Rosenberg's Argument Against Beliefs

[Angrboda]

…If … intentionality cannot be defined naturalistically, then premise 4/5 can never be made a rational fact; it will forever elude naturalistic definition and therefore…can never form the basis of a logical, rational argument.

That is exactly my point. Physicalism/naturalism and the intentionality of mental processes are mutually exclusive. Intentionality cannot be easily dismissed therefore you face a choice that cannot be rationally determined. That means that you have an existential choice between two very strong intuitions. Both views are, by your definition, equally irrational. And each view comes at a cost. In my opinion the cost of physicalism is nihilism. And that is a very steep price to pay for anyone who values the acquisition of knowledge.

Your point eludes you. The point here is that if premises 4/5 cannot be verified to be true or false by some reliable method, then Rosenberg's syllogism can never be made logically valid, and any reductio based on his syllogism is thus invalid. So, besides the glaring fallacy of the stolen concept, if I grant Rosenberg his syllogistic conclusion, it invalidates the syllogism upon which it is based. (In more ways than one.)

In addition, you've added new errors and I haven't even provided an exhaustive list of the original ones.

In no particular order:

1. The man's name is 'Brentano', not 'Bertano'.
2. I don't have to show anything other than that your syllogism or argument is invalid or that one or more of the premises is either unsound or not verifiably sound. Showing otherwise is your and Rosenberg's job. But nice try once again attempting to shift the burden of proof.
3. As noted, the syllogism can never be made valid in the ways noted in addition to other less obvious ways.
4. You seem to keep repeating the claim that a person cannot doubt the brute fact of their experience all the while debating with someone who does just that; surely you realize how absurd your attempting to persuade me that I can't deny the very fact which I do in fact deny is? Get a clue.
5. Is that what materialism says? Tant pis pour ils. I will tell you for your own benefit that you and Rosenberg are carelessly treating metaphysical naturalism, methodological naturalism, materialism and physicalism as if these were synonyms; they are not.
6. I'm bored, and you're not helping.
7. You're still missing several major errors.
8. You appear to be hallucinating that I said certain things I did not say. You might want to see a physician.
9. Yet another theist runs afoul of the law of the excluded middle by setting up a false dichotomy. I am not faced with any such choice. Your belief that I am is likely a result of a failure of imagination on your part.
10. Piss off.