The mind as evidence of god

[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.

[TRANSPONDER]

No You are overlooking 'emergence' which is the bottom line of evolution.

You are forgetting that your complaint is about a Cosmic Mind existing and consequently responsible for shaping form [re objects in the universe] and evolution [re consciousness on this planet].
If you want to include the theory of emergence as the reason for human consciousness, then there is no practical reason to exclude the theory of emergence for Cosmic Consciousness.

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #59]

Except that you have to have existing matter for the Cosmic Mind to evolve from and either something created that or it always existed

It always existed and is called the Quantum Field. [QF]

- or it somehow came from Nothing.

Illogical.

Postulating a Cosmic Mind, evolved or not simply brings the infinite regression problem up again and that is the illogical one.

Not so.

The belief that infinite regression is a problem is a false belief.
________________________________________________________

From another conversation I am having re the subject;

William: Since we are informed that the universe had a beginning, the universe is the effect. Something which has a beginning cannot be the cause of its own effect.

Bust Nak: That didn't stop you from stating "all things derive from the one thing which is all things."

William: That is because it is logical. The Universe cannot have come from nothing, so it must have come from something. Just because we do not know what the something is, doesn't change the logic.
As I pointed out, the Mandelbrot Set has made it conceptionally easier to understand that there is nothing absurd in the idea and nothing at fault in the notion of 'turtles' [or elephants or seahorses] all the way in and out. [ Infinite Regression is Possible]
Beginning points, are not significant of being separate from the one thing which is all things. They are distinct parts of what makes up the whole. {SOURCE}

No. It looks to me like you are the illogical one in postulating that infinite regression (an endless series of intelligent creators - oh yes, that is what is implied by Infinite regression Theism) is a valid apologetic.

It seems to be that the Quantum field has the problem of needing Something have a quantum effect on so (or indeed a mandelbrot effect or an infinite number of decimal points. So you need basic 'stuff' (matter/energy) before you can have a quantum effect), unless you want to propose that this is an uncreated effect that makes nothing behave like something, which I'd say brings us into agreement, but doesn't give us Theism or an Intelligent Creator, assuming you sign up to either of those.

And from what I see with your you dispute with Bust Nak, you seem to be falling into the same problem in trying to make logic dance to what you're whistling.

Remember, I've nothing to prove here. I can shrug and say 'don't know', and that leaves us with agnosticism, not an intelligent creator.

[William]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #61]

No. It looks to me like you are the illogical one in postulating that infinite regression (an endless series of intelligent creators - oh yes, that is what is implied by Infinite regression Theism) is la valid apologetic.

How did you reach the conclusion that an "endless series of intelligent creators" is illogical?

It seems to be that the Quantum field has the problem of needing Something have a quantum effect on so (or indeed a mandelbrot effect or an infinite number of decimal points. You need basic 'stuff' (matter/energy) before you can have a quantum effect.

Correct. The QF is eternal [has always existed] and possibly so too, has the Energy.

The QF is 'the basic stuff' [matter] and the Energy is what shapes said matter into form.

Unless you want to propose that this is an uncreated effect that makes nothing behave like something,

Proposing that the QF + [maybe] Energy has always existed is proposing that their existence is uncreated.
However, anyone adding that this makes "nothing" behave like "something" has the lights on dim.
Assuming that the QF is "nothing" is silliness. It is actually the basic stuff [matter] which coalesces into myriad form and function through the input of Energy [also "something" rather than "nothing"]

I've nothing to prove here.

Indeed. How you go about proving that this 'Nothing" actually exists, would be something.

I can shrug and say 'don't know', and that leaves us with agnosticism, not an intelligent creator.

I do not know what agnosticism has to say about the subject of an Intelligent Creator, except maybe an agnostic might say "I don't know either way".

Since Agnosticism may be a subset of Atheism, [and thus already diverged from the default position] I prefer the position of Natural Neutral, and do all my viewing from that platform.

(The diagram is meant to assist the reader re understanding the primary positions involved with the question, "Do we exist within a creation?" .)

[William]

For those wondering why I symbolized Atheism as a "Box", it is because I understand Atheism to be similar in nature to Self-Immurement in relation to the question "Do we exist within a creation?"

The question itself opens up into an infinite maze-like structure with, many passages, corridors, rooms, et al.

Theism sees to it that such is explored. Religion establishes conclusions based upon what is discovered re The Maze.

Science [as a process] assumes the Natural-Neutral position regardless of whether scientists are Atheist or Theist as the question clearly hasn't yet been able to be answered by known human science practices.
Thus science also "sees to it that such is explored" but has not yet established conclusions based upon what is discovered re The Maze, re The Question, whereas Theism in general and religion in particular have.

[Goat]

[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.

There is a law in this universe that says 'energy can neither be created or destroyed', and 'matter and energy are interchangeable. ' Matter is just a form of energy. .. and there never was a time there was no energy.

[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?

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.

There is a law in this universe that says 'energy can neither be created or destroyed', and 'matter and energy are interchangeable. ' Matter is just a form of energy. .. and there never was a time there was no energy.

"a nothingness that has the capacity to imitate being something" infers that something exists in which the 'nothingness' can "imitate" and also infers that the 'nothingness' is mindful - has the faculty to discern...

If matter and energy are forms of each other, their functions are different enough to produce consciousness.

Or, it might be that matter/energy [mattergy?] is also conscious and consciousness did not emerge from it, but is a fundamental property of it.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #61]

No. It looks to me like you are the illogical one in postulating that infinite regression (an endless series of intelligent creators - oh yes, that is what is implied by Infinite regression Theism) is la valid apologetic.

How did you reach the conclusion that an "endless series of intelligent creators" is illogical?

It seems to be that the Quantum field has the problem of needing Something have a quantum effect on so (or indeed a mandelbrot effect or an infinite number of decimal points. You need basic 'stuff' (matter/energy) before you can have a quantum effect.

Correct. The QF is eternal [has always existed] and possibly so too, has the Energy.

The QF is 'the basic stuff' [matter] and the Energy is what shapes said matter into form.

Unless you want to propose that this is an uncreated effect that makes nothing behave like something,

Proposing that the QF + [maybe] Energy has always existed is proposing that their existence is uncreated.
However, anyone adding that this makes "nothing" behave like "something" has the lights on dim.
Assuming that the QF is "nothing" is silliness. It is actually the basic stuff [matter] which coalesces into myriad form and function through the input of Energy [also "something" rather than "nothing"]

I've nothing to prove here.

Indeed. How you go about proving that this 'Nothing" actually exists, would be something.

I can shrug and say 'don't know', and that leaves us with agnosticism, not an intelligent creator.

I do not know what agnosticism has to say about the subject of an Intelligent Creator, except maybe an agnostic might say "I don't know either way".

Since Agnosticism may be a subset of Atheism, [and thus already diverged from the default position] I prefer the position of Natural Neutral, and do all my viewing from that platform.

(The diagram is meant to assist the reader re understanding the primary positions involved with the question, "Do we exist within a creation?" .)

It is illogical (or counter intuitive, at least) because an act of creation requires a thing to create it and the process must logically have a start, which you deny by positing endless acts of creation. That's as illogical as anything I can imagine.

"Nothing" exists by default. It is undeniable. Take a box, remove everything and what is within it? Nothing. It exist as a designation, not as a substance. Don't get misled, or try to mislead me.

Agnosticism is not a subset of atheism, because agnostics can also be theist. Your position of neutral also seems to be logically or factually dubious because it apparently ignores the logical default of agnosticism which is atheism. Unless one can make a case for theism. Which is of course a case for an intelligent creator.

It looks to me like your rationale needs a total overhaul.

[Goat]

[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.

There is a law in this universe that says 'energy can neither be created or destroyed', and 'matter and energy are interchangeable. ' Matter is just a form of energy. .. and there never was a time there was no energy.

"a nothingness that has the capacity to imitate being something" infers that something exists in which the 'nothingness' can "imitate" and also infers that the 'nothingness' is mindful - has the faculty to discern...

If matter and energy are forms of each other, their functions are different enough to produce consciousness.

Or, it might be that matter/energy [mattergy?] is also conscious and consciousness did not emerge from it, but is a fundamental property of it.

Well, we know that consciousness can exist by the interactions between matter and energy. that does not mean that all interaction, or even most interactions with each other produce consciousness.

[TRANSPONDER]

Correct. It's a hypothesis, even has legs. I have argued myself before now that a cosmic mind is not logically impossible. But evidence is needed and us having awareness does not mean that the Cosmos is aware. Especially as animal evolution is a better hypothesis for human consciousness than sharing in some postulated Space -mind.

And i have to repeat that 'atheist bias' is not the issue... well, not totally. The God of Einstein; the computer that runs the universe, is not a problem for me. Just as Agnostic/Deist god. I really don't care. It is only because of organised religion that I am activist, because a deist god doesn't bother us, man made religions do.

[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?

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.

There is a law in this universe that says 'energy can neither be created or destroyed', and 'matter and energy are interchangeable. ' Matter is just a form of energy. .. and there never was a time there was no energy.

"a nothingness that has the capacity to imitate being something" infers that something exists in which the 'nothingness' can "imitate" and also infers that the 'nothingness' is mindful - has the faculty to discern...

If matter and energy are forms of each other, their functions are different enough to produce consciousness.

Or, it might be that matter/energy [mattergy?] is also conscious and consciousness did not emerge from it, but is a fundamental property of it.

Well, we know that consciousness can exist by the interactions between matter and energy. that does not mean that all interaction, or even most interactions with each other produce consciousness.

How do 'we know' this? [you did not say].

How do we know this does not mean that all interaction, or even most interactions with each other produce consciousness?

And to the actual point of my writing "It might be that matter/energy [mattergy?] is also conscious and consciousness did not emerge from it, but is a fundamental property of it." this steps around the belief that Consciousness is emergent of Energy/Matter if E/M were never created.
Why?
Because if E/M is conscious, then consciousness must share the same 'was never created' property of E/M.

That is the logical conclusion one would have to make.

[TRANSPONDER]

So far as I know, there is evidence of correlation between cranial matter activity and mental activity, validating evidence for a relationship. That makes the brain as the source of consciousness the prime hypothesis (and the existence of matter and physics would make it the resort hypothesis anyway). The burden of proof falls on anyone arguing for 'Something More' (as was so often said on my former board) to make it (Cosmic Mind) anything more than a far fetched and fanciful speculation that doesn't even reach the level of an unverified hypothesis.

Oh of course, I suppose I have to point out that prefacing a logical conclusion with 'If' means it is not a credible logical conclusion.