Worst Arguments For Christianity

[Angrboda]

Rae, the Churchland quote claims that the subjective is our experience of neural events ‘from the inside’ while the objective could be our view of the same events ‘from the outside’. Even if that is true it does not undermine my position with respect to the severability of signs from their significance.

Yes, those are two different arguments. Churchland deals with Liebniz.

True, but irrelevant. We're talking about meaning in a complex set of neurons, not writing on a page. This doesn't even remotely relate.

The analogy holds. I say that despite vast differences of complexity both are signs that carry significance. Unless someone supplies a reason why the observed complexity brings forth novel properties, then to say the more complex example is different seems like special pleading.

To argue that it can only bring forth the same properties as the simple case is the fallacy of composition. No special pleading here, just the avoidance of a fallacy. Your example remains irrelevant.

As to the rest, no reason has been given why efficient causes cannot suffice. Until such cause is given, it remains an argument from ignorance. I don't know how significance arises from efficient causes, but until you explicitly rule them out, you're left with a fallacious argument.