I am unaware of any part of reality that is not material or at least an emergent property of parts of the material, could you explain what this “immaterial reality” is, and what evidence supports your claim please?
Governed by yes, but not necessarily determined by, that assertion likewise would need to be explained and evidenced.
Oh dear, a published and acknowledged genius, vs some “Billy no name” on the internet, do you see the problem?
I am an atheist, I am also alive, I have been so consistently for over 60 years, so the only part left of your claim that hasn’t been demonstrated to match reality is “god’s universe”. So, let’s start with you demonstrating something beyond a bare unevidenced assertion, implying a deity exists? Please start with the very best reasons / evidence you have, it gets tedious otherwise. NB bare unevidenced assertions that are as much in need of evidentiary support as your claim a deity exists, will go straight in the bin, Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.
False dichotomy fallacy, a third obvious idea is that those things are emergent properties of a physical material human brain.
I sense you’re making some broader point, probably less time consuming if you made that point emphatically, rather than implicitly.
Nope, go read the meanings of those words is all I can suggest. If you have an argument that goes beyond an implicit claim, then make it please.
I am unaware of any such claim, this deity hasn’t offered this claim to me in any cogent or objective way? How do you know it was a deity making this claim?
No one needs to disprove your claims or offer any alternative explanations or evidence, It would be an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, to argue that any idea or claim is true, just because we lack alternative evidence / explanations.
The physical material universe exists as an objective fact, life exists as an objective fact, if you want to add unevidenced deities and inexplicable magic, then you will have to evidence they exist. Your ball…
Already you’re talking garbage. Chemical elements are manifestly material entities. They are observable and measurable, and have well-defined physical properties, such as mass, and the ability to form compounds with ohter elements.
[/quote]
You mean the way mythology fanboys personify the holograms in their heads about a cartoon magic man in the sky? Oh wait, there’s a vast difference between referring to “science” as the postulates demonstrated to be in accord with observational reality by scientists, and referring to an imaginary cartoon magic man as an entity possessing personhood.
Your apologetic duplicity is showing, and badly.
[/quote]
Another garbage assertion.
Thought and the mind are manifestly products of brain chemistry. Likewise with the products of thought. We have DATA establishing that consciousness is indeed the product of brain chemistry.
Here are two papers destroying the myth that consciousness doesn’t have a material basis:
[1] Visual Image Reconstruction From Human Brain Activity Using A Combination Of Multiscale Local Image Decoders by Yoichi Miyawaki, Hajime Uchida, Okito Yamashita, Masa-aki Sato, Yusuke Morito, Hiroki C. Tanabe, Norihiro Sadato and Yukiyasu Kamitani,Neuron, 60:915-929 (11th December 2008)
[2] Reconstructing Visual Experiences From Brain Activity Evoked By Natural Movies by Shinji Nishimoto, An T. Vu, Thomas Naselaris, Yuval Benjamini, Bin Yu, and Jack L. Gallant, Current Biology, 21: 1641-1646 (11th October 2011)
If assertions about consciousness being “immaterial” were something other than vacuous noise, the above experiments would have been impossible.
Quite simply, scientists have demonstrated, with the above experiments, that it is possible to determine which still images or movies people have viewed, via examination of blood oxygen density in relevant parts of the brain - in other words, from a MATERIAL source of data.
Consciousness is nothing more than a particular form of data processing, underpinned by brain chemistry. The above experiments constitute robust evidence for this postulate.
That doesn’t support your above garbage assertion. That such entities as thought can emerge from a physical system, is not in doubt by anyone who paid attention in class. The entire scientific discipline of cognitive neuroscience is founded on this postulate, a discipline that I have just demonstrated above, destroys your apologetics.
More garbage. Garbage that is grounded in your wilful ignorance of what atheism actually is.
Atheism, in its rigorous formulation, is nothing more than deep and proper suspicion of unsupported mythology fanboy assertions. That is IT. Equivalently, it consists of “YKOU assert that your cartoon magic man exists, YOU support your assertions”, preferably with something better than “my favourite goat herder mythology says so”, and the sort of ex recto apologetic fabrications that an astute child would point and laugh at.
Indeed, scientists have long since had a proper approach to the business of probabiistic event, based upon Markov chain processes, which are introduced whenever it is known that a given outcome can be generated by more than one testable natural process, but the exact choice applicable in a given instance is unknown, because we lack the audit trail of data.
This is solved by discovering, through relevant experiment, how frequently the various relevant choices of testable natural process occur in a given system, then assigning probabilities based upon that data, and constructing a Markov chain process based upon that data. The fun part being, of course, that each of the branches in a Markov chain process leading to a given outcome is a testable natural process, and therefore deterministic when it occurs. The indeterminacy lies in not knowing which choice actually affected a given instance.
But under NO circumstances, do scientists use the word “random” in the duplicitous creationist cariacture sense of “happened by accident for no reason”. Instead, for a scientist, “random” is merely a shorthand for “we know mutliple options could have produced this result, but we lack the audit trail of data telling us which one actually occurred in this instance”. Furthermore, when a Markov chain process is constructed, the resulting random variable is constrained to lie within a well-defined probability distribution.
Just because we lack intricate details, doesn’t mean that we cannot make sense of a given event, and scientists have known this for the best part of a century, but mythology fanboys have yet to catch up on this.
Bullshit.
You and your fellow mythology fanboys have had 2,000 years to provide even an atom of genuine evidence for your cartoon magic man, and have FAILED DISMALLY to deliver. As a corollary, ALL your assertions about this entity, can be safely discarded and tossed into the bin, with the same absence of effort you exerted in presenting them.
Your favourite Bronze Age mythology isn’t “evidence” for your cartoon magic man, it’s evidence solely for the propensity of its piss-stained nomad authors to make shit up. Such as that cretinous bilge about genetics being controlled by coloured sticks, an assertion that was utterly destroyed by a 19th century monk, when he launched modern genetics as a properly constituted scientific discipline.
Likewise, ex recto apologetic fabrications that an astute child would point and laugh at, aren’t “evidence” for your cartoon magic man, they’re evidence for the desperation and duplicity of the pedlars thereof.
Third, we and our surroundings aren’t “evidence” for magic poofing by your cartoon magic man, they’re evidence for testable natural processes, as documented in several million peer reviewed scientific papers.
Furthermore, the moment that testable natural processes are found to be SUFFICIENT to account for a real world observable, then cartoon magic men from pre-scientific mythologies are superfluous to requirements and irrelevant. Hint: this has already happened for vast classes of observables, and the list is growing.
Fourth, an elementary principle applies here, that allows people who paid attention in class, to dismiss your imaginary cartoon magic man without even bothering with science. Namely, ANY entity that is asserted to possess contradictory or absurd properties, can be dismissed summarily on that basis alone without further ado. Thus, we can sweep away ALL the fantasy magic entities concocted by humans in their various ridiculous pre-scientific mythologies, yours included. Along with the ridiculous mythologies themselves, that in some cases don’t even qualify as good fiction.