There is no logical argument to support ATHEISM

[Paul.]

Meaning, consciousness manifests from the brain.

I believe you are claiming that the brain is the source of consciousness. It logically follows that when the brain ceases to function, the consciousness ceases to exist? What evidence or logical reasoning shows that this is a correct statement of truth?

It means what I stated prior, that "I have not seen demonstration to anything outside 'materialism.' " Just like I have not seen sufficient demonstration for the assertion of alien sightings, haunted houses, ghosts, etc..

I don't believe in the Loch Ness monster, Bigfoot or the Yeti because I have not seen sufficient evidence to prove their existence but this does not mean I am claiming to have evidence that proves their lack of existence. While I do not believe they exist I am forced to accept the possibility that they could exist even though I highly doubt it. Do you consider that to be a rational and logical position?

Great. Care to provide information on your conclusions, which present an element/feature/characteristic/other, which demonstrates the existence of another realm, outside materialism - (which does not impose a plausible blank assertion or fallacious reasoning)?

My confirmation that I fully understand your position will result in the provision of further information in relation to my position. I do not want to misrepresent your position so I am still taking the time to understand it and I hope that you will provide the same courtesy to me when the time comes.

 

[cvanwey]

I believe you are claiming that the brain is the source of consciousness. It logically follows that when the brain ceases to function, the consciousness ceases to exist?

My claim is that 'materialism' is all (I) can account for, at present. The brain falls under the scope of 'materialism', at present. And sure, a reasonable amount of evidence suggests that consciousness manifests from the brain, at present.

What evidence or logical reasoning shows that this is a correct statement of truth?

Please do not turn my statements into something I am not claiming....

There is a reason I highlighted 'consciousness' in my initial response. We seem to 'know' that such states originate from parts of the brain. Do we agree that consciousness does manifest from the brain? And no, I'm not asserting that the brain is the only origin of consciousness. I'm merely asserting that the brain is at least one source for consciousness. If we agree here, then it becomes silly for me to elaborate further in your request. If we do not agree, then I guess we can explore...

However, the onus is on (you) to demonstrate that consciousness can manifest from [any other origin or source]. If this is where you might be planning on going; for which I have a hunch you might; as you seem hyper vigilant to explore this particular topic

I don't believe in the Loch Ness monster, Bigfoot or the Yeti because I have not seen sufficient evidence to prove their existence but this does not mean I am claiming to have evidence that proves their lack of existence. While I do not believe they exist I am forced to accept the possibility that they could exist even though I highly doubt it. Do you consider that to be a rational and logical position?

I'll accept this line of reasoning, without any further given addendum or caveats, sure.

My confirmation that I fully understand your position will result in the provision of further information in relation to my position. I do not want to misrepresent your position so I am still taking the time to understand it and I hope that you will provide the same courtesy to me when the time comes.

I appreciate the fact that you really do not want to later straw man me. And sure, let's explore together. Care to answer my question now?

Care to provide information on your conclusions, which present an element/feature/characteristic/other, which demonstrates the existence of another realm, outside materialism - (which does not impose a plausible blank assertion or fallacious reasoning)?

 

[Paul.]

My claim is that 'materialism' is all (I) can account for, at present. The brain falls under the scope of 'materialism', at present. And sure, a reasonable amount of evidence suggests that consciousness manifests from the brain, at present.

I accept that brain matter is a material or physical thing. You would have to prove that consciousness is only a result of physical interactions for me to accept that or put consciousness in the maybe it is or maybe it isn’t only a result of physical interactions category.

Please do not turn my statements into something I am not claiming.... .

My apologies. I will be more careful in the future.

I'm merely asserting that the brain is at least one source for consciousness. If we agree here, then it becomes silly for me to elaborate further in your request. If we do not agree, then I guess we can explore...

I would need it proved that the physical brain is one of the causes of the existence of consciousness unless you are using source in the sense of a location from which information is gathered.

However, the onus is on (you) to demonstrate that consciousness can manifest from [any other origin or source]. If this is where you might be planning on going; for which I have a hunch you might; as you seem hyper vigilant to explore this particular topic

At this point I am only claiming that I have no evidence that consciousness can manifest from the brain. The source of consciousness is a philosophical debate that is a large topic on its own. I think there are much simpler means for providing evidence of the immaterial. At this point I have no burden of proof.

I'll accept this line of reasoning, without any further given addendum or caveats, sure.

The example provided shows that a neutral position is forced to acknowledge that the other positions could be true. If you are taking a neutral position of not having to show that materialism is all that exists, you are forced to acknowledge that it may not be all that exists. This does not prove or add any evidence to the existence of the immaterial but is simple a logically consistent position. Do you accept this as being correct?

I appreciate the fact that you really do not want to later straw man me. And sure, let's explore together. Care to answer my question now?

Care to provide information on your conclusions, which present an element/feature/characteristic/other, which demonstrates the existence of another realm, outside materialism - (which does not impose a plausible blank assertion or fallacious reasoning)?

If you are happy to simultaneously look at multiple part of this discussion at the same time, causing more multi quoting in each post, I can start to do that. Locally this part of the discussion follows after the clarification of the definitions and if you find you want to pause pause until the other issues above are resolved, we can do so. I want to use inductive reasoning to reason from the known to the unknown and will start with some premises.

1. The space time continuum (or universe) is all the physical and material existence that we can know exists.

Do you accept this premise as being true?

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

God created everything -- what created God?

God(2).

Who Create God(2)?

God(3)

Who Created God(3)....and so on ad infinitum to...

...Who Created God(infinity minus 1)?

God(Infiinity)... which begs the question why didn't God(Infinity) just cut out all the middle men and go straight for creating everything.

Oh! He did

 

[HitchSlap]

God(2).

Who Create God(2)?

God(3)

Who Created God(3)....and so on ad infinitum to...

...Who Created God(infinity minus 1)?

God(Infiinity)... which begs the question why didn't God(Infinity) just cut out all the middle men and go straight for creating everything.

Oh! He did

Turtles, eh?

 

[HitchSlap]

I accept that brain matter is a material or physical thing. You would have to prove that consciousness is only a result of physical interactions for me to accept that or put consciousness in the maybe it is or maybe it isn’t only a result of physical interactions category.

My apologies. I will be more careful in the future.

I would need it proved that the physical brain is one of the causes of the existence of consciousness unless you are using source in the sense of a location from which information is gathered.

At this point I am only claiming that I have no evidence that consciousness can manifest from the brain. The source of consciousness is a philosophical debate that is a large topic on its own. I think there are much simpler means for providing evidence of the immaterial. At this point I have no burden of proof.

The example provided shows that a neutral position is forced to acknowledge that the other positions could be true. If you are taking a neutral position of not having to show that materialism is all that exists, you are forced to acknowledge that it may not be all that exists. This does not prove or add any evidence to the existence of the immaterial but is simple a logically consistent position. Do you accept this as being correct?

If you are happy to simultaneously look at multiple part of this discussion at the same time, causing more multi quoting in each post, I can start to do that. Locally this part of the discussion follows after the clarification of the definitions and if you find you want to pause pause until the other issues above are resolved, we can do so. I want to use inductive reasoning to reason from the known to the unknown and will start with some premises.

1. The space time continuum (or universe) is all the physical and material existence that we can know exists.

Do you accept this premise as being true?

What? You have no evidence that consciousness manifests from the brain?

C’mon, you’re just funnin’ us now, aren’t you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

God(2).

Who Create God(2)?

God(3)

Who Created God(3)....and so on ad infinitum to...

...Who Created God(infinity minus 1)?

God(Infiinity)... which begs the question why didn't God(Infinity) just cut out all the middle men and go straight for creating everything.

Oh! He did

Or why even posit a God in the first place?

 

[Subduction Zone]

What? You have no evidence that consciousness manifests from the brain?

C’mon, you’re just funnin’ us now, aren’t you.

On other forums he would have set himself up for a bit of a burn with that.

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

Turtles, eh?

Not really, but the same reasoning applies - why suggest multiple turtles when one will do.... But then you have got have a lot of evidence for an infinite turtle.

You could equally reply by saying 'multiverses'.

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

Or why even posit a God in the first place?

See the Kalam Cosmological Argument.

 

[Shemjaza]

See the Kalam Cosmological Argument.

Special pleading.

Universe is defined as having not existed at some point and the existence of eternal uncaused causes is asserted without justification. WLC's additional traits of being personal and infinitely powerful seem even less justified.

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

Special pleading.

Universe is defined as having not existed at some point and the existence of eternal uncaused causes is asserted without justification. WLC's additional traits of being personal and infinitely powerful seem even less justified.

When you say 'without justification' do you mean that the universe popped into existence by itself?

 

[Subduction Zone]

See the Kalam Cosmological Argument.

I have. It doesn't posit a God. That is a failed addition by William Lane Craig. Would you like to know where his argument fails?

 

[Subduction Zone]

When you say 'without justification' do you mean that the universe popped into existence by itself?

No, at worst we do not know. Not knowing is never a valid excuse to say "God did it". Historically that argument has failed. "God did it", or does it, used to be the claim for all sorts of unknowns. It leads to the God of the Gaps fallacy.

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

I have. It doesn't posit a God. That is a failed addition by William Lane Craig. Would you like to know where his argument fails?

Not particularly.

It posits an uncreated intelligence. While Craig is its best known proponent it is not the Craig Cosmological Argument.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Not particularly.

It posits an uncreated intelligence. While Craig is its best known proponent it is not the Craig Cosmological Argument.

No, the Kalam does not even posit an intelligence. It only says that there was a cause. There is no justification to claim an intelligence. Craig added that nonsense.

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

No, at worst we do not know. Not knowing is never a valid excuse to say "God did it". Historically that argument has failed. "God did it", or does it, used to be the claim for all sorts of unknowns. It leads to the God of the Gaps fallacy.

Only if you limit God did it to the unknowns. When God did it applies to everything, then God is God of the 'not-gaps' and therefore there is no issue.

I agree wholeheartedly that we do not know. But not knowing is what causes people to investigate and try and fill in that unknown. Turtles are one solution (a terrible one), multiverses another (which doesn't actually solve the problem, just defers it to somewhere further back), God is another, as is the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Of all of these possible solutions do any actually make sense of things. Anything that just defers the answer by creating unwarranted 'gaps' (i.e. turtles or universes) don't really do it for me.

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

No, the Kalam does not even posit an intelligence. It only says that there was a cause. There is no justification to claim an intelligence. Craig added that nonsense.

My apologies, you are correct. Craig tries to determine what that Cause would be and therefore concludes it must be intelligent.

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

No, the Kalam does not even posit an intelligence. It only says that there was a cause. There is no justification to claim an intelligence. Craig added that nonsense.

May I remind you that you were the one who asked 'why posit a God in the first place'?

One puts forward a solution to the problem. Unless you are of the opinion that things 'just are', then there is a viable reason for making any suggestion. Kalam just does away with the infinite egress.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Only if you limit God did it to the unknowns. When God did it applies to everything, then God is God of the 'not-gaps' and therefore there is no issue.

I agree wholeheartedly that we do not know. But not knowing is what causes people to investigate and try and fill in that unknown. Turtles are one solution (a terrible one), multiverses another (which doesn't actually solve the problem, just defers it to somewhere further back), God is another, as is the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Of all of these possible solutions do any actually make sense of things. Anything that just defers the answer by creating unwarranted 'gaps' (i.e. turtles or universes) don't really do it for me.

No one is limiting God. It appears that you did not understand the argument.