Peter wrote:
"I can only prove my own consciousness,"
I asked:
"Can you prove you're conscious without being conscious? Can you validate your mind without using it?"
 
Peter wrote:
"What does this have to do with being able to prove my own consciousness?"
 
If you claim that you can prove your conscious by using your consciousness, then you commit the fallacy of the stolen concept. See the article by Branden which I linked above. (Also, I notice you didn't actually answer the question.)
 
Peter wrote:
"Secondly, what are you refering to by "mind."  If it is synonymous with consciousness then look at my argument again.  If by "mind" you mean a physical brain, then no.  You do not validate a physical brain as being a mind, because it is possible that your mind existence without a physical form because, as I have already demonstrated, existence exists even if a physical world does not."
 
By 'mind' I am referring to a conceptual form of consciousness, of which man is capable (but which many short-circuit by relying on stolen concepts).
 
Peter wrote:
"But what I do know is that existence causes consciousness."
I asked:
"Again I ask: By what means?"
 
Peter protested:
"Again, I must point out, IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE HOW."
 
Why are you reluctant to answer it?
 
Peter wrote:
"My argument is not how it happens, but that it does."
 
Eventually, for your overall argument to have any content, you would have to address this question.
 
Peter wrote:
"That is all I need to prove in order to disprove your arguments."
 
How do you know this?
 
Peter wrote:
"I do not need to actually put forth a positive case as to what it is in order to prove you wrong--you are wrong regardless of whether or not I can prove anything positive on my end."
 
How do you know this?
 
Peter wrote:
"Therefore, to summarize what we have so far, existence is eternal, self-existent, outside the realm of time, immutable, and is consciousness."
I asked:
"So a rock is conscious? Now you're package-dealing again!"
 
Peter wrote:
"You are assuming that all physical forms have equal existence (in which case there would be no difference between a bear and a beatle)."
 
What do you mean by "equal existence"? Can something exist "more" than something else? My question above, posed in response to your statement that "existence is... consciousness," was intended merely to raise your awareness that this equation ("existence is... consciousness") is a package-deal, for it fails to acknowledge crucial distinctions. Existence and consciousness are neither metaphysically nor conceptually equivalent. 'Existence' is a collective noun; it refers to all things which exist. Did you see that? Things - plural. Consciousness is an attribute which belongs only to a certain class of existents. I do not hold that the universe as such (the sum total of all that exists) is consciousness, any more than I hold that a rock is conscious. Thus, I reject your assertion that "existence is... consciousness."
 
Peter wrote:
"Secondly, how do you know that a rock is not conscious."
 
By a means of knowledge.
 
Peter wrote:
"Is failure to communicate with you proof that it is not conscious?"
 
Not this alone. For I know many people, some theists for example, who appear to be conscious, but apparently cannot communicate. Besides, I hold that conscious is only possible when there is a means of awareness, i.e., the senses (otherwise, one literally endorses nonsense). Rocks have no sensory receptors. Also, consciousness is an attribute which belongs only to a particular class of existents, namely living animals. Rocks are neither animal nor living. A rock would not need consciousness, since it is not living, and thus does not face the fundamental alternative of living organisms, which is existence vs. non-existence.
 
Peter wrote:
"(Now, because I know you're going to misread everything--I am not saying that a rock IS conscious;"
 
Actually, I assumed you'd know this. And I did not misread you to saying that you think rocks are conscious.
 
Peter wrote:
"I am only saying that there is no way for you to know whether or not it is.)"
 
Oh? Okay. If you like.
 
Peter wrote:
"Again, you are not using my stated definitions.  The existence that I am refering to is that part of existence that is all the stated qualities: eternal, self-existent, outside the realm of time and immutable--that is the part of existence that is conscious too, and logically necessarily so (since you do not refute this argument, but merely use another irrelevant attack and do not answer it)."
 
First of all, I do not need to refute an argument which invalidates itself by means of conceptual errors. I merely point them out, and show how the argument refutes itself. Second, the attributes 'eternal', 'self-existent', 'outside the realm of time' and 'immutable' apply to the totality of existence, not to a part of it. Again, existence is a collective noun. Whether or not your stated definitions in mind take this into account is unknown to me, and I'm not sure where you identify 'existence' to be a collective noun as you use it. According to Objectivism, which supplies the definitions, meanings and nuances which I am assuming, 'existence' is a collective noun in the sense that I have stated here.
 
Furthermore, there are no organisms which possess the faculty of awareness and which are eternal, immutable and out of time in the sense that a measurement of action or motion is inapplicable to them. So all indicators which I have detected point in the general direction of a package-deal which you're trying to smuggle into your argument. This invalidates your argument, whether you like it or not.
 
Peter had written:
"Further, since we know that these things are true regardless of whether or not the physical world exists, existence is not dependent upon the physical world for existence."
I commented:
"Not only has Peter not established this, he must accept stolen concepts, frozen abstractions and package-deals in order to pass it off as one of his conclusions. I cannot accept it as it is all invalid."
 
Now Peter writes:
"But all we have is your assertions that I have stolen concepts, used frozen abstrations, and accepted package-deals.  You have not proven the invalidity of any of these concepts either."
 
On the contrary, the presence of conceptual error invalidates your use of the concepts in question. Furthermore, you have done nothing to validate the concepts which you employ. You have told us nothing about the means by which you form concepts. So, clearly this is a neglected onus on your part. If you want anyone to take your arguments seriously (i.e., if you really want to prove that god the superspook exists), then you need to do a lot more homework, Peter. That's just all there is to it.
 
Peter wrote:
"You merely state them over and over and over again, and then pretend to reject everything that I say on a "reasonable" and "logical" basis."
 
Not at all, Peter. I've provided far more substance than you seem willing to deal with. You also show an uncanny incapacity to integrate the points and criticisms which I've provided in response to your arguments. Again, it's not my problem if you do not choose to think these matters through a little more carefully.
 
Peter wrote:
"Well, you haven't offered an argument demonstrating how I have actually done any of this--you are simply repeating the charge over and over and over again.  Start proving, not labelling."
 
I think you're in deep denial, Peter. You see only what you want to see, respond only to what you want to respond, believe in those beings which you want to believe. That's fine. It doesn't really matter to me what you do. Just don't poke anyone's eye out!
 
CertainVerdict