Does any one else agree that the "Well, we can't see air, but we know it exists" argument is obviously flawed?

What is the difference between a being that doesn't exist, and a being that can't be felt, seen, heard, smelt, or tasted?

Nothing.

Neil:

"It is well established that consciousness cannot be explained through any physical mechanism."

No, that is absurd, and I would dare say a bold-faced lie. There is no other possible scientific explanation other than a chemical / physical neurological explanation.

Wonderfully:

"Are they not in fact nothing more than the 'absents' of something? Say heat, and light?"

You just proved what the original question was implying. Cold and dark do not have properties, because they are the absence of existing heat and light.

I think that the air analogy may be flawed but the principle behind it something to think about. According to you, nothing exists that can't be measured through one of our five sences, if I am not mistaken.

That way of thinking is not being very open minded. It is like a ancient man saying that there is nothing beyond the two or three miles that he moved in his world, if he couldn't see it or touch it, it did not exist to him. He would not think there was anything else there because he had never seen it. Likewise just a few hundred years ago we had no idea that planets outside of what we could see and measure where there. Just like the ancient man, if we cant see it, we can't say that it exists?

You are either assuming that we already know everything, or that we can't possibly learn of anything new. Just because science says that everything must have a natural explanation doesn't mean that things that are supernatural do not exist. They just haven't a way to measure them yet. You will continue to see that the more science learns the more they will realize how much we do not know, and it is my belief that not even allowing the possibility of the supernatural is a huge mistake on the part of science.

You can ask many religious people if they have felt something supernatural and many will tell you they have. You are ignoring them saying they are ignorant and it can't be possible. I do the same thing with people who claim to have seen UFO's. If about 2/3 of the worlds population were to tell me that they had seen or felt a UFO for thousands of years I think I might change my mind about the subject. Just because I haven't seen one wouldn't mean that the billions who have were lieing.

It is true... if you count the air example you could use other obvious ones... such as... I'm blind... I can't see the internet nor can I touch it... therefore it doesn't exist... Sillyness!

Added: Wow that makes it sound horrid... I didn't mean it so crudely... I'm trying to show you should look at all sides of the argument... not just your own perspective... there are times when certain examples can be a applied and other's cannot... basically you will not find an answer to this question unless it is the answer you already have in your mind... Everyone's mind was already made up before you even posted this...

Air can't be seen but it's physical manifestations can be, same with God. You say everything real has some sort of physical manifestation or housing, God has a physical manifestation in the acts of love between one person and another,and God has a housing, in the hearts of those that believe. Today a stranger approached me at the gas station and said he missed his bus and asked for a ride to his doctors appointment.I said "jump in" and refused the money he offered when I dropped him off. I just told him to pass the good deed along to someone else.That is a physical manifestation of God in itself. To do something for someone else without wanting anything in return except a feeling of gratification. Not gratification from the person I helped, but the feeling of gratification I had towards God for allowing me the opportunity to help someone. And man did it feel great! Pay it forward.

Oh, I agree. I really have never understood why people would say something like that. I'm Catholic, and I believe God exists with my whole heart. I just believe there are better ways of defending that belief than with a ridiculous statement like that. You are correct, that is an incredibly flawed argument, and not one a thinking Christian would use. It's simply something some Christians say because those are the things that they hear other Christians say. Instead of trying to figure out what these things mean for themselves, they just take everybody else's word for it. It's sad because that's one of the reasons non-Christians view most of us as brain washed, misinformed or conned.

It is well established that consciousness cannot be explained through any physical mechanism. This is an in principle argument against materialism and pure objectivity.

edit: The mind is not physical, and is *not* the housing for consciousness. Many of the top current theorists are now saying the evidence suggests that 1) consciousness is a fundamental aspect of nature, and 2) the physiology receives consciousness the way a TV receives a show. So physical aspects may be necessary for the expression of *human* consciousness, but this is not the same as consciousness as such.

The problem with the "air" argument and it's like is that it assumes the scientific standard of evidence is sense perception, which is a straw man.

Anyone who thinks i am wrong is welcome to present what they think. Consciousness studies is my field, so you've been warned.

And calling me a lier is more likely to get your face smashed then any actual conversation, so choose your words carefully.

Not all Christians believe that. An immaterial being, especially a God, is not logical.

There is no such thing as immaterial matter. All spirit is matter, but it is more fine or pure

The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit.

One of the most demonstrable truths from the Bible is the physical, bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ. When Jesus came forth from the tomb, he showed himself to his Apostles. Even they thought him to be a spirit, but he said: “Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.”

Then he showed them his hands and feet, and when they were still skeptical, he asked for meat and honeycomb and ate before them. (Luke 24:36–43.) Then they saw he was no apparition.

John 5

18 Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.

19 Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.

And

John 10

33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.

34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?

Jesus used the law, the old testament, Psalms 82:6 to show the Jewish leaders that in fact the law did support his position and claims. Jesus said that whatever he did, he did because the Father did it first. Christ clearly has a body so guess who else does.

It is an obviously flawed argument. Many Xian apologists want to use analogys to argue against their own beliefs. On one hand they want to argue that god has not physical properties and then want to claim that we accept the existence of something else that does have physical properties that we can measure. It is the usual thing of them running us around the mulberry bush to keep things confused. More evidence that they have nothing to hang their hats. on.

"Everything that is real has some sort of physical property, "

That is your assumption, based on your opinion that theire is no God. If their is a God, your assumption is wrong, and then your whole argument goes out the window.

It's like me saying (I don't believe in Biblical creation, but in Thiestic evolution):

Since God created man out of the dust 6000 years ago, and many carbon dating dates man-made items older than that, carbon dating must be wrong"

A flawed assumption leads to a flawed argument. Prove your assumption and you've got something.

Everything that is real has some sort of physical property, some sort of physical manifestation

Does it now?

And what would the physical manifestation of 'cold' be?

or what would the physical manifestation of 'dark' be?

Are they not in fact nothing more than the 'absents' of something? Say heat, and light?

Do you wish to go on?