Instigator / Pro
20
1576
rating
12
debates
75.0%
won
Topic
#386

God Exists And Humans Depend On God To Live

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
6
6
Better sources
8
6
Better legibility
4
4
Better conduct
2
4

After 4 votes and with the same amount of points on both sides...

It's a tie!
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
4
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
20
1435
rating
15
debates
33.33%
won
Description

*Rules*

1. The definitions below are agreed to by accepting the debate and both debaters agree, by accepting, that all voters must use these definitions when weighing their vote and that if the voters do not use these definitions, both debaters will publicly request that the mods remove the vote.

2. All votes *must* have thorough, serious reasons for voting and both debaters agree, by accepting this debate, to publicly ask the mods to remove those votes, after the debate, if the votes are not serious or thorough.

3. By accepting this debate, both debaters and the voters (and maybe one day I can say the moderators too) agree that any vote that is dishonest (defined below) about what occurred in the debate will be requested publicly by both debaters, after the debate, to be removed by the mods.

Dishonest votes include:

a. Voters claiming an argument was made by a debater that was never made and then using this fabricated or exaggerated argument to vote that debater up or down.

b. Voters claiming a source that was provided by a debater states/shows something it does not state/show and then using this imaginary/exaggerated content to vote the debater up or down.

c. Voters claiming a source that was used by a debater for a particular purpose that was not the purpose the debater stated it was being used for or voters exaggerating/self-generating the purpose/intent of the debater in order to vote the debater up or down.

d. Voters ignoring arguments made by a debater to claim the arguments were never made then voting that debater up or down based on the claimed lack of arguments.

e. Voters ignoring sources provided by a debater in order to claim the debater didn't provide them, or to claim that the sources were not supporting an argument not used by the debater to support, or to claim that the purpose for using the source was something not stated by the debater to be or to claim that the purpose for using the source was one that was fabricated by the voter to be then using any or all of these fabrications to vote the debater up or down.

f. Voters claiming a lack of clarity where it is not obviously apparent and where the voter does not specifically explain why it's not very clear or voters exaggerating a lack of clarity without referencing content within the debate in order to vote the debater up or down.

g. Voters using ANYTHING not within the debate in order to vote a debater up or down.

4. Both debaters agree, by accepting the debate, that any votes that a) fail to address the majority of resolution-impacting points made by both debaters, b) are dishonest (see above) or lies about debater performance, or c) are vendetta votes/overtly biased will be requested, publicly, by both debaters to be removed by the mods.

5. Death23, ethang5, and any of their related accounts may not vote on or participate in this debate because of the dishonesty section of the rules.
--------

*Full Resolution*

God exists and humans depend on god to live.

Pro
Has the BoP, 4 rounds, 10K characters per round, and 3 days per post to AFFIRM that god exists and humans depend on god to live; Pro should also refute Con.

Con
Has 4 rounds, 10K characters per round, and 3 days per post to NEGATE that god exists and humans dpend on god to live; Con should also refute Pro.
--------

*Definitions*

god - a superhuman existence worshiped as having power over nature and human fortunes.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/god

superhuman - above or beyond what is human; having a higher nature or greater powers than humans have.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/superhuman

existence - something that exists.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/existence

exists - has objective reality or being.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/exist

humans - members of the Homo Sapiens species; human beings belonging to the genus Homo.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/homo_sapiens

depend on - rely on.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/depend

live - remain alive.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/live
--------

May the better argument win!

-->
@Castin

Because I didn't feel like it was necessary. I certainly could have given pro the source and possibly the conduct point also.

-->
@David

Thanks Virt. I'm a work in progress.

Out of curiosity, why did you vote sources a tie?

-->
@Castin

Much better on explaining the source point

-->
@MagicAintReal

There ya go. We'll see if it passes inspection.

So, as Con highlights the terminological issues with pros argument - and pros completely failure to offer a rationalization of this interpretation - I cannot accept that his definitions can be interpreted in the way he said - thus the remainder of his argument concerning the ways in which the sun matches his interpretation - are irrelevant.
Pro attempted a Hail Mary - by claiming con conceded. I viewed cons statement not as a concession that you proved the contention - but that he personally believes in God: while I would discourage con from doing this, it was not substantial or significant enough to award pro points on a technicality.
Ironically, Pro was hoisted by his own petard - by deliberately making terms vague and ambiguous to wrangle his argument, his shifted his burden into establish his interpretation of the definitions that were agreed - if he attempted to justify this position he would have probably lost, as it would have alerted his opponent to the primary flaw in his position - if he didn’t attempt to justify his position, he fails to meet burden of proof. Pro does not defend his interpretation - simply asserting that this interpretation of the supplied definitions is correct - as this is the sole factor this entire debate hinges on, pro has obviously not established it, and con successfully casts doubt on it.
Arguments to con

Arguments:
Pro hinges his entire argument on definitions and semantics - if I accept every thing he said about the sun - his definitions still do not appear correct, nor valid in the context of the contention of the debate as I understand it: even with the definitions - I am highly skeptical as to why and how Pro could interpret the definition of God to include the sun and expected pro to justify why his interpretation of the definition was fair and reasonable. While I was perfectly willing to be convinced, no such argument was forthcoming that I could see at any point in the debate.
Pro may argue until he is blue in the face, that the Sun meets his interpretation of the definition - but if he doesn’t show his interpretation is valid, then the burden of proof he has an the positive claim is not satisfied.
Dictionary definitions are based on usage and meaning of the words as they are commonly used - not the other way around. As a result, I summarily reject pros argument that terms were “agreed”, as Con points out - elephants would match the definition of “superhuman”, but it would not generally be categorized as such. It is up to pro to argue that the vague and all encompassing interpretation he uses - which would also cover cows and magnets - is the right one to use.
While this makes me skeptical: I would not have awarded argument points had con not, in round 3, pointed this out:
“2. You stretch definitions to fit what you want.
Likewise, you think the "God" simply means has some greater powers than a human. No, there is more to a God then just that. The mighty elephant is stronger than any man. One can say it has super-human strength. But i stand by my statement, having one or a few powers greater than a human does not a God make. Sorry. It doesn't work like that”

-->
@Ramshutu

Conduct: This debate and the way it played out appeared to be a deliberate bait and switch attempt by pro, with repeated deliberate omissions in his debate definition (see below) that seem clearly intended to trick a debater into accepting his debate based on the premise appearing to be saying one thing, only to have the entire premise turned on its head the moment his opponent accepted. This sort of shamefully dishonest conduct should not be tolerated on any debate. This together with pros petulant insults addressing his opponent which were utterly unnecessary: “Con obliviously asks:”, “Con whines:” makes penalization on conduct more than warranted. Conduct to con.
Sources - Pros argument were solely reliant on the specific definitions he used. Upon analyzing pros sources, there were misquotes and omissions which meant that pro was not arguing the definition he sources. The effect of these errors made his definition more ambiguous and broad so when considering the actual sources linked - not the misstated quotes - the sources actively undermined pros semantic argument. As a result I could trivially determine that pros argument was less strong than it seemed on its face just by looking at these sources.
Examples include his claim that the sub is a “perfect sphere” - his source says the sun is merely “near perfect” - which is not the same thing: his definitions for “being” in addition, specifically omitted key parts to the definition specifically related to “especially intelligent”. (Also some noted in comments)
As pros sources actively undermined his argument, he would have been better served posting no links or definitions at all. While con cited no sources, the lack of sources did not actively harm his argument - thus Sources must go to con for this reason.

-->
@Ramshutu

*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Ramshutu // Mod action:Removed
>Points Awarded: 5 points to con for arguments, conduct, and sources.
>Reason for decision: Posted above
>Reason for Mod Action: The conduct point is sufficient, but arguments and sources are not. (1) Voters are required to assess the debate as it is presented. They are allowed to supplement that assessment with some deeper dives into the source materials given in the debate, but there must be some assessment based on how they're actually used. The voter must accept the rules and definitions of the debate in evaluating their vote regardless if they agree with it or not. (2) The voter is required to specifically assess sources given by both sides. Since the opposing side presented no sources one cannot give them the source point regardless of how poor the other side's sources were.
************************************************************************

-->
@Castin

That's ok, put up another vote with the correct source points allocations, the rest of the rfd is fine

-->
@MagicAintReal
@David
@GuitarSlinger

Yup, that's my bad. Sorry about that, Pro and Con.

Con's arguments were, at bottom, a rejection of Pro's definitions. And rejecting Pro's definitions violates the terms of the debate.
Rule #1:
"The definitions below are agreed to by accepting the debate and both debaters agree, by accepting, that all voters must use these definitions when weighing their vote and that if the voters do not use these definitions, both debaters will publicly request that the mods remove the vote."
Some of Con's arguments (paraphrased; forgive me):
"The sun, being made of matter, could not have created itself. Or life on Earth."
- Pro's definition of God says nothing about creation, so in the context of this debate, being a creator is not a necessary component of godhood.
"The sun is not God and cannot logically be called God."
- The sun actually does meet Pro's definition of God as worded.
"Pro has not proven the sun is God."
- I do believe he doesn't have to. It's not what the debate is about. He just has to make sure the sun meets his provided definition of a god. And it does. From there, all he has to prove is a) the sun exists and b) humans depend on the sun to live. I don't feel that Con really met Pro on either of those points. He spent most of his time arguing that the sun is not God, mostly by trying to bring his own definitions and outside presuppositions into the debate.
So I award arguments to Pro.
Con provided no sources at all, so sources automatically go to Pro.
Conduct a tie. Neither side was exactly genteel. Yes, this is another debate from Mag employing sneaky wording and very selective definitions, but on the other hand I feel like this should be fairly clear to anyone who reads the debate description thoroughly. It's all laid out there. Plus other members give warnings. But people still accept the debates without seeming to understand that they will have to compete while handcuffed. I am not without some sympathy. It seems the only real way to escape defeat is to not accept the debate.

-->
@Castin

Upon reevaluation of Castin vote, we find that Castin does not meet the voting standard. Their RFD is posted above. The issue is the source point.

"Con provided no sources at all, so sources automatically go to Pro."

As the COC says

The key to sufficiently ground awarding sources points is an emphasis on quality, not quantity. This means that the voter needs to explain how the sources were relevant to the debate. This requires that the voter explain how the sources impacted the debate, directly assessing the strength of at least one source, and explaining how it either strengthened or weakened the argument it was utilized for. ***Even if one side does not present a source, the voter must at least establish the relevance of the other side's sources.*** There must be some comparative analysis between both debaters’ sources.

-->
@Castin

*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Castin // Mod action:Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 5 points to Pro for arguments and sources.
>Reason for decision:See vote
>Reason for Mod Action: The voter sufficiently explains all points.
************************************************************************

-->
@MagicAintReal

Nah I don't think this can be topped for wording & succinctness: "Con needs to show that God does not exist OR that humans do not depend on Him to live. He fails to meet this burden. By arguing that the sun is not God but God is God, he concedes the resolution."

Best vote goes to Virt imo.

-->
@GuitarSlinger

That's cool, I definitely identify with that. If I may suggest, it sounds like what you want is the forums, then. No criteria, no rules, no votes. Just discussion. It's my preference.

For instance you may have enjoyed this debate a lot more if you'd had it in the religion forum: https://www.debateart.com/forum/16/topics

-->
@Castin

Hahahah thank you for appreciating my hyrdrogen humor, that was my favorite part of the debate as well, and you did quite an excellent job explaining exactly why Pro should win this thing, even if the definitions are undesirable/unfair and even if Pro is kind of a gigantic dick, which in fairness, I kind of am. Thanks for the honest vote, and I think you may have a better vote than Virt...just sayin'...Virt's vote's good too.

-->
@Castin

That was my favorite line of the entire debate!

-->
@Castin

Appreciate the comments. As noted earlier, I don't care about votes, etc. lol. I'm just here to engage in discussion and debate.

As noted elsewhere, I’m not here to “win” debates, garner votes, or win approval form others. I’m here to engage discussion.

I don’t adhere to the following formula:

a) Here are the rules/definitions of the debate (regardless of how outlandish they are)
b) If you agrees to the debate, you accept these rules/definitions
c) If you accept the debate, you agree to my definitions.
d) I can say what I want within the confines of my rules and definitions, can you cant counter because you agreed to the rules by accepting my definition.
e) Therefore I win

It’s pretty laughable actually. I think the only thing it accomplished was underscore the fact that the way he wins is by defining things his own way. Lol

Did anyone else laugh and harder and harder with every "praise be unto hydrogen"?

-->
@GuitarSlinger

I got the concession I wanted so whatevs.

-->
@MagicAintReal

I get it that you don't understand the concept that just because X is dependent on the physical, doesn't make X physical.

Physical thing is needed for a thought, but that doesn't mean the thought is physical. Again, yo usay it is, but you can't prove it.

Science can't measure, weigh, or take any physical dimensions of a thought-- because there are none. And you've yet to point to any science that says otherwise. lol.

I think you've said a lot in your arguments:
1. You believe in stuff not supported (even refuted) by science
2. you stretch definitions

Thanks for playin'. lol

-->
@GuitarSlinger

"No, I can't show you a thought that is not dependent on the physical."

Thank you.
So anytime you are dealing with thoughts you must necessarily be dealing with something physical, is that right?

"the fact that I can't show you a thought that is not contingent on the physical doesn't prove that a thought is physical."

This may prove we're done here.
That's exactly what it shows man.
No physical thing, no thought.

" "Show me a person that is not contingent on air."

Right, but air doesn't produce people.
But if I said show me a person that is not contingent on cells, you'd have to admit that in order to deal with a human, you will have to deal with cells right?

"I agree totally that thoughts, ideas, dreams are dependent (contingent) on the physical."

I mean that's enough for me, we're good.
And I agree that thoughts are not the same substance as brains and neurons, I'm fine with that.

-->
@MagicAintReal

No, I can't show you a thought that is not dependent on the physical. But I have no need to-- the fact that I can't show you a thought that is not contingent on the physical doesn't prove that a thought is physical.

That's like me saying "Show me a person that is not contingent on air. See that proves people are air!" Sorry. it just doeson't work that way.

I agree totally that thoughts, ideas, dreams are dependent (contingent) on the physical. But we all know just because something is dependent (contingent) on the physical doesn't mean it's the same nature/substance as that which it's dependent on.

-->
@GuitarSlinger

Ok, well it's all kind of irrelevant to the resolution, and yes while constructs are contingent on the physical they are not made of the same material, i.e. not made of matter, I'll agree, but they are still physical because, you cannot provide an example of a thought WITHOUT its contingency matter.
Can you show that please?

-->
@MagicAintReal

Yep. It's basically saying is dependent upon lol.

X is contingent upon Y. Meaning, X exists only if Y is the case.
THis does not mean X is the same nature or substance of Y.

Dictionary didn't tell me I'm wrong. The dictionary you used simply bolstered my case. Simply because something is dependent on on something else, it doesn't mean that "that something" is physical, non-physical, etc.

Yet again, you're simply stretching a definition because you can't come to terms with the fact that non-physical, non-material things do indeed exist.

"Contingent means to be dependent on. Nothing more."

contingent on/upon - occurring or existing only if (certain circumstances) are the case.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/contingent

You knew that though, right?

"Dreams, thoughts, might be contingent on physical things, but that doesn’t mean they are themselves physical things"

Now, that you've seen the dictionary tell you you're wrong, maybe you'll change this ridiculous idea.
Due to thoughts "existing only if" a brain and neurons existing "are the case."
Admit it.
You didn't know this, now you look silly.

-->
@MagicAintReal

Contingent. Allow me to quote Inigo Montoya: “You keep using that word. I do think it means what you think it means.” LOL

Contingent means to be dependent on. Nothing more. If something, let’s call it “X”, is contingent upon something else, then that means it’s dependent upon it. If something, X, is dependent on a physical thing, that doesn’t necessarily mean that “X” is itself a physical thing. Dreams, thoughts, might be contingent on physical things, but that doesn’t mean they are themselves physical things. Any attempt to use contingent in this way is stretching the definition to fit what you want. I’m using the definition that is agreed upon by scholars.

Perhaps you can point to sources that use contingency the way you use it?

Again, the fact that you have to look to something else (i.e. brainwaves) instead of physically describing (scientifically observing) dreams/thoughts/ideas themselves makes it obvious—you are unable to physically describe idea/thought/dream because they have no physical dimensions. And why is that? Because they are not physical things.

-->
@Ramshutu

Do you agree that the sun is a real entity, a deity, and an existence/being?

-->
@Ramshutu

Ok.

Here's the definition of home, from Oxford dictionaries.

home - the place where one lives permanently, ESPECIALLY as a member of a family or household.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/home

Even if one did not live as a member of the household or family, one could still live permanently somewhere and this would satisfy "home."
Do you agree?

If you agree, then you also agree that an entity could be real, as Con conceded to be the case already in the debate, even though it's not especially an intelligent one.

So, the qualifier "especially an intelligent one" does not negate the sun being a real entity, just like not especially being a specific member of a household or family does not negate your dwelling being your home.

-->
@MagicAintReal
@GuitarSlinger

“(in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshipped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity.”

You missed off the specific condition of deity.

“A real or imaginary living creature or entity, especially an intelligent one.”

You missed out the key distinction at the end: where being in this sense is not abstract but especially implies intelligence.

You should probably correct these definitions in the next round: because it would be very easy for con to win this debate by simply pointing out these definitions and refute you based purely on semantics and selection of definitions.

-->
@Ramshutu

What am I missing here that the sun does not satisfy?

god - a superhuman BEING worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/god

being - A REAL or imaginary living creature or ENTITY.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/being

entity - a thing with distinct and independent existence....existence; being.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/entity

-->
@GuitarSlinger

Matthew 7:13 states, "Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many."

Matthew 25:46 states, "And these will depart into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."

https://www.openbible.info/topics/hell
https://bible.org/article/what-bible-says-about-hell

-->
@Ramshutu

Um, ok, but you realize that the sun satisfies "real entity" just as much as it satisfies, "existence" right?

-->
@MagicAintReal
@GuitarSlinger

That’s not up to me to decide, I’m just saying that It would be VERY easy for your opponent to argue that the sun is not an entity in the context of the definition you linked of “being”.

-->
@Ramshutu

Is the sun "A real entity?"

That's in the definition you said should be there.
So if it were there, the sun would still satisfy it, no?

-->
@MagicAintReal
@GuitarSlinger

Well no, not inconsequential at all. If the correct definition was used this would be an excellent discussion on God and dependence.

Using the wrong definition means that Con could win the argument by correcting your definition rather than disproving God. I’m sure that wasn’t your intent.

-->
@Ramshutu

Eh...inconsequential.
A real entity, an existence...who's counting, right?

-->
@MagicAintReal
@GuitarSlinger

I’ve spotted a significant copy and paste error MAR. You copied the wrong definition for “being” from the dictionary.

It’s obvious that you meant to past was:
“A real or imaginary living creature or entity, especially an intelligent one.”, which is the correct definition for “being” in the context of a personality or God.

Instead you actually pasted the more generic “existence”.

I wanted to point this out, as it must have been an accidental copy and paste error, and it would detract from the quality of the debate if both sides accidentally mistakenly argued the wrong definition.

-->
@GuitarSlinger

"While the study in the article looks very interesting, and having the subjects multi-task was very interesting, does it say what they were thinking about as they did the tasks (pushing a button, talking, etc)."

Yes, it does, and I also linked the video with it, I guess you didn't watch it.

"Contingency doesn't determine whether or not something is physical or not."

Then we're done here, because you don't understand contingency.
If something is contingent on the physical it CANNOT EXIST WITHOUT THE PHYSICAL.
It is because of this inextricable link that constructs, though not made of matter, are contingent on the matter of neurons and brains.
No matter, no thoughts, period.

"Just because a thought is contingent on the brain, doesn't mean the thought is a physical thing"

Yes it does, because there is no thought without the physical brain.
I agree it's not made of matter, but it's physical all the same because it is a product of matter, you cannot point to a thought without a brain or neural substrates or you would have done it already.
Contingent on the physical means it can only exist if the physical exists, so it's effectively physical.
Quantum particles, gravity...come on.

"it just means it depends on the brain"

You like so many people online don't understand that contingent means CANNOT EXIST WITHOUT...it doesn't mean dependent...you're wrong again.

"I believe your last few sentences are you conceding that there indeed exists things that are not physical"

There are things that are physical and there are things that are contingent on the physical...now that you know what contingent actually means, this should make more sense to you.

"So your use of the word "contingent" is a red -herring, not relevant to whether or not something is physical"

No, your misunderstanding of the word contingent doesn't solve your problem.
When things are contingent on the physical, they are physical themselves, though not made of matter.

-->
@MagicAintReal

Finally, just to reiterate, the question is not about whether something is contingent or not. The question is on whether or not non-physical things (things that are "im-material" or not made of amtter) exist or not.

I would argue everything we observe/experience is contingent (dependent upon) something else. I would challenge you to find one thing in this world (nay, the universe) that is not contingent on something else.

So your use of the word "contingent" is a red -herring, not relevant to whether or not something is physical (material) or non-physical (im-material).

Again, let me re-iterate-- are there things that exist that are not physical/material things? I believe you would agree that yes, there are things that exist that are not physical/material. Correct?

-->
@MagicAintReal

Again, the multi-tasking etc, doesn't say anything about the content of the thought My original comment was that Science has not been able to determine the content of a thought based on brainwaves. You posted the link as a counter to my statement-- but the counter doesn't work. What does the study show? At best it shows they can tell when a person is thinking. What does it not show? WHAT the person is thinking. Big difference. But you understand that, right? Science has yet to be able to analyze the brainwaves of a person and be able to say definitively "Yes, this person is thinking of a monkey juggling 4 bowling balls while riding a Harley Davidson". While the study in the article looks very interesting, and having the subjects multi-task was very interesting, does it say what they were thinking about as they did the tasks (pushing a button, talking, etc). I'm often thinking of different things while multi-tasking, and not necessarily the tasks at hand-- perhaps i'm thinking about that letter I forgot to mail....or the burrito i'm having for lunch......or the Spurs 2014 championship (their sweetest, in my opinion). So again, I stand firm on my point-- science has yet to say definitively the content of a thought simply by analyzing brainwaves.

Contingency doesn't determine whether or not something is physical or not. You understand that, right? Just because a thought is contingent on the brain, doesn't mean the thought is a physical thing-- it just means it depends on the brain. You understand that right?

I believe your last few sentences are you conceding that there indeed exists things that are not physical. While they are contingent (dependent) on physical things to exist, they are not physical things themselves. The fact that non-physical things exist is a very important point, and is the foundation for future arguments.

-->
@GuitarSlinger

"The section you highlight refer to auditory and visual cues...not thoughts."

The first section I highlighted referred to multi tasking.
Multi tasking takes a series of thoughts, and with every subject, these activities were "all found a universal signature of activity."
All who were multi tasking activated the same part of the brain in the same way.
Learn by reading.

"Wow-- you are really reading something into that activity."

Yeah, like what it actually says about universal brain activity.

"I think you've painted yourself into a corner"

Yeah, it's the correct corner, where all who are correct about what they're saying go.

"where it says they are able to detect types of thoughts?"

Read about multi tasking in that study...those types of thoughts are universally indicated.

"You basically cannot provide physical dimensions for something like "thought", "idea" or "concept".

Listen, all of those things are constructs, they are merely contingent on physical things, but are not physical themselves.
If the physical things didn't exist, they would not exist.
Stop asking me about physical dimensions of constructs CONTINGENT on the physical.

-->
@MagicAintReal

When one comes to terms that are there are indeed things that can not be measured/observed via science (because they are not physical or material), then one no longer has the platform of "It must be proved by science in order for me to believe it!" to stand on. And this seems to be the platform of many atheists.

Believe me, I was once one of them. lol.

-->
@MagicAintReal

You posted your link to that Berkeley article in response to my point about Science has not been able to determine the content of a thought based on brainwaves. why would you post that link then in response to my comment?

Wow-- you are really reading something into that activity. The section you highlight refer to auditory and visual cues...not thoughts. Can you point to the passage in that Berkeley article where it says they are able to detect types of thoughts? Interesting the only mention of the word thought in that whole article are in the title and in the sentence....that's it.

By length, i meant length as a physical measurement, not a measurement of time. I think you've painted yourself into a corner. You basically anot provide physical dimensions for something like "thought", "idea" or "concept". The reason you have to point to brainwaves is because there are no physical attributes of "thoughts" or "ideas", so you are forced to look at something that is the result (or perhaps cause) of thoughts and ideas.

Spacetime-- the jury is stil out on whether it's a physical thing or not. Physicists, the biggest brains in the field, can't even agree on it. So if Physicists can't even agree to it, far be it from me to assume it's true simply because anonymous blogger on a website says it's true. But hey, that's just me.

The bottom line is this-- you're struggling to admit that there are indeed things that exist that are not composed of matter-- that are not composed of physical substance. Things like ideas, thoughts, and concepts. Because science directly measures the physical, the fact these very real things do not have physical presence implies that they can not be measured by science. Sure, you can measure by-products, effects, etc, but you can't measure or observe via science these thoughts or ideas directly. in fact, the by-products or effects are in fact GREAT evidence (dare I say proof) that these non-physical entities exist.

-->
@GuitarSlinger

"No where in that article did I find anything that hinted at science being able to tell what the content of a thought is by analyzing brainwaves."

That's not what I said, straw man maker.
I said that we can tell the TYPES of thoughts people are thinking given the areas that light up.

"Here we have eight different experiments, and all found a universal signature of activity centered in the prefrontal lobe that links perception and action. It’s the glue of cognition."
"Initially, sensory areas of the auditory and visual cortex activate to process audible or visual cues. Subsequently, areas primarily in the sensory and prefrontal cortices activate to extract the meaning of the stimulus."

You should read more.

"what color is a thought?"

Well, being that thoughts are contingent on the physical they do not emit electromagnetic radiation, thus no color.

"What is the length of a thought"

Depends on how long the neurotransmitter can sustain transmitting the signal.

"Width?"

Contingent.

"Volume?"

Being that thoughts have no air, they have no vibrating air.

"How much space does an idea take up?"

The amount of space all of its contingent components take up.

Hey, spacetimeis a physical thing, can you run your obnoxious questions about spacetime?
What color is space...length...volume?

-->
@MagicAintReal

Keep in mind, I'm asking you about the thought, not it's byproducts or contigencies....

Don't describe the brainwaves-- I'm not asking you to describe the brainwaves.

-->
@MagicAintReal

Nice try. It's a valiant attempt, but not successful. No where in that article did I find anything that hinted at science being able to tell what the content of a thought is by analyzing brainwaves. Simply put, science has not been able to say something like "This person is thinking of the Titanic" simply by analyzing brainwaves.

Ok. Let's discuss this further:

1. Can you tell me any physical attributes of an idea? Better yet, give me the physical dimensions of "idea" I'll help ya with some basics:
- what color is a thought?
- how much does a thought weigh?
- what is the length of a thought?
- what is the width of a thought ?
- what is the volume of a thought?
2. How much space does an idea or thought take up?

These are pretty basic things we learned in elementary science class when discussing physical objects.

-->
@GuitarSlinger

"Science has not been able to determine the content of a thought based on brainwaves. Science at best says because of the brainwaves, this COULD BE a thougNice try. If you are so sure, perhaps you can point to the specific scientific research that proves this."

https://news.berkeley.edu/2018/01/17/recording-a-thoughts-fleeting-trip-through-the-brain/

and

https://youtu.be/sU8SZwNK9QE

"Contingency is irrelevant to my question. I’m simply asking if you believe if there are things that exist that do not have physical existence."

Ok, then no, all things that exist in the universe are spatiotemporal and physical, including contingent constructs.

-->
@MagicAintReal

**"Do you believe there are things that exist that do not have physical existence?"
I have no reason to believe that there are things that exist that do not have physical existence UNLESS they are contingent on the physical.
I have no reason to believe anything NOT CONTINGENT on the physical exists.**

Contingency is irrelevant to my question. It’s a simple yes/no question. I’m simply asking if you believe if there are things that exist that do not have physical existence. Answer it. Either you do or you don’t. Don’t dance around it with long-winded answers attempting to throw me off-base. It won’t work. Once I ask a question, I’m expecting an answer. I’m not asking you to explain why—if I want to know why, I will ask.

Based on your answers, I am assuming you would answer “YES” to this question. You are also adding on the clarifier/modifier indicating that these things are contingent on physical. So am I right in assuming you believe that non-physical things exist?

-->
@MagicAintReal

**Ok, so because the titanic is from the past and I know of it, it naturally must be in my memory, so to access the relevant facts associated with the titanic, I will need to activate my frontal lobe, and if my dopamine levels are where they need to be for me to accurately be able to communicate that memory from the frontal lobe to my language acquisition device, I can verbally indicate that I can recall images, books, and even movies I've seen that contain those relevant facts about the titanic.
This thought is a construct of the processes my brain and neurons go through with respects to that particular memory.**

Quit dancing around the question. The content of the thought is irrelevant (the contect of the thought could be anything—the Titanic…Jimi Hendrix…..Mother Theresa….Garfield the Cat…Lasagna). I’’m not asking you to provide details about the content of the thought. I’m asking you to provide the details, in physical terms, of “thought”.