[Serious] 'Counterargument - immediate fresh argument'---a forum game.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

[sidenote: That's a good point. You shouldn't have to actually believe the argument. You are welcome to play devil's advocate. Let's make that rule number 8].

If it is possible for God to exist, then God exists.

I reject this premise because the consequent doesn't follow from the antecedent. Namely, just because something is possible doesn't mean that it is actual. It may be possible for God to exist without God being actual.

Okay, my own argument:

Premise 1: If dualism about consciousness, illusionism about consciousness and radical emergence about consciousness are the only alternatives to idealism then idealism is true because it's more plausible than the other three options (dualism, illusionism, and radical emergence).

Premise 2:  Dualism about consciousness, illusionism about consciousness and radical emergence about consciousness are the only alternatives to idealism.

Conclusion: Therefore, idealism is true because it's more plausible than the other three options (dualism, illusionism and radical emergence).

EDIT: I got ninja'd but one of the rules is to not worry about ninjas and to just continue so I will not worry. I may as well respond to what's above me so Boru isn't left out.

All cats are mammals.
Socrates was a mammal.
Therefore, Socrates was a cat.

Boru

The argument is unsound because it's invalid. Both its premises are true but its conclusion doesn't follow from those premises.

Rule 9: Feel free to respond to ninjas so they don't feel left out. But still don't worry about ninjas. You can also feel free to just move on.

Actually, the conclusion could be true, but that would require a false first premise (‘All mammals are cats’).

Your argument about ideals fails because it doesn’t make the case that idealism is more plausible that the other three, it merely asserts it.

Another one:

If I have three cats, I also have two dogs.
I have three cats.
Therefore, I have two dogs.

Boru