Four arguments against the existence of God

[Mudhammam]

All subjective experience is non-physical.

Of course, that's simply absurd, as the processes which allow for subjective experience are only understood in terms of physical relations between external stimuli that are transmitted and interpreted by the brain. Furthermore, you haven't even attempted to define non-physical, so it's a moot point. To merely declare something as "non-physical" without any working definition or understanding of its internal structure or functionality is pretty much to utter nothing meaningful in any sense. If you mean "abstract," then you're talking about a quality of existence that is inextricable, and moreover, only intelligible, as it stands to and from a physical object. To say God is abstract is only to declare that God is an idea, and I would readily agree.

First, I object to your term ‘only’. Observed physical properties are observed physical properties, nothing more. These properties should not to be confused with the meaning or intentions we ascribe to them. In semiotic terms, the signs are physical; their significance is not.

Their significance doesn't arise from a vacuum. They arise from physical systems (humans). I'm not confusing the two, I'm just attempting to avoid obfuscation as you would have it.

Secondly, the process of abstraction requires there to be some abstractable feature distinct from the material of a sensible body or its uniquely manifest formal quality.

No, it does not. The abstraction is the ability to respond to external stimuli and through memorization separate it as well as change it through the formulation of intelligible definitions, obviously not something one who immediately declares "God" would be too concerned about.

Finally, to say that subjective experience is just the first-person vantage of physical events from inside, you beg the question. The first-person experience is the feature that we are trying to explain; you cannot invoke it as the solution.

And in seeking an explanation for something, it's best not to charge in backwards. More importantly, positing an unexplained phenomenon as your explanation is circular, but worse, your unexplained phenomenon as "non-physical" also declares itself immune from investigation... not exactly the way you'd want to start.

---

I feel that my posts on that thread successfully addressed with the issue. You do not. We do not need repeat the discussion here.

Do you mean when you declared, because an eighteenth-century mystic claimed to receive revelation from God, that "Children that die at birth are raised by angels in the spiritual world and prepared to take their place in heaven"? Sorry, not buying it. But at least you were honest in your "successfully addressing" the issue when you stated:

"I cannot answer as to why those of us here on earth were not afforded the same opportunity."