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.
The mind as evidence of god
Moderator: Moderators
- JoeyKnothead
- Banned
- Posts: 20879
- Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
- Location: Here
- Has thanked: 4093 times
- Been thanked: 2572 times
- William
- Savant
- Posts: 14140
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
- Location: Te Waipounamu
- Has thanked: 911 times
- Been thanked: 1641 times
- Contact:
Re: The mind as evidence of god
Post #21[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #19]
Is that a claim you are making, or just your opinion?the mention of a cosmic Mind is neither here nor there until such a thing is validated as a claim.
- JoeyKnothead
- 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 #22My point is, considering this OP, to propose a mind as creator is no more supportable than my proposal.William wrote: ↑Mon Jun 20, 2022 4:58 pm [Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #18]
Is that to say that we can replace 'in the mind' with "in the biscuits". Is it therefore valid to say "the biscuit is a powerful thing" et al?We can replace "mind" there with "biscuits" with equal validity.
Or, are such throwaway comments simply irrational response to rational ideas?
I wasn't referring to minds as biscuits, but to the equal validity of both propositions for a created universe.William wrote:Do these experts also refer to minds as 'biscuits' and call that 'valid'?I'll stick with the experts on thisn.
To the hypothesis/ theory of the mind being a product of the biological.William wrote: This being the case, in what way makes this belief you have, "superior"?Provisional and Compelling to what? The position of Atheism?JK wrote:It's a provisional belief, but I find the supporting data exceedingly compelling.
The fact I've engaged in this debate should be all the evidence required to consider me open to other ideas.William wrote: If there is a Cosmic Mind, then there is no reason to assume there is not a Cosmic Brain.No one is asking you to conclude that is the case. You are simply being asked to be open to it - perhaps - being the case.JK wrote: If. I see little reason to conclude such is the case.
I've been quite open in saying I find your notions in this matter very intriguing, so closed ain't what's going on here.
So then we see, the claim in the OP can't be shown to be true and factual.William wrote: In the case of the idea we may yet have another experiential reality after the death of our individual brain, a Cosmic Mind could accommodate, by 'uploading' and 'saving' our overall personality developed in this stage - into another reality experience - all housed within the workings of the Cosmic Mind.As are all human theories, whether they support ones particular preferred position or not.Fascinating, but speculative.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin
-Punkinhead Martin
- William
- Savant
- Posts: 14140
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
- Location: Te Waipounamu
- Has thanked: 911 times
- Been thanked: 1641 times
- Contact:
Re: The mind as evidence of god
Post #23[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #22]
We are left with logic, only I refrain from making comments involving biscuits et al - perhaps because my position does not cause that kind of frustration in me, to project out onto my fellows...
Especially since it does not outright-positively exclude the theory of "Mind did it," and thus sits as an effect rather than a cause.
Perhaps that is a beef you have with the whole idea of a Cosmic Mind...understandable if one is filtering their information through the position of Atheism - but not enough to warrant my removing the theory from the table as 'inferior', and joining the ranks.
It is not as if I am asking you to consider joining a religion. I am asking you to seriously consider the possibility that we exist in a creation and it is a result of a creative mind.
I am trying to encourage you to see the logic in the middle-ground position which wisely understands that there is not enough information to establish any belief either way but certainly enough information to show the unreasonableness of those less-superior positions.
Yet I do not ask you to support your proposal any less than you ask me to support mine.My point is, considering this OP, to propose a mind as creator is no more supportable than my proposal.
We are left with logic, only I refrain from making comments involving biscuits et al - perhaps because my position does not cause that kind of frustration in me, to project out onto my fellows...
What...that 'biscuits did it' is just as likely? You want me to believe that you actually believe that?I wasn't referring to minds as biscuits, but to the equal validity of both propositions for a created universe.
This being the case, in what way makes this belief you have, "superior"?
It's a provisional belief, but I find the supporting data exceedingly compelling.
Provisional and Compelling to what? The position of Atheism?
This still does not answer the question. What makes that theory the superior candidate?To the hypothesis/ theory of the mind being a product of the biological.
Especially since it does not outright-positively exclude the theory of "Mind did it," and thus sits as an effect rather than a cause.
Perhaps that is a beef you have with the whole idea of a Cosmic Mind...understandable if one is filtering their information through the position of Atheism - but not enough to warrant my removing the theory from the table as 'inferior', and joining the ranks.
Well - what is going on here then Joey?The fact I've engaged in this debate should be all the evidence required to consider me open to other ideas.
I've been quite open in saying I find your notions in this matter very intriguing, so closed ain't what's going on here.
It is not as if I am asking you to consider joining a religion. I am asking you to seriously consider the possibility that we exist in a creation and it is a result of a creative mind.
I am trying to encourage you to see the logic in the middle-ground position which wisely understands that there is not enough information to establish any belief either way but certainly enough information to show the unreasonableness of those less-superior positions.
Yes. I also observe that it cannot be shown to be false and fanciful.So then we see, the claim in the OP can't be shown to be true and factual.
- JoeyKnothead
- 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 #24Sincere apologies if you thought I was mocking you. Here in the SE Murica, there's a long history of exaggerating to prove one's point.William wrote: ↑Mon Jun 20, 2022 8:36 pm [Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #22]
My point is, considering this OP, to propose a mind as creator is no more supportable than my proposal.William wrote: Yet I do not ask you to support your proposal any less than you ask me to support mine.
We are left with logic, only I refrain from making comments involving biscuits et al - perhaps because my position does not cause that kind of frustration in me, to project out onto my fellows...
Where you propose a mind behind creation, all I see is an anthropomorphic response to an unanswerable question. Such that we could swap "mind" with nigh on any other noun, with equal evidence.
Please see above. Sometimes I forget we have a global membership.William wrote:JK wrote: I wasn't referring to minds as biscuits, but to the equal validity of both propositions for a created universe.William wrote: What...that 'biscuits did it' is just as likely? You want me to believe that you actually believe that?
I don't find a belief superior. I find the evidence for the mind as a biological thing superior to saying a mind was there to create the universe.William wrote: This being the case, in what way makes this belief you have, "superior"?
It relies on available evidence.William wrote:JK wrote:It's a provisional belief, but I find the supporting data exceedingly compelling.William wrote: Provisional and Compelling to what? The position of Atheism?JK wrote:To the hypothesis/ theory of the mind being a product of the biological.William wrote: This still does not answer the question. What makes that theory the superior candidate?
Effect / cause. However one wishes to describe it.William wrote: Especially since it does not outright-positively exclude the theory of "Mind did it," and thus sits as an effect rather than a cause.
The data's more on the side of a biological mind as a product of the universe, rather the other way.
Why can't it be you having a beef with science?William wrote: Perhaps that is a beef you have with the whole idea of a Cosmic Mind...
I'm content having the observer make up their mind as to which notion is or ain't superior.William wrote: understandable if one is filtering their information through the position of Atheism - but not enough to warrant my removing the theory from the table as 'inferior', and joining the ranks.
...
I have seriously considered it, and find it lacking. It reeks of anthropomorphism.William wrote: It is not as if I am asking you to consider joining a religion. I am asking you to seriously consider the possibility that we exist in a creation and it is a result of a creative mind.
And I'm trying to encourage you to see the logic in the mind as biology.William wrote: I am trying to encourage you to see the logic in the middle-ground position which wisely understands that there is not enough information to establish any belief either way but certainly enough information to show the unreasonableness of those less-superior positions.
I never said it was false and / or fanciful.William wrote:JoeyKnothead wrote: So then we see, the claim in the OP can't be shown to be true and factual.William wrote: Yes. I also observe that it cannot be shown to be false and fanciful.
I merely seek to determine if the claim can be found to be truthful.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin
-Punkinhead Martin
- William
- Savant
- Posts: 14140
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
- Location: Te Waipounamu
- Has thanked: 911 times
- Been thanked: 1641 times
- Contact:
Re: The mind as evidence of god
Post #25[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #24]
"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.]
The way I see it, the universe has already been "anthropomorphized" simply because mind is involved. [The hard problem of consciousness]
What you are saying is that you find the notion of matter shapes mind to be superior than the notion mind shapes matter.
That is belief.
Do rhetorical questions even belong in a debate setting?
IF:Sincere apologies if you thought I was mocking you.
Here in the SE Murica, there's a long history of exaggerating to prove one's point.
"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.]
You are inferring that only humans have minds. Do you have any rational for assuming this is the case?Where you propose a mind behind creation, all I see is an anthropomorphic response to an unanswerable question. Such that we could swap "mind" with nigh on any other noun, with equal evidence.
The way I see it, the universe has already been "anthropomorphized" simply because mind is involved. [The hard problem of consciousness]
This being the case, in what way makes this belief you have, "superior"?
Potato/potatoI don't find a belief superior.
The evidence is exactly the same. Mind exists.I find the evidence for the mind as a biological thing superior to saying a mind was there to create the universe.
What you are saying is that you find the notion of matter shapes mind to be superior than the notion mind shapes matter.
That is belief.
It relies on filtering available evidence through atheistic beliefs. [ftfy]It relies on available evidence.
Perhaps that is a beef you have with the whole idea of a Cosmic Mind...
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.'Why can't it be you having a beef with science?
So then we see, the claim in the OP can't be shown to be true and factual.
Yes. I also observe that it cannot be shown to be false and fanciful.
What does this mean then?I never said it was false and / or fanciful.
Is that not the same as saying 'all I see is a false/fanciful'?all I see is an anthropomorphic response...
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?"I merely seek to determine if the claim can be found to be truthful.
Do rhetorical questions even belong in a debate setting?
- 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 #26What do you mean by creation?William wrote: ↑Mon Jun 20, 2022 12:49 pm [Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #1]
What do you mean by 'God'?"The mind is evidence of God."
I think that the mind is evidence the we exist within a creation...
“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
Steven Novella
- William
- Savant
- Posts: 14140
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
- Location: Te Waipounamu
- Has thanked: 911 times
- Been thanked: 1641 times
- Contact:
Re: The mind as evidence of god
Post #27The Physical Universe aka "Reality" aka "what we exist in".Goat wrote: ↑Tue Jun 21, 2022 2:27 pmWhat do you mean by creation?William wrote: ↑Mon Jun 20, 2022 12:49 pm [Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #1]
What do you mean by 'God'?"The mind is evidence of God."
I think that the mind is evidence the we exist within a creation...
Is it a "Creation" - implying the mindfulness of a "creator".
or is it a mindless accident from out of nowhere - implying magic.
- 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 #28Or, it is just the formation of a change of conditions that always existed, which is neither a mindfulness of a creator, or magic.William wrote: ↑Tue Jun 21, 2022 3:45 pmThe Physical Universe aka "Reality" aka "what we exist in".Goat wrote: ↑Tue Jun 21, 2022 2:27 pmWhat do you mean by creation?William wrote: ↑Mon Jun 20, 2022 12:49 pm [Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #1]
What do you mean by 'God'?"The mind is evidence of God."
I think that the mind is evidence the we exist within a creation...
Is it a "Creation" - implying the mindfulness of a "creator".
or is it a mindless accident from out of nowhere - implying magic.
“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
Steven Novella
- William
- Savant
- Posts: 14140
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
- Location: Te Waipounamu
- Has thanked: 911 times
- Been thanked: 1641 times
- Contact:
Re: The mind as evidence of god
Post #29[Replying to Goat in post #28]
We do not even know if the change of conditions has always existed as this universe, or the Energy is simply moving across a small area of the Quantum Field - passing through on its way to elsewhere, and stirring up particles into mass for a period of time. More on that, here.
From the link;
What we know of it, is that Energy formed it. We do not know if the nature of that Energy is self aware or mindless. More on that here:Or, it is just the formation of a change of conditions that always existed, which is neither a mindfulness of a creator, or magic.
We do not even know if the change of conditions has always existed as this universe, or the Energy is simply moving across a small area of the Quantum Field - passing through on its way to elsewhere, and stirring up particles into mass for a period of time. More on that, here.
From the link;
This would not imply that the meaningless disturbance which created the universe and life was mindless in and of itself, but only possibly unaware of the disturbance it was causing in its passing.William:Is energy separate from matter, or just another manifestation of matter?
Bust Nak: That's just semantics, if energy counts as object, then your earlier question become invalid, the premise that the was a time when there were no objects, would be false.
William: That depends entirely on the plain of the Quantum field.
For example, if the field is spherical, the energy moving over it and stirring it up into objects of matter, may be no more than a blip on the plain of the Quantum field. Once the energy moves on, the effect on that region diminishes until - once more - the deep silence returns.
-
- Savant
- Posts: 8146
- Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
- Has thanked: 954 times
- Been thanked: 3545 times
Re: The mind as evidence of god
Post #30It doesn't imply magic, it implies natural physical processes. Unknown or at least unexplained, but as a mere claim, that.William wrote: ↑Tue Jun 21, 2022 3:45 pmThe Physical Universe aka "Reality" aka "what we exist in".Goat wrote: ↑Tue Jun 21, 2022 2:27 pmWhat do you mean by creation?William wrote: ↑Mon Jun 20, 2022 12:49 pm [Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #1]
What do you mean by 'God'?"The mind is evidence of God."
I think that the mind is evidence the we exist within a creation...
Is it a "Creation" - implying the mindfulness of a "creator".
or is it a mindless accident from out of nowhere - implying magic.
The Mind on the other hand is a claim for a Cosmic intelligence without explanation. That's 'magic'.
I don't see the (human) mind or a postulated Cosmic mind as any real evidence for a god.