Sam Harris is a dumbass

Sam Harris' B.A. in philosophy doesn't appear to be sufficient for making him a competent philosopher. The question of whether morality can and does exist objectively without God is entirely a metaphysical question - making his background in neuroscience entirely irrelevant. I already have an idea of his arguments, being that he's an atheist, which derive from materialism, naturalism, empiricism, etc. I've also seen a debate or two of his, during which almost all of his arguments were red herrings.

None of the fundamental tenets of atheism are coherent. Empiricism is self-refuting; it holds that empirical observation is the only way to know truth, but it can't show that statement to be true. Belief that science is the only way to know truth, is also self-refuting, as there's no way to conduct an experiment to test if that's true. It's also false simply because truth can be obtained via methods like logical deduction, completely independent of science. Naturalism is self-refuting; if our ability to conceive of truth exists only because it has naturally evolved to be as it is, and nature selects only for traits that help us survive, and knowledge of truth isn't necessary for our survival, then there's no reason any of our conceptions of truth would be correct and Sam Harris shouldn't believe anything he says, including anything about morality.

Materialism is false; in order for it possibly to be true, one would have to believe ideas and concepts exist physically and objectively. Matter can only produce emergent properties. Emergent properties only exist subjectively. There is no such thing as mind-independent, objective emergent properties, in the same way there is no such thing as mind-independent, objective information. Only the mind gives these things meaning. The mind exists; this is self-evident. Thus the mind isn't an emergent property. Thus the mind can't be produced by matter. Thus the mind is immaterial. Thus materialism is false. As you should infer, when science is conducted by someone who isn't a logician, it allows for logical incoherencies to be overlooked or ignored, and makes evidence susceptible to being interpreted in accordance with bias.

In order for objective morality to exist in a materialistic world, as Sam Harris believes, it would need to be an abstract object or exist in physical objects. I don't know if he dismisses this necessity all together, but at the very least, he presupposes at least one of these to be true. This is because he presupposes God doesn't exist, demonstrably from a number of these logical fallacies: straw man ('God is a magical sky wizard'), appeal to ridicule ('lol they actually believe this'), begging the question (assuming his conclusion, like that morality objectively exists in a materialistic world, and -then- trying to explain how it works), red herring (anything irrelevant like 'What matters is that we have morality'), appeal to need ('We don't need God'), appeal to emotion ('God was bad and atheism is the only true enlightenment'), appeal to what should be ('It would be bad for God to exist'), genetic fallacy ('All religions correlate with certain cultures, therefore they are all false'), argument from ignorance ('I don't recognize evidence for God, therefore He's unlikely to exist'), or - and this is the most popular one, responsible for most atheist's delusions about atheism being synonymous with "reason" - appeal to the stone (dismissing something as obviously ridiculous without giving proof).

Consequently, Sam assumes morality is material and works his way from there. He certainly didn't arrive at that conclusion logically. He explains how our sense of morality has evolved to be as it is for our survival, but this doesn't imply morality objectively exists, only that subjective morality exists. In Sam's world view, unless he's cognitively dissonant or profoundly logically inconsistent, morality is objectively meaningless - nihilism is an inescapable consequence of atheism. He tries to confuse and conflate subjective meaningfulness with objective meaningfulness, but that's just an appeal to emotion. They simply aren't the same thing - nothing objective is contingent on our thoughts. Explaining how something would be plausible does not imply the probability of that thing being true. Sam Harris does nothing to show the existence of God is unlikely or ridiculous.

People who think of the existence of God as a ridiculous notion, presumably by choice, imagine Him as some limited being who's unlikely to exist by definition. God is generally defined as being omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, transcendent, and ultimately incomprehensible. Imposing purposely silly definitions on Him (or any definition), aside from being an appeal to ridicule, does not function as a valid reduction to absurdity because any and all imposed definitions conflict with His actual definition. For example, a "flying spaghetti monster" is either not omnipotent by definition, or its form isn't necessary and therefore arbitrary and non-definitive. If or when the intention is merely to show God is "as ridiculous" as any fantastical thing using false analogies, it is only a redundantly-fallacious appeal to the stone. It's also akin to saying "Look, I can make things up. Therefore your God is made up," and yet these are the kind of unsophisticated arguments atheists use, presumably all because they refuse to conceive of possibility outside our comprehension, lest they have to admit we may be held accountable to something outside ourselves.

The existence of God isn't ridiculous, anymore than the existence of minds, multiple dimensions, fundamental forces, ideas, concepts, thoughts, good, evil, purpose, meaning, physical constants, logical constants, existence in general, etc. are ridiculous. You might be tempted to contest something like "But we observe these things." No, you don't. You only observe their effects.

Arguments against Sam Harris' belief of the existence of objective morality in a Godless world:

Subjective relativism is self-refuting. If subjective relativism were true, the proposition "subjective relativism is false" would be paradoxical and couldn't exist. The proposition can exist, as I've demonstrated. Therefore subjective relativism is false. Therefore subjective morality isn't necessarily objectively correct.

1. There is only the conscious and the nonconscious. (p ^ p' = everything)
2. We know inductively that the inanimate (nonconscious) is not moral.
3. In some possible world, there is only the nonconscious.
4. In some possible world, there is no morality. (from 2 and 3)
5. Morality is contingent.
6. Morality is not contingent on the nonconscious. (from 2)
7. Morality is contingent on the conscious. (from 1, 5, and 6)
8. The objective is by definition independent of human or limited consciousness.
9. Morality can be objective if and only if God exists. (from 7 and 8)
10. Everything is objective or subjective.
11. If God doesn't exist, morality is only subjective. (from 9 and 10)

1. If God exists, morality exists as a Godly idea.
2. Godly ideas exist objectively.
3. If God exists, morality exists objectively.
4. If God doesn't exist, materialism is true.
5. The only thing that exists outside of minds is matter and possibly abstract objects.
6. Morality cannot be composed of matter.
7. Abstract objects are only concepts.
8. Concepts cannot exist objectively.
9. Abstract objects do not exist objectively.
10. If morality is an abstract object, it does not exist objectively.
11. Morality cannot exist outside of minds.
12. If God doesn't exist, morality only exists as a human idea. (from 6 and 10)
13. Human ideas don't exist objectively.
14. If God doesn't exist, morality doesn't exist objectively.
15. Therefore, if God doesn't exist, morality is only subjective, and it's objective only if God exists.

In conclusion, Sam Harris is demonstrably a dumbass.

he's a secular Jew, he'll say anything that is antichristian

I don't think you've ever read sam harris directly. At least it doesn't look like it.

be he's the one that taught me to hate muslims.

"People who think of the existence of God as a ridiculous notion, presumably by choice, imagine Him as some limited being who's unlikely to exist by definition. God is generally defined as being omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, transcendent, and ultimately incomprehensible"

Thinking is hard. Criticize other people for thinking. Make up imaginary thing that is incomprehensible to avoid thinking any further. Nice shit post religtard.

yeah but he's just another utilitarianist, scientist atheist/agnostic, what difference does it make if he additionally dislikes muslims

Plagiarizing Jordan Peterson is a sin.

Petersonfags still butthurt I see

Sam Harris looks like Ben Stiller. Both Jews, so it makes sense. Also, he is so fucking autistic sometimes regarding his vain atheism. It's fucking hilarious that Atheism is the fastest shrinking religion in the world with him at the helm of it. He is terrible at persuasion. period. He is sucj a cunt sometimes, and i think it's obvious to everyone that it's due to his fedora-tier atheism.

Arguing with a Jew is pointless. Hitler went through this eighty some years ago.

>Emergent properties only exist subjectively.

How do you know?

>oh noes he's spot on about my fallacious thinking
>He is therefore only criticizing thinking in general, and is thus a hypocrite
>He is therefore wrong
Your contention presupposes God as non-existent. It is a faulty syllogism that begs the question. You might as well contest "God doesn't exist because He's non-existent." Thinking apparently IS hard.

Because ideas only exist subjectively.

>hate jews
>defend religion that says jews are chosen by god

pick one.

How does that extend to everything else existing only subjectively?

>hurr we can only experience the world subjectively so we know things don't exist outside without the mind

What the fuck is this nonsense?

Meanwhile you offer no evidence for the existence of any god from any time or any religion.
>what a shock

Emergent properties are only ideas.
>>hurr we can only experience the world subjectively so we know things don't exist outside without the mind
Well no. Just no definitions exist outside the mind, such as "emergent properties.
Just because it may be outside of what you've already accepted, doesn't mean it's nonsense.

I am open to anything. That doesn't require presupposing anything. There is no evidence.
A lot of religious people will say there is intentionally no evidence. Well, ok... I am willing to come to an understanding even with a lack of evidence. "He's inherently mysterious and not able to be understood." So basically just believe this book. Ok, no. Fuck off with this retarded shit. Shouldn't you be on your knees praying to the supremely powerful masculine energy like the cuck you are?

Some literal high school dropout trying to pretend he knows what he's talking about.

Which is precisely why he's posting on his cantonese basket weaving forum instead of engaging in a formal debate, because this is something even a first year philosophy student could dismantle.

>Just no definitions exist outside the mind, such as "emergent properties.

Yes, those definitions don't exist without a mind. What does this have to do with the properties that we conceive as ideas existing without a mind? I understand everything you're saying and it continues to be nonsense. Or more specifically, it's logical within its own framework, but it doesn't mean anything and doesn't prove anything about the nature of how mind comes into existence or what actually exists. It's just a statement that "concepts don't exist without minds".

Knowledge isn't contingent on evidence. "Definitions don't exist outside of the mind," which is equivalent to "Definitions are contingent on the mind" is self-evident. You can call it true a priori or by definition.
If you're too much of an idiot to recognize the evidence, who cares.

There's so much wrong with your logic.

Ideas do exist, they are the product of your brain and can be measured. That's like claiming your computer files don't exist while ignoring your hard drive.

Morality is subjective because it differs culture to culture. Suicide is a sin in the West but a means to save face in the East. Murder is wrong is some tribes but an important right of passage for others.

Right now naturalism and materialism is the go to for describing reality because your side hasn't produced produced proof of supernaturalism. The best you give is are your ghosthunter tv shows.

It's also pretty obvious you haven't listened to much of the atheist arguments either. Since most of them use the fact that god is meant to be all powerful in their arguments

Mashallah.

He looks like one creepy motherfucker

>What does this have to do with the properties that we conceive as ideas existing without a mind?
Properties are only ideas. Like a work of Shakespeare has the property of being a novel. It does not have that property outside of a subjective idea. This is true for all properties, including emergent properties.
>I understand everything you're saying and it continues to be nonsense.
Then I'm glad whether or not it makes sense isn't contingent on your lack of intelligence.
>Or more specifically, it's logical within its own framework, but it doesn't mean anything and doesn't prove anything about the nature of how mind comes into existence or what actually exists.
It also doesn't prove tacos exist. Making assumptions about what the arguments are trying to do that are purposely false, and then saying "See, your arguments don't achieve this," isn't a valid contention, but only a red herring. The premise of "concepts don't exist without minds" is self-evident, and only exists to show a separate conclusion. To have to explain every single premise would potentially lead to infinite regress. You should look up the principle of charity, which exists partially for this reason.
>There's so much wrong with your logic.
No there isn't. You're just an idiot. Your stupidity or non-understanding doesn't imply fallaciousness of any argument.

>knowledge isn't contingent on evidence.
>if you're too much of an idiot to recognize the evidence, who cares.

Are you ok? Are you having a stroke or something? I said I am open to evidence or argument. Still nothing is being provided. Because you have nothing.

He's anti-Trump, that's all the evidence I need to know he's a retard.

>If I talk softly.... and pause after every few words.... people will think I'm smart...

First of all, you stupid, presumptuous fucking idiot - the argument was only to show that Sam Harris is retarded. Your whining about thinking you have no reason to believe in God is irrelevant.

1. Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause.
2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.
3. The universe exists.
4. Therefore, the universe has an explanation of its existence (from 1, 3).
5. Therefore, the explanation of the universe’s existence is God (from 2, 4).

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

1. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.
2. Objective moral values and duties do exist.
3. Therefore, God exists.

1. The fine-tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design.
2. It is not due to physical necessity or chance.
3. Therefore, it is due to design.

1. It is possible that a maximally great being exists.
2. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.
3. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.
4. If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.
5. If a maximally great being exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.
6. Therefore, a maximally great being exists.

1. If the multiverse doesn't exist, there is sufficient scientific reason to believe life is naturally impossible.
2. Stephen Hawking and many other science cucks are advocates for the existence of the multiverse for this reason, and such lends the theory credence.
3. If the multiverse exists, all possibilities exist.
4. If all possibilities exist, God exists.
5. If God exists in any universe, being God, He necessarily exists in all universes.
6. It is by definition impossible to negate God.
7. If scientists like Steven Hawking are right about the existence of the multiverse, then, ironically, God exists.

1. There is only the conscious and the nonconscious. (p ^ p' = everything)
2. We know inductively that the inanimate (nonconscious) is not moral. (Observation)
3. In some possible world, there is only the nonconscious. (Premise)
4. In some possible world, there is no morality. (From 2 and 3)
5. Morality is contingent. (From 4)
6. Morality is not contingent on the nonconscious. (From 2)
7. Morality is contingent on the conscious. (From 1, 5, and 6)
8. Consequence is objective. (Premise)
9. Consequence can be significant. (Observation)
10. Objective, significant consequence implies objective meaning. (Premise)
11. Objective meaning implies objective purpose. (Premise)
12. Evil is defined as absence of goodness. (Definition)
13. Purpose is good or evil. (From 12)
14. Good and evil are objective. (From 11 and 13)
15. Good and evil are only moral concepts. (Premise)
16. Good and evil are contingent on morality. (From 15)
17. Morality is objective. (From 14 and 16)
18. Consciousness is objective. (7 and 17)
19. Knowledge is objective. (From 18 and 23)
20. Objective morality is contingent on objective consequence and objective consciousness. (Premise)
21. Objective consequence and objective consciousness imply objective agency. (Premise)
22. Agency is objective. (From 21)
23. Objectively absent things don't exist. (Premise)
24. God exists. (From 12, 14, 19, 22, and 23)

>Properties are only ideas. Like a work of Shakespeare has the property of being a novel. It does not have that property outside of a subjective idea. This is true for all properties, including emergent properties.

The thought "book" doesn't exist without someone thinking it. That doesn't mean the book doesn't exist. You are conflating the two without any evidence.

>The premise of "concepts don't exist without minds" is self-evident, and only exists to show a separate conclusion.

Yes it's perfectly self-evident, I just have no fucking clue what conclusion you're talking about.

>argument to show Sam Harris is the idiot
>Your whining about thinking you have no reason to believe in God is irrelevant.
>None of the fundamental tenets of atheism are coherent
So when I talk about the foundation of atheism, it is irrelevant. Uhuh.... You sir, are retarded.

>Ideas do exist, they are the product of your brain and can be measured. That's like claiming your computer files don't exist while ignoring your hard drive.
Depends. If a man is a radio, or the man speaking through the radio.
Either way, we observe the speech just the same. We can even break the radio to make gibberish of the speech or to stop it altogether. Sometimes, the radio is turned off. Does the speaker, then, disappear?

Truth is, not a single observer has observed another observer, ever. We see the flesh machines.

>That doesn't mean the book doesn't exist.
That's the key, though. Without thoughts, there is no distinction. The mass exists, but not the "book." It is only a "book" because you call it a "book." This is all self-evident.
>You are conflating the two without any evidence.
Some things have to be self-evident. All logic relies on axioms.
>Yes it's perfectly self-evident, I just have no fucking clue what conclusion you're talking about.
There were many of them, but the ultimate conclusion was that Sam Harris is a dumbass.
>So when I talk about the foundation of atheism, it is irrelevant.
No, you are simply refering to something that is false - that can't be a foundation for any rational thinking. You sir, are retarded.

See the bottom of:

He's always got that smug look on his face. Like he knows everything. Can't stand it.

Have any of these self-congratulatory celebrity atheists ever put forward an argument that was not already thought of and covered by first century church fathers?

Remember when William Lane Craig kicked his teeth in during their debate because Sam was using arguments that get addressed in Sunday School?

kek doesn't agree with you.

>That's the key, though. Without thoughts, there is no distinction. The mass exists, but not the "book." It is only a "book" because you call it a "book." This is all self-evident.

So? How does any of this lead to materialism being false? You just seem to jump to the the conclusion "mind is not matter" out of nowhere.

>The mind exists; this is self-evident. Thus the mind isn't an emergent property.

What is the leap here, how can you claim it is not an emergent property of the brain?

>be religious
>try to be a smart religfag and not use doctrine to argue
>use philosophy to argue instead
>never realize your arguments could be used to prove any religion, including ones I make up on the spot

Good one op

>If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.
Hitchen's Razor would like to have a word with you

>never realize your arguments could be used to prove any religion, including ones I make up on the spot
Arguing for the general existence of the supernatural, nature of reality or God differs from arguing over how we should live our lives, as the latter is derived from the former.
We needed to invent baby steps for theology because plebs started reading before they knew thinking.

>my Dogma means that I can ignore your point
Sophistry and phariseanism fight it out again.

Start with the presupposition that the existence of God is completely unlikely and outrageous.
Say all legitimate philosophical evidence isn't "good enough"
Repeat forever.

Remember to never define God.

Next level autism

Have a (You).

See the bottom of:

And use the power of projection to accuse everyone who disagrees with you of being an ideologue.

>None of the fundamental tenets of atheism are coherent. Empiricism is self-refuting; it holds that empirical observation is the only way to know truth
Exactly what part of atheism maintains that the only way to look at the world is empirically? Pretty sure many mathematicians are atheist, a field which has nothing to do with empiricism.

This post explains atheism in a nutshell. Well said, OP.

They stopped?

He'd tap the shit out of you. He is a legit blue belt in BJJ.

Sir, you just made my day. Thank you. Can you elaborate more or give a different analogy?

Your last statement gave me goosebumps, it's so true.

Haven't you heard? God is totally incomprehensible. All we need to do is accept that god is incomprehensible while at the same time believing that we can use philosophy to come to and understanding that god exists.

Ok, I agree op that Sam Harris' arguments are based on week foundations, but it's also evidence of the climate around him. He was on JRE and was using some statistics on black lives matter to show that Blacks don't get shot more than whites because an equal amounts of blacks and whites are killed by cops in some area. He forgot to consider that there are more blacks than whites which skews the ratio.

Back to god. This is how I see it. The fact that we exist proves that the universe is infinite at some level because if it weren't, the odds of us getting caught in the limited amount of existence before there stops being existence is so unlikely that it's literally infinite to 1.

This hints to me at least that this thing called existence/consciousness doesn't end.
And it seems an error to me to think that there's the universe, then god who is this separate being.

Everything is god. We are god. We live within god. We are little fragments of god. God is the source. The ground. God is existence itself. We are just an expression. A piece of god. God is everything. What we think as "god" in the traditional sense, probably does exists, but are still subdivisions of god that are fragments of the whole god.

>Tap the shit out of you
>Tight leg wrestling
>BJ
Is Sam Harris gay?

Atheists fundamentally just don't want God to exist. The rest is just mental gymnastics and rationalization.

>The mass exists, but not the "book."
Really? But I believe that it is not so. The mass is not there unless observed. Well, it has some remaining data the mind will call when we take a look upon it or it's effects.

All freedom is meaningless without free will. Yet many, and especially the idealistic left (degeneracy) and pragmatic right (liberalism) presume and fiercely go against the whole notion of free will. Yet they both demand freedom...
The world is your oyster. You reap what you sow.
I for one, am certain that usury would not exist had I not practiced it when I was 5.

You can tell a person is bullshitting when they abuse the word "contingent" to the point it's meaningless.

Nietzche already stated that its possible to have "immanent" values. That would mean we could act in a manner that it would respect life and creativity without having to use an transcendent idea to back it up. Most people use god because its easy. Nowadays is just a "buy your set of morals here". Nietzche goes like : "build your own custom set of morals" and of course people allways go for the ready made, and the problem is the lack of freedom in the end.

>blue belt
>intimidating

top zozzle

>If I observe that a computer computer exists, but can't explain or comprehend how it works, it must not exist.

Sam is perfect at what he does. You shouldn't expect anything else from him.

>All freedom is meaningless without free will.

How so?

>totally incomprehensible.
How different is your understanding of water if you were a kid who got wet while swimming and if you were a blind person in a jail who knows that it is of certain molecular compound?

Which one understands water more? Neither does, obviously do it fully.
Yet both know that it exists.

>I am
Is sufficient proof of God.

Ideas are non-material.

As such, they cannot be accounted for by materialism; they are, as a matter of definition, beyond its scope.

It's not freedom. It can't be.

>The religious fundamentally just want god to exist. The rest is just mental gymnastics and rationalization.

FTFY

>you can't prove empiricism works even though everything you see around you was built upon it
All you demonstrated through those walls of text is that you are irrefutably retarded.

Keep BTFOing the jews OP, you a good guy

>I know you are but what am I?

>being that he's an atheist
no.

that's just the "ism" gotards daub him with in order to enable the same lambasting they subject to all retard denominations that differ to theirs

none of the "four horseman" consider themselves "atheist" -- that's just a label that lays attribute

...

>How does any of this lead to materialism being false?
I doesn't, but I think I provided an argument.
>What is the leap here, how can you claim it is not an emergent property of the brain?
Because minds objectively exist. Emergent properties don't.
The arguments don't prove any religion.
>>If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.
strawman
>Hitchen's Razor would like to have a word with you
Hitchen's was an idiot. Hitchen's razor merely creates an implicit false equivocation between "can" and "should," thus creating an implicit argument from ignorance. If the statement were explicit about its implications, it would be "What is asserted without evidence should be dismissed without evidence" - an argument from ignorance. I'm sorry your heroes are so stupid.
And they would probably argue that math is a consequence of experience.
By "mass" I just mean objective existence.
>Well, it has some remaining data the mind will call when we take a look upon it or it's effects.
What you seem to mean by "data" isn't held in the object.
>Nietzche already stated that its possible to have "immanent" values.
Nietzsche was an idiot who habitually confused his own butthurt for logic, so instead of telling me what "Nietzsche said," why don't you go ahead and present the argument.
>That would mean we could act in a manner that it would respect life and creativity without having to use an transcendent idea to back it up.
Only by forceful choice. Objective meaning and subjective meaning aren't the same thing, no matter how much that stupid faggot Nietzsche may have wanted it to be otherwise.
>Most people use god because its easy.
circumsntial ad hominem, and also false.
>Nietzche goes like : "build your own custom set of morals"
Yes, he was intellectually dishonest about what morality is, basically appealing to emotion by saying "Your feelings are real and they matter all by themselves hurrrr"

Ideas are a process controlled by the brain which is made from matter. As such, they can be and are accounted for by materialism, or more specifically neurology. They are within the scope of science, hence the field dedicated to the brain.

>Neither does, obviously do it fully.
Neither one does obviously, not fully.

So I could build a set of morals where killing is okay and kill whoever I want. Doesn't sound ok.

>hates Christians
>hates Muslims

What's Sam's stance on Jews and Israel?

I just can't seem to figure out what he could be up to...

>By "mass" I just mean objective existence
What's that? Have you encountered it?

>6 million posts by this ID

Nobody is reading what you're saying

The point being: if anyone "wants" something here, it is the people proposing magic and immortality. Atheism has nothing to do with wishful thinking, at least for me.

Your wishful thinking is that you won't have to be held accountable for your squandered life.

Cheeky cunt

>Atheism has nothing to do with wishful thinking

Christians project the desperate need for their fantasy to be true.

Yet you bother to come here to state your anti-intellectual behavior and project it to mean the norm?
Ha! OP and the relevant posts are guidelines on how we will subvert your beloved sub-nigger IQ community.

Placebo and meme magic mean that no hope is lost. Atheists claim otherwise..

>be so dumb you don't realize that arguing for a general god can be applied to any god. even gods i make up now.
Please don't breed op.

wow that's so smart user. You put it so simply thanks. Not being sarcastic.

>>you can't prove empiricism works even though everything you see around you was built upon it
I never said nor implied this, you "irrefutably" retarded goat-fucker. I showed it's self-refuting.
Or then it doesn't exist, in which case it still holds true that emergent properties don't objectively exist. Are you not the one who said "but the book still exists without minds"?
>being so dumb that you don't realize I refuted this in the OP.

No joke.

Sam has destroyed most of those arguments in the Moral Landscape.

OP is what dumb people think smart people sound like.

Whether I can buy alcohol or not or go fishing on lake X is still within the realm of "freedom" even if free will doesn't exist. The more choices the meat machine has the more freedom it has, even if no magical soul is making the decisions.

>Because minds objectively exist. Emergent properties don't.

Sorry, but I don't see how "the only we can be know for sure exists is a mind" leads to "mind is not an emergent property of the brain". It seems to only lead to "we can't know for sure that the mind is an emergent property of the brain because we can't be sure anything except a mind exists".

>potential knowledge is infinite, therefore it's impossible to know anything

Have you understood the power of your mind? Create a tulpa. If it affects your behavior, we can measure it.
Did it not become true, then?

There can only be one God.