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.

[William]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #19]

the mention of a cosmic Mind is neither here nor there until such a thing is validated as a claim.

Is that a claim you are making, or just your opinion?

[JoeyKnothead]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #18]

We can replace "mind" there with "biscuits" with equal validity.

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?

Or, are such throwaway comments simply irrational response to rational ideas?

My point is, considering this OP, to propose a mind as creator is no more supportable than my proposal.

I'll stick with the experts on thisn.

Do these experts also refer to minds as 'biscuits' and call that 'valid'?

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?

To the hypothesis/ theory of the mind being a product of the biological.

If there is a Cosmic Mind, then there is no reason to assume there is not a Cosmic Brain.

If. I see little reason to conclude such is the case.

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.

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.

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.

Fascinating, but speculative.

As are all human theories, whether they support ones particular preferred position or not.

So then we see, the claim in the OP can't be shown to be true and factual.

[William]

[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.

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...

I wasn't referring to minds as biscuits, but to the equal validity of both propositions for a created universe.

What...that 'biscuits did it' is just as likely? You want me to believe that you actually believe that?

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?

To the hypothesis/ theory of the mind being a product of the biological.

This still does not answer the question. What makes that theory the superior candidate?

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.

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.

Well - what is going on here then Joey?

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.

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.

[JoeyKnothead]

[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.

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...

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.

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.

I wasn't referring to minds as biscuits, but to the equal validity of both propositions for a created universe.

What...that 'biscuits did it' is just as likely? You want me to believe that you actually believe that?

Please see above. Sometimes I forget we have a global membership.

This being the case, in what way makes this belief you have, "superior"?

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.

It's a provisional belief, but I find the supporting data exceedingly compelling.

Provisional and Compelling to what? The position of Atheism?

To the hypothesis/ theory of the mind being a product of the biological.

This still does not answer the question. What makes that theory the superior candidate?

It relies on available evidence.

Especially since it does not outright-positively exclude the theory of "Mind did it," and thus sits as an effect rather than a cause.

Effect / cause. However one wishes to describe it.

The data's more on the side of a biological mind as a product of the universe, rather the other way.

Perhaps that is a beef you have with the whole idea of a Cosmic Mind...

Why can't it be you having a beef with science?

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'm content having the observer make up their mind as to which notion is or ain't superior.

...

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 have seriously considered it, and find it lacking. It reeks of anthropomorphism.

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.

And I'm trying to encourage you to see the logic in the mind as biology.

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.

I never said it was false and / or fanciful.

I merely seek to determine if the claim can be found to be truthful.

[William]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #24]

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.

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.]

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.

You are inferring that only humans have minds. Do you have any rational for assuming this is the case?

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"?

I don't find a belief superior.

Potato/potato

I find the evidence for the mind as a biological thing superior to saying a mind was there to create the universe.

The evidence is exactly the same. Mind exists.
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 available evidence.

It relies on filtering available evidence through atheistic beliefs. [ftfy]

Perhaps that is a beef you have with the whole idea of a Cosmic Mind...

Why can't it be you having a beef with science?

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.'

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.

I never said it was false and / or fanciful.

What does this mean then?

all I see is an anthropomorphic response...

Is that not the same as saying 'all I see is a false/fanciful'?

I merely seek to determine if the claim can be found to be truthful.

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?

[Goat]

[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...

What do you mean by creation?

[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...

What do you mean by creation?

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.

[Goat]

[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...

What do you mean by creation?

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.

Or, it is just the formation of a change of conditions that always existed, which is neither a mindfulness of a creator, or magic.

[William]

[Replying to Goat in post #28]

Or, it is just the formation of a change of conditions that always existed, which is neither a mindfulness of a creator, or magic.

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:
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;

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.

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.

[TRANSPONDER]

[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...

What do you mean by creation?

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.

It doesn't imply magic, it implies natural physical processes. Unknown or at least unexplained, but as a mere claim, that.

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.