reality are illusory.

What are you trying to demonstrate here? how is atheism and a (non)mental universe related? are you saying that if atheism means a non-mental universe that religion means that we are making are own version of the universe? What is the purpose of this post?

I'm demonstrating that atheism can't describe the fundamental reality given that its logically impossible for something mental to describe something non-mental.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2015 10:41:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/16/2015 10:25:08 PM, SNP1 wrote:
The universe is non-mental, our senses allow us to get an image of that universe, and mental processes are physical, thus we have a "mental image" of the universe around us.

Then you must explain how something non-mental can interact with something mental.

Now, if you want to argue that the senses are not reliable, you can. Thing is, that also works to destroy theism. If we want to push it back there is only one thing that can be known with absolute certainty, that you are a thinking being.

Ben, you used to at least make good point. It was rare, but it happened. Now? It is all crap.
Rubikx
Posts: 226
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2015 10:41:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/16/2015 10:37:26 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 4/16/2015 10:17:25 PM, Rubikx wrote:
At 4/16/2015 9:58:27 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Something mental cannot interact with what is non-mental.

Not true. Using technology today people are able to manipulate machines using only their minds.

Something physical is still mental. Mental means "of or relating to the mind".

(1) If atheism is true, the fundamental reality is non-mental.

Why? What is the connection between the two?

Because the mental realm emerged from a non-mental state.

(2) If the fundamental reality is non-mental, nobody could ever conceive of it.

Why? We perceive or "conceive" a non-mental reality around us all the time.

That's oxymoronic. Anything that can be conceived is mental.

(3) If we can never conceive of our fundamental reality, all worldviews that seek to explain the fundamental reality are illusory.

What are you trying to demonstrate here? how is atheism and a (non)mental universe related? are you saying that if atheism means a non-mental universe that religion means that we are making are own version of the universe? What is the purpose of this post?

I'm demonstrating that atheism can't describe the fundamental reality given that its logically impossible for something mental to describe something non-mental.

I can describe something non-mental in my mind mentally. anyway, what does this have to do with atheism. I still haven't seen any connection between the mental properties of the universe and atheism.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2015 10:43:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/16/2015 10:37:04 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 4/16/2015 9:58:27 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Something mental cannot interact with what is non-mental.

(1) If atheism is true, the fundamental reality is non-mental.

(2) If the fundamental reality is non-mental, nobody could ever conceive of it.

Question begging. We all accept that we can conceive of reality, so your argument is nothing more than "a non-mental reality cannot be conceived of because I say so".

A non-mental reality can't be conceived because *conceiving* is a mental process.

BTW, placing the word "fundamental" in front of "reality" is incoherent. For the 100th time... There is just "reality".

It depends on if we're talking about a fundamental vs emergent reality so I don't see your point.
Rubikx
Posts: 226
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2015 10:43:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/16/2015 10:41:00 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 4/16/2015 10:25:08 PM, SNP1 wrote:
The universe is non-mental, our senses allow us to get an image of that universe, and mental processes are physical, thus we have a "mental image" of the universe around us.

Then you must explain how something non-mental can interact with something mental.
touch, smell, sight, hearing, taste. All of these non-mental stimuli are converted into mental processes through our brains.

Now, if you want to argue that the senses are not reliable, you can. Thing is, that also works to destroy theism. If we want to push it back there is only one thing that can be known with absolute certainty, that you are a thinking being.

Ben, you used to at least make good point. It was rare, but it happened. Now? It is all crap.
celestialtorahteacher
Posts: 1,369
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2015 10:44:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Atheism has several fundamental problems that make the ideology pure bullshite.

FATAL FLAWS of ATHEISM include
1) Zero experiential knowledge of spiritual phenomena by atheists. Without having any idea of what spiritual consciousness or spiritual contact with God is, atheists are only showing the world how dumb they are to believe, and yes it takes a real fundamentalist belief headset to hold atheist cockamammy ideas, that lack of knowledge of the subject matter atheists make so many claims about, is not only silly but when carried to extreme lengths atheists do, arguing their lack of knowledge every day on internet religious discussion forums, it is worthy of contempt and ridicule, the works of narcissists who can't reason their way to defend atheist lack of knowledge so they pretend lack of knowledge of spiritual events isn't necessary. And that's just plain dumb ego tripping and should be delegated to failed debate ideas.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2015 10:46:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/16/2015 10:43:32 PM, Rubikx wrote:
At 4/16/2015 10:41:00 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 4/16/2015 10:25:08 PM, SNP1 wrote:
The universe is non-mental, our senses allow us to get an image of that universe, and mental processes are physical, thus we have a "mental image" of the universe around us.

Then you must explain how something non-mental can interact with something mental.
touch, smell, sight, hearing, taste. All of these non-mental stimuli are converted into mental processes through our brains.

Describe non-mental stimuli. Describe their color, textures, smells, sounds, etc., if need be.

Now, if you want to argue that the senses are not reliable, you can. Thing is, that also works to destroy theism. If we want to push it back there is only one thing that can be known with absolute certainty, that you are a thinking being.

Ben, you used to at least make good point. It was rare, but it happened. Now? It is all crap.
Rubikx
Posts: 226
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2015 10:49:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/16/2015 10:46:38 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 4/16/2015 10:43:32 PM, Rubikx wrote:
At 4/16/2015 10:41:00 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 4/16/2015 10:25:08 PM, SNP1 wrote:
The universe is non-mental, our senses allow us to get an image of that universe, and mental processes are physical, thus we have a "mental image" of the universe around us.

Then you must explain how something non-mental can interact with something mental.
touch, smell, sight, hearing, taste. All of these non-mental stimuli are converted into mental processes through our brains.

Describe non-mental stimuli. Describe their color, textures, smells, sounds, etc., if need be.

It all depend on where you draw the line between mental and non-mental. It could be argued all mental processes are just chemical and electrical reactions in our brains. So what do you define as a mental process?

Now, if you want to argue that the senses are not reliable, you can. Thing is, that also works to destroy theism. If we want to push it back there is only one thing that can be known with absolute certainty, that you are a thinking being.

Ben, you used to at least make good point. It was rare, but it happened. Now? It is all crap.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2015 10:50:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/16/2015 10:41:39 PM, Rubikx wrote:
At 4/16/2015 10:37:26 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 4/16/2015 10:17:25 PM, Rubikx wrote:
At 4/16/2015 9:58:27 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Something mental cannot interact with what is non-mental.

Not true. Using technology today people are able to manipulate machines using only their minds.

Something physical is still mental. Mental means "of or relating to the mind".

(1) If atheism is true, the fundamental reality is non-mental.

Why? What is the connection between the two?

Because the mental realm emerged from a non-mental state.

(2) If the fundamental reality is non-mental, nobody could ever conceive of it.

Why? We perceive or "conceive" a non-mental reality around us all the time.

That's oxymoronic. Anything that can be conceived is mental.

(3) If we can never conceive of our fundamental reality, all worldviews that seek to explain the fundamental reality are illusory.

What are you trying to demonstrate here? how is atheism and a (non)mental universe related? are you saying that if atheism means a non-mental universe that religion means that we are making are own version of the universe? What is the purpose of this post?

I'm demonstrating that atheism can't describe the fundamental reality given that its logically impossible for something mental to describe something non-mental.

I can describe something non-mental in my mind mentally. anyway, what does this have to do with atheism. I still haven't seen any connection between the mental properties of the universe and atheism.

Don't you see the contradiction there? "Mental" means of or relating to the mind. Anything that your mind perceives is mental.

Atheism posits that the fundamental reality is non-mental. All consciousness, including our perceptions of reality emerged from it. It wouldn't make much sense to posit that everything derived from consciousness while denying the existence of God would it?
celestialtorahteacher
Posts: 1,369
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2015 10:52:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Other FATAL FLAWS of ATHEISM include lack of logic: The atheist position that no one can "prove" God's existence is based on the faulty idea, same one Muhammad used btw, that the Past dictates all future knowledge acquisition. In other words while Muhammadans try to say all knowledge stopped with Muhammad 1400 years ago and nothing significant has been learned since, athiests are quite as bad as that, when they think all knowledge stops with their knowledge of things, both forgetting no one has been able to stop human beings from learning new things. So, the logic is that destroys atheism is this is the 21st Century, Look at the increase in human knowledge in the past 200 years including ways of examining previously though of "invisible forces" like electricity, like radiation, like gravity, like spiritual phenomena..So no atheists know what the future knowledge acquisition will bring so no ultimate statements about spiritual phenomena can be logically defended. Who knows what we will know in 2200 A.D., 3300 A..D. 10,000 A.D. .
Rubikx
Posts: 226
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2015 10:52:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/16/2015 10:50:23 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 4/16/2015 10:41:39 PM, Rubikx wrote:
At 4/16/2015 10:37:26 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 4/16/2015 10:17:25 PM, Rubikx wrote:
At 4/16/2015 9:58:27 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Something mental cannot interact with what is non-mental.

Not true. Using technology today people are able to manipulate machines using only their minds.

Something physical is still mental. Mental means "of or relating to the mind".

(1) If atheism is true, the fundamental reality is non-mental.

Why? What is the connection between the two?

Because the mental realm emerged from a non-mental state.

(2) If the fundamental reality is non-mental, nobody could ever conceive of it.

Why? We perceive or "conceive" a non-mental reality around us all the time.

That's oxymoronic. Anything that can be conceived is mental.

(3) If we can never conceive of our fundamental reality, all worldviews that seek to explain the fundamental reality are illusory.

What are you trying to demonstrate here? how is atheism and a (non)mental universe related? are you saying that if atheism means a non-mental universe that religion means that we are making are own version of the universe? What is the purpose of this post?

I'm demonstrating that atheism can't describe the fundamental reality given that its logically impossible for something mental to describe something non-mental.

I can describe something non-mental in my mind mentally. anyway, what does this have to do with atheism. I still haven't seen any connection between the mental properties of the universe and atheism.

Don't you see the contradiction there? "Mental" means of or relating to the mind. Anything that your mind perceives is mental.

Atheism posits that the fundamental reality is non-mental. All consciousness, including our perceptions of reality emerged from it. It wouldn't make much sense to posit that everything derived from consciousness while denying the existence of God would it?

So are you saying the whole universe is in fact mental? or in other words we made up the universe in our minds?
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2015 10:52:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/16/2015 10:49:46 PM, Rubikx wrote:
At 4/16/2015 10:46:38 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 4/16/2015 10:43:32 PM, Rubikx wrote:
At 4/16/2015 10:41:00 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 4/16/2015 10:25:08 PM, SNP1 wrote:
The universe is non-mental, our senses allow us to get an image of that universe, and mental processes are physical, thus we have a "mental image" of the universe around us.

Then you must explain how something non-mental can interact with something mental.
touch, smell, sight, hearing, taste. All of these non-mental stimuli are converted into mental processes through our brains.

Describe non-mental stimuli. Describe their color, textures, smells, sounds, etc., if need be.

It all depend on where you draw the line between mental and non-mental. It could be argued all mental processes are just chemical and electrical reactions in our brains. So what do you define as a mental process?

"mental" is anything that is of or relating to the mind. It is literally impossible for any of us to know what a "non-mental" reality is like.

Now, if you want to argue that the senses are not reliable, you can. Thing is, that also works to destroy theism. If we want to push it back there is only one thing that can be known with absolute certainty, that you are a thinking being.

Ben, you used to at least make good point. It was rare, but it happened. Now? It is all crap.
Rubikx
Posts: 226
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2015 10:53:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/16/2015 10:52:55 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 4/16/2015 10:49:46 PM, Rubikx wrote:
At 4/16/2015 10:46:38 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 4/16/2015 10:43:32 PM, Rubikx wrote:
At 4/16/2015 10:41:00 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 4/16/2015 10:25:08 PM, SNP1 wrote:
The universe is non-mental, our senses allow us to get an image of that universe, and mental processes are physical, thus we have a "mental image" of the universe around us.

Then you must explain how something non-mental can interact with something mental.
touch, smell, sight, hearing, taste. All of these non-mental stimuli are converted into mental processes through our brains.

Describe non-mental stimuli. Describe their color, textures, smells, sounds, etc., if need be.

It all depend on where you draw the line between mental and non-mental. It could be argued all mental processes are just chemical and electrical reactions in our brains. So what do you define as a mental process?

"mental" is anything that is of or relating to the mind. It is literally impossible for any of us to know what a "non-mental" reality is like.

Now, if you want to argue that the senses are not reliable, you can. Thing is, that also works to destroy theism. If we want to push it back there is only one thing that can be known with absolute certainty, that you are a thinking being.

Ben, you used to at least make good point. It was rare, but it happened. Now? It is all crap.

That doesn't mean that a non-mental reality doesn't exist. Just because we can't observe something doesn't mean its not real.
celestialtorahteacher
Posts: 1,369
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2015 10:55:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
These are the End Times of Atheism as the ideology cannot be logically defended. It rests on the same sort of blind faith in hearsay that atheism shares with its mirror image, Evangelical fundamentalist religious beliefs
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2015 10:56:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/16/2015 10:52:48 PM, Rubikx wrote:
At 4/16/2015 10:50:23 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 4/16/2015 10:41:39 PM, Rubikx wrote:
At 4/16/2015 10:37:26 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 4/16/2015 10:17:25 PM, Rubikx wrote:
At 4/16/2015 9:58:27 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Something mental cannot interact with what is non-mental.

Not true. Using technology today people are able to manipulate machines using only their minds.

Something physical is still mental. Mental means "of or relating to the mind".

(1) If atheism is true, the fundamental reality is non-mental.

Why? What is the connection between the two?

Because the mental realm emerged from a non-mental state.

(2) If the fundamental reality is non-mental, nobody could ever conceive of it.

Why? We perceive or "conceive" a non-mental reality around us all the time.

That's oxymoronic. Anything that can be conceived is mental.

(3) If we can never conceive of our fundamental reality, all worldviews that seek to explain the fundamental reality are illusory.

What are you trying to demonstrate here? how is atheism and a (non)mental universe related? are you saying that if atheism means a non-mental universe that religion means that we are making are own version of the universe? What is the purpose of this post?

I'm demonstrating that atheism can't describe the fundamental reality given that its logically impossible for something mental to describe something non-mental.

I can describe something non-mental in my mind mentally. anyway, what does this have to do with atheism. I still haven't seen any connection between the mental properties of the universe and atheism.

Don't you see the contradiction there? "Mental" means of or relating to the mind. Anything that your mind perceives is mental.

Atheism posits that the fundamental reality is non-mental. All consciousness, including our perceptions of reality emerged from it. It wouldn't make much sense to posit that everything derived from consciousness while denying the existence of God would it?

So are you saying the whole universe is in fact mental? or in other words we made up the universe in our minds?

I'm just pointing out the problems with deriving our consciousness from the non-mental. Personally, yes, I believe that everything is mental. If God (a mental being) created this universe then it follows logically.
celestialtorahteacher
Posts: 1,369
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2015 10:57:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Only agnosticism is a valid philosophy of inquiry. Atheism has made up its mind based on too little data and thus invalidates all atheist claims.
celestialtorahteacher
Posts: 1,369
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2015 10:57:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Only agnosticism is a valid philosophy of inquiry. Atheism has made up its mind based on too little data and thus invalidates all atheist claims.
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2015 12:35:30 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/16/2015 9:58:27 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Something mental cannot interact with what is non-mental.

Why can't the mental interact with the non-mental? What would you describe as non-mental, anyway?

(1) If atheism is true, the fundamental reality is non-mental.

(2) If the fundamental reality is non-mental, nobody could ever conceive of it.

(3) If we can never conceive of our fundamental reality, all worldviews that seek to explain the fundamental reality are illusory.
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2015 12:54:35 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/16/2015 9:58:27 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Something mental cannot interact with what is non-mental.

(1) If atheism is true, the fundamental reality is non-mental.

(2) If the fundamental reality is non-mental, nobody could ever conceive of it.

(3) If we can never conceive of our fundamental reality, all worldviews that seek to explain the fundamental reality are illusory.

That's dualism, you teat. Reposting it in this folder doesn't make you any more spectacularly dumb for attacking a traditionally theist position. What you describe above is a problem for dualists, not atheists.
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2015 1:09:31 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/16/2015 10:37:26 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 4/16/2015 10:17:25 PM, Rubikx wrote:
At 4/16/2015 9:58:27 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Something mental cannot interact with what is non-mental.

Not true. Using technology today people are able to manipulate machines using only their minds.

Something physical is still mental. Mental means "of or relating to the mind".

Don't all things that humans think about, relate to the human mind?
What is your definition of non-mental? Please give an example of something non mental. Are you saying machines and all things that have no mind of their own are still mental because of our human perception of them?

(1) If atheism is true, the fundamental reality is non-mental.

How do you figure that fundamental reality is "non-mental" when reality is physical and you said something physical is still mental?
Whether atheism is true or false is irrelevant to whether any reality is mental or non-mental.
Do you make some kind of distinction between reality and "fundamental" reality? What about virtual reality?

Why? What is the connection between the two?

Because the mental realm emerged from a non-mental state.

That seems to be a belief based on a fantasy.
Since the mental realm is physical and you need a physical and mental thing to reproduce a physical and mental thing, how do you get a physical thing from something non-mental or non physical? Please describe the process in detail.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2015 4:19:04 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/16/2015 9:58:27 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Something mental cannot interact with what is non-mental.

(1) If atheism is true, the fundamental reality is non-mental.

(2) If the fundamental reality is non-mental, nobody could ever conceive of it.

(3) If we can never conceive of our fundamental reality, all worldviews that seek to explain the fundamental reality are illusory.

1) If theism is true we exist only in the mind of God
2) Things that exist only in the mind are imaginary
C) Therefore we are imaginary

Holy crap on a cracker BOG was right !!!

I can create syllogism too.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Otokage
Posts: 2,352
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2015 4:42:13 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/16/2015 9:58:27 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Something mental cannot interact with what is non-mental.

But that's blatantly false isn't it? You are interacting with something mental right now, or do you think the words I'm typing do not have their origin on my mind?

(1) If atheism is true, the fundamental reality is non-mental.

I don't see how this makes any sense. You should elaborate.

(2) If the fundamental reality is non-mental, nobody could ever conceive of it.
(3) If we can never conceive of our fundamental reality, all worldviews that seek to explain the fundamental reality are illusory.

???
Bennett91
Posts: 4,237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2015 5:43:47 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/16/2015 9:58:27 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Something mental cannot interact with what is non-mental.

(1) If atheism is true, the fundamental reality is non-mental.

(2) If the fundamental reality is non-mental, nobody could ever conceive of it.

(3) If we can never conceive of our fundamental reality, all worldviews that seek to explain the fundamental reality are illusory.

So? It seems your criticism is if there is no God there is no omniscience. Again Ben, swing and a miss.
Nac
Posts: 326
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2015 6:02:17 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/16/2015 9:58:27 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Something mental cannot interact with what is non-mental.
Could you please cite your source? Or defend this premise?
(1) If atheism is true, the fundamental reality is non-mental.
Do you mean it is automatically naturalistic? Atheism does not state that the universe is materialistic. It merely rejects the concept of a God.
(2) If the fundamental reality is non-mental, nobody could ever conceive of it.
Same as first sentence.
(3) If we can never conceive of our fundamental reality, all worldviews that seek to explain the fundamental reality are illusory.
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2015 7:46:52 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/16/2015 9:58:27 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Something mental cannot interact with what is non-mental.

(1) If atheism is true, the fundamental reality is non-mental.

Athiesm does not entail physicalism.

(2) If the fundamental reality is non-mental, nobody could ever conceive of it.

No justification given.

(3) If we can never conceive of our fundamental reality, all worldviews that seek to explain the fundamental reality are illusory.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic