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: 14192
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
- Location: Te Waipounamu
- Has thanked: 912 times
- Been thanked: 1644 times
- Contact:
Re: The mind as evidence of god
Post #31Goat: What do you mean by creation?
William: 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.[/quote]
[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #30]
William: 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.[/quote]
[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #30]
Incorrect. "Natural Processes" is the effect. It is implying that the cause of Natural Processes is "Magical" because "the cause came from out of nowhere/nothing", which is the very definition of "Magic".It doesn't imply magic, it implies natural physical processes.
- 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 #32[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #30]
Incorrect. "Natural Processes" is the effect. It is implying that the cause of Natural Processes is "Magical" because "the cause came from out of nowhere/nothing", which is the very definition of "Magic".It doesn't imply magic, it implies natural physical processes.
[/quote]
Why can't the conditions that the universe arose from be eternal? Why do you say that the universe came from nothing?
“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
-
- Savant
- Posts: 8193
- Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
- Has thanked: 958 times
- Been thanked: 3550 times
Re: The mind as evidence of god
Post #33Ah. This is an old argument and an endless one. Uncreated matter is rejected. It has to originate somewhere. This is a problem but there is a half solution that i have done several times before so I won't tire everyone out with it.
The Creationists (Young or Old earth) postulate an uncreated eternal Cosmic Mind as the explanation. This Mind of course itself having no origin and was not created. On pure logic that would be harder to explain than the most basic of matter (energy holding position) existing without needing to be created.
And of course, while 'Biblegod' is not the topic, it remains that even if a Cosmic Mind could be validated, or even made a logically sound claim, it wouldn't tell us which god it was.
The Creationists (Young or Old earth) postulate an uncreated eternal Cosmic Mind as the explanation. This Mind of course itself having no origin and was not created. On pure logic that would be harder to explain than the most basic of matter (energy holding position) existing without needing to be created.
And of course, while 'Biblegod' is not the topic, it remains that even if a Cosmic Mind could be validated, or even made a logically sound claim, it wouldn't tell us which god it was.
- William
- Savant
- Posts: 14192
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
- Location: Te Waipounamu
- Has thanked: 912 times
- Been thanked: 1644 times
- Contact:
Re: The mind as evidence of god
Post #34[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?
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?
- POI
- Prodigy
- Posts: 3525
- Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2021 5:22 pm
- Has thanked: 1619 times
- Been thanked: 1083 times
Re: The mind as evidence of god
Post #35Can we just fast forward to the topic of "substance dualism" or "Cartesian Dualism" now?JoeyKnothead wrote: ↑Sun Jun 19, 2022 3:50 pm 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.
In case anyone is wondering... The avatar quote states the following:
"I asked God for a bike, but I know God doesn't work that way. So I stole a bike and asked for forgiveness."
"I asked God for a bike, but I know God doesn't work that way. So I stole a bike and asked for forgiveness."
-
- Savant
- Posts: 8193
- Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
- Has thanked: 958 times
- Been thanked: 3550 times
Re: The mind as evidence of god
Post #36William wrote: ↑Fri Jun 24, 2022 2:19 pm [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.
- 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 #37Sorry for the delay...
I don't propose a mind exists devoid of a container.
...Snip chatter...
...Snip chatter...
What I'm getting at is the unprovable nature of the "mind as creator / god" claims.William wrote: ↑Tue Jun 21, 2022 2:11 pm 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.]
Not just humans, but some or more animals.William wrote: You are inferring that only humans have minds. Do you have any rational for assuming this is the case?
I don't propose a mind exists devoid of a container.
I propose the rational conclusion here'd draw on evolutionary concepts. For example, a need to understand sensory input.William wrote: The way I see it, the universe has already been "anthropomorphized" simply because mind is involved. (delete link) The hard problem of consciousness.
...Snip chatter...
Whereas the "mind as creator" crowd has?William wrote: 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.'
...Snip chatter...
William wrote:I presented, on a site dedicated to such, a topic for debate.JK wrote: I merely seek to determine if the claim can be found to be truthful.William wrote: 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?
What others draw from that topic's on them.
Thus far, looks like the claim in the OP's not gonna be shown to be truthful.
What folks draw from that's also on them.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin
-Punkinhead Martin
- William
- Savant
- Posts: 14192
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
- Location: Te Waipounamu
- Has thanked: 912 times
- Been thanked: 1644 times
- Contact:
Re: The mind as evidence of god
Post #38I understand the direction you are coming from.TRANSPONDER wrote: ↑Fri Jun 24, 2022 8:55 pmWilliam wrote: ↑Fri Jun 24, 2022 2:19 pm [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.
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.
- William
- Savant
- Posts: 14192
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
- Location: Te Waipounamu
- Has thanked: 912 times
- Been thanked: 1644 times
- Contact:
Re: The mind as evidence of god
Post #39[Replying to William in post #38]
Understanding sensory input and making adjustments as the understanding increases.
For that matter, it is not going to be shown to be untruthful. No surprises there.
No more or less unprovable than any other theory offered on why existence exists.What I'm getting at is the unprovable nature of the "mind as creator / god" claims.
Nor do I.I don't propose a mind exists devoid of a container.
The way I see it, the universe has already been "anthropomorphized" simply because mind is involved. [The hard problem of consciousness]
Evolution of The Mind.I propose the rational conclusion here'd draw on evolutionary concepts. For example, a need to understand sensory input.
Understanding sensory input and making adjustments as the understanding increases.
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.'
Has what? Become the strike to the match? 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...Whereas the "mind as creator" crowd has?
["The mind is evidence of God."]Thus far, looks like the claim in the OP's not gonna be shown to be truthful.
For that matter, it is not going to be shown to be untruthful. No surprises there.
- 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 #40Yet we have folks declaring it as truth.William wrote: ↑Sun Jun 26, 2022 3:02 pm [Replying to William in post #38]No more or less unprovable than any other theory offered on why existence exists.What I'm getting at is the unprovable nature of the "mind as creator / god" claims.
..snip...
["The mind is evidence of God."]Thus far, looks like the claim in the OP's not gonna be shown to be truthful.
For that matter, it is not going to be shown to be untruthful. No surprises there.
[/quote]
The same problem befalls those who reject claims of easter bunnies and tooth faries.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin
-Punkinhead Martin