My proofs for Islam

[Angrboda]

I've yet to catch up on this thread. If I make ignorant comments on the discussion in the absence of my doing so, I hope I will be forgiven.

Tomorrow is football day, but I'll try to get up to speed sooner rather than later.

[The Grand Nudger]

Alphabet soup, therefore moongods.

[LadyForCamus]

So, you’re saying that because ideas themselves are immaterial, that a god must exist?  That simply doesn’t follow, MK.  

1. That science doesn’t, at this moment, have a complete and perfect understanding of how consciousness works is not evidence that human consciousness has magical or spiritual properties.  To insist it is so is an argument from ignorance and personal incredulity. 

2. Even if you could demonstrate that our minds, or our personhood can exist absent a physical medium, that isn’t an argument or evidence that a monotheistic god exists.  That insinuation simply doesn’t follow from your premise. For example, maybe consciousness continues absent our physical brains when we die, but there is no actual god overseeing everything?  How have you ruled this possibility out?  How have you falsified it?

This premise by itself doesn't prove it.

Oh, so now all of a sudden it doesn’t prove anything?  I’ll ask you again: how have you ruled out the possibility that our consciousness exists separate from our body, and also, there is no god?  You have to answer for this before you go any further, because even if I grant you the premise that minds exist independent of bodies (which I don’t), your conclusion will not follow without a reasonable explanation for how you have crossed this notion off the list of possibles.

All I was trying to demonstrate by that is that we are an idea and ideas need perception to exist.We can go through why we aren't that perception that maintains who we are or not our brains again and why it has to be God, but what I was trying to demonstrate why it can't be that we don't exist anywhere (no where or without any judge including ourselves) like you suggested.

You have not demonstrated that.  You merely said, “I don’t find that idea palatable”, with a lot of extra words, lol.

That our psychological aspects exist without a judgement of any kind is absurd and the reason is because we are an idea.

Two unsupported assertions for the price of one!  You have to provide evidential support for why the idea is “absurd”, not just declare it by fiat.

The psychological traits are part of that generated program by the brain at most, but are not synonymous with the brain.

THREE assertions now. I told you, I don’t actually accept that premise in the first place. As I said in my previous post (a point you chose not to address) this is an argument from ignorance/personal incredulity.  A fallacy. 

That is why we need a judgment. The question is are we the judges who maintain who we are or is it God?

You have failed to argue successfully for the need for judgement, or any gods. This is a mess, MK.

[Mystic]

Describe an idea. Describe. Is it a physical part of the brain or is an experience?

I Want to hear your thoughts on it.

[The Grand Nudger]

No one has to describe a thing to you.  Make a cogent case, or don't.  It's really that simple.

[Mystic]

You can even cheat and read philosophy papers on it. I don't mind.

[LadyForCamus]

Describe an idea. Describe. Is it a physical part of the brain or is an experience?

I Want to hear your thoughts on it.

That’s not how this works. You made a claim: the mind HAS to be more than just our physical bodies.  It’s on you to support that.  Saying, ‘well, I can’t imagine how our minds could be only products of physical brains and nothing more. How do YOU guys explain it?’ is both shifting the burden of proof, AND committing a fallacy.  Try. Again.

[Angrboda]

Describe an idea. Describe. Is it a physical part of the brain or is an experience?

I Want to hear your thoughts on it.

Category error and false dichotomy.

[Mystic]

Describe an idea. Describe. Is it a physical part of the brain or is an experience?

I Want to hear your thoughts on it.

That’s not how this works. You made a claim: the mind HAS to be more than just our physical bodies.  It’s on you to support that.  You saying, ‘well, I can’t imagine how our minds could be only products of physical brains and nothing more. How do YOU guys explain it?’ is both shifting the burden of proof, AND committing a fallacy.  Try. Again.

I need to see what common perceptions I have with you.  Who cares about shifting burden of proof right now. Just explain to me, what you think an idea is.

---

Describe an idea. Describe. Is it a physical part of the brain or is an experience?

I Want to hear your thoughts on it.

Category error and false dichotomy.  

Where was the exclusive or

I just want to hear her thoughts, not trying to force the issue.  I don't know what she thinks an idea is at the moment. Perception and idea go together, ideas can't exist without perception. I thought this was obvious, but I'm willing to hear how possibly it's the case that an idea can be separate from perception.

[LadyForCamus]

That’s not how this works. You made a claim: the mind HAS to be more than just our physical bodies.  It’s on you to support that.  You saying, ‘well, I can’t imagine how our minds could be only products of physical brains and nothing more. How do YOU guys explain it?’ is both shifting the burden of proof, AND committing a fallacy.  Try. Again.

I need to see what common perceptions I have with you.  Who cares about shifting burden of proof right now. Just explain to me, what you think an idea is.

LOL. Who cares?  Do you care about being intellectually honest, and using sound and valid arguments during a debate?  Try. again.

Oh, so now we’re conflating ‘ideas separate from physical brains’, and, ‘ideas separate from perception’?