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]

I suppose it's just argument from complexity again. Which is of course argument from incredulity.

'I cannot imagine how something so remarkable could come to be unless some big invisible human manufactured it'. But this is a non starter with the naturalist/materialist non - believer. We can see reasons to suppose these things evolved as everything seems to - galaxies, the eye, biodiversity and human society. There is no good reason to pop a god in there, and the only bad reason is failure of imagination.

[bjs1]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #1]

This was most like a form of the argument from consciousness. Put simply, it is the idea that consciousness cannot be explained by the physical mechanisms of the human body alone. No matter how complex the brain becomes there remains no way for the interaction of chemicals and neurons to be self-aware or make intentional choices. Therefore, there must be a non-physical aspect to human consciousness.

This provides indirect evidence for the existence of God since it points to the existence of a soul. The soul is inconsistent with a materialistic worldview, while the soul is consistent with the claims of religions like Christianity and Islam.

[Goat]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #1]

This was most like a form of the argument from consciousness. Put simply, it is the idea that consciousness cannot be explained by the physical mechanisms of the human body alone. No matter how complex the brain becomes there remains no way for the interaction of chemicals and neurons to be self-aware or make intentional choices. Therefore, there must be a non-physical aspect to human consciousness.

This provides indirect evidence for the existence of God since it points to the existence of a soul. The soul is inconsistent with a materialistic worldview, while the soul is consistent with the claims of religions like Christianity and Islam.

That can be boiled down to 'argument from incredulity' and 'argument from ignorance'. "I can't explain it, therefore God"

There is the 'no matter how complex the brain becomes' statement that you can not show to be true, therefore there is the leaping to conclusion that there is a god'.

"I can't explain it, therefore God" is not very convincing.

[JoeyKnothead]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #1]

This was most like a form of the argument from consciousness. Put simply, it is the idea that consciousness cannot be explained by the physical mechanisms of the human body alone. No matter how complex the brain becomes there remains no way for the interaction of chemicals and neurons to be self-aware or make intentional choices. Therefore, there must be a non-physical aspect to human consciousness.

Evolutionary theory provides sound arguments for consciousness being the result of processing of the senses.

Where a rudimentary eye can sort light from dark, it's understood that data would be of value, and actionable. Continuing on then, we can understand the ability to make sense of all our senses provides for consciousness.

This provides indirect evidence for the existence of God since it points to the existence of a soul. The soul is inconsistent with a materialistic worldview, while the soul is consistent with the claims of religions like Christianity and Islam.

Indirect, as in heading down to Atlanta by way of Katmandu.

Let's make a new thread for direct evidence for the existence of God...

Here.

[brunumb]

No matter how complex the brain becomes there remains no way for the interaction of chemicals and neurons to be self-aware or make intentional choices. Therefore, there must be a non-physical aspect to human consciousness.

There is no way that there can be a non-physical aspect to human consciousness that emerges within physical entities. Therefore it must arise from the interaction of chemicals and neurons in the brain. See how that works?

[TRANSPONDER]

We seem to be in agreement here. Until there is some compelling evidence for a god, there is absolutely no valid reason to leap to the conclusion that there is one. This is simply argument from Consciousness which is one like Life and 'Matter' that haven't been explained yet and are gaps for God.

And of course, as has been stated so many times, but it seems, always needs to be said, it doesn't tell us which god.

I remember once a Theistical opponent on a former board complained that atheists keep making the same old arguments. This is course because the Theists and Bible apologists keep making the same old apologetics over and over again. They may dress them up differently; "Kalam" presented as a genius piece of philosophical evidence for a Creator is simply the weary old doorstep evangelists '"Well who made everything, then?" But they are the same old argument over and over.

Argument from consciousness is No 2 of the Big three, Cosmic Origins being ther best as that is a real puzzle and conudrum. It really is. But in the end 'Nobody knows' and 'even if a God, which one?' None of the Big Three get you to Jesus. Christianity stands or falls on the Bible. Specifically the case for the resurrection. Which is why I specialise in the Gospels (plus Paul and Acts, a bit). None of the other stuff gets you to a particular religion.

Sure, if you argue for a Creator (non specific) one can be a Deist or 'agnostic' (irreligious theist) and that's fine. 'Agnostics'/Deists are the kissin' cuzzins of atheists and we can work together. That's unless they have a politically -based hatred of the name 'atheist'. But I digress. Too old.... mind wandering....what the heck was I talking about....you young whippersnappers keep changin' the subject!!

Oh yes. The worst of the big three is Life and the argument for abiogenesis. This is not so much argument from incredulity but argument from denial. It uses insistence on a mantra 'Life cannot come from non -life' (and some may recall an argument about whether seeds were living or not ) but you can see the non living organic materials that chug along and do things and it adds up to life which 'grows' (becomes more complex) under DNA signals. You can see Evolution acted out from cell to supergirl. Life is showing you how it's done and yet Theism still appeals to Impossible, so God is the only answer. Life has even been made in the Laboratory...sorta. It is still theoretical, but the mechanism is there. Like the Higgs - bososn, the answer is much suspected, but not proven. The denial of the Creationists is really an argument from Denial, as I said.

Consciousness is in the middle and as our excellent posters above have said, there is no good reason to suppose that a Creator or god or soul has to be involved. NDEs were greatly overdone and are not good evidence for an afterlife, a soul, a heaven or a god, but of our brains doing odd things under stress. There are a lot of delusionary arguments of the 'Intuition' kind, and they are bedevilled by appeal to anecdotes, which were a real pain in the past as some (1) poster would come up with an incredible story tailored to prove that Jesusgod is real (.Jesus appeared to my granddad in a dream and told him where pirate treasure was and he found imillions of money and gave it all to the poor which is why I live in a trailer'. And because we can't disprove it, we are expected to accept it as proof of Jesusgod. Eventually we (godless bastards) became used to saying 'Sorry, we cannot accept anecdotal evidence'.

To sum up, there is NO good evidence for a soul, afterlife or Creator, only some unexplained questions (gaps for God) and by now science ought to be given some credit for answering many questions and Religion some doubt for getting many questions wrong (Genesis -literaist denial of evolution, deep time geology and mainstream history aside) and - as said, they don't get you to a particular religion anyway.

(1) using the 'Hey, what do a few untruths matter is some souls are saved?' justification.

[William]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #1]

"The mind is evidence of God."

What do you mean by 'God'?

I think that the mind is evidence the we exist within a creation...

[JoeyKnothead]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #1]

"The mind is evidence of God."

What do you mean by 'God'?

I leave that to those who'd do their defining.

I think that the mind is evidence the we exist within a creation...

I really like your cosmic mind hypothesis, but for me it's unsatisfactory in light of our understanding of biological processes.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #1]

"The mind is evidence of God."

What do you mean by 'God'?

I leave that to those who'd do their defining.

I think that the mind is evidence the we exist within a creation...

I really like your cosmic mind hypothesis, but for me it's unsatisfactory in light of our understanding of biological processes.

I agree. It's a nice hypothesis and it's the 'God of Einstein' that I thought (in my teens) might possibly exist (since I'd rejected any of the man -made religions and their garage - construct gods) and I got into Buddhism as I thought the Mystic experience might be the way humans contacted this entity. I could have picked Sufi Islam, Hinduism or Taoism but Buddhism had a lot of side benefits that I couldn't refuse. I eventually gave it up as I was not designed as a pretzel. but mainly I could not rule out that this Mystic stuff was not simply a common human delusion. I'm not being dogmatic, because it doesn't really matter. I'll leave the Dogmatism to those who really seem to think that it matters so much to get others to agree with them.