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 JoeyKnothead in post #40]

Yet we have folks declaring it as truth.

Yes. It appears the declarations are not just coming from the theists. Some atheists declare it is not truth. Understandably, I stay Natural-Neutral and make no truth-declarations

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.

The same problem befalls those who reject ...

..snip...

Who is declaring that such don't exist? Are they simply saying so because they cannot observe these?
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...

[TRANSPONDER]

[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.

It does, because that is the (Theist) premise that underlies the whole case for an intelligent creator or 'god'. IF you say that there is a hypothetical [premise that everything did not need to have a beginning....well, it's a can of worms. It flies ion the face of the 2nd most basic Theist argument (Kalam) or it makes an unsubstantiated (even by a hypothetical mechanism) claim or it implies special pleading: everything does have to have a beginning - except a god.

[William]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #42]

It does, because that is the (Theist) premise that underlies the whole case for an intelligent creator or 'god'.

I identify that as "we exist within a creation" which - of course - may in fact be the case.

On the other hand, "we do not exist within a creation" is the atheist position.

My position is that we do not know enough about our environment to make the call, either way.

F you say that there is a hypothetical [premise that everything did not need to have a beginning....well, it's a can of worms.

I simply go along with the science and the science has - for most of my lifetime - always implied that the universe had a beginning.
Every day I find out more and more things about the theory, but nothing [so far] which implies that the universe has always existed.

everything does have to have a beginning - except a god.

I think a god can have a beginning.

That aside, I assume you are speaking about a particular god - a source of everything GOD.

Since [for the time being] we are not being shown any clear evidence that the universe has always existed, we are left with the problem of explaining how it came to be.
Some want to argue it came from nothing - spontaneously emerged from nowhere - yet the motivation for arguing that may have more to do with revulsion to the thought that it was mindfully created.
None of this would even be the problem it has become, if not for the fact that amongst it all, there exists consciousness.

My task is to take care not to choose sides in the theist/atheist drama of antiquity. Neither side has established any immovable foundation on the question "Do we exist within a creation?"

I do see the logic in the idea that for this [or any other] universe to have come into existence, something must have always existed.

[TRANSPONDER]

Well, I can see it if only as it being counter -intuitive that Something can exist without origin. Other than Nothing which reasonably can exist or not -exist . So the half -theory I continue to see as having less logical entities to validate is a non created nothing that can produce a very very basic matter that does not need anything more. Certainly not an Intelligence without any explained origin of its' own.

Since nobody knows it's best left there, especially as a postulated intelligent creator does not validate any particular religion, and organised religion is the problem, not irreligious theism (persistent irritation though it can be). So I just posit what I see as a logical counter to the invalid claim that an intelligent creator has to be the only logical option.

Universe had a beginning or was eternal is actually a dilemma that is best resolved by saying that both are partly true, so long as we don't confuse it with the Big Bang, which many apparently do.

[William]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #44]

I just posit what I see as a logical counter to the invalid claim that an intelligent creator has to be the only logical option.

I have been saying it is the most logical option. Folk are free to have their less logical options...

[JoeyKnothead]

Well, I can see it if only as it being counter -intuitive that Something can exist without origin. Other than Nothing which reasonably can exist or not -exist . So the half -theory I continue to see as having less logical entities to validate is a non created nothing that can produce a very very basic matter that does not need anything more. Certainly not an Intelligence without any explained origin of its' own.

Since nobody knows it's best left there, especially as a postulated intelligent creator does not validate any particular religion, and organised religion is the problem, not irreligious theism (persistent irritation though it can be). So I just posit what I see as a logical counter to the invalid claim that an intelligent creator has to be the only logical option.

Universe had a beginning or was eternal is actually a dilemma that is best resolved by saying that both are partly true, so long as we don't confuse it with the Big Bang, which many apparently do.

Very much.

The best we can do is observe the universe. If there's a cause for it, we can reasonably ask from where comes that cause.

"The cause was always there" is an attempt to reject the idea of the universe always being there. We have evidence for the universe - an intelligent 'creator', not so much.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #44]

I just posit what I see as a logical counter to the invalid claim that an intelligent creator has to be the only logical option.

I have been saying it is the most logical option. Folk are free to have their less logical options...

I apologise if I misunderstood, and we've been on the same page all along.

[William]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #46]

The best we can do is observe the universe. If there's a cause for it, we can reasonably ask from where comes that cause.

We can ask all we want, but this does not mean we will ever know the answer.

What we do know, is that the universe had a beginning and that something cannot come from nothing.

So we know that the universe came from something, even that we do not and may never know the fundamental nature of that something.

Post #666

[JoeyKnothead]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #46]

The best we can do is observe the universe. If there's a cause for it, we can reasonably ask from where comes that cause.

We can ask all we want, but this does not mean we will ever know the answer.

Yep. It's just some folks act as if they do know the answer, and enact legislation on that basis.

What we do know, is that the universe had a beginning and that something cannot come from nothing.

So we know that the universe came from something, even that we do not and may never know the fundamental nature of that something.

I've yet to find any means by which we can confirm the universe had a beginning.

Can you offer such confirmation?

Post #666

I prefer to deal with claims within the thread in which they're presented.

[William]

What we do know, is that the universe had a beginning and that something cannot come from nothing.
So we know that the universe came from something, even that we do not and may never know the fundamental nature of that something.

I've yet to find any means by which we can confirm the universe had a beginning.

Can you offer such confirmation?

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #49]


I follow what the scientists say on the matter. Are you suggesting they might be interpreting the data incorrectly?
The alternative is that the universe has always existed. Can you confirm this as being the case?