Man your reading comprehension sucks. You drunk again?
Nope, but you're still beating a dead horse over it.
I never said that insulting somebody makes them wrong.
So you had no reason to bring it up 8 different times in your response.
You being in an incoherent drunken stupor doesn't make you wrong, it just makes you an incoherent drunk.
Fairly sure I made fewer grammatical mistakes than you did... but that's none of my business.
And I can point this out PLUS making arguments that show you're wrong. It's not an either/or here like you seem to think it is.
It is easy to think you are making great arguments when you keep changing the meaning of the word you use every other post.
I can point out that you're being an incoherent drunk while also showing how you're wrong with my own arguments.
Yeah, other that a formatting error and an instance where one word that was "of" instead of a different word I was trying to type at the time my entire response was actually very well typed.
And there's no logical fallacy in that at all, that's not an ad hominem fallacy at all. Check out what a logical fallacy actually is before you just throw that word out there.
And I quote:
"You keep doing all this talking, making all these claims, but you don't actually say anything.
No you're just drunk."
You didn't address me, or my argument, you just did a bit of hand waving and tossed out an insult.
ad hominem: "An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an attack on an argument made by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, rather than attacking the argument directly."
lol the fact that you thought it had anything to do with the supernatural proves you just don't even know what you're talking about. You're just talking out of your ass about a subject you've never researched before at all. You're like a creationist dude.
"Idealism is the view that all is fundamentally mental. That all is one and that all is consciousness."
That is a supernatural claim. There is no way to test, observe, measure or falsify this claim because according to this claim the physical universe is an immaterial thing. I have already pointed out how that is logically impossible by definition. Like a married bachelor or a square circle. But instead of going to the thread you just checked your inbox I would guess so You haven't even seen the second half of my reply to you.
Second half of my response to you: https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/49h3q1/the_mindbody_problem/d15t184
You saying this right here is irrelevant. Stay focused on the arguments.
Just replying to you line by line. If it seems out of place it is because you had another out of place mentioning of my drinking habits.
No it doesn't. Here's the definition of substance from the Oxford English Dictionary: "Philosophy The essential nature underlying phenomena, which is subject to changes and accidents."
This shows exactly how dishonest you are.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/substance
3.4 Philosophy
Which means you passed up
1A particular kind of matter with uniform properties:
1.1An intoxicating, stimulating, or narcotic chemical or drug, especially an illegal one.
2The real physical matter of which a person or thing consists and which has a tangible, solid presence:
2.1The quality of having a solid basis in reality or fact:
2.2The quality of being dependable or stable:
3The quality of being important, valid, or significant:
3.1The most important or essential part of something; the real or essential meaning:
3.2The subject matter of a text, speech, or work of art, especially as contrasted with the form or style in which it is presented.
3.3Wealth and possessions:
You had to go to the bottom of the list and only choose to accept the one answer you wanted over all the others, this is called cherry picking. You had to pass 9 other definitions to get to that one, and ignoring definitions 1 and 2 which are as follows.
1A particular kind of matter with uniform properties:
2The real physical matter of which a person or thing consists and which has a tangible, solid presence:
Guess what, basically every dictionary lists substance as being physical first.
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/substance
substance noun (MATERIAL)
[C] a material with particular physical characteristics:
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/substance
1. that of which a thing consists; physical matter or material:
Only one I could find that didn't list it first was http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/substance
Simple Definition of substance
: a material of a particular kind
Full Definition of substance 3 a : physical material from which something is made or which has discrete existenceb : matter of particular or definite chemical constitution
Philosophers have argued for thousands of years what the fundamental substance of reality is.
Go thing we have scientists then.
Some say its matter, some say its consciousness, some say its a neutral substance that is neither mind or matter etc.
Matter yes, consciousness no, "neutral substance" completely speculator.
Again, it seems you're trying to talk about a subject you simply don't know about... You're trying to lecture me about the meanings of words when the dictionary shuts you down.
When you are dishonest and scroll to the bottom the page to find the one definition that fits your argument, too bad for you I can use google too.
You're ignorant dude. Stop acting like you know this topic. You clearly don't. This isn't a topic you've actually researched like I have.
The "research" you have done can be compared to going to answersingenesis for information on evolution.
No you didn't actually, you were an incoherent mess and you still are. You're pretending like you know something about this topic when you clearly haven't done your homework.
I have held my current position on the topic for years now, and I didn't have to pull my "research" on the topic from a sorry waste of time 16 minutes of nothing youtube video to do it.
Oh so you don't believe there really is an objective reality then??? You don't believe that there is a world outside of your own mind? If you do believe then I've been right this whole time and not attacking straw men. If you don't believe then welcome to Idealism :)
Is English your first language? You have the gall to criticize my reading comprehension, you either read at the same reading level as the average Trump supporter or you are being deliberately dishonest. Let me break it down for you sweet cheeks.
Oh so you don't believe there really is an objective reality then???
I said reality is the limit. It is absolute. It is fact. Reality is fact whether or not there even exists a mind to observe reality.
You don't believe that there is a world outside of your own mind?
Everything is outside the mind. The body, the earth, the solar system, the galaxy, the galactic cluster, the super clusters, the universe. The mind is part of how we process our observation of these things.
If you do believe then I've been right this whole time and not attacking straw men. If you don't believe then welcome to Idealism :)
Yeah way to try to claim victory on what I wasn't saying, yet again.
Right, and if you think there is a reality above or beyond the limits of consciousness then you believe in a transcendent reality by your own admission here.
Not only are you attacking the last half of a paragraph, but you skip the next response I made, and competently ignored the next 6 sentences where I describe how you are putting the cart before the horse. You are very nearly to the point of dishonestly know as a quote mine, or in other words, you are lying about what I said.
No it isn't. Try describing a physical object without referring to your sense experience... Go ahead I'll wait... You'll soon realize that you can't... Anytime you describe you're an object you're talking about what it looks like, what it feels like, smells like, tastes like, etc. It's just a description of observations. The physical is supposed to be independent of observation but all we're doing is giving descriptions of observation not the physical.
Right there, you did it again. You go after the second sentence in the paragraph while ignoring the first and then ignoring the next four lines.