(February 17, 2013 at 7:03 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: Your naturalistic bias has already precluded you from considering evidence.There is no evidence to consider.
Quote:The content in question is thought in both instances. And you have not provided a distinguishing property that allows one to generate qualia but not the other.A telephone signal is not a thought.
Quote: And what is the difference between the two areas of physical storage other than the mode of writing?Nothing fundamental. What's your point?
Quote:Strawman. I never said faith statements are equally valid. Only that yours is absurd. I’ll take that as an admission that your belief is based on faith and not evidence.You implied the living shit out of it.
It is a statement that the leap of faith needed to believe a naturalistic explanation is relatively small, because all other suggestions are backed by no evidence of any kind. Your assertion is 100% faith-based, and as such, absurd doesn't begin to describe it.
Quote:Strawman. I’m only saying that it’s an open question. You will not acknowledge that fact because you have already closed your mind to other possibilities.You are entirely incapable of providing a convincing argument that the question is open. Why should I treat your completely, entirely, wholly 100% baseless assertions as if they were anything but the ramblings of a lunatic?
