Does Consciousness Support Theism in Any Way?

[jgh7]

Sometimes I hear claims that the phenomena of consciousness proves religion in some way. It proves somehow that there's a soul, that we continue to stay conscious after we die, and that the spirit which encapsulates this consciousness is immortal.

I'm still not convinced that consciousness is any more than the byproduct of electricity in the brain. Once the brain dies and has zero activity, consciousness dies with it.

[Justin108]

From http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8072950

Based on more than 8000 autopsies of male and female patients without brain diseases the normal brain weight of adult males and females in relation to sex, age, body-weight, and body-height as well as Body Mass Index were calculated. The average brain weight of the adult male was 1336 gr; for the adult female 1198 gr

https://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/facts.html

Average brain width = 140 mm
Average brain length = 167 mm
Average brain height = 93 mm

Who said anything about the brain? I said..

"Or unless you can tell me how much does the thought of an apple weigh and what is its height/width."

Keyword: Thought.

So, I remain unshocked, and unimpressed. LOL

The fact that a thought doesn't weigh anything is no surprise because thought is not a substance, it's an activity in the brain. Thoughts are electrical processes. So asking "how much it weighs" makes about as much sense as asking how much electricity weights. Brain waves can still be detected, however, using an EEG (electroencephalogram). This proves that thoughts are in fact part of the physical world as objects in the physical world (electroencephalograms) can detect them.

[For_The_Kingdom]

The fact that a thought doesn't weigh anything is no surprise because thought is not a substance, it's an activity in the brain.

Okkkk. So you just agreed with me that the "thought" itself ISN'T of itself made up of material/physical substance....which was basically my point.

Thoughts are electrical processes.

So are electrical outlets and sockets. I guess they are thinking, too?

So asking "how much it weighs" makes about as much sense as asking how much electricity weights.

Electricity can be measured, can't it?

Brain waves can still be detected, however, using an EEG (electroencephalogram). This proves that thoughts are in fact part of the physical world as objects in the physical world (electroencephalograms) can detect them.

It proves there is a correlation, that's it. It doesn't prove/demonstrate where the "thoughts" came from in the first place.

You can shape and mold as much brain material as you'd like to form the perfect brain, but where would you get the "thoughts" from? That is a different question, isn't it?

Second, again, there is also the question of the individual who is the person or the "I" that is actually doing the thinking.

When "I" am sad, who is sad? It isn't the brain, it isn't the chemicals within the brain, yet "I" am sad, as if there is another "person" in there somewhere that is actually feeling the emotion.

Hmmm. Again, this can't be answered on naturalism.

[For_The_Kingdom]

Ya, that was a bit tongue in cheek, but my point was that thoughts reside in the brain and are a result of the 'contents' of this brain (i.e. the chemicals and energy transfer among the parts of the brain).

Thus, there is a correlation between mental states and physical states. No one is denying that.

During a brain scan you can see what areas of the brain are involved while thinking about something. So you could theoretically measure the part of the brain involved in thinking about an apple.

But no one is able to look inside my brain and tell me what I am thinking, can they? Yet, the thought is clear as day inside of my brain.

If you could figure out how much energy was expended having that thought, you could even determine its relativistic mass (E = mc2).

I doubt this will shock or impress you either

Good catch.

Let's tackle this from a different angle. You seem to be claiming that thoughts are separate from the physical mind correct?

Absolutely. "You" are more than just a pile of matter. You have an immaterial "self" that succeeds your physical self after it ceases to exist.

If so, how do your thoughts control your body? i.e. if you want to pick up an apple, how does that thought translate into physical action?
For bonus points, if thought is really disconnected from the physical brain and there is a mechanism for your thoughts to control your body, why can't that same mechanism be used to control someone else's body? Why can't you make someone else pick up an apple with just a thought? Or maybe you can and I should put my tin foil hat back on

LOL. Hey, I don't have all of the answers, my friend. I know what I know, and I don't know what I don't know. The cases that I make for ANYTHING are based upon what I know.

That being said; there have been ANY reported cases of out of body experiences / near death experiences where people experienced things and have come to know things that they could not have known if not for that experience.

The stories of NDE (near death experiences) are something that you may be familiar with, and if not, check into it. You may want to look into it.

[Clownboat]

The fact that a thought doesn't weigh anything is no surprise because thought is not a substance, it's an activity in the brain.

Okkkk. So you just agreed with me that the "thought" itself ISN'T of itself made up of material/physical substance....which was basically my point.

Thoughts are electrical processes.

So are electrical outlets and sockets. I guess they are thinking, too?

So asking "how much it weighs" makes about as much sense as asking how much electricity weights.

Electricity can be measured, can't it?

Brain waves can still be detected, however, using an EEG (electroencephalogram). This proves that thoughts are in fact part of the physical world as objects in the physical world (electroencephalograms) can detect them.

It proves there is a correlation, that's it. It doesn't prove/demonstrate where the "thoughts" came from in the first place.

You can shape and mold as much brain material as you'd like to form the perfect brain, but where would you get the "thoughts" from? That is a different question, isn't it?

Second, again, there is also the question of the individual who is the person or the "I" that is actually doing the thinking.

When "I" am sad, who is sad? It isn't the brain, it isn't the chemicals within the brain, yet "I" am sad, as if there is another "person" in there somewhere that is actually feeling the emotion.

Hmmm. Again, this can't be answered on naturalism.

You have two courses of action for where do thoughts originate from.
1) Admit that we don't know yet and put in work to try to figure it out.
2) Pick a religion, just about any religion will do and you no longer need to put in work, because you have your answer.

I warn you, one way takes much more work than the other and some people are just not willing to do it.

[Clownboat]

Absolutely. "You" are more than just a pile of matter. You have an immaterial "self" that succeeds your physical self after it ceases to exist.

You cannot show that you speak the truth. Either way, let's consider at least one other possibility. Not you of course, but the readers who might be open to other possibilities.

Readers, consider a less intelligent creature. What if they experience hunger and have also experienced that eating quenches said hunger.
Basically the thought process would be:
A feeling of hunger and eating being a mechanism to meet said feeling.

Now consider a more advanced creature that has developed a sense of self.
The thought process would be:
'I' have a feeling of hunger, 'I' know that if 'I' eat, said feeling goes away.

If intelligent creatures have simply added the personal 'I' before the feeling of hunger and eating, then there would be no need for this immaterial self you argue for being there.

[Kenisaw]

We already got there, in the first five pages, which is why I specifically mentioned that. I assume it is why OpenYourEyes dropped the conversation actually, because he couldn't provide any support for his claim that a conscious is separate from the physical structures of the brain.

But the real party doesn't start until I make my grand entrance...because "the pro's don't audition, the boss just walk'em in".

And we are glad to have you, but the party has already been there, done that. No one likes a repeat performance at the same engagement...

Thoughts are the result of physical structures and chemical reactions (and probably some quantum mechanics stuff that we are still trying to understand). They exist in your brain ONLY. There is no data to suggest otherwise. If you know of some, please share...

But these "chemical reactions and physical structures" aren't the actual thoughts, are they? They are not the same thing. When I think of an apple, you can't point to any single chemical or group of chemicals in my brain and say "that is the apple right there". Can you do that? No, you can't.

Yes, we can. You can see what part of the brain lights up in a scan during that thought, and even measure the energy being used to generate and hold it. There is nothing supporting the claim that a thought exists outside of the physical and chemical activity in your cranium. As I said, if you know of some data that suggest otherwise, please share. As of this time I know of no study, data, or empirical information that supports the claim that a thought exists separate from the physical brain. Everything, including scans as mentioned above, support my statements.

It is entirely possible that one day we will discover that a thought is actually separate from the brain in some way. But we haven't found that so far, and so for anyone to make a positive claim that thought are separate from the brain is clearly ludicrous.

Therefore, what is true of the thought isn't true of the CHEMICAL(s), thus, making them NOT the same thing according to the law of identity.

Nonsense. You have no rational idea, and certainly no evidence, that thoughts aren't structured via neural networks, electrical capacitance, and chemical reactions. The law of identity cannot possibly apply because you can't even define your "A" much less see if it equals the "A" that exists in the physical brain. You don't have two things to compare, and thus no comparison...

No, common misconception. Thoughts don't have weight, because they are energy.

So because something has weight, it can't have energy? Ok, so to test this theory, drop an anvil on top of a single egg, and tell me the results.

What are you talking about? So you take the opposite of what I write, add in something that contains mass and velocity, and then think that has any relation to what we were discussing? I'm afraid that isn't a relevant OR useful example...

Let me correct what I said above and give greater detail to it. First, I was trying to write that thoughts don't have weight because they aren't new energy (thanks autocorrect), in that the entire energy of the system (the brain) doesn't change. Even that isn't technically correct since there is heat loss at all moments from your cranium and new fuels being introduced and used at all times, but since it impossible to account for all that we try to reduce it to a closed system. As thoughts are the result of physical structures, electrical currents, chemical reactions, etc they are simply converted energy. How that energy works on the physical systems so that "thought" is the result is one of the big questions being researched.

You can see them light up a CAT scan.

You can see what? The thoughts, or the chemicals? LOL.

The energy.

The physical structures in your brain allow for this energy to be used in such a way that thoughts are the result.

Allow for what energy, sir? You haven't identified the energy. When I think of an apple, the chemicals in my brain aren't taking the form of an apple, thereby allowing me to think of an apple. So where is this "image" of the apple coming from?

The fuel your brain and body uses, obviously. It's how you stay warm no matter what the outside climate is like, and how your body regulates all kinds of things by keeping them at optimum temperature ranges. It's why you have to eat three times a day, so that you have enough fuel to do what you do. Your brain uses 20% of your resources, and that is what fuels the processes that generate, among other things, "thought". Food and oxygen my dear man, so the mitochondria can power the biological system.

Not only have you NOT identified the energy, but you haven't even identified the "I". Who is the "I"?

I apologize, I assumed wrongly that you understood where the energy came from. But now you know that part. As to the "I", what exactly is there to identify?

When you are sad, is your brain sad? No. Is the chemicals sad? No. Yet, you are sad. Who is the "you" that is "sad"?

I guess you didn't know that the activity in the brain differs as people feel different emotions, both in location of the brain and in scope of the activity. There are also various chemicals (like dopamine and seratonin to list just two) that are released in relation to different stimuli and the "thoughts" that are generated from them. Let's not forget hormone release too for that matter. The "sad" is the result of how your brain processed input and information and what was released (and where) and how much. The physical structure of the brain also matters. People with fewer seratonin receptors in their brains don't report feeling nearly as happy or for as long as people that have more seratonin receptors. Here are a couple of things to review if you would like:

http://www.nytimes.com/1995/03/28/scien ... wanted=all

http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/i ... tions2.htm

To add one more point, do you think it is mere coincidence that certain feelings and thoughts originate from certain areas of the brain ALL THE TIME? Do you think it mere coincidence that various chemicals and hormones are present when certain "thoughts" dominate? Yet you want to make the claim that thoughts are somehow not related to the brain? Perhaps you might want to come up with an explanation for why something that exists separate from the brain always is related to certain parts of it and the molecules and structures that are in use at that time...

These questions cannot be answered on naturalism, sir

Yet I provide detailed info and links, while you continue to made generalized claims without one hint of data or empirical evidence. Care to rethink?

Don't be impressed, because I'm not saying anything that isn't already known to anyone who has ever bothered to research the topic with a semblance of depth. Like I told Eyes, and now I'm telling you, there is no empirical support for consciousness existing outside our brain. If you know of some, please share.

No need for the empirical qualifier...the point is, is there support (in general) for mind/body dualism...and the answer is, YES.

Then provide it. Stop merely claiming it, man up, and give me the goods. Where is the data and evidence?

There's no reason to think it can't be explained naturally.

Well, once you explain it naturally, only then will there be "no reason to think it can't be explained naturally".

No, there is no reason to think it can be explained your way because there is ZERO evidence for the supernatural. It's foolhardy to think a speculative concept like the supernatural could be a plausible explanation for anything, much less thought. You have double duty now. You need to prove the supernatural exists, and THEN you need to prove that something supernatural is responsible for the existence of thought. Because the existence of the supernatural (if you could prove it) still doesn't prove that it had anything to do with the existence of thought...For all you know thoughts exists naturally anyway, even if there was such a thing as the supernatural.

You've got your work cut out for you tonight...

And (to point out the OTHER logical problem with your statement that I hadn't bothered to mention), if it can't be explained naturally that doesn't prove it is supernatural. The inability of one option does not automatically make another one the winner. Nothing is acceptable unless it can be empirically verified. The utter lack of support for ALL supernatural claims makes that entire genre mere conjecture. You want that to be different, provide evidence for something...

Well, I am going where the evidence points. I think the idea of mind/body naturalism is illogical, and there certainly isn't any scientific evidence supporting it. Therefore, I am well within my rights to believe the option that the explanatory power needed to produce the effect.

You are well within your rights to believe whatever you want, no argument there. Your claim that there is no scientific evidence supporting it is pure bunk I'm afraid. There are plenty of studies already in existence that show otherwise, but it is up to you to research that yourself. If you want to believe verses know, then keep on keeping on...

Now, I've asked you a series of questions above, and if you are unable to answer the questions, then I am going where I can get my questions answered.

If you want accurate, you've come to the right place. If you want agreement, then I can't promise you anything.

Who says western democracy is better than eastern monarchy?
Based on what parameters are you assuming one is better than the other? You can measure different statistical considerations, like personal happiness or GNP or literacy rate or whatever you want, and from there you can make a determination. That will never be purely scientific however, because such things are subjective in value. Happiness for example, being a human concept, is NOT empirical. We can assign it values, but ultimately there is no such thing as happiness objectively. "Happiness" is defined by whatever society or culture is doing the defining. And if you understood science, you would've already understood why that question you posed is not a scientific question.

Then you are admitting the scientific method cannot be used to explain everything, which was my point.

Science can explain everything empirical. Concepts like morality or happiness are not empirical operators. They are purely subjective standards that constantly change. The operation of the brain is empirical, it is not a concept. So if you think that science cannot explain the brain and thought, you are rather misinformed.

Same with the child. Right and wrong are not scientific concepts. True the vast majority of us have a definite notion in our mind about that child, but that doesn't make our opinion purely scientific.

I hope I've explained the nuances of that to you clearly, if not let me know.

I actually agree with you.

10-4

Sure I did, because that is ALWAYS the exception that cultists throw out, which creates a separate logical paradox. If a being always existed, it can never reach the moment in it's existence where it can create consciousness. It would take an infinite amount of it's existence before it got around to creating something. As we all know, there is no middle of infinity, so such a being cannot possibly create something.

Resolve the paradox...

The only way to resolve this paradox is if we imagine a scenario that God was sitting/standing (whatever) completely still for all eternity...then, suddenly, he began to create..and it was only at this moment of "change" (from non-movement to movement) that time began.

So, that is a scenario where there were no moments leading to creation, and also a past boundary to time itself.

Infinity does not have to have a time component I'm afraid. Infinite existence is still a logical paradox. On top of that, how does a perfect god "change"? That's another of the logical paradoxes of your god being. If it's existence is perfect, as some Christians claim, then any change made (like the creation of the universe) makes it less than perfect. You can't improve upon perfection, so any change made is a reduction of perfection. So your god can no longer be perfect.

Furthermore, if it exists everywhere and is "infinite" then it could have never created the universe. How do you add to an "infinite" existence? Yet another logical paradox.

The Christian god can't possibly exist as it is a logical paradox.

I am glad that you realize that the problem of infinity applies to God as well, so there is no special pleading on the theists part. However, it is the atheists who maintain that the universe (natural reality) never began to exist and that the energy which occupies our universe has been transforming from one form to another...from ETERNITY PAST. That is implying an infinite amount of changes in an infinite amount of time, which is demonstrably absurd.

There is no possible world at which that oculd be the case.

So in essence, there is absolutely NO WAY out of the paradox on such a naturalistic worldview..and since you recognize this to be a problem, you should be more vocal to your unbelieving friends and tell them "hey, guys, we have problems here".

That would be true if that was the stance of science. That is not, however, the case. Science only understands the moment up to the Big Bang (and that is subject to change I readily admit). What came before is not known. There are all kinds of speculations on that, and plenty of research into the "quantum foam" question if you will, but it is theoretical physics only at this point.

[Kenisaw]

The fact that a thought doesn't weigh anything is no surprise because thought is not a substance, it's an activity in the brain.

Okkkk. So you just agreed with me that the "thought" itself ISN'T of itself made up of material/physical substance....which was basically my point.

It is made up of energy and the interaction of that energy with the physical structures in the brain, as outlined in my previous post.

Thoughts are electrical processes.

So are electrical outlets and sockets. I guess they are thinking, too?

Actually they are electrical PROCESSORS, but regardless, as they do not contain the right structures for thought as we currently understand it, therefore they do not think anymore than a lightning bolt does.

So asking "how much it weighs" makes about as much sense as asking how much electricity weights.

Electricity can be measured, can't it?

Yes, but the ability to isolate one particular electric impulse from everything else going on in a brain isn't possible with the technology we currently have.

Brain waves can still be detected, however, using an EEG (electroencephalogram). This proves that thoughts are in fact part of the physical world as objects in the physical world (electroencephalograms) can detect them.

It proves there is a correlation, that's it. It doesn't prove/demonstrate where the "thoughts" came from in the first place.

Since energy cannot be created or destroyed, it does indeed demonstrate where they came from. They came from an energy source. That means they did NOT come from thin air, aka nothing.

You can shape and mold as much brain material as you'd like to form the perfect brain, but where would you get the "thoughts" from? That is a different question, isn't it?

No, for reasons already outlined in this and previous posts.

Second, again, there is also the question of the individual who is the person or the "I" that is actually doing the thinking.

Sounds like a single brain to me.

When "I" am sad, who is sad? It isn't the brain, it isn't the chemicals within the brain, yet "I" am sad, as if there is another "person" in there somewhere that is actually feeling the emotion.

Hmmm. Again, this can't be answered on naturalism.

Already answered in previous material

[Kenisaw]

But no one is able to look inside my brain and tell me what I am thinking, can they? Yet, the thought is clear as day inside of my brain.

Yes, they can, as least generically. Based on what part of the brain is being used, and what chemicals and hormones are being released at that time, along with the measure of things like breathing, blood pressure, and so forth, they can pretty much peg down the basic feeling you are experiencing. They can even tell if it is a mild or intense level of that basic feeling. Kind of amazing when you stop and think about it

[benchwarmer]

But no one is able to look inside my brain and tell me what I am thinking, can they? Yet, the thought is clear as day inside of my brain.

You may want to invest in a tin foil hat too (I'd loan you mine, but it is firmly strapped on right now). See the following link:

http://gallantlab.org/

There is an updated video based on a previously published paper:

http://gallantlab.org/index.php/publica ... t-al-2011/

They are able to reconstruct images which are eerily close to what you are seeing via brain activity. Pretty cool and scary at the same time.

[For_The_Kingdom]

And we are glad to have you, but the party has already been there, done that. No one likes a repeat performance at the same engagement...

Well, this is the after party.

Yes, we can. You can see what part of the brain lights up in a scan during that thought, and even measure the energy being used to generate and hold it.

Ok, so if we can see the part of the brain that "lights up" in a scan during that thought, then we should also see the part of the brain that "lights up" in a scan when a person tells a lie, right?

If not, then tell me what is the freakin' difference.

If so, then why don't we just put all person's accused of a crime through a cat scan, and determine truth/false that way.

There is nothing supporting the claim that a thought exists outside of the physical and chemical activity in your cranium.

I've already made the case that supports my claim, sir...and thus far, you've offered nothing to undermine my case.

Not to mention the chicken & egg problem that you have. What came first, the brain, or the consciousness? If the brain came first, then I'd like a natural explanation as to how would the brain suddenly/gradually produce consciousness, when, even if an intelligent human being was to shape and mold a perfect brain, how would he be able to plug the consciousness into the brain?

Even if there was an infinite amount of electrons and neurons at his disposal, how would he plug them into the brain to get the brain to think?

This is not just some "oh, we just haven't figured it out yet"...this is more of an "oh, it just can't happen" kind of of a thing.

As I said, if you know of some data that suggest otherwise, please share. As of this time I know of no study, data, or empirical information that supports the claim that a thought exists separate from the physical brain. Everything, including scans as mentioned above, support my statements.

If you can't put a person through a cat scan and tell EXACTLY what the person is thinking, then all of this "scan" talk is completely irrelevant.

It is entirely possible that one day we will discover that a thought is actually separate from the brain in some way.

And it is entirely possible that one day, Jesus will return, too.

But we haven't found that so far, and so for anyone to make a positive claim that thought are separate from the brain is clearly ludicrous.

Bruh, the chemicals cannot produce the image of a football inside my head on its on. You are saying that chemicals, which have ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with a football, can produce the image of a football inside of my brain?

So, tell me what about the chemical is a football? Can you do that? No, you can't...that is what is ludicrous.

Nonsense. You have no rational idea, and certainly no evidence, that thoughts aren't structured via neural networks, electrical capacitance, and chemical reactions.

Hey, I already stated that there is a correlation between mental/physical states of the brain. But one is not the origin of the other. I don't claim to know how they correlate or whatever, but my case is not based upon how they correlate, it is based upon the impossibility of either one originating from the other...among other things.

The law of identity cannot possibly apply because you can't even define your "A" much less see if it equals the "A" that exists in the physical brain. You don't have two things to compare, and thus no comparison...

Um, I do have two thing to compare. I clearly made the distinction between the thought (A) and the chemical (B). The thought isn't the chemical, and the chemical isn't the thought, they are not identical...thus the law of identify, as stated, is in the right context, sir.

What are you talking about? So you take the opposite of what I write, add in something that contains mass and velocity, and then think that has any relation to what we were discussing? I'm afraid that isn't a relevant OR useful example...

Wait a minute. You stated;Thoughts don't have weight, because they are energy.

Now, that implies "because they are energy, they don't have weight" (not to mention the fact that you are completely WRONG about "thoughts are energy", but we will put that aside for the moment).

So, I gave an example of the energy/weight of an anvil smashing an egg. Plain and simple. It is something with weight having energy. It was too easy.

Let me correct what I said above and give greater detail to it. First, I was trying to write that thoughts don't have weight because they aren't new energy (thanks autocorrect), in that the entire energy of the system (the brain) doesn't change. Even that isn't technically correct since there is heat loss at all moments from your cranium and new fuels being introduced and used at all times, but since it impossible to account for all that we try to reduce it to a closed system. As thoughts are the result of physical structures, electrical currents, chemical reactions, etc they are simply converted energy. How that energy works on the physical systems so that "thought" is the result is one of the big questions being researched.

I don't understand what you are attempting to say, sir. Now, that could be your jacked up way of explaining it, or it could be due to my poor comprehension in this particular regard.

Or maybe it is somewhere in the middle. LOL.

The energy.

You can see the energy, but you can't see the actual thought, huh.

The fuel your brain and body uses, obviously. It's how you stay warm no matter what the outside climate is like, and how your body regulates all kinds of things by keeping them at optimum temperature ranges. It's why you have to eat three times a day, so that you have enough fuel to do what you do. Your brain uses 20% of your resources, and that is what fuels the processes that generate, among other things, "thought". Food and oxygen my dear man, so the mitochondria can power the biological system.

All irrelevance.

I apologize, I assumed wrongly that you understood where the energy came from.

I don't know where the thoughts come from, no.

As to the "I", what exactly is there to identify?

If I say "I am thinking of an apple", who is the "I"? The brain isn't the "I", because when you say "My brain is thinking of an apple", you are making the distinction between my (you) and my brain (which is independent of "my" (you).

So who is the "I"? Can you identify the "I"? There is an unidentified "I" in this situation that is unaccounted for....but all is not lost...if we postulate an immaterial "you", then one can easily account for "I".

I guess you didn't know that the activity in the brain differs as people feel different emotions, both in location of the brain and in scope of the activity. There are also various chemicals (like dopamine and seratonin to list just two) that are released in relation to different stimuli and the "thoughts" that are generated from them. Let's not forget hormone release too for that matter.

Complete irrelevance to the point that was being made?

The "sad" is the result of how your brain processed input and information and what was released (and where) and how much.

There is a pronoun of "your" in the quote above that has yet to be identified, sir. I am still waiting on it to be identified.

The physical structure of the brain also matters. People with fewer seratonin receptors in their brains don't report feeling nearly as happy or for as long as people that have more seratonin receptors. Here are a couple of things to review if you would like:

http://www.nytimes.com/1995/03/28/scien ... wanted=all

http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/i ... tions2.htm

Bro, that has nothing whatsoever to do with anything that I said LOL.

To add one more point, do you think it is mere coincidence that certain feelings and thoughts originate from certain areas of the brain ALL THE TIME? Do you think it mere coincidence that various chemicals and hormones are present when certain "thoughts" dominate? Yet you want to make the claim that thoughts are somehow not related to the brain? Perhaps you might want to come up with an explanation for why something that exists separate from the brain always is related to certain parts of it and the molecules and structures that are in use at that time...

Bruh, I never said that thoughts are not related to the brain. In fact, I've stated on more that one occasion that mental states/physical states CORRELATE with one another.

That being said; I am comfortable making the statement that there is no possible world at which physical constructs could be the absolute origin of mental constructs. It aint happening.

And I challenge you, or ANYONE, to give me your best scenario at which a physical entity could have been the absolute origin of a mental entity. Take it all the way back to the very beginning to when cognitive life began...give me your best natural scenario, please.

Yet I provide detailed info and links, while you continue to made generalized claims without one hint of data or empirical evidence. Care to rethink?

Those links were/are completely irrelevant to the points that I am making.

Then provide it. Stop merely claiming it, man up, and give me the goods. Where is the data and evidence?

My reasons are mainly philosophical, as I make a case based on the limitations of science. The scientific method is incapable of being useful in this regard.

No, there is no reason to think it can be explained your way because there is ZERO evidence for the supernatural.

Then explain it by using the scientific method.

It's foolhardy to think a speculative concept like the supernatural could be a plausible explanation for anything, much less thought. You have double duty now. You need to prove the supernatural exists, and THEN you need to prove that something supernatural is responsible for the existence of thought. Because the existence of the supernatural (if you could prove it) still doesn't prove that it had anything to do with the existence of thought...For all you know thoughts exists naturally anyway, even if there was such a thing as the supernatural.

You've got your work cut out for you tonight...

Say this after you've answered all of the above.

Science can explain everything empirical. Concepts like morality or happiness are not empirical operators. They are purely subjective standards that constantly change.

Ohhh, so objective moral values do not exist?

The operation of the brain is empirical, it is not a concept. So if you think that science cannot explain the brain and thought, you are rather misinformed.

Science cannot explain the origin of absolute thought...and if you think otherwise, then you have the floor.

Infinity does not have to have a time component I'm afraid. Infinite existence is still a logical paradox.

Um, there was no time component of any moments PRIOR to the beginning of creation, even in the scenario. So I don't know where you got this "time component" from.

On top of that, how does a perfect god "change"?

Change what?

That's another of the logical paradoxes of your god being. If it's existence is perfect, as some Christians claim, then any change made (like the creation of the universe) makes it less than perfect.

God's choice to create the universe was based on a want, not a need. He wanted to create a universe full of creations to share his love with them, but that was for our benefit, not his. He didn't need to create anything..such a thing wouldn't make or break him.

Now, if you say "Well, if he was perfect, he wouldn't have "wanted" to do anything"...I will respond to that by saying; if we imagine a possible world where we have two omni-beings (as defined in the MOA)...and one omni-being chooses to create a universe such as our own (because he wanted to), and the other chooses not to create a universe such as our own (because he doesn't want to)...

Even in that scenario, I don't see any advantage one has over the other when it comes to perfection or greatness. It seems rather arbitrary. However, if one of the omni-beings NEEDED to create (for whatever reason) and the other one didn't, then yes, the advantage would be to the one that doesn't need anything.

As far as God's omnipresence (everywhere at all times) is concerned, it doesn't mean that God is physically present everywhere...it means that his spirit is manifested everywhere at all times, and he is in sovereign control of everything at all times.

And this goes back to the MOA and stating that God exists in ALL POSSIBLE WORLDS.

That would be true if that was the stance of science. That is not, however, the case. Science only understands the moment up to the Big Bang (and that is subject to change I readily admit). What came before is not known. There are all kinds of speculations on that, and plenty of research into the "quantum foam" question if you will, but it is theoretical physics only at this point.

I am not sure as to how any further development in science will solve the infinity problem.