AB,
It depends upon whether you can show that the uncontrolled deterministic nature of particle physics is capable of generating and controlling human thoughts. Bearing in mind that correlation does not prove causation.
No it doesn’t, and you’ve missed the point entirely. Whether that can be shown or not, the
argument you attempt for it is false. The
argumentum ad consequentiam entails back-fitting the outcome of the argument to its logical soundness. Whether you find the outcome of an argument to be desirable, likely or anything else tells you nothing whatever though about the validity of the structure of the argument.
This is not a matter of opinion or difference of interpretation. It’s just about the logic of the reasoning
that leads to the conclusion, which in this case is
wrong.
The question here is whether the blind evolutionary process alone is capable of creating the spiritual awareness evident in the history of the human race (and not evident in any other species).
No it isn’t and again you’ve missed the point entirely. The “question here” has nothing whatever to do with that. Rather the actual question is whether lots of people believing something (or “yearning” for it) tells you anything about the validity of the argument that leads to that conclusion.
It doesn’t. Either the force of the reasoning stands on its merit or it doesn’t. Truth isn’t a popularity contest, however much you may wish it otherwise.
This is not a matter of opinion or difference of interpretation. It’s just about the logic of the reasoning that leads to the conclusion, which in this case is
wrong.
If there is no natural explanation, the conjecture that it could be supernatural is not exactly a 2+2=5 analogy. And we have the difference of opinion as to whether an emergent property based on material reactions can generate a single entity of conscious awareness which perceives the state of many brain cells.
No we don’t, and you’ve missed the point entirely. Again. Having “no natural explanation” tells you only one thing: that you have no natural explanation. It tells you
nothing about whether a natural explanation could be found tomorrow. It tells you
nothing about whether there is a natural explanation but we’ll never have the means to identify it. It tells you
nothing about whether there is a supernatural, what that term would actually mean, nor how we’d ever identify it even if it did exist.
This is not a matter of opinion or difference of interpretation. It’s just about the logic of the reasoning that leads to the conclusion, which in this case is
wrong.
As shown above, these arguments cannot simply be labelled as wrong. They do boil down to differences of opinion. You need to put forward alternative logical arguments and not just claim "fallacy" as the trump card.
You’ve shown no such thing above. All you have shown is that, despite assuring us that you knew what the term “logical fallacy” means, you actually have no idea whatever.
Logical fallacies are not concerned with the
content of an argument – you can plug any data into them you like, and produce any outcome as the result. What they
are concerned with though is the structure and force of the argument itself
regardless of the data with which it’s populated. Thus your efforts above are all irrelevant because they’re just about the data. If you want to grasp your problem, you'll finally need to engage with the
logic –
not with the data.
And that’s why you’re so catastrophically wrong. We can discuss topics like emergence and evolution as much as you like, but they are irrelevant to your basic problem of false argument. When you structure an argument that precisely correlates to one of these codified fallacies, then it’s a
wrong argument – not a matter of opinion, not a difference of interpretation – just a wrong argument.
Is any of this sinking in yet?
Anything at all?
