An Argument Against Supernatural Causation

[Purple Rabbit]

It seems to me that all of your arguments plead to materialism, even the philosophical ones, which makes them more than weak.

Even if one accepts that this is a plea for materialism, it does not follow that an argumment therefore becomes "weak".

What, I have to make a case for the non materialism of God? To do that I'd have to first destroy the God contruct and re-invent him as material. You're not addressing the subject here.

I pointed out a fallacy in your reasoning, I did not address the content of your premises. There is a difference, you know. I certainly did not urge you to make a case for the non-materialism of god. So please address the subject of my statement if you are in denial of it.

---

What, I have to make a case for the non materialism of God? To do that I'd have to first destroy the God contruct and re-invent him as material. You're not addressing the subject here.

You should at least try and demonstrate that the concept of non-materialism is coherent. Also, are you saying that the argument presupposes materialism, and is therefore weak, or that it argues in favour of materialism and is therefore weak? I wasn't entirely sure.

Non-materialism is coherent since many examples of non-material exist. Take language for instance. Without non-materialism the concept of the word coherent could not have coherent meaning. Is supernatural the thing you are referring to?