Peter wrote:
"Just because you have seen, or heard, or felt, or tasted, or smelled something does not make that something a real existent object;"
 
Then what is the "something" which "you have seen, or heard, or felt, or tasted or smelled"? And by what means would one go about identifying whether "that something [is] a real existent object" or not? Peter does not say. Apparently, he wants his axioms without a means of awareness. We must ask: Why? We already know the answer: Peter doesn't want to deal with the facts of reality; rather, he wants to pick and choose what he will believe, and incorporate only what is propagandistically expedient into his "arguments." Good luck persuading anyone with that tactic!
 
Peter wrote:
"As to the means, I could simply say that it is a means of awareness, like CV has stated."
 
I have identified the means by which I am aware of that which exists. Thus, I give metaphysical context to my axioms. Peter, on the other hand, has not identified the means by which he is aware (in fact, he has repeatedly stated that identifying what they are is irrelevant). Thus, Peter gives no metaphysical context to any axioms he wants to hijack in service of his ever-evolving god-beliefs (for which he has yet to provide any legitimate argument).
 
Peter wrotes:
"CV seems to say would be the mind examining sensory data and coming to a conclusion about what it is--a process that in no way demands a physical existence as consciousness alone can do that, which is my argument back."
 
Peter is still stuck on the notion of consciousness without an object. He speaks of "consciousness alone." There is no such thing, and nowhere has Peter established that consciousness can exist in the vacuum which he imagines. Thus, he here falls prey to the fallacy of pure self-reference, which I've pointed out before. On top of that, we've already seen him commit himself to the fallacy of context-dropping (not to mention his acceptance of a long string of stolen concepts). Both errors alone are sufficient to invalidate his overall argument, but I suppose (as we've seen before) he will protest and simply move on without dealing with the errors of his ways. Typical of theists, Peter is always looking for a backdoor through which he can slip his illicit premises. Won't work.
 
Peter wrote:
"Physical existence is not necessary to determine the axioms of existence, consciousness, and identity."
 
How does Peter establish this? In fact, he has nowhere argued for it. In fact, it is built on a false view of consciousness. Where did he get this view of consciousness? From his primitive philosophy, or worse, from modern academics who have set before themselves the task of trying to validate primitive philosophy. Does Peter at any point deal with the issue of metaphysical primacy? No, not at all, at least not in any self-conscious manner. Rather, Peter seems quite aloof of this issue.
 
Peter wrote:
"The world is not necessarily physical in nature."
 
How does Peter establish this? Again, we have another unargued assertion presented as an axiom. So we must ask: Does the world exist? Is the world physical? What do we mean by 'physical'? Peter does not say. Are the things in the world physical? Do you think there needs to be a form of consciousness which created the world and or the things which are in it? If you think a god exists, then obviously, to be consistent with that belief, you would have to think so (cf. "doctrine of creation"). This tells us what your position on the issue of metaphysical primacy is, and it is self-negating (as are all such expressions of subjectivism).
 
Peter wrote:

"It is not demanded from those axioms."
 
Axioms do not make "demands." This is a reversal. More expressions of Peter's invalid premises.
 
Peter wrote:
"In fact, my entire argument that preceeded this discussion was what the logical conclusions of accepting the axioms of existence, consciousness, and identity would end up being."
 
I would like to see your "argument" presented as a formal syllogism. Can you do this? Please begin by identifying your initial starting point, and the means by which you are aware of it (assuming you have awareness of it). Keep in mind: products of imagination do not count, since they cannot logically serve as starting points (since they are not irreducible). That rules out any notion of a 'god'.
 
Peter provided a number of "axioms" of his own, numbered first through eighth. Where he got these, he does not say. Apparently he made them up. (I cannot find them in any of my Bibles, in fact, none of my Bibles even includes the word 'axiom' to begin with, so apparently the primitives who wrote it were unaware of the idea of axioms as such, and any modern Christians who invoke the term cannot have taken it from the Bible. Thus, Peter shows his already infamous habit of borrowing from extra-biblical sources [which he is reluctant to identify] in order to give his primitive god-beliefs more credibility.) While these 'axioms' remain contextless so long as Peter refuses to identify the means by which he is aware of them, I would like to focus only on the last two, since they seem to be the most incredible and outlandish. (This is not to imply that the previous six "axioms" which Peter provides are not without their share of problems as well, but that will have to wait for another time.)
 
Peter wrote:
"Seventh: 'empirical data (the data of observation of the physical world) is not necessary for consciousness'  Consciousness exists regardless of whether or not the physical world exists."
 
How does Peter establish the claim that "empirical data... is not necessary for consciosuness"? I see no argument for this. And since this statement is not identifying a perceptually self-evident truth, it must be argued for. But does Peter provide an argument in order to defend it? No, he does not. He simply asserts it, as if it did not require any support. Additionally, given the fact that Peter has been reluctant to identify the means by which he is aware of the facts which his "axioms" supposedly identify, everything he asserts on this subject is at best intellectually suspect.
 
When he states "Consciousness exists regardless of whether or not the physical world exists," does he state how he came to this conclusion? No, he does not. Does he think that this is true without support? If so, then clearly it is completely arbitrary and must be rejected. Otherwise, he must present an argument for its supposed truth. What are the premises which supposedly lead to this conclusion? Nothing Peter states establishes this position. Indeed, I think he takes much for granted!
 
Peter also wrote:
"Eighth: 'existence is not dependent upon the physical world for existence.'  Therefore, existence itself is immaterial because it is necessary regardless of whether or not physical data is valid."

How does Peter establish any of these points? Indeed, I don't think he even attempts to. Does Peter deny the existence of the physical world? He does not do so explicitly, for this would only give away his game. But he does seem to believe that the "physical world" is non-essential. How does he establish this? Remember: Peter is reluctant to identify the means by which he is conscious. He takes for granted the very point which he wants to wish away in the premises of his argument, namely the existence of the "physical world." Too bad for Peter, the physical world exists, and it is in the physical world where he must operate. So if his arguments neglect this fact, then his arguments are guilty of the fallacy of context-dropping. Can Peter establish that the "physical world" does not exist? Well, let him try. Obviously, his argument is with reality as such, not with atheists per se. He simply doesn't like the way existence exists, and he thinks that his arguments (read: wishes) can overturn the facts of reality and serve him the platter of his desires. Won't happen. Existence exists, and existence exists independent of consciousness. This puts all gods out of a job. Peter has not shown otherwise, in fact, his pontificating ironically only confirms these facts.

Peter wrote:
"My conclusion still stands: "Something that is eternal, self-existent, outside the realm of time, immutable, conscious, and immaterial can be nothing other than God."
 
Peter's "god" is nothing more than his own imagination working off the stolen concepts which still he refuses to deal with. He seems to think they will go away if he doesn't deal with them. Good luck!
 
CertainVerdict