(June 15, 2013 at 11:55 pm)whateverist Wrote:(June 15, 2013 at 11:38 pm)Pandas United Wrote: Well yes, of course. Arguments are based off of evidence and research. These aren't just senseless arguments based off of nothing. A positive and sound argument is indeed evidence for whatever you are arguing for (in this case, dualism).
Along with the couple highlighted in the wiki page there is the argument from introspection, argument from parapsychological phenomena, and the argument from disembodied existence. There are also arguments that go directly against materialism, but I think this is a healthy start. The wiki page gives a fair analysis of both sides of the coin. I also recommend Edward Feser's Philosophy of Mind. It is a great introduction to the different arguments from both sides.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dualism_(p...or_Dualism
Seriously? Introspection, parapsychological phenomena and disembodied existence as sources of hard evidence? If those are your strongest suggestions I shudder to think who is on the second team.
But what I find cited most often by apologists are the logical implications of certain category words such as "the infinite". Take the cosmological argument. What really do we think we are in a position to assume about that which led up to (or could lead up to) a singularity. Nobody knows that and reasoning about the meaning of words people have made up seems like a poor way of determining the nature of reality. Words are tools not evidence.
Yes, seriously. Please don't come to such rash conclusions before you even read the arguments, it comes off as rather snobbish and arrogant. I've been studying philosophy of mind for the better part of this year and these arguments make a very positive case for why dualism is true. Non-physical mental states, if proven to be true, cause pretty gargantuan issues for atheists.
I'm not sure what your second paragraph has to do with the topic at hand. Weren't we talking about dualism?
All generalizations are false.
