What would constitute evidence that God does exist?

[McCulloch]

The problem with that position in logical terms is that they are unable to specify what they mean by evidence which would convince them that GOD exists.

Rather they demand that those who do believe that GOD exists, should show them the evidence as to WHY those who believe so, say so.

And when those who believe so say so, the common response is to say 'that is not evidence' and through that, argue that the theist should become atheist.

What would constitute evidence that God does exist?

[William]

By contrast mind-body dualism supposes that while the body is a spatial entity, the mind does not have even that property. "Dualism is closely associated with the thought of René Descartes (1641), which holds that the mind is a nonphysical—and therefore, non-spatial—substance." It is impossible to even conceive how an entity which does not exist in space/is not composed of a spatial substance, could interact with the properties of a spatial entity.

HERE, I agree with you. And this is pivotal. These two 'substances' cannot interact, could not interact. And this is the very point, or rather a larger point:

The body and the entire physical universe, including the thoughts the physical brain produces, is actual. It is real. It can be observed. The 'mind' does not exist. It is a fictional creation, like heaven, god, and goblins. Mind/body dualism was invented to try to explain something we did not understand, consciousness. 'Mind' is just an idea, not a 'substance.'

Pink, invisible unicorns, like angels and demons, do not, and have never, interacted with real animals. That there are fictional accounts of such imaginary creatures does not change the fact they do not exist; therefore, they cannot interact with us.

This is why the question in the OP, "What would constitute evidence that God does exist," is, 'nothing.' There IS no evidence God exists. There can't be. 'God' is a fictional concept to try to give humans the illusion they can control nature, AND to help them cope with the horror of their inevitable nonexistence. Our own nonexistence is almost unimaginable. It is unacceptable. So, we created a work around, a belief in an afterlife.

That is one way of looking at it but has its holes.

The first one I saw was the claim that the mind is a substance of some sort and cannot interact with this physical universe.

This is simply demonstrably false. Consciousness. thoughts and the mind are not 'substances' but obviously they are still able to coexist with that which is substance. Indeed they are even able to manipulate substances, and use substance as a device/tool etc.

Then you seem to be contradicting yourself by claiming that thoughts are real. So 'the mind is not real but thoughts are real' is a contradiction.

Then you claim that the mind, like pink unicorns and GOD etc is imaginary. If the mind is imaginary, what then creates the imagery? How are you able to tell that you are not right now existing in the imagination of the mind of a GOD?

Mind is just an idea, so you claim. But you have no way to show that this is the actual case.

you claim the idea of afterlife is just an invention of those who cannot accept the inevitability of their own non existence, but your arguments strongly suggests that they don't exist anyway, as they are an illusion of the brain, which is a thing of substance.
Which also says that if the brain created non substance, then this also contradicts your assertion that non substance cannot exist in a world of substance.
Perhaps you should clarify what you mean by that.
Apart from that, your assumptions that people believe in notions of afterlife because they cannot cope with the thought that they wont exist ever again one day is just as bad an argument as someone saying that those who don't think there is an afterlife is because they hate existing and can't tolerate the thought of there being anything more to experience after their bodies die.

[Danmark]

This is simply demonstrably false. Consciousness. thoughts and the mind are not 'substances' but obviously they are still able to coexist with that which is substance. Indeed they are even able to manipulate substances, and use substance as a device/tool etc.

Of COURSE they are not substances. This is Mithrae's contention. We experience consciousness, which arises purely from the world of matter and energy. There is no dualism at all. This misunderstanding of yours is why you say, "Then you seem to be contradicting yourself by claiming that thoughts are real. So 'the mind is not real but thoughts are real' is a contradiction."
What you apparently fail to understand is that thoughts are real; they arise from physical brains. But, the claim there is something called 'mind' that is separate and distinct from the physical world is nonsense. It is pure conjecture.

The rest of your post just goes on with this same false assumption. Think of consciousness as a projection on a screen. The screen is real. So is the projector [the brain]. All of this comes from trillions of connections within a brain with 100 billion neurons. When the projector is destroyed, the projection disappears.

[William]

[Replying to post 82 by Danmark]

Think of consciousness as a projection on a screen. The screen is real. So is the projector [the brain]. All of this comes from trillions of connections within a brain with 100 billion neurons. When the projector is destroyed, the projection disappears.

Using your own word, it is conjecture on your part to believe that consciousness is a creation of the brain and that when the brain dies, consciousness dies as well.

♦ Is consciousness an emergent property of the brain?

Of COURSE they are not substances. This is Mithrae's contention.

I didn't see that but either you can direct me to where Mithrae say's this or quote Mithrae where you believe this is what is being said. Or Mithrae can jump in here and speak for himself.

We experience consciousness...

We are consciousness and consciousness experiences - in each of our case, one human life as only consciousness can - in a subjective manner.
We experience things. We experience data. We experience thought. We experience intelligence. We experience being human. etc. Consciousness is what does the experiencing - not the experience itself. Although, re Pantheism, consciousness is responsible for what is being experienced in that it created things in order to experience what it is like consciously being those things.

...which arises purely from the world of matter and energy.

As I said - this is one way of looking at it and interpreting what is being observed. We do not KNOW that is actually the case. We believe it is or isn't based upon the fact that we do not KNOW everything and that what we do KNOW is not enough to make the claim either way.

One is free to take into account other factors and add theistic or philosophical ideas regarding that as well as one's personal subjective experiences. These are open to question and we are free to ignore pertinent questions regarding our beliefs but in doing so we wouldn't be justifying those beliefs and it would be reasonable for others to dismiss our beliefs as unjustified, if we behaved that way.

What you apparently fail to understand is that thoughts are real; they arise from physical brains.

I did not say that thoughts are not real but feel free to quote me on that one.
Meanwhile I will quote myself where it is obvious I am saying thoughts are real.

Consciousness. thoughts and the mind are not 'substances' but obviously they are still able to coexist with that which is substance.

Being able to do anything requires existing.

Think of consciousness as a projection on a screen. The screen is real. So is the projector [the brain]

You did not say what the 'screen' was in your analogy.

Personally I do not think the analogy between consciousness and a projection is adequate.

In relation to the question of life after death, 'where do our conscious selves go' - that there appears to be no physical place in the universe that we are aware of which can be observed does not in itself mean that there is no non-physical place where this happens.

I myself think we go into the mind of the Earth Entity.

♦ My thoughts on death.

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 82 by Danmark]

Think of consciousness as a projection on a screen. The screen is real. So is the projector [the brain]. All of this comes from trillions of connections within a brain with 100 billion neurons. When the projector is destroyed, the projection disappears.

Using your own word, it is conjecture on your part to believe that consciousness is a creation of the brain and that when the brain dies, consciousness dies as well.

Not at all, tho' I do not mean to suggest science can perfectly explain how consciousness emerges from the physical brain. Ultimately consciousness remains partially a mystery. But that does not give us license to assign a magical source as an explanation.

Hence consciousness is natural, material, and functional; not something mysterious, nonmaterial, and epiphenomenal as has often been portrayed. It has evolved in humans for the creation of adaptive action. This means that consciousness can be explained and studied scientifically and medical disorders involving consciousness treatable by basic clinical treatment (psychiatric, medicinal, psychological). This theory also provides possibilities for the explanation of many puzzling questions: What brain structures are involved in producing consciousness.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15488666

What we know for certain, however, is that the physical brain is responsible for thought:
1, Drugs (including alcohol) affect our consciousness.
2, Trauma can dramatically affect how we think and even IF we continue to think.
3, Simply observing electrical activity in the brain predicts levels of consciousness.
4, There are no reasonable alternative theories. If, for example, consciousness comes from a magical source, such as the 'soul,' this soul does not empower consciousness in some sudden manner. Babies are not born fully conscious. Our consciousness seems to grow and develop over a lifetime as we learn and absorb new experiences and knowledge over a lifetime. This same consciousness appears to deteriorate over time. In other words, everything we CAN observe about consciousness is consistent with it being inescapably entwined with a physical, electrical brain which has "... at least several 100 trillion connections...."
http://theastronomist.fieldofscience.co ... brain.html

[William]

[Replying to post 82 by Danmark]

Think of consciousness as a projection on a screen. The screen is real. So is the projector [the brain]. All of this comes from trillions of connections within a brain with 100 billion neurons. When the projector is destroyed, the projection disappears.

Using your own word, it is conjecture on your part to believe that consciousness is a creation of the brain and that when the brain dies, consciousness dies as well.

Not at all, tho' I do not mean to suggest science can perfectly explain how consciousness emerges from the physical brain. Ultimately consciousness remains partially a mystery. But that does not give us license to assign a magical source as an explanation.

It is not 'a magical source' to say that consciousness may well have always existed and is responsible for the creation of this universe and interacts with the universe in a creative manner. The concept of Intelligent Design is not about 'magical' anything. The use of the term is merely a derogatory one used by those who believe strongly in the idea that consciousness is a creation of the brain. Those who use derogatory expressions do so as a means of attempting to make themselves and their beliefs look better than any contrary beliefs.

Hence consciousness is natural, material, and functional;

Consciousness is indeed natural, and functional but it is not material.

not something mysterious,...

It pretty much is. But that does not mean it is 'magical'.

nonmaterial,...

It is non-material. Can you show me a picture of consciousness so that we might observe what it materially looks like? No you can't.

and epiphenomenal as has often been portrayed.

Certainly, it is no by-product or secondary symptom or a mental state regarded as a by-product of brain activity

It has evolved in humans for the creation of adaptive action.

Speculation based upon interpretation of the theory of evolution.

This means that consciousness can be explained and studied scientifically

Only in relation to the brain. In that, it cannot be established with any certainty that consciousness is a creation of the brain, or is something that uses the brain as a device.

and medical disorders involving consciousness treatable by basic clinical treatment (psychiatric, medicinal, psychological).

Anything to do with the human instrument and especially the brain, involves consciousness. It is known that the brain is responsible for psychiatric, medicinal, psychological problems. In relation to the brain as a device, if device is faulty, the consciousness using it is disadvantaged.

This theory also provides possibilities for the explanation of many puzzling questions:

Note the word 'theory'.

What brain structures are involved in producing consciousness.

The simply answer is 'none'. the brain is simply a tool in which consciousness uses as part of its experience.

What we know for certain, however, is that the physical brain is responsible for thought:

That is not true. It is theory, rather than certainty. It is likely the brain is involved with the process of human thought, just as the brain of a whale is involved with the process of whale thought.

1, Drugs (including alcohol) affect our consciousness.

No. They affect our brains, which affects the way consciousness is able to use the brain.

2, Trauma can dramatically affect how we think and even IF we continue to think.

Again - a damaged instrument disadvantages the consciousness using it.

3, Simply observing electrical activity in the brain predicts levels of consciousness.

What does that mean?

4, There are no reasonable alternative theories.

Yes there is.

If, for example, consciousness comes from a magical source, such as the 'soul,' this soul does not empower consciousness in some sudden manner.

Are you serious? Before you use such example, you should at least explain what you mean by 'soul' apart from just stating it is 'a magical source'

Babies are not born fully conscious.

Being 'fully conscious' is different from being consciousness. Consciousness within the experience of a human form will self realize as the form develops to enable it to do so. This is the point of having an experience in relation to being human.
Consciousness is limited to the instrument it is experiencing.

Our consciousness seems to grow and develop over a lifetime as we learn and absorb new experiences and knowledge over a lifetime.

This has to do with self identification, and in that, we consciously think of ourselves as 'a human' in relation to the form we occupy.
Consciousness is limited to the form it occupies. What is 'grown and develops over a lifetime' is personality/ego which is often worn like a costume, especially by those who do not understand the true nature of what they are. They self identify as the human instrument rather than as the consciousness which is experiencing the human instrument.

This same consciousness appears to deteriorate over time. In other words, everything we CAN observe about consciousness is consistent with it being inescapably entwined with a physical, electrical brain which has "... at least several 100 trillion connections...."

What is observed and then interpreted (as with the above interpretation) is not necessarily what is actually taking place.

Consciousness is limited to the instrument it is experiencing. This means that as the body gets older and more run down etc, consciousness is limited by that. It is not consciousness which is deteriorating. It is the material.

This is to say, in accordance with philosophical ideas to do with Pantheism, no matter how large or small the container, or how quickly or slowly the container deteriorates, or how limited consciousness becomes within the container, consciousness itself is - as its default - eternal, has no use-by date, and is able to divest itself innumerably into myriad form, biological or otherwise, and for that matter does not require a brain in order to experience itself within form.

The TRUTH is that the theory of evolution/materialism without the inclusion of Intelligent Design, is the very thing which insists on a 'magical source'.

[Bust Nak]

I am an aspect of GOD and so are you. We are not figments of GODs imagination.

Then you are stepping beyond what you can actually know, given solipsism limits knowledge to one thing and one thing only - you think therefore you are. And when you link that with the Pantheism, then it follows that you are God.

Your one-liner replies show that you seem unable to grasp what is being said regarding the subject. Perhaps if you were to make your replies a bit more comprehensive one might be able to better understand what you are suggesting.

Read my conversation with Mithrae, we were talking about solipsism - the only think you can know for certain, is your own existence, the wider context being the bare minimum in presupposition to get us anything useful to work with, given that solipsism while true, is not very helpful at all.

Also, quoting someone out of context and speaking to that is something of a cross between making a straw-man and shifting the goal-posts. Either way it serves to potentially distract away from contextual relevance, which is something I find is worth avoiding.

I agree, but it seems there is an implication, accusation even, that I was quoting people out of context. Explain yourself.

[William]

[Replying to post 86 by Bust Nak]

Then you are stepping beyond what you can actually know, given solipsism limits knowledge to one thing and one thing only - you think therefore you are.

No. Pantheism is more along the lines of 'I exist, therefore I am" - Thinking is a small aspect of existing.

And when you link that with the Pantheism, then it follows that you are God.

Really what you are saying then is that when one runs a theory through the filter of another theory one comes to this conclusion.

Solipism works best in relation to FSC - the hub of all consciousness.

From our perceptive, we are many. In relation to Earth Entity, we are It having a singular experience.
Think of it this way. You are at a game in an arena, one of the many all around. From your singular subjective experience you are in seat number (?) and row number(?) and this is the position you observe the game from.

In relation to EE, It observes the game from the position of every seat and row, plus from every player on the field, all simultaneously. That is Its singular experience as an individual unit of consciousness.

And that is only an individual event. Add to that all other things happening on the planet at the same moment which human beings are involved with, and that is Its singular experience as an individual unit of consciousness.

But wait! There's more! Add to that the experience of every single conscious critter on the planet at all given linear moments simultaneously, and that is Its singular experience as an individual unit of consciousness.

And that is just what is happening on this speck of dust suspended on a beam of sol-light.

Imagine simultaneously all things happening on every speck of dust and source of light in the universe, and that is one small part of the overall experience the First Source Consciousness is having.

Add to that any other universes which might exist, which may even be countless, and altogether this represents the overall experience of First Source as an individual unit of consciousness is having.

So there, at that point, is the true example of solipsism. Everything else to do with individual units of consciousness is an echo of that solipsism. It can be viewed as such from the point of the subjective experience within the form, but I cannot honestly declare to you and you cannot honestly declare to me that we are simply 'figments of one another's imagination' once Pantheism is explained.

True Solipsism belongs only to First Source Reality in Its wholeness, not in its parts.

[Danmark]

It is not 'a magical source' to say that consciousness may well have always existed and is responsible for the creation of this universe and interacts with the universe in a creative manner. The concept of Intelligent Design is not about 'magical' anything. ....

Sorry, but that is exactly what it is. Intelligent Design has been found by both science and the courts to be religion, not science. Religious explanation = magic; i.e., a non rational explanation. One of the things those who resort to magic and religion to explain anything from weather and evolution to consciousness is an explanation not based on actual observation. And one of the things they forget is that there are thousands of religions, each with their own 'magical,' non rational explanations for things they either do not understand, or are ignorant of.

The Christian 'soul' myth to explain consciousness is like their creation myth. It is accepted simply because 'the book' says it is so. This is no different from the 'world parent' myths of other tribes in that neither has any observable data to support it. There are many such myths.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_myth
What makes the Judeo-Christian one superior to those of native Americans, or any other culture?

[William]

[Replying to post 88 by Danmark]

Sorry but no.

Intelligent Design is not the same as religion. Religion can put the spin of their own idea of GOD(s) as the intelligent designer into the equation, but that in itself is a different kettle of fish.

Science has nothing to say either way on the subject as science is just a process. It is Materialist scientists who put their spin on things as related - not to what the evidence shows - but to the interpretation of the evidence, which as is shown, does not equate to the truth of the matter either way.

Intelligent Design is not something which itself offers a 'magical' explanation, but a rational one. Materialism, on the other hand, claims intelligent life derives from a mindless process. How magical is that!

[Bust Nak]

No. Pantheism is more along the lines of 'I exist, therefore I am" - Thinking is a small aspect of existing.

Where exactly does any deity fit into this?

Really what you are saying then is that when one runs a theory through the filter of another theory one comes to this conclusion.

Yes. Solipsism + pantheism = you are god and I am a figment of your imagination.

Solipism works best in relation to FSC - the hub of all consciousness.

From our perceptive, we are many...

That is going beyond solipsism again, you don't know that there is an "our perceptive," you only know there is "your perceptive." You need other presupposition to go beyond that.

[explanation cropped]

So there, at that point, is the true example of solipsism. Everything else to do with individual units of consciousness is an echo of that solipsism...

That's not an example of solipsism at all, just regular old pantheism. When you make claims about other consciousness, you are adding extra presuppositions to your worldview. Solipsism by itself is extremely narrow.