Peter had written

I commented:
"Can you define what you mean by 'immaterial' in affirmative terms? If 'immaterial' can only be defined in negative terms (e.g., "immaterial is that which is not material," etc.) then obviously the concept 'material' holds primacy over the concept 'immaterial', since it is only in contrast to that which is material that one can form the concept 'immaterial' to begin with. Otherwise, it's just another stolen concept, and without an affirmative definition, it is contentless as well."

Agreed. That is why I stated "If 'immaterial' can only be defined in negative terms (e.g., 'immaterial is that which is not material,' etc.) then obviously the concept 'material' holds primacy over the concept 'immaterial', since it is only in contrast to that which is material that one can form the concept 'immaterial' to begin with."

"--that does not mean that the one is superior to the other, merely that we cannot understand it without reference to the other."

It means that the prior concept ('material' in this case) holds conceptual primacy to the contrasting concept ('immaterial' in this case), since we first need the former concept ('material' in this case) in order to make the contrasting concept ('immaterial' in this case) possible to begin with. This is a matter of conceptual hierarchy, Peter. You implicitly acknowledged this when you commented that "We define things that we do not fully understand by comparing it to something that is familiar to us."

Right! This certainly implies that the perceptually available facts hold conceptual primacy over facts which are not perceptually available. This affirms Objectivism: Since our awareness begins with the senses, our knowledge begins with the facts which our senses directly perceive. We give those facts names: 'existence', 'identity' and 'consciousness'. These are the axioms, are conceptual starting point.

Now, I still would like to know what "immaterial" refers to. So far, you have introduced this term, and you have only stated that to which it does not refer. Can you give us any more details in terms of the affirmative reference of this term?

"Something that is immaterial is something that we can prove exists in the consciousness, but that we cannot prove exists physically."

I'm still wondering what 'immaterial' means here. This does not tell me anything. If anything, it seems that what you state here takes the point of understanding in question for granted. I'd like a little more substance, if you please.

Peter had written:
"As such, existence is eternal, self-existent, outside the realm of time, immutable, consciousness, and is itself immaterial."

"And I suppose it's a good argument to simply ignore it and say that it's a package-deal and never interact with any actual arguments and trust that the fact that you have a friendly audience will keep you safe."

Now Peter, you sound like an utter hypocrite here. For look how much material I've presented in response to yours, and how little you've responded to mine by contrast. And now you whimper that I am not interacting enough!? Good grief, man! You really are a character! I think my point above is well established, if you integrate many of the points I've presented in previous posts in response to your "argument." It's up to you at this point to try to fit it all together, because no one can do this for you. It's called thinking (as opposed to simply believing what you learned in Sunday School).

I mean, after all, they're not going to point out that you don't have an argument whatsoever and are merely diverting attention from the main issues while obfuscating on the lesser points that my argument does not rest on."

Who are "they"? And what argument are you expecting me to put forth? I have no god-belief. That is my position. You're the one who believes there is a god, so I am giving you the honor of examining your argument toward this end. I have found that your argument commits crucial errors which may go undetected if I don't jump in to save the day and restore some element of rationality, to any degree of which I am capable. It is clear that you resent this.

"They might even be deluded into thinking that you have a real argument here, but anyone who actually wants to take the time to look through it will see that you haven't answered anything."

Again, what argument are you expecting me to put forward? I am not the one who claims that a god exists. You are, sir. Therefore, we patiently await any legitimate argument you can put forward to that end. And you know what, we're still waiting, but I can tell quite a few are not so patient any more. Several others on the Atheism vs. Theism web have taken you to task on some of the articles you've posted to your website, so I am not the only one who is finding flaws in your god-belief arguments.

I've done much more than this. Now you are belittling all the time and effort which I've put into showing where your arguments fail. You should be thanking me. Instead, you come across as an ingrate.

"I can only surmise that, because of your popularity on the list, you will assume that people will believe you if you just state it enough times without demonstrating any actual basis to charge me with it."

Peter, I don't think I'm all that popular. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if many atheists attending this list disagree with me on many fundamental points. To be honest, I think they aren't participating to the extent that I have because they give you less credit than I do, and arguably for very good reasons. It's clear that you reject reason, and that you simply believe that a god exists because you want to. Your zeal for argument and debate is confessionally motivated, not a matter of conviction for truth and honesty. I really can't blame them for ignoring you, as your arguments and website are quite inconsequential.

"I don't care if the non-thinkers out there don't want to look into the issue; but everyone who can understand an argument knows that you haven't answered mine."

I see. Okay then. Perhaps it's time for you to move on then, if you think no one here will hear you out fairly and squarely. What else are you going to do? Continue to go blue in the face?

Peter had written:
"Something that is eternal, self-existent, outside the realm of time, immutable, conscious, and immaterial can be nothing other than God."

Oh, but it surely can be. Read the work of Cornelius Van Til, John Frame, JP Holding, Greg Bahnsen, David Byron, Alvin Plantinga, and a whole host of other academic apologists.... Their stuff is full of all kinds of neat twists and turns!

"And since I've now shown that you haven't interacted with my argument at all, then obviously your statements are most certainly not clever."

"You skipped any argument about whether existence is eternal, whether it is self-existence, whether it is outside the realm of time; you only briefly touched on whether or not it was immutable, conscious, and immaterial. What part of the argument logically fails? You have not demonstrated a single instance"

Actually, that's not true. For in past posts on other threads in which we've interacted, I consistently held that, according to Objectivism, existence is absolute ("self-existent"), the universe (the sum total of existence) is eternal (i.e., outside of time) and that reality is immutable (e.g., it does not conform to a form of consciousness), etc. All these points have been dealt with long ago, that's why I was a little surprised to see you bring them up and harp on them now.

Furthermore, if I show that your argument commits a cognitive error at one point, then the argument must be rejected as fallacious. I have done this in numerous points. And your failure or reluctance to acknowledge and accept this fact only re-affirms what we've all suspected to be the case all along: Peter claims that there is a god simply because he wants there to be one, and all his posturing about providing an argument on behalf of his confessional investment is mere pretense.