Here's why. Assume that materialism is true. Then under a materialist rubric everything must be reduced to matter in motion. Therefore, human thought must also be reduced to matter in motion. Therefore, my thought that "materialism is false" is equally the product of moving atoms as your theory that "materialism is true." Neither assertion can be more or less true than the other. But contradictory ideas cannot both be true, by the law of non-contradiction. Therefore, the conclusion is false. The intermediate propositions are logically valid. Therefore, the premise must be false. The premise is that materialism is true.
Materialism can be shown to be incoherent in another way. Materialism cannot give a coherent explanation for the unified experience of consciousness or the unified sense of self. Is my sense of self reducible to my thoughts? But my thoughts must be strings of chemicals. But if each thought is a discrete set of atoms then there must be as many "selves" as discrete thoughts. Is the self a scanning mechanism in the brain that analyzes these discrete thoughts? If so, then there must be as many selves as discrete acts of scanning, et cetera, ad infinitum.
Empirical science is only possible under a moderate realist epistemology.
*boggle*. Is this what passes for logical thought these days? The real Aquinas would be aghast.
Let's examine that gem line by line:
Assume that materialism is true. Then under a materialist rubric everything must be reduced to matter in motion.
Grossly oversimplifies materialism, but I'll let it slide, since it's not the key error in your screed.
Therefore, human thought must also be reduced to matter in motion.
Close enough.
Therefore, my thought that "materialism is false" is equally the product of moving atoms as your theory that "materialism is true."
Okay.
Neither assertion can be more or less true than the other.
**EEERRRNNTT**!
Sorry, thanks for playing, but now Don Pardo will tell you what lovely consolation prizes you'll be taking home with you.
Whose butt did you pull *that* one out of?
But contradictory ideas cannot both be true, by the law of non-contradiction.
Right.
Therefore, the conclusion is false.
It most certainly is, thanks to your "everything is as true as anything else" whopper a few lines previously.
The intermediate propositions are logically valid.
ROFL! Yeah. Sure. Whatever you say.
Therefore, the premise must be false. The premise is that materialism is true.
Nice try. Next time you have a late-night college bull session, lay off the schnapps.
Here, maybe you'll be able to see your own bone-headed error if we recast your ironclad logic (*snicker*) in the opposite direction:
Assume that supernaturalism is true. Then under a supernaturalist rubric human thought must be reduced to souls in action. Therefore, my thought that "supernaturalism is false" is equally the product of a soul as your theory that "supernaturalism is true." Neither assertion can be more or less true than the other. But contradictory ideas cannot both be true, by the law of non-contradiction. Therefore, the conclusion is false. The intermediate propositions are logically valid. Therefore, the premise must be false. The premise is that supernaturalism is true.Not too convincing, is it?
Materialism can be shown to be incoherent in another way.
Ooh, this ought to be good.
Materialism cannot give a coherent explanation for the unified experience of consciousness or the unified sense of self.
Unsupported statement.
Is my sense of self reducible to my thoughts?
You tell me, it's *your* argument.
But my thoughts must be strings of chemicals.
Must they? Define "string" while you're at it.
But if each thought is a discrete set of atoms then there must be as many "selves" as discrete thoughts.
Unsupported statement. Why not a single self comprised of many thoughts? And you have not demonstrated that thoughts must necessarily be "discrete".
Is the self a scanning mechanism in the brain that analyzes these discrete thoughts? If so, then there must be as many selves as discrete acts of scanning, et cetera, ad infinitum.
And if it's something else... Oops, you "forgot" to cover all your bases. Ten yard penalty for directionless rambling.
Empirical science is only possible under a moderate realist epistemology.
Why, just because you say so?
No. But your are invited to explain why you feel this must be so.