The Kalam Cosmological Argument William Lane Craig

[William]

https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writing ... l-argument

Finally, Ghazali argued that this Uncaused First Cause must also be a personal being. It’s the only way to explain how an eternal cause can produce an effect with a beginning like the universe.

Here’s the problem: If a cause is sufficient to produce its effect, then if the cause is there, the effect must be there, too. For example, the cause of water’s freezing is the temperature’s being below 0 degrees Celsius. If the temperature has been below 0 degrees from eternity, then any water around would be frozen from eternity. It would be impossible for the water to begin to freeze just a finite time ago. Now the cause of the universe is permanently there, since it is timeless. So why isn’t the universe permanently there as well? Why did the universe come into being only 14 billion years ago? Why isn’t it as permanent as its cause?

Ghazali maintained that the answer to this problem is that the First Cause must be a personal being endowed with freedom of the will. His creating the universe is a free act which is independent of any prior determining conditions. So his act of creating can be something spontaneous and new. Freedom of the will enables one to get an effect with a beginning from a permanent, timeless cause. Thus, we are brought not merely to a transcendent cause of the universe but to its Personal Creator.

This is admittedly hard for us to imagine. But one way to think about it is to envision God existing alone without the universe as changeless and timeless. His free act of creation is a temporal event simultaneous with the universe’s coming into being. Therefore, God enters into time when He creates the universe. God is thus timeless without the universe and in time with the universe.

Ghazali’s cosmological argument thus gives us powerful grounds for believing in the existence of a beginningless, uncaused, timeless, spaceless, changeless, immaterial, enormously powerful, Personal Creator of the universe.

Ghazali formulates his argument very simply: “Every being which begins has a cause for its beginning; now the world is a being which begins; therefore, it possesses a cause for its beginning.” [1]

Ghazali’s reasoning involves three simple steps:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its beginning.

2. The universe began to exist.

3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its beginning.


Q: Does this cosmology require a supernatural/unnatural/non-physical cause?

(If so/if not, why so/not?)

[William]

[Replying to fredonly in post #40]

"Complex" compared to what (re brains)?

I'll rephrase: It's clear "mindfulness" (i.e. the mindfulness that indisputably exists in the world) requires something with the complexity of a brain.

In what way do spider brains differ in complexity to human ones (as an example) which allows for us to suppose there are "complex" and "not so complex" (or even "more complex) brains?

All brains are complex, but human brains have a larger cerebral cortex - which (according to neuroscientists) enables more complex mental functions.

Which points to the idea that while brains are important re mindfulness overall, the form the brain resides within is also a contributing factor as to how brains are able to be used.
Complex mental functions also do not require interaction with an device outside of the individuals brain.

Whales have the biggest brains but cannot do what humans can do because the forms are different.

Bigger brains don't appear to be indicative of overall functionality and language-based interactions are evident in all species - including those which don't have an obvious brain - re the definitions humans have placed on what a brain is in relation to what can be done by things which have brains.

You've provided no reason to think a planet engages in mental activity.

My question was. "What evidence can we point to that shows that a certain type of matter is mindful?".
I pointed to the planet itself and provided a critiquing question in response. "Why shouldn't the planet itself overall qualify as being possibly mindful/self-aware/creatively intelligent et al?"

I pointed out that this could be asked because of the evidence apparent to us all.

There are infinitely many possibilities. You need some justification to choose one of these over all the others.

That is easy enough to justify - as most likely explanation re the observation. What other explanation (of those supposed "infinitely many possibilities") fits the criteria better?

Science has revealed evidence that long before human minds where a thing, (and for reasons unknown) things were happening to ensure human minds would indeed become a thing.

You're assuming teleology: that human minds were the product of intent - that it was a goal..

I am not assuming it is the case. I am arguing it is likely the case, based on the mindful interpretation of the actual evidence.
IF
we exist within a mindfully created thing.
THEN
all that unfolds in the created thing is a product of intent.

The observation that things have been unfolding is not under dispute is it?

I asked for evidence that unequivocally shows that all matter is "mindful". All you've done is made another ad hoc assumption

I replied that I find the question itself quite redundant and explained that I wasn't necessarily claiming that ALL matter is mindful (but I do agree with the rational that it would be the case IF any mindfulness was experiencing itself as the thing created. (The Universe unfolding)

To further that thinking, in what way could a human being interacting through language-based facility, connect meaningfully with such mindfulness?

Might as well go talk to the scarecrow in the field.

We have a better chance of making such a contact with our own Planet Mind IF it exists and IF we are not atheistic in our approach to what it is we are experiencing mindfully.

There have been some scientific enquiry into how to test for such a thing, but I know of none which have found a solution to that problem.
But interpretations the evidence producing likelihood don't just fade into obscurity just because we have not discovered a way in which to prove such is so. This is because we cannot say unequivocally what the actual case is, whatever our interpretations of it are.

(That is specifically why I earlier cautioned against positions which require a double-standard).

Simply thinking such process is all a mindless result of chaotic happenstance seems way too simplistic in the face of the evidence of complexity.

There's no basis to claim there is, or was, chaos. It seems beyond dispute that a natural world exists, and that it behaves according to laws of nature- that is the antithesis of chaos.

Which I find is compelling evidence for mindfulness which in turn adds evidence supporting the idea we exist within a created thing (that the universe was created).
Laws (signifying order) do not derive from chaos, so the other option is that they derive from order and order implies mindfulness.

Complexity arises because of entropy: complex molecules are formed from simpler ones because the resulting state is entropically favorable.

Yes - it is the process we are investigating here. Your description can be interpreted to imply mindfulness is involved in that process. The interpretation is not an assumption. There is no assumption unless (re the evidence) it is declared/claimed either "We DO NOT exist with a created thing." or "We DO exist with a created thing."

Are you saying that to assume we can ever understand mindfulness/consciousness (and associated effects) is that it won't get us accounting for anything?

I'm saying that your assumption that there is "mindfulness" in all objects is unsupported by evidence: it's pure assumption, one that is unparsimonious to an extreme.

Why are you making a strawman from what I am actually saying?
(I have even explained why I am not arguing from the position of assumption.)
I am arguing from the position of likelihood.
I am not declaring that mindfulness actually IS in all objects but that there is a likelihood this might be the best interpretation of the evidence we have so far.

What is it about the natural evolution of the universe (per laws of nature) that you consider evidence for something immaterial?

Are you claiming the mind is "immaterial"? I am not arguing that myself.

I was referring to your statement, "There is enough evidence imo to support the idea that the process isn't purely materialistic (in nature) but is also mindful"

I see.
In the context of what I was referring to, the "also" was to do with the idea that mindfulness is a natural aspect of the overall matter of things. Not that it derives from "somewhere else" which itself isn't physical in nature.

I do not regard mindfulness to being immaterial. Do you?

Are you saying that you consider "God" and "Mindfulness" (in the context of the Universe Possibly being mindful/self aware et al) as being synonymous?

No. I'm saying both depend on an assumption that is unparsimonious to the extreme, and both you and theists are fooling yourself if you think the explanatory scope of either assumption constitutes evidence of it.

Back to the strawman. If you are going to insist your interpretation of what I am arguing is based in assumption, there is no point in continuing this attempt to communicate. It requires that we critique what is actually being argued rather than what is not.

Here's the rational way to think through this:
1. there is a single set of known, uncontroversial facts about the world
2. The objective of a metaphysical theory is to explain all those facts.
3. Different theories can be compared by considering:
a) their explanatory power (is anything left unexplained?)
b) their dependency on ad hoc assumptions (the fewer the better)
c) parsimony (the fewer kinds of things that exist, the better)

Yes - I follow those guidelines in the assessment of the evidence.
Re (a) - there is much left to explain re mindfulness/consciousness et al which in turn mean that the measuring of (b & c) cannot be determined but only pressumed.

The question (re my argument) to ask would be along the lines of "What evidence can we point to that shows that a certain type of matter is mindful?"
And why shouldn't the planet itself overall qualify as being possibly mindful/self-aware/creatively intelligent et al (that could be said of such an entity re the evidence apparent).

Because it's an ad hoc assumption-

No it is not. It is a possible explanation which requires more investigation into.

there's no evidence of it.

Unless we look at the planet as a whole (as the evidence for the likelihood of mindfulness re the order) and make honest attempts at finding ways to prove/disprove the notion.

Meanwhile, in what way is the atheistic approach to the interpretation of said evidence actually indicative of anything but presumption?

None that I have been shown. It's usefulness ends at the proclaimed assumption that we DO NOT exist within a created thing.

That has yet to be established - as you say - unequivocally. Why the double standard?

Solipsism is possible;

In what way?

It can't be disproven. Do you agree that is insufficient justification for a person to believe he's the only thing that exists?

Is it possible really? If so, (as I have done with mindfulness) explain why.

[fredonly]

I'm saying that your assumption that there is "mindfulness" in all objects is unsupported by evidence: it's pure assumption, one that is unparsimonious to an extreme.

Why are you making a strawman from what I am actually saying? (I have even explained why I am not arguing from the position of assumption.)

Several posts ago, I referred to naturalism/physicalism as an “assumption”, and I did so because no metaphysical claim can be experimentally tested, and verified or falsified – and because our knowledge of the world is limited to what can be perceived and inferred through scientific investigation. I’m treating your vague “mindfulness” idea the same. But since you object to the word, I’ll call both naturalism and “mindfullism” (give me a better word if you don’t like this one) as hypotheses.

Here's the rational way to think through this:
1. there is a single set of known, uncontroversial facts about the world
2. The objective of a metaphysical theory is to explain all those facts.
3. Different theories can be compared by considering:
a) their explanatory power (is anything left unexplained?)
b) their dependency on ad hoc assumptions (the fewer the better)
c) parsimony (the fewer kinds of things that exist, the better)

Yes - I follow those guidelines in the assessment of the evidence.
Re (a) - there is much left to explain re mindfulness/consciousness et al which in turn mean that the measuring of (b & c) cannot be determined but only pressumed.

OK ,then make the case. List the relevant facts you base “mindfullism” on, being careful to list only indisputable facts, and show that your hypothesis is better than naturalism.

[Replying to fredonly in post #40]
My question was. "What evidence can we point to that shows that a certain type of matter is mindful?".
I pointed to the planet itself and provided a critiquing question in response. "Why shouldn't the planet itself overall qualify as being possibly mindful/self-aware/creatively intelligent et al?"
I pointed out that this could be asked because of the evidence apparent to us all."

A brain produces mental activity because of the way it is structured, not because of the type of matter it is. Although we certainly don't understand it fully, we do know that mental activity is associated with the firing of neurons, and the manner in which neurons intereract. What "evidence apparent to us all" suggests that a planet might have a structure that does the same sort of thing?

[ Replying to fredonly in post #40]

There are infinitely many possibilities. You need some justification to choose one of these over all the others.

That is easy enough to justify - as most likely explanation re the observation. What other explanation (of those supposed "infinitely many possibilities") fits the criteria better?

If it’s easy enough to justify, then please do so.

[quote=fredonly=You're assuming teleology: that human minds were the product of intent - that it was a goal..
I am not assuming it is the case. I am arguing it is likely the case, based on the mindful interpretation of the actual evidence.
IF
we exist within a mindfully created thing.
THEN
all that unfolds in the created thing is a product of intent.

It sounds like you’re saying that “mindfullism” entails teleology, rather than vice versa. If that’s correct, then you can’t claim that teleological unfolding is evidence for mindfullism – because that would be circular reasoning.

The observation that things have been unfolding is not under dispute is it?

Loaded question: “unfolding” can imply teleology. We could only agree that the natural world has been changing over time, as a consequence of the laws of nature.

I asked for evidence that unequivocally shows that all matter is "mindful". All you've done is made another ad hoc assumption

I replied that I find the question itself quite redundant and explained that I wasn't necessarily claiming that ALL matter is mindful (but I do agree with the rational that it would be the case IF any mindfulness was experiencing itself as the thing created. (The Universe unfolding)

OK, you’re only claiming that SOME matter is “mindful”. Aren’t you saying that this “mindfulness” is inherent to the matter, rather than a product of the complex structure of something like a brain?

We have a better chance of making such a contact with our own Planet Mind IF it exists and IF we are not atheistic in our approach to what it is we are experiencing mindfully.

So…if we assume (for no reason that you’ve provided) that the planet has a mind, then we have a better chance of making contact with that mind than if we don’t assume it has a mind. This is a hypothetical implication that is contingent upon the planet having a mind. So to treat this as evidence of "mindfullism" would again be circular reasoning.

There's no basis to claim there is, or was, chaos. It seems beyond dispute that a natural world exists, and that it behaves according to laws of nature- that is the antithesis of chaos.

Which I find is compelling evidence for mindfulness. which in turn adds evidence supporting the idea we exist within a created thing (that the universe was created).

How does the existence of a natural world with laws of nature constitute evidence of “mindfulness”? Why think the natural world is a “created” thing? You’re making no headway at justifying your hypothesis.

Laws (signifying order) do not derive from chaos, so the other option is that they derive from order and order implies mindfulness.

You seem to be assuming “chaos” existed before the natural world, or that “chaos” should be expected in the absence of mind(s). If so, that’s unjustified. If you mean something else, then please clarify.

Complexity arises because of entropy: complex molecules are formed from simpler ones because the resulting state is entropically favorable.

Your description can be interpreted to imply mindfulness is involved in that process.

If you FIRST assume “mindfulism” you might argue that complexity arises as a result of it. But then you can’t claim the development of complexity is evidence of “mindfulism”, because that would be circular.

[William]

[Replying to fredonly in post #42]

Several posts ago, I referred to naturalism/physicalism as an “assumption”, and I did so because no metaphysical claim can be experimentally tested, and verified or falsified – and because our knowledge of the world is limited to what can be perceived and inferred through scientific investigation. I’m treating your vague “mindfulness” idea the same. But since you object to the word, I’ll call both naturalism and “mindfullism” (give me a better word if you don’t like this one) as hypotheses.

That is more to my liking, yes. We are dealing with hypothesis and offering argument re hypothesis appears to be sufficient.
“Mindism” as an identifier, should suffice.

OK ,then make the case. List the relevant facts you base “mindfullism” on, being careful to list only indisputable facts, and show that your hypothesis is better than naturalism.

It has not been a motive of mine to promote one above the other, as (my understanding) of naturalism has it that the only real difference between the two, is that one includes (re the hypothesis) the fact of mind, while the other leaves it out.
Thus, our lists re indisputable facts should contain the same information, and it is that information which I refer to as “evidence”.
And it is the evidence which I refer to as “interpreted differently”.
There may well be indisputable facts which we have on our personal lists that the other does not have.
For example, I have a living document where I place word-strings in order of the value these add up to when one calculates a=1/z=26.
In doing so, the data reveals Indisputable Facts. (IFs)
For example, “Mindism” placed through the algorithm = 81.
So too do;

81
Far Out!
Shucks!
Explain
Acid test
Elephant
Square
Myopic
I feel to add...
Enigmatic

What we may/may not agree on appears to be which IFs are relevant, and which are not. My perspective is that all IFs are relevant/are required to be relevant simple for the fact that they are IFs.

181
Indisputable Facts
Large Hadron Collider
Welcoming answer
Beaming Out Beaming In
It’s Our Nature
Good Here There Evil
Sustainability
Willful ignorance
The Great Green Wall
A New Perspective
Music to my ears
Open Your Heart
Like a doting parent
Pusillanimous
The Mandelbrot Set
The Agreement List
Blow the whistle
A "fair" crack of the whip?
Follow the links
Knowledge vs Faith
Not me. … Also, not me.
Six Zero Seven

A brain produces mental activity because of the way it is structured, not because of the type of matter it is. Although we certainly don't understand it fully, we do know that mental activity is associated with the firing of neurons, and the manner in which neurons intereract. What "evidence apparent to us all" suggests that a planet might have a structure that does the same sort of thing?

Our knowledge of the planet is similar to our knowledge of the brain. What is “firing” consistently re the planet, and what about the planet could be likened to neurons?
What about the human form and the planet are similar in how they operate?
In a similar way of thinking, what about computers are similar to how brains operate that we can identify machinery at work, the function similar even that the machinery is seen as being made of something different.

Is it that different that we can call the observation an Indisputable Fact?
Are computers not made of the same stuff as the earth is made of?
Are human brains also not made of the same stuff that earth is made of?
Is it not an IF that it is the case that both human form and computers derive from the very same substance?

If so, then “what is a brain re its function” would have to be extended to include, not only other biological brains (such as the spider-brain) but also anything else which functions like a brain (such as mycelium networks et all.)

226
Mycelium Networks
Soul Group Energies
Trust the process
Attitude of gratitude
The Father - in The Mother.
Deliberate and important

There are infinitely many possibilities. You need some justification to choose one of these over all the others.

That is easy enough to justify - as most likely explanation re the observation. What other explanation (of those supposed "infinitely many possibilities") fits the criteria better?

If it’s easy enough to justify, then please do so.

Please provide a cross-section list from your list of infinitely many possibilities which you would like to compare re justification.

I am saying Mindism existed before the concept of teleology rather than vice versa.
IF/THEN arguments might appear circular but serve the purpose of containing the focus of a hypothesis. They are not meant to be unchallenged, but I don’t think your critique is particularly valid here.
My use of the concept of teleological unfolding is linked directly with the idea that the planet may be mindful, and mindfully designed the human (and every other form) as the evidence uncovered scientifically does not rule out that possibility. It simply appears to largely ignore the possibility due to the difficulty involved with determining mindfulness – perhaps a self-imposed (by those doing the science) difficulty at that.

“unfolding” can imply teleology. We could only agree that the natural world has been changing over time, as a consequence of the laws of nature.

IF
“unfolding” can imply teleology
THEN
we either have to include it or provide rational reasons as to why we have to reject it.

OK, you’re only claiming that SOME matter is “mindful”. Aren’t you saying that this “mindfulness” is inherent to the matter, rather than a product of the complex structure of something like a brain?

No. I am not differentiating the universe from being “something other than ‘like a brain’" in how it functions.

“Like a brain” in that it all has networks and connections, firings et al.

The patterns observed in nature on the planet, mirror the universe, not visa versa in the sense that the planet was created out of the stuff of the universe and human and other type brains was created out of the stuff of the planet.
The observation is that IF human type brains developed through the process THEN the process may well be a type of brain itself and the question of emergence (of mind) can be answered along the lines of “it appears to be emerging from our perspective, but may not be that at all.”

So…if we assume (for no reason that you’ve provided) that the planet has a mind, then we have a better chance of making contact with that mind than if we don’t assume it has a mind. This is a hypothetical implication that is contingent upon the planet having a mind. So to treat this as evidence of "mindfullism" would again be circular reasoning.

So…if we assume (for no reason that you’ve provided) that the planet has a mind, then we have a better chance of making contact with that mind than if we don’t assume it has a mind. This is a hypothetical implication that is contingent upon the planet having a mind. So to treat this as evidence of "mindfullism" would again be circular reasoning.

My own experience begs to differ with the process you are describing.
For me, the assumption was that there is a God. The assumption was learned through my contact with Cultural Christianity.
I put that assumption to the test and found from doing so that the assumption was correct, but the description of the God re Cultural Christianity was not.
Through processes developed over many years, I was shown/discovered how this mindful thing oft referred to as “God” could communicate with the individual mindful thing – and through a variety of means.
The data of experience can be shared, but is not necessarily accepted or even deliberated on by Cultural Christians, or their counterparts (atheist scholars).
Any appearance of circular activity corresponds to the activity of learning, regardless of the framework we chose to learn from.
Linking the loops… is the tricky bit…

364
The debate between theists and atheists
...because death comes a-knockin' eventually...
Exact Science = In The Light Of The Truth
Love and respect Waking Love & Respect
Helpful in the Process of Navigation....
Self-help Leg Hold Traps Hypothesis
Linking the loops… is the tricky bit…

How does the circular reasoning from the naturalist framework differ from that of the framework of mindism, that it should be allowed/prioritised/given the nod to et al over mindism?

What is the justification for Naturalism to be held above Mindism as the best foot forward?

[fredonly]

Our knowledge of the planet is similar to our knowledge of the brain. What is “firing” consistently re the planet, and what about the planet could be likened to neurons?
What about the human form and the planet are similar in how they operate?

Our knowledge of both the brain and the earth are a product of scientific investigation and theory. That's where the similarity end. Self reflection tells us we have mental activity, and medical evidence demonstrates it's associated with the brain. We observe behaviors in animals that imply analogous mental activity, and confirm the relation to the brain.

We observe no mental activity in the earth, so there's nothing analogous to investigate. Further, there are no anomalies that point to something novel going on: everything that goes on with the planet has been successfuly investigated through the established scientific disciplines (geology, physics, chemistry). Therefore there are no undisputed facts that could serve as a basis to postulate mental activity as the cause.

Please provide a cross-section list from your list of infinitely many possibilities which you would like to compare re justification

You misunderstand the issue. I was trying to convey that possibility alone is the weakest possible basis to pursue a line of inquiry. William Lane Craig puts it like this: possibility is cheap; anything is possible

It's possible an elephant walked through your backyard as you slept last night. Is that possibility a good enough reason to look for footprints today? Of course not.

It's possible some guy was bitten by a radioactive spider, causing him to develop spider powers. Is that a good reason to go to New York to get Spider-Man's autograph?

Every proposition we could possibly utter, that is not provably impossible, is possible. All have the exact same, infinitesimal probability of being true, unless there's evidence.

IF
“unfolding” can imply teleology
THEN
we either have to include it or provide rational reasons as to why we have to reject it.

So...if I had agreed that the evolution of the universe could be described as an "unfolding", we'd have to take teleology seriously. Really? Just because the word "unfolding" is ambiguous? That's nonsense. Regardless, I didn't accept "unfolding" as a correct description, so it's not an indisputable fact.

Teleology is an ancient paradigm, that treats change as leading to a "final cause". It was supplanted by modern science, which notes that change is due to laws of nature, with no "final" state of affairs.

. I am not differentiating the universe from being “something other than ‘like a brain’" in how it functions.

“Like a brain” in that it all has networks and connections, firings et al.

This overlooks the unique nature of the brain- there's empirical evidence it produces mental activity. There's no evidence the universe produces mental activity.

"Networks and connections"? There's nothing like an interactive network. There's gravity between objects, but it's force is perfectly regular and predictable. There are galactic structures called "filaments", (see this article), but they are temporary artifacts of the locations of galaxies. There's no evidence of physical activities being transmitted through them, and it would actually be physically impossible because the distance between the galaxies is too great.

The observation is that IF human type brains developed through the process THEN the process may well be a type of brain itself and the question of emergence (of mind) can be answered along the lines of “it appears to be emerging from our perspective, but may not be that at all.”

The development of the human brain is a consequence of the same laws of nature that exist throughout the universe, but that absolutely does not imply it was due to the actions of a mind. It's merely a possibility, like it's possible Spider-Man is in New York.

For me, the assumption was that there is a God. The assumption was learned through my contact with Cultural Christianity.
I put that assumption to the test and found from doing so that the assumption was correct...

The existence of a God is not an indisputable fact, and I challenge your assertion that it's "correct" that some sort of God exists.

Any appearance of circular activity corresponds to the activity of learning, regardless of the framework we chose to learn from.

The "appearance" of circularity is present because you've argued circularly. You interpret facts from a "mindest" perspective, and then (circularly) claim that these interpretations justify belief in mindism.

How does the circular reasoning from the naturalist framework differ from that of the framework of mindism?

Identify some circularity in an argument for naturalism.

What is the justification for Naturalism to be held above Mindism as the best foot forward?

It's indisputable that the natural world exists, and also that laws of nature are responsible for it's ongoing evolution. There's no evidence of anything else existing, so no basis to claim a mere possibility should be taken seriously.

Theist apologists often point to scientific facts that aren't explained by science, and then argue that it must have an unnatural explanation. This approach commits the "argument from ignorance" fallacy (AKA "god of the gaps").

That fallacy can be avoided by treating it as a "best explanation" of available facts, but their explanation (goddidit) depends on postulating the existence of a being of infinite complexity - making it the most unparsimonious hypothesis possible. Meanwhile, the scientific gaps it depends on can be shown to exhibit law-like behavior - implying a purely natural basis, despite the science not being understood.

Finally, theists have made metaphysical assertions that they use to infer a god's existence. E.g.: the loaded question, "why is there something, rather than nothing?" The question is loaded with the assumption that we should expect nothingness, in the absence of an identifiable cause. There's no basis for such an assumption, and it begs the question: "why is there a god, rather than nothing?"

In the absence of any reasons to believe something unnatural exists, the existence of a "god" can't be anything more than a bare possibility. Meanwhile, the existence of the natural world is beyond dispute. Ergo, it is more reasonable to believe the natural world is the totality of existence. I can still grant that gods, dragons, and Spider-man are possible, because they can't be proven impossible - but more would be needed to make these possibilities worthy of serious consideration.

[William]

[Replying to fredonly in post #44]

William Lane Craig puts it like this: possibility is cheap; anything is possible

Jesus is attributed with saying "all things are possible" so I suppose William Lane Craig thinks Jesus saying so is "cheap".

It's possible an elephant walked through your backyard as you slept last night. Is that possibility a good enough reason to look for footprints today? Of course not.

And elephant walking through my garden overnight is less probable than the earth being mindful.

We observe no mental activity in the earth, so there's nothing analogous to investigate.

The earth is literally full of mental activity which we can and do observe. Where are you getting your information from and why have you chosen to understand it in the way that you do?

There are no anomalies that point to something novel going on

Step back and observe. The very thing that is going on re planet earth, can be truthfully observed to being an anomaly re everything else that is going on.

There's no evidence the universe produces mental activity.

Then what produced brains? Why do brains exist in the universe, if the universe did not produce them?

There's nothing like an interactive network.

Then explain the double slit experiment without resorting to anything involving interaction.

There's gravity between objects, but it's force is perfectly regular and predictable.

Sounds like you are describing how interaction works. Perhaps you are thinking regular predictable things don't interact?
Or perhaps you have literally separated things simply because they have different names and functions and forgotten that they are all part of the one (uni) thing (verse)?

There's no evidence of physical activities being transmitted through them, and it would actually be physically impossible because the distance between the galaxies is too great.

See quantum entanglement as an example of something which challenges your belief-claim.

The development of the human brain is a consequence of the same laws of nature that exist throughout the universe...

That contradicts what you claimed earlier that there's no evidence the universe produces mental activity.

Now you claim there is not only evidence, but that "the laws of nature" produced brains. Are you somehow implying then that the universe is separate from those "laws"?

Your use of contradictory language isn't helpful re uncovering truthfulness re mindfulness.

...but that absolutely does not imply it was due to the actions of a mind.

I observe the implication is there, and thus can be investigated.

It's merely a possibility, like it's possible Spider-Man is in New York.

There is scant evidence which implies it's possible Spider-Man is in New York. That is not the case with the amount of evidence which implies it's possible the planet is mindful.

If you want to bring such examples to the table, then avoid mixing possibilities all in the same bowl.
There are possibilities most likely and there are possibilities most unlikely and a spectrum of possibilities between those extremes. Attempting to degrade most likely possibility as being so similar to most unlikely possibility as to imply these are basically equally the same/cheap as each other, is not the best/most honest approach to take.

For me, the assumption was that there is a God. The assumption was learned through my contact with Cultural Christianity.
I put that assumption to the test and found from doing so that the assumption was correct, but the description of the God re Cultural Christianity was not.
Through processes developed over many years, I was shown/discovered how this mindful thing oft referred to as “God” could communicate with the individual mindful thing – and through a variety of means.
The data of experience can be shared, but is not necessarily accepted or even deliberated on by Cultural Christians, or their counterparts (atheist scholars).

The existence of a God is not an indisputable fact, and I challenge your assertion that it's "correct" that some sort of God exists.

I look forward to your showing this challenge of my witness as being "incorrect". What do you predict the outcome will be?

Any appearance of circular activity corresponds to the activity of learning, regardless of the framework we chose to learn from.
Linking the loops… is the tricky bit…

The "appearance" of circularity is present because you've argued circularly. You interpret facts from a "mindest" perspective, and then (circularly) claim that these interpretations justify belief in mindism.

As I explained, the same can be observed from a Christian platform or a materialist platform. You interpret facts from a "naturalist" perspective, and then (circularly) claim that these interpretations justify belief in naturalism.
Why do you require a double standard by your apparent unwillingness to admit and accept circularity is present in all positions?

Identify some circularity in an argument for naturalism.

Naturalists interpret facts from a "naturalist" perspective, and then (circularly) claim that these interpretations justify belief in naturalism.

(Note. I do not claim to BELIEVE that the planet IS mindful). What is the naturalist belief regarding the possibility the planet is mindful?

What is the justification for Naturalism to be held above Mindism as the best foot forward?

It's indisputable that the natural world exists, and also that laws of nature are responsible for it's ongoing evolution.

Yes. It certainly appears to be unfolding in that way.

There's no evidence of anything else existing, so no basis to claim a mere possibility should be taken seriously.

See my earlier critique re your misinformation re possibility.

Theist apologists often point to scientific facts that aren't explained by science, and then argue that it must have an unnatural explanation. This approach commits the "argument from ignorance" fallacy (AKA "god of the gaps").

Theist also say silly things like "possibility is cheap; anything is possible" and are sometimes quoted by atheists (as you have) as if the silly thing said is relevant.
I am not sure if it is a ruse of convenience on the part of the atheist to use such methodology, but it does give the appearance that the atheist doing so, is being unduly influenced by the theist.
For example, most Christians won't discuss the connection between possible extraterrestrial interventions and the bible stories and I had one atheist recently tell me that this was adequate reason for atheist biblical scholars not do examine the possibility either.

Perhaps something like that is occurring here as well, since most Christians also don't want to discuss the possibility of the earth being mindful and the local reason why humans exist?

Perhaps such possibilities are too challenging re snapping folk out of their circular reasoning?

That fallacy can be avoided by treating it as a "best explanation" of available facts, but their explanation (goddidit) depends on postulating the existence of a being of infinite complexity - making it the most unparsimonious hypothesis possible. Meanwhile, the scientific gaps it depends on can be shown to exhibit law-like behavior - implying a purely natural basis, despite the science not being understood

Yep. It sure looks like chalk and cheese but both views operate on similar assumptiveness.

So what can I (a minder) do in relation to these seemingly disparate positions but examine the vast spectrum of information which makes up the whole between those two extremities.
I have been doing so for most of my lifetime, (re my witness which you have claimed you can challenge) and will most likely continue until my dying day (and according to the evidence on into the next phase of this experience I am having as a growing personality) and my witness is that the data between the two extremes tells me far more than the the data from the two extremes alone provide.

In the absence of any reasons to believe something unnatural exists, the existence of a "god" can't be anything more than a bare possibility. Meanwhile, the existence of the natural world is beyond dispute. Ergo, it is more reasonable to believe the natural world is the totality of existence. I can still grant that gods, dragons, and Spider-man are possible, because they can't be proven impossible - but more would be needed to make these possibilities worthy of serious consideration.

I think the same.
Just because the earth planet may be mindful does not imply it can be thought of as a "God" but I also think more discussion and investigation is required re what being a "God" entails re any mindful self aware being (assuming we all can agree that at the very least, a "God" has to be self aware/mindful).

If the only definition of being a God is that one requires self awareness, what type of self awareness are we thinking of?

Would humans qualify?

What about worms?

What about something that represents all those possibly self aware critters all residing in the same nest - the actual nest itself?

"Where is the evidence‽" cried the mindful one, out into the silent universe. "I witness no evidence of mindfulness!" he answered himself, since the silent universe did not.

Anyhoo, I (the minder) gave you (the naturalist) a (fairly unknown) example of an Indisputable Fact. as evidence. Do you have any Indisputable Fact to witness the naturalist position is the best one to assume?
More Indisputable Fact results.

439
Possibility is cheap; anything is possible.
Learning how to have an out of body experience.
The stories we tell and what we do with them.
Folk get so hung up about the little stuff.
Ultraterrestrial Conspiracy Theories.
The most rational approach to navigating life.
571
Observe the implication is there, and thus can be investigated.
The sea is indeed filled with a deranged assortment of critters
Sorting ones self out - a complex and tricky undertaking...
It is interesting moving through an exponential epoch
Engaging with the impermanent implies a permanent background
That all depends upon what storyline one is following...
On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

I didn't accept "unfolding" as a correct description, so it's not an indisputable fact.

Unfolding (of events or information) = gradually develop or be revealed. Sounds like evolution...

[fredonly]

[Replying to fredonly in post #44]

And elephant walking through my garden overnight is less probable than the earth being mindful.

Assertion with no evidence or argument to support it.

The earth is literally full of mental activity which we can and do observe.

The only mental activity we indisputably see, is that which is produced by living organisms with brains.

There are no anomalies that point to something novel going on

Step back and observe. The very thing that is going on re planet earth, can be truthfully observed to being an anomaly re everything else that is going on.

That's too vague to make sense of. What anomalies can you point to that are best explained as mental activity?

There's no evidence the universe produces mental activity.

Then what produced brains? Why do brains exist in the universe, if the universe did not produce them?

Brains exist because organisms developed them through evolution.

There's nothing like an interactive network.

Then explain the double slit experiment without resorting to anything involving interaction.

The nature of light is such that it has both wave-like and particle-like properties. It doesn't entail anything mystical. It's explained by quantum mechanics.

There's gravity between objects, but it's force is perfectly regular and predictable.

Sounds like you are describing how interaction works. Perhaps you are thinking regular predictable things don't interact?
Or perhaps you have literally separated things simply because they have different names and functions and forgotten that they are all part of the one (uni) thing (verse)?

Yes, I was describing the "interaction" of gravity, which is fully accountable from the mass of the objects in question as a continuous force, changing only as the distances vary. That's nothing like neurons firing intermittently as mental activity ensues.

Being part of the same universe doesn't imply high level function in complex objects exist as properties of its component parts. Such a notion seems ridiculous.

There's no evidence of physical activities being transmitted through them, and it would actually be physically impossible because the distance between the galaxies is too great.

See quantum entanglement as an example of something which challenges your belief-claim.

No, it doesn't. Quantum entanglement doesn't make instantaneous communication possible. See: https://www.forbes.com/sites/chadorzel/ ... unication/

The development of the human brain is a consequence of the same laws of nature that exist throughout the universe...

That contradicts what you claimed earlier that there's no evidence the universe produces mental activity.Now you claim there is not only evidence, but that "the laws of nature" produced brains. Are you somehow implying then that the universe is separate from those "laws"?

Nope, but the universe at large is not biological, and therefore not a product of biological evolution - and evolution is grounded in the same laws of nature that the rest of the universe has.

...but that absolutely does not imply it was due to the actions of a mind.

I observe the implication is there, and thus can be investigated.

You aren't investigating whether or not mindism is true, you're just explaining phenomena from a mindist perspective - treating itcas true.

It's merely a possibility, like it's possible Spider-Man is in New York.

There is scant evidence which implies it's possible Spider-Man is in New York. That is not the case with the amount of evidence which implies it's possible the planet is mindful.

"It's possible" simply because it's not provably IMpossible. Neither is it provably POSSIBLE.

You have provided no evidence to shift the scale to show it more than possible.

Interpretations that you make that are based on the premise of mindism are not evidence of mindism. You would need to consider non-mindist interpretations, and show why the mindest interpretation is more likely to be the correct one.

By analogy, suppose I assume Spider-Man is real. Then while walking the streets of New York, I see a demolished building with spider-webs over it, so I treat this as evidence Spider-Man fought some villain here - then I claim this is evidence that Spider-Man is real. That's all you've done. Notice that there are other imterpretations for a demolished building and spiderwebs. Similarly, there are other interpretations for the facts that you think imply mindism. Unless you consider those, you have no basis to treat your mindist interpretations as evidence.

I look forward to your showing this challenge of my witness as being "incorrect". What do you predict the outcome will be?

I can no more prove your hypothesis is false than you can prove Spider-Man doesn't exist. My prediction is this: you will continue to demonstrate your belief in mindism is irrational.

The "appearance" of circularity is present because you've argued circularly. You interpret facts from a "mindest" perspective, and then (circularly) claim that these interpretations justify belief in mindism.

As I explained, the same can be observed from a Christian platform or a materialist platform. You interpret facts from a "naturalist" perspective, and then (circularly) claim that these interpretations justify belief in naturalism.
Why do you require a double standard by your apparent unwillingness to admit and accept circularity is present in all positions?

You created a strawman. The consistent application of skepticism to claims doesn't entail circularity. I'm happy to entertain mindism if you can present indisuptable evidence that mindism explains better than all other possibilities.

Identify some circularity in an argument for naturalism.

Naturalists interpret facts from a "naturalist" perspective, and then (circularly) claim that these interpretations justify belief in naturalism.

Nice try, but that's not the reasoning I employ. It's simply that I believe the natural world exists, same as every other rational human being. I acknowledge this doesn't preclude the existence of anything non-natural. If someone comes to me with a hypothesis with evidence and/or argument, I'll evaluate it exactly the same whether it's natural or unnatural. It just so happens that no one has presented evidence and argument that is best explained as something unnatural. Until that occurs, I see no compelling reason to believe something unnatural exists. I've been open to you doing exactly that, but you haven't.

What is the naturalist belief regarding the possibility the planet is mindful?

It's only a bare possibility (i.e. it's not provably impossible) but you've given no evidence that raises mindism to any more than a bare possibility.

Theist apologists often point to scientific facts that aren't explained by science, and then argue that it must have an unnatural explanation. This approach commits the "argument from ignorance" fallacy (AKA "god of the gaps").

Theist also say silly things like "possibility is cheap; anything is possible" and are sometimes quoted by atheists (as you have) as if the silly thing said is relevant.I am not sure if it is a ruse of convenience on the part of the atheist to use such methodology,

So what can I (a minder) do ...

What you should do is study epistemology, and refrain from trying to push your unjustified belief on those of us who understand it.

I (the minder) gave you (the naturalist) a (fairly unknown) example of an Indisputable Fact. as evidence.

Sorry, but that's nonsense. You have given me your mindist interpretation of facts and claimed this constitutes evidence of mindism. That's ludicrously circular.

Do you have any Indisputable Fact to witness the naturalist position is the best one to assume?

It isn't necessarily the best explanation for everyone. But all should agree that the natural world exists. Beyond that, one should apply a consistent level of skepticism to possibilities, try not to just choose one's beliefs by their emotional appeal, and try and avoid confirmation bias. It is inconsistent epistemic standards that I see most frequently. It's not clear that you have any epistemic standards at all.

[William]

[Replying to fredonly in post #46]

The only mental activity we indisputably see, is that which is produced by living organisms with brains.

You appear to be unaware of what can be understood as mental activity in organisms which don't have any apparent brains.
For example the interaction between mycelium, (no brainlike network except for itself) Acromyrmex (with identified brains) and trees (also no brain-like network except for itself).

As a minder-naturalist, I clearly see the resemblance both in structure and in what can be identified as mindful activity.

There are no anomalies that point to something novel going on

Step back and observe. The very thing that is going on re planet earth, can be truthfully observed to being an anomaly re everything else that is going on.

That's too vague to make sense of. What anomalies can you point to that are best explained as mental activity?

The earth itself is the anomaly in relation to the rest of the known universe.

There's no evidence the universe produces mental activity.

Then what produced brains? Why do brains exist in the universe, if the universe did not produce them?

Brains exist because organisms developed them through evolution.

Now take that observation and answer what developed the organisms, if not the universe....

There's nothing like an interactive network.

Then explain the double slit experiment without resorting to anything involving interaction.

The nature of light is such that it has both wave-like and particle-like properties. It doesn't entail anything mystical. It's explained by quantum mechanics.

No. Rather it explains or reveals what has come to being called quantum nature, which in itself is still largely a mystery.

What it does reveal is interaction between particles and observation (mind and matter). It does not show in any obvious way that the quantum field itself is mindful, but nor does it show in any obvious way that it is not.

I was describing the "interaction" of gravity, which is fully accountable from the mass of the objects in question as a continuous force, changing only as the distances vary. That's nothing like neurons firing intermittently as mental activity ensues.

Galaxies could be seen as neurons firing, as can stars within them.

Not to forget re gravity, there is the fabric of time-space which the mass of objects interact with re their interacting with one another.

Being part of the same universe doesn't imply high level function in complex objects exist as properties of its component parts. Such a notion seems ridiculous.

Nor does it imply that such isn't happening. Why would anyone think such a notion is ridiculous? (What is the rationale for doing so)?

Quantum entanglement doesn't make instantaneous communication possible.

I didn't argue that it did. I was arguing for the interconnectedness of objects, even as they share the same space-time. That there may be no mindful interaction between distant galaxies moving away from one another, does not in itself mean they are not interconnected.

The universe at large is not biological, and therefore not a product of biological evolution

Not the point I am making. Rather, biological evolution is the product of the universe is the point being made. Evolution re earth is indeed grounded in the same laws of nature that the rest of the universe has.

You aren't investigating whether or not mindism is true, you're just explaining phenomena from a mindist perspective - treating it as true.

Correction. Treating it as possibly true.

By analogy, suppose I assume Spider-Man is real. Then while walking the streets of New York, I see a demolished building with spider-webs over it, so I treat this as evidence Spider-Man fought some villain here - then I claim this is evidence that Spider-Man is real. That's all you've done. Notice that there are other imterpretations for a demolished building and spiderwebs. Similarly, there are other interpretations for the facts that you think imply mindism. Unless you consider those, you have no basis to treat your mindist interpretations as evidence.

As I pointed out, the idea that spiderman actually exists is known to be erroneous. What is know is that actual spiders create spiderwebs.
In contrast, we know that mindfulness exists and can be observed operating on this planet. We observe things with brains and things without brains exhibiting behaviors we can identify as mindful. We can conclude that there is a mindfully interaction between species with obvious brains and without obvious brains.

I can no more prove your hypothesis is false than you can prove Spider-Man doesn't exist.

Your analogy re spiderman is a strawman.

My prediction is this: you will continue to demonstrate your belief in mindism is irrational.

That's an opinion not a prediction.

The consistent application of skepticism to claims doesn't entail circularity.

It does if the participant is an atheist unwilling to engage with the idea that the planet is possibly mindful because to do so would mean they have to consider the possibility that a planetary mind may be the source of theistic ideas.

I'm happy to entertain mindism if you can present indisuptable evidence that mindism explains better than all other possibilities.

Im' happy to drop mindism if anyone can present indisputable evidence that all other possibilities explain everything better than mindism.

It's simply that I believe the natural world exists, same as every other rational human being.

That is not rational. As I mindist who is a naturalist, there is no rational to believe in something which is obviously true. All that is required re that, is that I know it is true.

I acknowledge this doesn't preclude the existence of anything non-natural.

Whereas I see no reason to include notions of anything "non-natural" into the discussion. I do not consider Mind/Mindfulness to be a non-natural attribute re nature/the universe.

So we differ even in that regard, since it appears that you give a smidgen of credence to the idea of supernatural existence. I do not, as I find the concept to simply being an echo of the influence of Christian Culture.

What is the naturalist belief regarding the possibility the planet is mindful?

It's only a bare possibility (i.e. it's not provably impossible) but you've given no evidence that raises mindism to any more than a bare possibility.

I have supplied you with evidence. It is the same evidence that naturalist have in regard to belief in naturalism. The difference is that the same evidence is deciphered differently.

I also have provided a particular Indisputable Fact (with accompanying evidence) which you have yet to respond to and are perhaps ignoring the implications of.

What you should do is study epistemology,

Being rude isn't helping your argument. I engage consistently with the philosophical study of the nature, origin, and limits of human knowledge and it is because of that, I am pretty much convinced we exist within a created thing.

refrain from trying to push your unjustified belief on those of us who understand it.

I am simply passing on knowledge re the philosophical study of the nature, origin, and limits of human knowledge and if you don't like it, you can always cease from interacting with me. That would be preferable to my having to read your rude and untruthful comments about me.

I (the minder) gave you (the naturalist) a (fairly unknown) example of an Indisputable Fact. as evidence.

Sorry, but that's nonsense.

How is it that an indisputable fact (IF) is called "nonsense" by the very same personality who just accused me of not the engaging philosophical study of the nature, origin, and limits of human knowledge?

The IF I supplied for consideration (as the evidence it is), shows us that language is based in mathematics.

That IF should surprise no one since we already know that the universe is also based in mathematics because we mindfully discovered this IF and invented symbols in order to try and explain it and utilize the knowledge of it more effectively.

You have given me your mindist interpretation of facts and claimed this constitutes evidence of mindism.

Nope. What I actually did was supply the IF along with a few lists of data to show the evidence which can be obtained through the IF. I made no claims that such was or was not evidence of mindism. The IF simply infers that the likeliest explanation for why this is an IF, is because of mindfulness.

In all my interactions with both Christians and non-Christians I have yet to be shown a better explanation for this particular IF than natural mindfulness.

Do you have any Indisputable Fact to witness the naturalist position is the best one to assume?

It isn't necessarily the best explanation for everyone. But all should agree that the natural world exists.

In all my years of studying epistemology I have never encountered any Christian or non-Christian who has ever denied the natural world exists. Have you?
For our purpose (re this interaction) we can at least agree that the natural world exists.

Beyond that, one should apply a consistent level of skepticism to possibilities, try not to just choose one's beliefs by their emotional appeal, and try and avoid confirmation bias.

That would be a pleasant change. However, you are claiming without IF that I am committing these offenses, so how is that helping us to engage meaningfully, truthfully and with the intent to uncover any actual truth?

It is inconsistent epistemic standards that I see most frequently. It's not clear that you have any epistemic standards at all.

So the real problem here is not what I have offered re my personal witness, but your unrealistic opinion of me.

Perhaps take a break and reassess your opinion of me and whether there is any actual truth to it.

My focus (what I want to engage with) is the evidence and I want you to acknowledge the simple Indisputable Fact I presented and tell me why (from your position) the IF does not constitute the possibility of mindfulness involved in the existence of the universe.

[fredonly]

William - Let's focus on my justification for naturalism which you accused of being circular. This will help to show how it contrasts with yours.

It's simply that I believe the natural world exists, same as every other rational human being.

That is not rational. As I mindist who is a naturalist, there is no rational to believe in something which is obviously true. All that is required re that, is that I know it is true.

You're wrong. Belief in the existence of the natural world is rational- it begins with the properly basic belief that our senses deliver to us a functionally accurate reflection of the real world external to ourselves. We don' have to taught that there's an external world that we're perceiving - we innately grasp this.

A "basic belief" is an epistemological term referring to a belief that is not derived from other beliefs- it is foundational.

A "proper basic belief" is one that is innate, and caused by the external forces that shaped us. This is to distinguish it from beliefs a person may hold for no reason at all. Being innate implies there's an external reason we would have this.

A properly basic belief isn't necessarily true, but it's rational to maintain the belief unless encountering rational defeaters for the belief. A defeater = evidence and reasoning that falsifies a belief.

The consistent application of skepticism to claims doesn't entail circularity.

It does if the participant is an atheist unwilling to engage with the idea that the planet is possibly mindful because to do so would mean they have to consider the possibility that a planetary mind may be the source of theistic ideas.

I AM willing, and HAVE engaged with you, and I HAVE acknowledged it is possible. But I don't BELIEVE something just because it's possible. It's POSSIBLE that I'm a brain in a vat, being fed impluses that simulate sensory input thus giving me the illusion of the external world. But possibility alone doesn't defeat my properly basic belief in the external world.

You apparently think you've given me good reasons to believe mindism, but set that aside until you first acknowledge that my going-in belief in the natural world is non-circular and rational. Acknowledging this does not imply you are compelled to believe it, it just means agreeing that I've committed no errors in reasoning (circularity would be an error).

Also bear in mind that I'm just explaining my foundational belief in the natural world. Such a belief doesn't imply that I deny the existence of other things.

[William]

[Replying to fredonly in post #48]

William - Let's focus on my justification for naturalism which you accused of being circular. This will help to show how it contrasts with yours.

I am currently discussing belief and knowledge with another who has a similar understanding of how belief and knowing (as words) can be conflated/used in the same/similar way.

Belief in the existence of the natural world is rational- it begins with the properly basic belief that our senses deliver to us a functionally accurate reflection of the real world external to ourselves. We don't have to taught that there's an external world that we're perceiving - we innately grasp this.
A "basic belief" is an epistemological term referring to a belief that is not derived from other beliefs- it is foundational.

And in this case, you refer to the "innate grasping" as "basic belief"?

A "proper basic belief" is one that is innate, and caused by the external forces that shaped us. This is to distinguish it from beliefs a person may hold for no reason at all. Being innate implies there's an external reason we would have this.

A properly basic belief isn't necessarily true, but it's rational to maintain the belief unless encountering rational defeaters for the belief. A defeater = evidence and reasoning that falsifies a belief.

As per my other discussion, the example here may be the shape of the earth. One might believe the earth is flat, but evidence and reasoning falsifies that belief through the rational defeaters which explain how the earth must be a sphere.

Belief is not necessarily true, but in the case of existing on a planet which is spherical in shape, both those things are considered belief, even that the knowledge about those things is true?

Am I following your explanation correctly?

I AM willing, and HAVE engaged with you, and I HAVE acknowledged it is possible.

You have also "acknowledged" Spiderman existing in New York is possible more from a sarcastic perspective than a serious one.

But I don't BELIEVE something just because it's possible. It's POSSIBLE that I'm a brain in a vat, being fed impluses that simulate sensory input thus giving me the illusion of the external world. But possibility alone doesn't defeat my properly basic belief in the external world.

How could it? Such a scenario would make it impossible for anyone to deny any reality they may be involved with through that system. All one could do is go along with the situation in the simulation.

What such a possibility would enable one to have is the understanding that the basic belief is not real but nonetheless necessary to have in the circumstances.

Plato's cave is the same idea as brain in a vat, both of which are forms of Simulation Theory, which is itself a form of Creationism - (as in "we exist within a created thing" theory).

As far as possibilities go, they are plausible - more so than Spiderman - on the Possibility Spectrum.

You apparently think you've given me good reasons to believe mindism, but set that aside until you first acknowledge that my going-in belief in the natural world is non-circular and rational. Acknowledging this does not imply you are compelled to believe it, it just means agreeing that I've committed no errors in reasoning (circularity would be an error).

Also bear in mind that I'm just explaining my foundational belief in the natural world. Such a belief doesn't imply that I deny the existence of other things.

I have never denied your belief we exist within the natural world (The Universe - and specifically the Earth). I have acknowledged that it exists and is experienced by both of us. Where we differ is not in that belief, but in whether the natural world is a mindfully created thing, or not.

In that, we both think the other is being circular re our thinking on whether or not we are existing within a created thing.

Apparently we both think it possible, but somewhere therein, we have a different place on the spectrum of possibilities where we are prepared to take this, and since you accused me of operating with circular reasoning, I pointed out that I can also accuse you of the same, since your position re belief appears to force you to claim that the possibility between spiderman existing in New York and us existing within a mindfully created thing is (to your way of thinking) in the same place on the spectrum of possibilities.

So where to from here?
We both agree that we know through experience that we exist in this universe, on this sphere-shaped planet.

We both have the same evidence and one of us thinks that the evidence supports that the universe is real because it is not a created thing, while the other thinks the evidence supports the universe is a mindfully created thing which can be experienced as real.

If not due to circular reasoning, why do you think you have committed no errors in how you have defined the evidence, but those who think differently have committed errors in how they define the same evidence?

(I suggest that this belief is a form of circular reasoning, as it starts with an assumption that the universe is uncreated.)

Surely then, the starting point for both, is to acknowledge that the Universe exists and we are required to examine what we can re it's existence in order to find in the evidence anything which can help answer the question "was it mindfully created or not?".

689
We're two opinions deep before we can even analyze the moral question.
“No phenomenon is a real phenomenon until it is an observed phenomenon.”
Existence Inquiry. Exploring Evidence for Creation or Naturalism

[fredonly]

Belief in the existence of the natural world is rational- it begins with the properly basic belief that our senses deliver to us a functionally accurate reflection of the real world external to ourselves. We don't have to taught that there's an external world that we're perceiving - we innately grasp this.
A "basic belief" is an epistemological term referring to a belief that is not derived from other beliefs- it is foundational.

And in this case, you refer to the "innate grasping" as "basic belief"?

That may be a reasonable characterization, as long as we agree the "grasping" is not some intellectual activity. We innately react to the external world (distinct from our person) even before we can describe it verbally much less learn to reason.

A "proper basic belief" is one that is innate, and caused by the external forces that shaped us. This is to distinguish it from beliefs a person may hold for no reason at all. Being innate implies there's an external reason we would have this.

A properly basic belief isn't necessarily true, but it's rational to maintain the belief unless encountering rational defeaters for the belief. A defeater = evidence and reasoning that falsifies a belief.

As per my other discussion, the example here may be the shape of the earth.

No, the shape of the earth is not a properly basic belief. A person may come to believe the earth is flat because it visually appears to be. Those of us who believe it to be roughly spherical believe this because we've seen the scientific analysis. Either way, it's a belief derived from other beliefs.

Basic beliefs (whether proper or not) are not derived from other beliefs. A basic belief is rational if and only if it is properly basic - innate, and caused by whatever caused us (irrespective of the cause, natural or unnatural).

A "rational" belief isn't necessarily true, but thinking rationally leads in the direction of truth moreso than irrationality.

Am I following your explanation correctly?

You haven't shown you understand the concept of a properly basic belief, since you only compared it to a derived belief.

I'm not going to get into other matters until it's clear you understand the basics.