I have yet to see a materialist provide a really good reason why that's *necessarily* a bad argument.
As opposed to materialist poofery, where the brain slowly develops through random processes over millions of years and then “poof!”...out pops the mind shouting HAPPY BIRTHDAY like Frosty the Snowman.
Is isn’t an argument at all. It is an assertion, that can not be verified, or falsified.
Hence, it is meaningless, and thus a subject for religious studies, rather than a subject for science.
Like the Trinity, you can not do a meaningful and repeatable experiment. Religion has often tried to coopt the method of science.
When St Helen went to the Middle East to look for the True Cross, the city fathers of Jerusalem were well prepared. They happily were able to direct her and her group to the site of the cruxifiction. They dug, and dug up not one, not two, but three crosses. But which cross was the True Cross? A woman was produced that complained of headache. They applied cross number 1 to her. She reported no change. They applied cross number 2 to her. She reported no change. They applied cross number 3 to her. She miraculously reported that her headache was HEALED. So, that settled that, Cross number 3 was accepted as the True Cross, and is still on display in the Vatican. Samples have not been made available for recent scientific testing, since the methods of the 4th Century prove its origin beyond any doubt.
Don’t think it cruel that the Church denies healing to all those people around the world with migrain headaches?