Proof Mind is Fundamental and Matter Doesn't Exist

[Redbeard The Pink]

evidence and argument aren't mutually exclusive. an argument can be presented as evidence. the defense for the evidence would be defending the premises and the validity of the logic.

On a general basis, no, an argument is not evidence of a claim about material reality (or natural reality, or whatever you want to call your made-up "simulation" land). As for the premises, your first one fails due to fallacious logic (specifically misplacing the burden of proof).

the argument uses a priori information and introspection, thus bypassing skepticism by means of a posteriori information. empirical evidence isn't the only type of information we can gather and consider true and valid.

Translation: the argument depends on presuppositions that it hopes to pass off as facts without anyone noticing. Guess what? We noticed.

no, that would be valid refutation. what wouldn't be valid refutation is saying mindless things like 'that's abuse of logic.'

No, when told that there is no reason to believe something exists, it is not a valid refutation to claim that there is no proof that it does not exist. The only valid refutation to such a claim would be to produce a reason to believe said thing exists (like, say, some evidence).

premises 1-4 are the proof for this... now I thought you said you were gonna try to explain holes in my logic... not make general disclaims about my conclusion...

Premise 1 is broken for aforementioned reasons. You have to fix it before any of those others can follow it. I have already explained a hole in your logic, and it starts with your first premise (which, I repeat, is a misplacement of the burden of proof).

so because this model doesn't answer all irrelevant questions you have, it's invalid? Monistic Idealism isn't the answer to end all questions... but that doesn't make it false or invalid.

No, it's invalid because it's based on false logic, it's unfalsifiable and unverifiable, and it fails to answer any questions whatsoever. It does not explain why we're here or how anything works. It's mere speculation, unsupported by evidence, and unworthy of serious consideration outside the pages of fiction.

by the conclusion of the argument, it would have to be a mind. a fundamental and necessary mind.

So the only thing that exists is a mind and the thoughts it produces, and it's producing a simulation of a mind and the thoughts it produces...and now you're going in circles.

you don't need to have an 'existing' model for inspiration to create a simulation... all you have to do is map out a world to resemble something else, and put conscious agents in it. in this case, you have a world that appears physical but is actually a mental construct. now before you say it's not possible to have mental constructs that have physical likeness, why don't you sleep on it

To "map out a world to resemble something else," you need an existing model (a "something else") for it to resemble. For something to "appear physical" means that it "looks like it is physical." For something to look like it is physical, there has to be a physical reality for it to look like. Your'e not getting away from your problem at all: something cannot be the only thing and still resemble something else because there can't be something else for it to resemble if it's the only real thing.

except this actually makes sense... because what he's 'thinking' into existence only exists mentally.

It only makes sense in your fantasy world where logical fallacy amounts to irrefutable proof of concept.

*sigh* I was really looking forward to exchange with how my premises are false or my logic is invalid... but all i got from you is 'I don't like your conclusion.' criticize the conclusion all you want but it follows from the premises and is thus inescapable. if you want to disprove me, then criticize the premises or logic.

*sigh* I was really looking forward to meeting an online theist who doesn't devolve into a condescending little prick when his butt gets hurt over how bad his reasoning is. Regardless of whether your conclusion follows from your premises, your premises are flawed from the start and therefore are not valid. It is not logically sound to produce an unfalsifiable assertion and then demand that it be falsified before it is discarded as nonsense. It doesn't work that way.