The Instigator
killshot
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Athias
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Contender's Choice (Atheist vs? )

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/5/2019 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,064 times Debate No: 120181
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (50)
Votes (0)

 

killshot

Pro

I am an atheist. I will let the contender choose the topic of debate, But please keep the topic concise and direct so we can have an actual conversation. Let's go! :)
Athias

Con

Our argument will focus on the proposition, "If God is immaterial, God therefore would not exist. " You accepted this debate in the comments section. You also presupposed to my acceptance that reality is real. If you don't mind, Round 2 will consist of opening arguments, Rounds 3 & 4 will consist of rebuttals and rejoinders, And Round 5 will consist of closing arguments. Since Round 2 starts with you, You will start.
Debate Round No. 1
killshot

Pro

I'll try to keep my opening argument short and direct.

We should start this off by clarifying what "God" we are talking about, As that really makes a drastic difference. In the comments I presupposed it was the Christian God, And you did not correct me. If this is some abstract deity that exists in some immeasurable way, Then it's not falsifiable.

It is possible for immaterial things to exist in non-physical ways. God could exist as a concept or a thought, For example. That would not be reducible to any form of physicality once it's been reduced beyond the anatomical level of the mind and it's sub components. I am not aware of any examples of immaterial things that can have physical affects on our reality. This is not to say it is impossible, But it's delusional to our understanding of reality from a naturalistic view.

The God of the Christian Bible, Who I am still assuming we are discussing, Has direct impacts on our reality, According to it's theology. The God listens to thoughts, Intervenes in peoples lives and even speaks to some of the people. He has manifested himself physically, Performed physical miracles, And still somehow seems to circumvent all naturalistic interceptions and tests. If a God has physical effects on reality, It is testable and demonstrable. For example, If praying heals people, We could test that.

Reality is comprised of natural occurrences. If something supersedes reality, Then it is supernatural by definition, And outside the scope of what we can falsify. An immaterial God to me, Assuming we are talking about the same thing, Is supernatural and therefore by definition of reality does not exist.
Athias

Con

Since our discussion is focused on the proposition, "If God is immaterial, God therefore would not exist, " it is my onus and intention to refute it as the contender. This proposition presupposes a fundamentally materialist reality--i. E. Objects and phenomena which exist have material explanations. It should be noted that in the comments section, My opponent described himself as a naturalist, Not a materialist. I contend however that this distinction is semantic, Not conceptual, Given that naturalism is a monism which gauges nature using materialist principles (i. E. Nature is physical and falsifiable. ) Furthermore, Since my opponent asserts that God's being immaterial/supernatural renders God nonexistent (or to not exist, ) my opponent is clearly making an ontological argument contingent on an a priori posit, Which he will have to substantiate: supernatural/immaterial = nonexistent.

Now let's consider this: I have two objects of identical composition (same element, Atomic/molecular structure, Mass/weight, Etc. ) However, One is in the shape of a tetrahedron and the other, A sphere. According to the materialist/naturalist perspective, There's no difference between these two objects; or, The difference between these two objects are supernatural, Immaterial, Or as my opponent would put it, "magical. " Since the shapes aren't falsifiable, No difference exists between them. In other words, The difference between the tetrahedron and sphere is not a natural occurrence and therefore isn't real. This naturally begs the question: how are we able to identify, Distinguish, And describe that which isn't real? One can see the differences in three dimensions between a tetrahedron and a sphere. Shapes are immaterial concepts which affect the physical--at the very least, Our perception of it.

What about numbers? Numbers are abstract and immaterial, And the way in which we relate them (arithmetic) is abstract and immaterial, Too. Does mathematics have no affect on reality considering it's supernatural? Is Mathematics not real because one cannot falsify numbers in nature? What about consciousness? There has yet to be any material or natural explanation for consciousness. Naturalism/Materialism/Anti-"Magic" would posit that "you" don't exist; the only thing which exists is the matter of which you are composed. That means for example the love one has for family, Siblings, Relatives, Friends, The experience one gains, And/or the awareness one has for oneself isn't real because we can't falsify it using naturalistic standards. These inferences using naturalism are absurd when extended to their logical conclusions and I will address these absurdities as the discussion goes on.

Through my reductios ad absurdum, I intend to convey moving forward that my opponent faces a conundrum: if reality is comprised of only natural occurrences, Then how would he explain the immaterial/supernatural/magical premises used to account for nature? And if he cannot explain how supernatural premises can account for nature, Will he then be willing to concede the condition God's allegedly being supernatural/immaterial doesn't necessarily render God to not exist? Hopefully we can hash this out through our rebuttals and rejoinders.

(For the record, We did not presuppose a Christian God. I asked you that which you claimed you could prove as it relates to God's nonexistence. You selected the Christian God based on the description in the Bible being contradictory to natural laws and inconsistent with history. My question was meant to gauge the extent of your Atheism, Which would inform the selection of the topic, Not its content. If you desire to keep your focus on the Christian God, It would be all the same to me. The only thing we presupposed was that reality was real (e. G. 2=2) and this will come up again as our debate progresses. )
Debate Round No. 2
killshot

Pro

Your examples about shapes and numbers and arithmetic were hinged on the stapling argument that concepts are not material. I clearly conceded in my opening argument that there are things that exist, Such as a thought or concept (I literally spelled it out), That have no physicality and would be considered immaterial. I feel like you may have ignored that entirely and stormed on with your argument.

We exist and reality is real, As we agreed. It seems to me that a concept is intrinsically dependent on the mind that creates it. Do we have any examples of concepts without a mind? I would contend that without a mind, Concepts would not exist. Our mind is physical, Therefore, Concepts are an extension of our physicality.

Existence is an ontological, Empirically observable property of being, Referring to the ability of an entity to directly or indirectly, Interact with the reality. Concepts interact with reality through their extended physicality in our mind. Thoughts and concepts have physical neural directives that invoke biological function. Therefore, A thought can indirectly interact with reality and it meets the definition of existence. Does an immaterial God? You mentioned nothing else, Except an immaterial God. I can't conceive of a way in which that could interact with reality either directly or indirectly. If it does, Then it's detectable and would be considered to exist, Otherwise it doesn't exist by definition.

You said, "If you desire to keep your focus on the Christian God, It would be all the same to me. "

I would contend that it most certainly wouldn't, Because the Christian God is not the abstract immaterial most basic definition of a God imaginable. The Christian God intervenes with reality and has real natural effects on our reality that would be detectable scientifically.

Sources: https://en. Wikipedia. Org/wiki/Existence
Athias

Con

Rebuttal #1

"Your examples about shapes and numbers and arithmetic were hinged on the stapling argument that concepts are not material. I clearly conceded in my opening argument that there are things that exist, Such as a thought or concept (I literally spelled it out), That have no physicality and would be considered immaterial. I feel like you may have ignored that entirely and stormed on with your argument. "

No, I have not ignored that you stated a thought or concept can exist in non-physical ways. In fact, I'm holding you to that assertion. I'm also holding you to your assertion that "reality is comprised of natural occurrences. " Furthermore, You are ignoring the nature of the proposition of which you agreed to argue in favor, "If God is immaterial, God therefore would not exist. " What does this suggest? It presupposes a materialist reality (I've already mentioned as much. ) This is not semantics or "obfuscation. " It's pretty straightforward. So any consideration of thoughts or concepts as immaterial is an epistemological insignificance as it concerns your position, Or a metaphysical posit of a truth which you have yet to substantiate.

Rebuttal #2
"We exist and reality is real, As we agreed. "

We agreed reality is real. That much was made clear in the comments section and in round 1. Any addition to this presupposition is post hoc.

Rebutal #3

"It seems to me that a concept is intrinsically dependent on the mind that creates it. Do we have any examples of concepts without a mind? I would contend that without a mind, Concepts would not exist. Our mind is physical, Therefore, Concepts are an extension of our physicality. "

Seem is not an argument; seem is an impression. If you're going to state that the mind is physical you're going to have to substantiate this. Not to mention, If you sustain that thoughts and concepts are physical, Then they are material, Rendering any consideration for thoughts as immaterial irrelevant or false. If the mind is physical and thoughts and concepts are conceived to express and extend the physicality of our brains, Then why are thoughts distinguishable? How can we give description and meaning to these distinctions despite no changes in the physicality of our brains? If thoughts are nothing more than matrices of synaptic processes and bioelectrical activities, Why are thoughts and concepts not reproducible? Case in point: I punch my brother in the arm, And he yelps; the second time, I punch him just as hard, He remains silent and attempts to punch me in return. Why? After all, The stimulation of C-fibers are the same; the brain activity is the same; yet a different thought manifests? (Less you intend to respond that this difference is not testable and therefore does not exist. ) Or is there no conceptual difference between yelping and retaliation?

Case in point #2: What is the difference between two and four? Two and four are abstractions that are not falsifiable in nature. They are subjective forms that give description and meaning to our perception--meaning which is not reproducible by any brain activity. Even emotions which are assigned to particular patterns of brain activity are abstractions which give description to neurotransmitters like dopamine and secretion of hormones like oxytocin.

Case in point #3: Let's use your own statements, "It is possible for immaterial things to exist in non-physical ways. God could exist as a concept or a thought, For example. That would not be reducible to any form of physicality once it's been reduced beyond the anatomical level of the mind and it's sub components. I am not aware of any examples of immaterial things that can have physical affects on our reality. This is not to say it is impossible, But it's delusional to our understanding of reality from a naturalistic view. "

So then, How can a thought exist outside of its extension of physicality if as you state "thoughts and concepts are extensions of our physicality? And if you're going to use naturalist argument as a metaphysical posit of existence and reality, You must substantiate this. If your posit is made a priori, Then you must concede that your concept of naturalism needs not be tested to be real, Undermining the concept of naturalism.

Rebuttal #4
"Existence is an ontological, Empirically observable property of being, Referring to the ability of an entity to directly or indirectly, Interact with the reality. Concepts interact with reality through their extended physicality in our mind. Thoughts and concepts have physical neural directives that invoke biological function. Therefore, A thought can indirectly interact with reality and it meets the definition of existence. Does an immaterial God? You mentioned nothing else, Except an immaterial God. I can't conceive of a way in which that could interact with reality either directly or indirectly. If it does, Then it's detectable and would be considered to exist, Otherwise it doesn't exist by definition. "

If we subscribe to this definition, Then how do you account for the existence of mathematics? You stipulated a presupposition that reality is reality, Particularly using as an example 2=2. Why? What distinction in neural directives distinguishes the abstraction of 2=2 and 2=3, Or 2=4? Once again, Numbers are abstractions that are not falsifiable in nature--meaning you can't "test" for 2. You can test for matter, But relating them by assigning quantity is a subjective form. In other words, I cannot observe the number 2 independent of objects to relate. And I can't relate them without assigning meaning to the distinction; and there has yet to be physical evidence which informs these distinctions, Yet you posit a fallacious syllogism that the mind is physical, The expression of conscious mind is conceived through thought and concept, Therefore the thoughts and concepts, Including their descriptions and distinctions, Are physical. In your presupposition you

Rebuttal #5
"I would contend that it most certainly wouldn't, Because the Christian God is not the abstract immaterial most basic definition of a God imaginable. The Christian God intervenes with reality and has real natural effects on our reality that would be detectable scientifically. "

It's all the same to me because regardless of which God you choose, You have to provide information to the proposition, "If God is immaterial, God therefore would not exist. " If the Christian God substantiates your position, Then I'll leave you to it. If it doesn't, That is a concern you'll have to address. It is my obligation to refute your argument. That is, God's alleged immaterial being does not necessarily render God nonexistent. I'm doing this by taking your premises to their logical conclusions, And demonstrating their absurdity (reductio ad absurdum. )

Rebuttal #6

"Sources: https://en. Wikipedia. Org/wiki/Existence"

Use a precise source. Wikipedia is a composite of information using multiple sources. Please reference your information directly.
Debate Round No. 3
killshot

Pro

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. 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. 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.

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. 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.

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.
Athias

Con

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.
Debate Round No. 4
killshot

Pro

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 information

I 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.
Athias

Con

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.
Debate Round No. 5
50 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by backwardseden 3 years ago
backwardseden
Whoops, Sorry about that. I made a miss-steak. I stated "Personally I think the very best that is on Amazon" and then presented a list of both TV shows and films. Those films ARE NOT available on Amazon! They are available on Netflix. So sorry about the error.
Please tc and haveth thee fun -Michael
Posted by backwardseden 3 years ago
backwardseden
OK so onto Netflix. . . There's a whole ton I can recommend. It just depends on what you watch because within my life I've probably have seen roughly 10, 000 films and TV shows. Do you get Amazon Prime or Hulu also because I do get both of those also? I do believe that Amazon Prime, Though I cannot stand the layout of it, Is catching up with Netflix as they are getting the classics because Netflix is more interested in creating their own films and TV series. Hey when you are ready to spend $5 billion to do as such = hard to disagree with that. But Hulu has slipped and is not doing all that much. But at only $6 per month, I figure that with me watching only one thing, I've made my money back.
Among my fav films are Ran, Hair, The Wages of Fear, Koyaanisqatsi, Yojimbo, Children of Paradise, Ugetsu Monogotari, Alexander Nevsky, Danton, Planet of the Apes, The Thin Red Line.
Granted none of those are available on Netflix, Amazon Prime or Hulu. However, Ugetsu, Alexander Nevsky and Danton are all available on youtube!

Personally I think the very best that is on Amazon is Schindler's List, Breaking Bad, Black Mirror, Daredevil Season 3, Jessica Jones Season 1 (forget season 2), The Punisher season 1 (I haven't seen season 2 yet) Twilight Zone, The Raid Redemption, American Horror Story Seasons 1 and 7, Anon, Extinction, B: The Beginning, Moon, Train to Busan, Okja, Hero, The Fall (series Netflix does not have the masterpiece visionary film), One Strange Rock (as stated a true must! ), Lots of James Bond films, All the Indiana Jones films, Voltron: Legendary Defender, Mars (National Geographic docudrama series landing and making it to Mars), West Side Story, Monty Python's Holy Grail and Life of Brian + everything else, Logan's Run, Dances With Wolves, Atomic Puppet, Makkhi (Bollywood at its finest! Hero is murdered, Reincarnated as a tsetse fly then seeks revenge! HILARIOUS! ) The Epic Tales of Captian Underpants (hilarious), Gargantia on Verdurous Planet
Posted by backwardseden 3 years ago
backwardseden
@killshot - In absolutely no possible way are you "losing. I cannot defend the proposition you gave me, " because you've outclassed and out-mastered your opponent Athias in a serious huge monumental way. Again what he does is he tries to outgun and outplay his opponents by thinking he can change the rules of the game/ debates by changing the definitions of simpleton terms/ definitions that are very easy to understand by someone who has passed the 8th grade into his very own terminologies and definitions. By doing this he thinks and believes he can outwit and outsmart his grieving opponents and thus take easy control of his debates with one swift stroke. Now to 100% prove that this is correct. . . Notice how his language has completely changed 100% from his arguments and when he's talking in the comments to you? Wow.
For me these true hero's of "word salad" as you put it, And yep its correct, Are so amazingly easy to spot because indeed they think, Dream, Rationalize, Reason that in their fields of knowledge that they are far superior to everybody else because of their expediential use of words rather than presenting actual evidence. Yes, I am guilty of this sometimes. But its because not that I do not have the evidence to present to my opponents, It is because I am truly frustrated with my opponents lack of intelligence and education and or him/ her just deliberately trying to play games as Athias clearly wanted to play his muddled silly pity feel sorry for lil ole me dancing on a pole without his rainblows bunny suit did. So it becomes insult time with my dumb, Stupid, Deadpan, Idiotic, Moronic, One of a kind, Original (no I'm not bragging) insults as they are all my own thought up from my scar tissue mummified pigeon feather filled brain, Or I walk away. My friends wonder where I get my insults from? I have no idea. They pop into my head on the spur of the moment or I use old ones that I've remembered from about 3, 000 or so.
Posted by Athias 3 years ago
Athias
@killshot: It's fine. If you disagree with my estimation, Then we'll leave it at that. I don't take this sort of stuff personally; it's as you said, We don't know each other. We'll continue our debate as is.
Posted by killshot 3 years ago
killshot
@athias - It's not a pretense. I'm new here and I don't know you, Or anyone else. You could be a total a**hole or a very nice guy. I'm not passing judgement on you. So far I've enjoyed our debate and you seem really nice and intelligible. Like I pre-warned you, Philosophy is not my wheelhouse, But I accepted your challenge and I'm giving it my best arguments. I'll be honest, I know I'm losing. I cannot defend the proposition you gave me, No one can. But, I'm giving it my best and having fun. Any issues you think I have with you are just immaterial abstract concepts that don't exist :)
Posted by Athias 3 years ago
Athias
@killshot: It's fine. I'm just not the type to indulge pretenses. I call it how I see it.
Posted by killshot 3 years ago
killshot
@athias I have no grievances with you. We're just having a friendly debate
Posted by Athias 3 years ago
Athias
@killshot: Let's not play games. If you were giving me "the benefit of the doubt" you wouldn't have bothered to incorporate or even entertain backwardseden's specious rhetoric into your response. I didn't bother answering him because I gave you the benefit of the doubt of not being influenced by his attempts to provoke. The only time I acknowledge backwardseden outside of my last two comments was to acknowledge that the two of you had interacted. Other than that, His statements are irrelevant. His estimations are irrelevant. Whichever grievance you bear with my intentions or my particular mindset can be hashed out in our debate (though that would be entertaining ad hominems, ) not in a conversation with another who's intent on sowing discord because of a debate he lost.
Posted by killshot 3 years ago
killshot
@backwards I'm a Netflix addict haha. I watch literally anything and everything. You?
Posted by killshot 3 years ago
killshot
@athias I said I was giving you the benefit of the doubt assuming you are NOT playing games. I'm trying to have a fair/open debate without personal bias. This is our first time debating so I am not accusing you of anything, In fact - the opposite. It did seem like you ignored me when I said things like concepts and thoughts exist and God could exist in the same way. But, That being said, I'm excited for your response.
No votes have been placed for this debate.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.