Worst Arguments For Christianity

[Esquilax]

Non-physical properties are also easily demonstrated: triangularity, the truth preserving quality of logical propositions, etc. Unless of course you opt for nominalism or conceptualism, both of which crash and burn under the weight of their own paradoxes.

Great, so you've established the existence of conceptual items, which rely upon physical brains to exist; logical propositions require minds to think them, which would be either the result of physical brains, or of this mind stuff... that you still haven't demonstrated. So you're either going to beg the question by using the existence of conceptual items- which equally might find their roots in physical brains- as evidence for the existence of the non-physical thing that you're trying to prove, without dealing with the obvious issue that those concepts exist as neurochemical brain states in those that consider them, or you don't have an argument at all, without first demonstrating the existence of the mind-as-separate-from-the-brain, in which case you're having to make a separate argument for the claim you're making, in order to justify the first argument for that claim you're making, which kinda shows that the first argument doesn't really work.

Either way, it could easily be argued that the examples you've listed are observations of physical things in reality, not discrete entities on their own. They are dependent on physical brain states in the observer, not objective quantities that exist without being physical.

... Your entire argument hinges on the idea that physical properties cannot generate intentionality on their own, and hence must be distinct from the mind... which is the very claim you're attempting to justify with this argument.

Why should I believe that they can?

Why shouldn't you use a circular argument? Seriously?

You can't use an argument as justification for a claim, when that argument includes the premises of the claim as true facts. I really shouldn't have to tell you why that is, but if I have to, then you may be too far gone to talk to.

... Where did you demonstrate that physical states cannot generate intentionality?

And you cannot demonstrate that God doesn’t exist. I would like to see you try using only material and efficient causes to communicate a the goal directness of any physical process.

Once again, the argument from ignorance, Wooters style: my inability to do so doesn't mean the contra-positive is suddenly true. Your above argument is still guilty of begging the question, and splitting my response in two to try and separate my pointing that out from my equally true comment that you haven't bothered justifying the positive claim you've made here isn't going to change that.

You have already done so by saying that your life has meaning and purpose. Please, describe one, just one, physical property of meaning.

If minds are properties of brains and not some distinct entity on their own, then every meaning is, ultimately, a physical property. Once again, you're begging the question by assuming that meanings are not physical in any sense and then demanding that everyone else prove you wrong, when you've never established the non-physical nature of meaning to begin with.