The mind as evidence of god

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
JoeyKnothead
Banned
Banned
Posts: 20879
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
Location: Here
Has thanked: 4093 times
Been thanked: 2572 times

The mind as evidence of god

Post #1

Post by JoeyKnothead »

Recently in another thread, someone said such as...

"The mind is evidence of God."

For debate:
Please offer some means to confirm the claim is true and factual.

Please remember this section of the site doesn't consider the bible authoritative.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14000
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 906 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

Re: The mind as evidence of god

Post #31

Post by William »

Goat: What do you mean by creation?

William: The Physical Universe aka "Reality" aka "what we exist in".

Is it a "Creation" - implying the mindfulness of a "creator". or is it a mindless accident from out of nowhere - implying magic.[/quote]
[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #30]

It doesn't imply magic, it implies natural physical processes.
Incorrect. "Natural Processes" is the effect. It is implying that the cause of Natural Processes is "Magical" because "the cause came from out of nowhere/nothing", which is the very definition of "Magic".

User avatar
Goat
Site Supporter
Posts: 24999
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 6:09 pm
Has thanked: 25 times
Been thanked: 207 times

Re: The mind as evidence of god

Post #32

Post by Goat »

William wrote: Wed Jun 22, 2022 4:22 pm Goat: What do you mean by creation?

William: The Physical Universe aka "Reality" aka "what we exist in".

Is it a "Creation" - implying the mindfulness of a "creator". or is it a mindless accident from out of nowhere - implying magic.
[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #30]

It doesn't imply magic, it implies natural physical processes.
Incorrect. "Natural Processes" is the effect. It is implying that the cause of Natural Processes is "Magical" because "the cause came from out of nowhere/nothing", which is the very definition of "Magic".
[/quote]

Why can't the conditions that the universe arose from be eternal? Why do you say that the universe came from nothing?
“What do you think science is? There is nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. So which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?�

Steven Novella

TRANSPONDER
Savant
Posts: 7960
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
Has thanked: 932 times
Been thanked: 3486 times

Re: The mind as evidence of god

Post #33

Post by TRANSPONDER »

Ah. This is an old argument and an endless one. Uncreated matter is rejected. It has to originate somewhere. This is a problem but there is a half solution that i have done several times before so I won't tire everyone out with it.

The Creationists (Young or Old earth) postulate an uncreated eternal Cosmic Mind as the explanation. This Mind of course itself having no origin and was not created. On pure logic that would be harder to explain than the most basic of matter (energy holding position) existing without needing to be created.

And of course, while 'Biblegod' is not the topic, it remains that even if a Cosmic Mind could be validated, or even made a logically sound claim, it wouldn't tell us which god it was.

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14000
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 906 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

Re: The mind as evidence of god

Post #34

Post by William »

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #33]

Why don't you answer the question Goat asked, instead of trying to deflect and distract?

Q: Why can't the conditions that the universe arose from be eternal? Why do you say that the universe came from nothing?

User avatar
POI
Prodigy
Posts: 3278
Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2021 5:22 pm
Has thanked: 1545 times
Been thanked: 1051 times

Re: The mind as evidence of god

Post #35

Post by POI »

JoeyKnothead wrote: Sun Jun 19, 2022 3:50 pm Recently in another thread, someone said such as...

"The mind is evidence of God."

For debate:
Please offer some means to confirm the claim is true and factual.

Please remember this section of the site doesn't consider the bible authoritative.
Can we just fast forward to the topic of "substance dualism" or "Cartesian Dualism" now?
In case anyone is wondering... The avatar quote states the following:

"I asked God for a bike, but I know God doesn't work that way. So I stole a bike and asked for forgiveness."

TRANSPONDER
Savant
Posts: 7960
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
Has thanked: 932 times
Been thanked: 3486 times

Re: The mind as evidence of god

Post #36

Post by TRANSPONDER »

William wrote: Fri Jun 24, 2022 2:19 pm [Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #33]

Why don't you answer the question Goat asked, instead of trying to deflect and distract?

Q: Why can't the conditions that the universe arose from be eternal? Why do you say that the universe came from nothing?

I couldn't quite follow it. Why don't you explain it to me? Oh well, perhaps you did. The conundrum is, how can matter be eternal? I get that problem. But if it isn't eternal, how does matter come to be? The half answer has to be that Nothingness does not need to be created; it can be Eternal, but a nothingness that has the capacity to imitate being something (which is what matter is) may be the start of an anwer with less to get over than a complex cosmic mind without an origin to explain.

User avatar
JoeyKnothead
Banned
Banned
Posts: 20879
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
Location: Here
Has thanked: 4093 times
Been thanked: 2572 times

Re: The mind as evidence of god

Post #37

Post by JoeyKnothead »

Sorry for the delay...
William wrote: Tue Jun 21, 2022 2:11 pm IF:
"To propose a mind as creator is no more supportable than my proposal." was your point;
THEN:
"We can replace "mind" there with "biscuits" with equal validity." doesn't help make that point.
[Lets face it, you were attempting to make a point not prove a point.]
What I'm getting at is the unprovable nature of the "mind as creator / god" claims.
William wrote: You are inferring that only humans have minds. Do you have any rational for assuming this is the case?
Not just humans, but some or more animals.

I don't propose a mind exists devoid of a container.
William wrote: The way I see it, the universe has already been "anthropomorphized" simply because mind is involved. (delete link) The hard problem of consciousness.
I propose the rational conclusion here'd draw on evolutionary concepts. For example, a need to understand sensory input.

...Snip chatter...
William wrote: Because I am not using the evidence of science to attempt to bolster my position. The science isn't telling us that we do not exist within a creation. Atheism is telling us that, and attempting to make out that 'science agrees with atheism.'
Whereas the "mind as creator" crowd has?

...Snip chatter...
William wrote:
JK wrote: I merely seek to determine if the claim can be found to be truthful.
William wrote: Don't you mean, you "want to help show that there is no answer which can determine the truth of the matter because it is an unanswerable question?"

Do rhetorical questions even belong in a debate setting? :?
I presented, on a site dedicated to such, a topic for debate.

What others draw from that topic's on them.

Thus far, looks like the claim in the OP's not gonna be shown to be truthful.

What folks draw from that's also on them.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14000
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 906 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

Re: The mind as evidence of god

Post #38

Post by William »

TRANSPONDER wrote: Fri Jun 24, 2022 8:55 pm
William wrote: Fri Jun 24, 2022 2:19 pm [Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #33]

Why don't you answer the question Goat asked, instead of trying to deflect and distract?

Q: Why can't the conditions that the universe arose from be eternal? Why do you say that the universe came from nothing?

I couldn't quite follow it. Why don't you explain it to me? Oh well, perhaps you did. The conundrum is, how can matter be eternal? I get that problem. But if it isn't eternal, how does matter come to be? The half answer has to be that Nothingness does not need to be created; it can be Eternal, but a nothingness that has the capacity to imitate being something (which is what matter is) may be the start of an anwer with less to get over than a complex cosmic mind without an origin to explain.
I understand the direction you are coming from.

The main problem I have with your reasoning, is that it approaches the fact of existence from the premise that everything has to have a beginning, because the physical universe had a beginning.

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14000
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 906 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

Re: The mind as evidence of god

Post #39

Post by William »

[Replying to William in post #38]
What I'm getting at is the unprovable nature of the "mind as creator / god" claims.
No more or less unprovable than any other theory offered on why existence exists.
I don't propose a mind exists devoid of a container.
Nor do I.
The way I see it, the universe has already been "anthropomorphized" simply because mind is involved. [The hard problem of consciousness]
I propose the rational conclusion here'd draw on evolutionary concepts. For example, a need to understand sensory input.
Evolution of The Mind.

Understanding sensory input and making adjustments as the understanding increases.
Because I am not using the evidence of science to attempt to bolster my position. The science isn't telling us that we do not exist within a creation. Atheism is telling us that, and attempting to make out that 'science agrees with atheism.'
Whereas the "mind as creator" crowd has?
Has what? Become the strike to the match? My position isn't about making claims either way. I simply inform that the truth of the matter is, science isn't agreeing with either side of the argument, so there is no known point to supporting either side...which is not to say that one cannot support science...
Thus far, looks like the claim in the OP's not gonna be shown to be truthful.
["The mind is evidence of God."]
For that matter, it is not going to be shown to be untruthful. No surprises there.

User avatar
JoeyKnothead
Banned
Banned
Posts: 20879
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
Location: Here
Has thanked: 4093 times
Been thanked: 2572 times

Re: The mind as evidence of god

Post #40

Post by JoeyKnothead »

William wrote: Sun Jun 26, 2022 3:02 pm [Replying to William in post #38]
What I'm getting at is the unprovable nature of the "mind as creator / god" claims.
No more or less unprovable than any other theory offered on why existence exists.
Yet we have folks declaring it as truth.

..snip...
Thus far, looks like the claim in the OP's not gonna be shown to be truthful.
["The mind is evidence of God."]
For that matter, it is not going to be shown to be untruthful. No surprises there.
[/quote]
The same problem befalls those who reject claims of easter bunnies and tooth faries.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin

Post Reply