Disproving Odin - An Experiment in arguing with a theist with Theist logic

[Angrboda]

Yet, the new thing, whether it be an idea, a novel, a symphony or a Mandelbrot is created. It begins to exists. They are not the same thing as the material that is holding the information (Therefore we have examples of things beginning to exits that are not themselves material. So, a material cause is not needed, only an efficient cause is needed. 

What it means for material to "hold information" is an important question. If there is a clear sense in which the phrase is meaningful, I would grant that it's probably not valid to say that the information is the same thing as the material. It would be an illogical leap to therefore conclude that the idea, symphony, or whatever is immaterial. It's really not understood how we make sense of the meaning of things like language, yet it's possible that language and meaning exist as a closed system of material effects in which the meaning of an utterance exists as a process in the brain, and that the effect of finding things meaningful is a consequence of sharing similar brain processes among language speakers. In that case, the "meaning" of an utterance only exists as a behavior of the system, and has no independent existence beyond that behavior. The behavior of a system is fully described by efficient causes existing between material components, so to speak of that behavior as something immaterial is simply wrong. If symphonies and novels and ideas only exist insofar as they are material processes of a system of brains and such, then your conclusion that immaterial things exist is also wrong.

I don't recall what the point in bringing up the immateriality of symphonies and such was, but it seems to rest on a non sequitur. I don't see any reason to necessarily conclude that a symphony is anything more than stuff doing what stuff does. The tendency to view symphonies and such as non-material is a hangover founded upon our ignorance of the nature of human cognition.