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 #79]

The point is that if no velid evidence for a hypothesis (cosmic mind, or intelligent creation), then there is good (logical) reason to regard them as a second -best hypothesis.

To what end is the point are you making though? Why should one hypothesis be second best to the other? There does not seem to be any logical reason to dump the idea that we exist in a creation while accepting the idea that we do not.

If there is not even an explanatory mechanism, that makes it not even a hypothesis, but a mere claim. And it looks very much like a faith -claim, as if Faith wasn't involved, why make the claim?

Consciousness makes the claim/hypothesis whatever your preference of label might be.
My position on the matter remains Natural-Neutral so faith has nothing to do with that.

In that, I see no reason to become a theist or non-theist because the question is very much still in the process of being answered. You and I most likely wont be alive hereabouts when that happens. But my position [Natural-Neutral] has it that we cannot say with any certainty that there won't become an epoch where and answer won't be discovered/uncovered.

[TRANSPONDER]

You will have to do better than that,. Can You define the Cosmic Mind? In any case, even if one could define or describe it does no show that it exists. Not being able to make any kind of mechanism of hypothesis for it makes it even less of anything but a Faith -claim, and as such the burden falls squarely on the believer to give some good reason that it exists, not onto the unbeliever to try to prove that it doesn't.

For me, the lack of any evidence for the hand or foot or pseudopod of God in the workings of nature, the lack of any mechanism or definition and the lack of any real necessity anymore to account for cosmic origins means that the gap for God has become very small indeed. And it realy, really, doesn't amtter anyway, since it is organised religion (not sortagod- Theism or Deism) that concerns me, not a hypothetical Cosmic Mind.

[William]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #82]

Not sure who you are replying to, but my own position was clearly stated. Since it is possible, it is not off the table of any discussion I have from the position of Natural Neutral.

Having faith that we exist in a creation or having faith that we don't exist within a creation is not applicable to my particular position.

Certainly faith appears to be applicable to both theist and non-theist positions, re that question, something you can take up with those who hold such positions, if you are so inclined.

[Goat]

[Replying to Goat in post #76]

The questions you ask do not in themselves signify that a Cosmic Mind does not exist. What they ask is IF such a mind does exist THEN by what mechanisms can we establish this to be the case?

Not having such mechanisms does not signify that human consciousness is therefore, emergent of the brain.

Maybe not, but I can show that modifying the brain changes the mind.

I can show that modifying anything changes something. I cannot say that knowing this truth somehow eliminates the possibility that Energy is intelligent.

Can you present a testable model that can show that energy IS intelligent? How do you test for that? How would energy being intelligent work?

If you can't, then it is the logical fallacy of argument from ignorance.

I can not show any mechanism that might allow for a 'cosmic mind'.

The universe itself. What about the universe do you understand, that you can take that off the table and say that the universe cannot possibly act like a brain for the Cosmic Mind?

That is the logical fallacy known as 'begging the question'. You can't show that notion can be put ON the table to begin with.

In fact, no one can define this vague Cosmic Mind [CM] in any terms that can be meaningful, except for gobble gook.

This would certainly be true in terms of sheer information held in the CM - such cannot be downloaded into a human brain without serious irreversible consequences.
However, small bytes over epochs can be integrated with the individuals understanding processes, and the language [of gobble gook] can be deciphered. All on a voluntary basis, of course...

I don't see any support for a cosmic mind to being with, so talking about 'downloaded into a human brain' is not a relevant claim.

I can show medical data that damage to the brain can effect the mind, the personality, and perception.

Well of course we can. The information is more accessible to us but this has no bearing on the question 'do we exist within a creation/is there a Cosmic Mind?"

I can not even DEFINE what a cosmic mind is in a meaningful way.

Why not? Is it because you are stubbornly atheist? Or because your brain isn't a capable devise for such purpose? Something else?

Be that as it may, our lack of device does not in any way preclude that a Cosmic Mind does not exist or that we do not exist within a creation.
[/quote]

I am someone who is suborn about objective and tangible evidence. Claims without support therefore do not accepted.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #82]

Not sure who you are replying to, but my own position was clearly stated. Since it is possible, it is not off the table of any discussion I have from the position of Natural Neutral.

Having faith that we exist in a creation or having faith that we don't exist within a creation is not applicable to my particular position.

Certainly faith appears to be applicable to both theist and non-theist positions, re that question, something you can take up with those who hold such positions, if you are so inclined.

I was of course responding to the post immediately above. Especially as I rejected the argument that what is possible is somehow a logically or evidentially credible option. It is not. The evidence is that things work without a Cosmic Mind Aka God, whether Life or consciousness.. What is 'possible' (that is cannot be totally disproved) is not therefore probable, likely or credible and to present it as some viable hypothesis must be Faith - based whereas the 'natural/material' hypothesis is simply giving what we know exists first choice.

Burden of proof falls on the one making the (Faith) claim. Nature exists. Physics are known There is no Faith involved.

[William]

I can show that modifying anything changes something. I cannot say that knowing this truth somehow eliminates the possibility that Energy is intelligent.

[Replying to Goat in post #84]

Can you present a testable model that can show that energy IS intelligent?

No. Can you present a testable model that can show that energy ISN"T intelligent?

How do you test for that?

I don't know.

How would energy being intelligent work?

Intelligently.

If you can't, then it is the logical fallacy of argument from ignorance.

Argument from ignorance, also known as appeal to ignorance, is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false or a proposition is false because it has not yet been proven true.

I am asserting existing in a creation is possible, not that it is true or false.

That is the logical fallacy known as 'begging the question'.

The question requires an answer. If you do not like the question [do we exist within a creation?] then why are you participating in this debate?

You can't show that notion can be put ON the table to begin with.

I have already shown that it has to be LEFT on the table because the question has not been shown to be answered either way.

I don't see any support for a cosmic mind to being with, so talking about 'downloaded into a human brain' is not a relevant claim.

It is not a claim at all. It is a response to your own concerns that, "no one can define this vague Cosmic Mind [CM] in any terms that can be meaningful, except for gobble gook."

I am someone who is stubborn about objective and tangible evidence. Claims without support therefore do not accepted.

You are confusing my honest observations contrary to your own, as 'claims'. They are not. They are supported observations.

[you might want to tidy up the structure of your content before posting in future, as the last parts of your post are messy and might cause the reader confusion.]

[William]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #85]

I was of course responding to the post immediately above.

If you click the button pictured;


this will activated a page with the link to the post you are replying to, with it's address automatically displayed at the top, so that others will know who's post you are replying to.

Your Welcome.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to William in post #87]

I knew that, but I forgot it. I'll try to make that 'educated instinct'

[TRANSPONDER]

I can show that modifying anything changes something. I cannot say that knowing this truth somehow eliminates the possibility that Energy is intelligent.

[Replying to Goat in post #84]

Can you present a testable model that can show that energy IS intelligent?

No. Can you present a testable model that can show that energy ISN"T intelligent?

How do you test for that?

I don't know.

How would energy being intelligent work?

Intelligently.

If you can't, then it is the logical fallacy of argument from ignorance.

Argument from ignorance, also known as appeal to ignorance, is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false or a proposition is false because it has not yet been proven true.

I am asserting existing in a creation is possible, not that it is true or false.

That is the logical fallacy known as 'begging the question'.

The question requires an answer. If you do not like the question [do we exist within a creation?] then why are you participating in this debate?

You can't show that notion can be put ON the table to begin with.

I have already shown that it has to be LEFT on the table because the question has not been shown to be answered either way.

I don't see any support for a cosmic mind to being with, so talking about 'downloaded into a human brain' is not a relevant claim.

It is not a claim at all. It is a response to your own concerns that, "no one can define this vague Cosmic Mind [CM] in any terms that can be meaningful, except for gobble gook."

I am someone who is stubborn about objective and tangible evidence. Claims without support therefore do not accepted.

You are confusing my honest observations contrary to your own, as 'claims'. They are not. They are supported observations.

[you might want to tidy up the structure of your content before posting in future, as the last parts of your post are messy and might cause the reader confusion.]

His post was perfectly easy to read, and to understand that you had no comprehensible or comprehensive response to make. I also have had some formatting advice but no response. to my post

[William]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #89]

What do these unsupported statements have to do with the subject?