Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 9 Votes - 4.11 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
05-02-2015, 07:47 PM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(04-02-2015 10:16 PM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  So, why should your book be any better than any other work of fiction>?

That is a loaded question for obvious reasons Yes

(04-02-2015 10:16 PM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  I am also wondering of what you made of other's posts reflecting their information regarding the history/of said book? Consider

Much cheers to all.

Because if it ain't Christ, it ain't right.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-02-2015, 08:04 PM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(05-02-2015 07:40 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(05-02-2015 11:59 AM)Full Circle Wrote:  Yet here you are puffing up your chest and STILL avoiding the question.

What was the question?

Oh brother. See below:

(03-02-2015 12:58 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(03-02-2015 06:49 AM)unfogged Wrote:  Except that there is no evidence of a mind existing without a brain so there is no reason I can find to think that minds are not products of brains.

I think there is evidence of the mind being independent of the brain, and second, just for arguments sake, there is also no evidence that the brain is the origin of the mind...at best you can show that there is correlation, but correlation is not necessarily the same as causation.

This above, you were asked to produce a citation or is this just something you pulled out of your ass? Consider On the other hand maybe you’re right, maybe that’s where you happen to keep yours.

(05-02-2015 11:59 AM)Full Circle Wrote:  Just to be clear I’m using the term Dualism in the “Western philosophical traditions, as exemplified by Descartes, equate mind with the conscious self and theorize on consciousness on the basis of mind/body dualism”

In other words that the mind can exist without the body.

(05-02-2015 07:40 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  I couldn’t have said it better myself Cool


Facepalm I’m saying there isn’t evidence for this type of dualism. Read my original post, click on the green arrow and it’ll take you there.

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-02-2015, 10:16 PM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(05-02-2015 08:04 PM)Full Circle Wrote:  Oh brother. See below:

I forgot..sue me.

(05-02-2015 08:04 PM)Full Circle Wrote:  This above, you were asked to produce a citation or is this just something you pulled out of your ass? Consider On the other hand maybe you’re right, maybe that’s where you happen to keep yours.

I've already made my case regarding mind/body dualism to another poster...I'm sure you've seen it...and if you have any quarrel with what I said about it, then have at it.

(05-02-2015 11:59 AM)Full Circle Wrote:  Facepalm I’m saying there isn’t evidence for this type of dualism. Read my original post, click on the green arrow and it’ll take you there.

Well, look at my post where I address this matter and come at me accordingly. Matter fact, I can't wait to see you there. Cool
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-02-2015, 10:18 AM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(03-02-2015 08:49 PM)unfogged Wrote:  I don't claim that the mind is physical or that it is identical to the brain. I said that all evidence so far shows that the mind is dependent on a functioning brain.

All evidence has shown that the mind CORRELATES with a functioning brain, just like my remote control CORRELATES with my television....but the origin of the remote control has absolutely nothing to do with the origins of the television.

(03-02-2015 08:49 PM)unfogged Wrote:  The mind, the conciousness, whatever you want to call it appears to be the pattern of electrochemical information in the brain.

They correlate, no arguments here.

(03-02-2015 08:49 PM)unfogged Wrote:  You are again taking something that we don't have a full understanding of and leaping to conclusions about what is and is not possible. Everything I understand about biology and evolution points to the mind being a product of the brain which evolved the capabilities it has over eons.

What we understand is the fact that they are independent, as the law of identity would lead us to conclude, which would mean that the brain itself could not have been the origin of consciousness. You need an outside source for that.

If I asked you to explain the origins of Microsoft Word on your computer, but the catch is; the answer has to lie WITHIN the computer, so therefore your answer cannot be anything EXTERNAL to the computer, you wouldn't be able to do it, would you?

Hmmmm.

(03-02-2015 08:49 PM)unfogged Wrote:  The hypothesis that the mind is a product of a functioning brain and not independent is any way. One way of testing is done by comparing mental abilities of various brains and what happens as the result of physical damage. Injury and disease affect the mind when they affect the brain. Why would that be so if the mind were distinct?

An automobile is a means of transportation. If I am driving on the road and my engine blows, the automobile is incapable of providing me adequate transportation. I have to find other means of mobility. Injury to the brain is a disconnnect between the mind and the brain, and while physical damage to the brain may affect the mind, once the mind leaves the brain (me leaving my vehicle), the mind now works properly. The physical object is just the avenue the mind is using, once removed from that avenue, the mind works just fine.

(03-02-2015 08:49 PM)unfogged Wrote:  Animals have varying brain development and varying mental abilities. Why would that be true? It all makes sense if you assume no dualism.

Animals? Fine...the question of origins/mind apply to them as well.

(03-02-2015 08:49 PM)unfogged Wrote:  No, it is simply a recognition that MN has proven to be a reliable way to learn about the universe.

Ok, and so is philosophy...philosophy is a reliable way to determine the truth value of a proposition. Science is not the only reliable way.

(03-02-2015 08:49 PM)unfogged Wrote:  Any system has to start somewhere. If another method is found that provides the same usefulness then we can talk. Theology has been proposed but there is no way to distinguish anything that may be true from fantasy so it serves no practical purpose.

Give me a scientific reason how a physical entity can be the origins of a mental entity...and while you are at it, give me a scientific reason how the universe could have came from a state of nothingness, and if those things are to easy for you, give me a scientific explanation of how life could have arisen from nonliving materials.

You can believe that all questions will be answered in the future via NM all you want...but while you are waiting, I will be waiting on the return of Jesus...so we will both be waiting on something or in my case...someone.

(03-02-2015 08:49 PM)unfogged Wrote:  Sure, if you can find something that actually provides answers. Theology claims that it provides answers but distinguishing Yahweh from Zeus from Thor from the thousands and thousands of other versions is not possible. Faith doesn't provide answers, just the illusion of answers.

I defend Christian theism...and the historicity of the Resurrection of Jesus is more than enough to distinguish Christianity from Greek mythology or any other religions or faith based systems.

(03-02-2015 08:49 PM)unfogged Wrote:  You first have to prove that nature and god represents a true dichotomy and you have not done that.

According to modern cosmology, our universe began to exist...our universe consists of all space, time, energy, and matter (STEM). If STEM began to exist, then it logically follows that whatever gave it its beginning could not exist be a product of STEM....and the only name in the dictionary, encyclopedia, human language that has the attributes of producing this kind of effect is....GOD.

You may not like the end result, but until you can explain using any preferred method of knowledge you'd like, of how such an effect could have arisen and by what cause, then you have no argument.

(03-02-2015 08:49 PM)unfogged Wrote:  You then have to prove that nature could not be responsible and you have not done that.

I find it amazing that you are asking for a naturalistic explanation, when on Krauss' view, there WAS no naturalistic explanation, the universe just popped in to being uncaused out of nothing...and the only explanation besides that nonsense (besides my own) is that the universe is eternal, which would imply infinite duration/sequence of events, which is demonstrably absurd and therefore false.

(03-02-2015 08:49 PM)unfogged Wrote:  You've made both claims but only with a god of the gaps argument. Your not being able to think of an explanation for something doesn't make god win by default.

It isn't god of the gaps argumentation, because I do not use god to fill the gaps based on what I don't know...but I use god to fill in the gaps based on what I DO know.

(03-02-2015 08:49 PM)unfogged Wrote:  I agree it doesn't make sense but it isn't something I have studied. As I said before, I leave it at "I don't know" because I don't have the answers. Unlike you I am not willing to say that Krauss, and others who have devoted their lives to studying it, are being ridiculous when they can just see that only god makes sense. That's what is ridiculous.

Right, it doesn't make sense...and if it doesn't make sense in a simple thought analogy, it doesn't make sense in real life. It can't happen.

(03-02-2015 08:49 PM)unfogged Wrote:  Well, we're back to the fact that there is zero evidence for spirit or mind without a physical substrate.

Well in that case there is also zero evidence for the brain being capable of producing the mind.

(03-02-2015 08:49 PM)unfogged Wrote:  There is also the issue that if god were timeless then no act of creation could be undertaken because any act or change automatically implies time. God would have had to come into existence simultaneously with time and space and that puts us back to not needing him.

Right!! Exactly...simultaneous causation. When God created the universe, that was the first change EVER in reality, thus; when God began to create, that was simulatenous with the first moment in time....although I am not sure where you get that this would mean that we don't need him. Lost me there.

(03-02-2015 08:49 PM)unfogged Wrote:  Unless space and time appeared simultaneously; or space existed eternally and timelessly; or there is a multiverse that operates under different rules; or....

The universe could not have existed eternally because that would entail infinite duration, as mentioned above...and it couldn't have existed timelessly because the universe is always in a constant state of change/motion, and change/emotion requires time. To take change away from time would be like trying to take the wet from the water.

(03-02-2015 08:49 PM)unfogged Wrote:  You need to grok the fact that "I don't know" is often the best answer. Filling in something you don't understand with something you find plausible may be comforting but it isn't proof of anything but insecurity.

"I don't know" just won't cut it. I am demonstrating why the two opposing views to Creationism is false...this can/has been demonstrated, and there is nothing you or anyone can say to refute this...because you can't rebuttal the truth.

(03-02-2015 08:49 PM)unfogged Wrote:  No, you have just decided to label everything you don't understand "god". That explains nothing, it just lets you stop thinking about it.

Correction: I label everything that science is incapable of ever explaining (such as the questions of origins) to God, which is ultimately me just appealing to the best explanation. The God Hypothesis has more explanatory value than naturalism.

(03-02-2015 08:49 PM)unfogged Wrote:  There is no state of nothing within our universe. How do you know that what can happen in such a state can also happen in the absence of that state? Why do you feel the need to have an answer when we can't even form coherent questions about what could possibly have resulted in the present state of the universe?

All I am saying is, without equivocating, that nothing is nothing. I am saying that out of nothing, nothing comes. You, on the other hand, is making it seem as if the idea of something popping out of nothing is at the very least intelligible...and I am simply asking if it is intelligible for universes to pop out of nothing, then it would seem as if the same thing can be applied to anything, since the state of nothingness doesn't have any rules that is stapled to it that will allow just universes to come in to being, and not other things.

(03-02-2015 08:49 PM)unfogged Wrote:  I don't believe in absurdities; I don't believe that the universe came from nothing. I don't believe that a god created it. I don't believe it always existed. I have no belief about how the universe got here because I DO NOT KNOW so I await evidence to narrow down the options.

So just for the record, you do believe the universe had a beginning, right?

(03-02-2015 08:49 PM)unfogged Wrote:  You are equating a stomach without anything in it to a state of nothing where no universe exists. We have no basis for understanding the latter. Your analogies are meaningless.

So the analogy of an empty stomach being filled with food out of nothing is meaningless compared to an entire universe popping out of nothing. So Krauss' model is more meaningful than my analogy, yet both cases invovled something come from nothing? Dodgy

(03-02-2015 08:49 PM)unfogged Wrote:  We know that there was a beginning for our universe as we see it today. We do not know what preceded that, or if time existed "before" then. The problem of an infinite duration applies equally to any god hypothesis because any kind of "timeless" state proposed for that could apply equally as well to the universe.

No, it couldn't...because the universe is always in a state of change, which requires time.

(03-02-2015 08:49 PM)unfogged Wrote:  I am NOT advocating Krauss' model. I've said repeatedly that it is outside my knowledge and I'm not qualified to support it. If you want to argue that go find his website. What I am saying is that you can't make claims about what is or is not possible from a state of nothing unless you have a thorough grounding in the concept and from your analogies I can see that you don't.

How about just flat out admitting that the concept is absurd? That would be a start. You don't have to be a certified physicist to know when someone is talking nonsense.

(03-02-2015 08:49 PM)unfogged Wrote:  I suggest patience; they've been waiting for nearly 2000 years now. That's assuming that there even was a Jesus or that he did any of the things ascribed to him.

Jesus never said he would return in 2,000 years, did he?

(03-02-2015 08:49 PM)unfogged Wrote:  'm not a physicist, cosmologist, or biologist, just an interested layman. Even so, it is apparent that you have not read any of those subjects with an open mind. you seem like you are probably pretty intelligent; it's a shame you don't try.

I do try.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-02-2015, 10:35 AM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(06-02-2015 10:18 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(03-02-2015 08:49 PM)unfogged Wrote:  I don't claim that the mind is physical or that it is identical to the brain. I said that all evidence so far shows that the mind is dependent on a functioning brain.

All evidence has shown that the mind CORRELATES with a functioning brain, just like my remote control CORRELATES with my television....but the origin of the remote control has absolutely nothing to do with the origins of the television.

That is just a dreadful metaphor.

A more apt one would be that the mind correlates to the picture on the television, although that is not very good either.

Better still, the mind is the software running on the hardware of the brain.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-02-2015, 02:59 PM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(06-02-2015 10:35 AM)Chas Wrote:  That is just a dreadful metaphor.

A more apt one would be that the mind correlates to the picture on the television, although that is not very good either.

As long as both shows correlation, both will do. Second, please explain how "that is not very good either", when it is actually making the very point that I argued. Correlation does not entail causation.

(06-02-2015 10:35 AM)Chas Wrote:  Better still, the mind is the software running on the hardware of the brain.

Software? I am talking about ORIGINS..so when you say "the mind is the software running on the hardware of the brain"...then the question becomes "where the hell did the software come from, then?"

And then you have to do the pathetic "I don't know" shrug that you atheists like to do in an attempt to just be honest...instead of admitting that software comes from a progammmer...or in other words, intelligent designer.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-02-2015, 03:11 PM (This post was last modified: 06-02-2015 03:26 PM by Chas.)
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(06-02-2015 02:59 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(06-02-2015 10:35 AM)Chas Wrote:  That is just a dreadful metaphor.

A more apt one would be that the mind correlates to the picture on the television, although that is not very good either.

As long as both shows correlation, both will do. Second, please explain how "that is not very good either", when it is actually making the very point that I argued. Correlation does not entail causation.

It seems clear that you can't see how bad your metaphor is.

Quote:
(06-02-2015 10:35 AM)Chas Wrote:  Better still, the mind is the software running on the hardware of the brain.

Software? I am talking about ORIGINS..so when you say "the mind is the software running on the hardware of the brain"...then the question becomes "where the hell did the software come from, then?"

And then you have to do the pathetic "I don't know" shrug that you atheists like to do in an attempt to just be honest...instead of admitting that software comes from a progammmer...or in other words, intelligent designer.

That's called 'taking a metaphor too far'. I didn't say it was software, I offered it as a metaphor.
Do you not understand the purpose of a metaphor? It does not stand in the place of something, it is a rhetorical aid to understanding that something.

The mind evolved along with the brain. Consciousness is an emergent property of the functioning of the brain. No intelligent designer needed.

Pro tip: The honest answer of "I don't know" is far better than the dishonest, made-up answer.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-02-2015, 03:19 PM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(06-02-2015 10:18 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(03-02-2015 08:49 PM)unfogged Wrote:  You are again taking something that we don't have a full understanding of and leaping to conclusions about what is and is not possible. Everything I understand about biology and evolution points to the mind being a product of the brain which evolved the capabilities it has over eons.

What we understand is the fact that they are independent, as the law of identity would lead us to conclude, which would mean that the brain itself could not have been the origin of consciousness. You need an outside source for that.

NOT INDEPENDENT. Once again cite your assertions.

(06-02-2015 10:18 AM)‘Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(03-02-2015 08:49 PM)unfogged Wrote:  The hypothesis that the mind is a product of a functioning brain and not independent is any way. One way of testing is done by comparing mental abilities of various brains and what happens as the result of physical damage. Injury and disease affect the mind when they affect the brain. Why would that be so if the mind were distinct?

An automobile is a means of transportation. If I am driving on the road and my engine blows, the automobile is incapable of providing me adequate transportation. I have to find other means of mobility. Injury to the brain is a disconnnect between the mind and the brain, and while physical damage to the brain may affect the mind, once the mind leaves the brain (me leaving my vehicle), the mind now works properly. The physical object is just the avenue the mind is using, once removed from that avenue, the mind works just fine.

The brain and mind are not separable and your analogy is preposterous.

(06-02-2015 10:18 AM)‘Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(03-02-2015 08:49 PM)unfogged Wrote:  Well, we're back to the fact that there is zero evidence for spirit or mind without a physical substrate.

Well in that case there is also zero evidence for the brain being capable of producing the mind.

All neurobiological activity resides within the physical brain. Your insistance that somehow the brain and the “mind” are separate shows you don’t understand physiology.

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Full Circle's post
06-02-2015, 04:30 PM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(06-02-2015 03:11 PM)Chas Wrote:  It seems clear that you can't see how bad your metaphor is.

I actually liked the analogy for the simple fact that my goal was to prove that correlation does not entail causation, and in the analogy I gave, the correlation that is shared between a remote control and a television clearly has nothing to do with the origin of each, as each entity depends on an independent source that is external from each, despite the correlation.

Apparently, you didn't think that was good enough, so you made a "counter-analogy" which also proved my point...as nothing you said in your metaphor went AGAINST anything that I said or implied...yet you seem so sure that you are doing what? Proving my point? I appreciate the assistance, but it is not needed.

(06-02-2015 03:11 PM)Chas Wrote:  That's called 'taking a metaphor too far'. I didn't say it was software, I offered it as a metaphor.
Do you not understand the purpose of a metaphor? It does not stand in the place of something, it is a rhetorical aid to understanding that something.

I just asked a question, if you are going to use an analogy, don't get upset when someone asks you a question about it. You said the mind is the software and the brain is the hardware, which is completely irrelevant because that is not telling me where did the software come from in the first place.

Microsoft is the software on most computers, and the origins of the computers has nothing to do with the origins of Microsoft. So still, my questions remained unanswered and all you can do is offer these piss poor objections as has been the case.

(06-02-2015 03:11 PM)Chas Wrote:  The mind evolved along with the brain.

That is the theory, what I'd like is evidence for the theory. Anyone can make a claim...I claim Goddidit, and you claim Evolutiondidit...if evolution is science, and science is supposed to be based on observation and repeated experient, then I'd like you to conduct an experiment at which you can observe the brain itself producing consicousness.

Until you can do that, then you have no empirical basis for any of it. Just...talk.

(06-02-2015 03:11 PM)Chas Wrote:  Consciousness is an emergent property of the functioning of the brain. No intelligent designer needed.

Right.."emergent"...explain to me how inanimate matter could be the emergent of consciousness...I will wait.


(06-02-2015 03:11 PM)Chas Wrote:  Pro tip: The honest answer of "I don't know" is far better than the dishonest, made-up answer.

If you are admitting that you don't know I shouldn't expect any answers to my questions...so I don't expect to hear too much from you on this matter...if you don't know..then any explanation from someone that doesn't know is quite meaningless.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-02-2015, 04:47 PM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(06-02-2015 03:19 PM)Full Circle Wrote:  NOT INDEPENDENT. Once again cite your assertions.

The law of identity (which I used) is a well know law in philosophy. I've explained what it is, and how it relates to the subject matter and the case I am presenting against mind/body naturalism.

Instead of addressing what I said, all you managed to muster up was "Not Independent" which is basically saying "I can't refute what you say, but I will maintain my position"...which is only letting me know that I am on the right track with this.

(06-02-2015 03:19 PM)Full Circle Wrote:  The brain and mind are not separable and your analogy is preposterous.

Nonsense. When you are sad, your brain is not sad, nor is the neurons in your brain sad...but yet, you are sad. So what is true of your mind is not true of your brain...and the law of identity states that in order for the mind and brain to be the same, what is true of one has to be true with the other, and this is clearly not the case.

Now, you asked for my reasons why I made the positive assertions on the mind/body dualism side, and when I didn't address it you let it be know that I didn't address it...and now I am addressing it.

So you can either deal with what I am saying on a point by point basis, or you can admit that you don't have any real refutation of what I am saying and you cannot scientifically explain the origin of consciousness.

Just be honest, after all... "Honesty is more than just not lying, it is truth telling, truth seeking, truth living, and true loving."

(06-02-2015 03:19 PM)Full Circle Wrote:  All neurobiological activity resides within the physical brain. Your insistance that somehow the brain and the “mind” are separate shows you don’t understand physiology.

And you are showing that you don't understand the argument. Again, Microsoft is inside the physical computer, but the computer is NOT Microsoft, and Microsoft is NOT the computer. That is the argument.

You are either deliberating bypassing or unfortunately continuing to miss this point.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: