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
-
- Savant
- Posts: 7862
- Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
- Has thanked: 922 times
- Been thanked: 3466 times
Re: The mind as evidence of god
Post #91[Replying to William in post #90]
Everything. If natural/material is the default hypothesis, and there is no good evidence for a cosmic mind, the logic is that there is no reason to see it as a credible hypothesis, let alone believe in it.
Everything. If natural/material is the default hypothesis, and there is no good evidence for a cosmic mind, the logic is that there is no reason to see it as a credible hypothesis, let alone believe in it.
-
OnlineWilliam
- Savant
- Posts: 13970
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
- Location: Te Waipounamu
- Has thanked: 904 times
- Been thanked: 1629 times
- Contact:
Re: The mind as evidence of god
Post #92His 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
[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #91]What do these unsupported statements have to do with the subject?
Do you include the mind along with Everything?Everything.
As the thread title say's. "The mind as evidence of god"If natural/material is the default hypothesis, and there is no good evidence for a cosmic mind, the logic is that there is no reason to see it as a credible hypothesis, let alone believe in it.
My position re "Do we exist within a creation?" {implying GOD] is that the ultimate position would be GOD, [if we do exist within a creation] and since I do not know if GOD exists or not, [or that we do exist within a creation], making such statements as you have done implying an established truth - is not something I can do from my Natural-Neutral position.
The problem with establishment is that it leads to closed-mindedness. Ludwig Boltzmann was ridiculed for his theories on the atomic structure underlying our reality.Natural/material is the default hypothesis, and with that comes the equally real thing called "The Mind" which is largely invisible to detection with human instruments of science.
Unfortunately he also suffered from intense bouts of depression and the two dynamics proved too much for him and he hung himself one sunny day, while his wife and child were away visiting the sea-side.
Tragic no doubt, and more so because only a few years later, his theory was being accepted and became one of the pillars of scientific understanding re the nature of our reality.
The mind is even more inaccessible than we once thought the atom was. This is because the mind does not appear to be made up of matter, even that it appears that it might be emergent of matter.
The truth is, it might be. The truth is not that it is or it isn't.
-
- Savant
- Posts: 7862
- Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
- Has thanked: 922 times
- Been thanked: 3466 times
Re: The mind as evidence of god
Post #93Well I can and logically must imply an established 'truth' (a natural world that so far has shown no Cosmic Mind or 'God') that is the default position that requires anything as yet unproven to be proven.William wrote: ↑Tue Jul 05, 2022 9:27 pmHis 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[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #91]What do these unsupported statements have to do with the subject?
Everything.Cerainly - whatever you mean by Mind and whatever you mean by Everything.Do you include the mind along with Everything?
As the thread title say's. "The mind as evidence of god"If natural/material is the default hypothesis, and there is no good evidence for a cosmic mind, the logic is that there is no reason to see it as a credible hypothesis, let alone believe in it.
My position re "Do we exist within a creation?" {implying GOD] is that the ultimate position would be GOD, [if we do exist within a creation] and since I do not know if GOD exists or not, [or that we do exist within a creation], making such statements as you have done implying an established truth - is not something I can do from my Natural-Neutral position.The problem with establishment is that it leads to closed-mindedness. Ludwig Boltzmann was ridiculed for his theories on the atomic structure underlying our reality.Natural/material is the default hypothesis, and with that comes the equally real thing called "The Mind" which is largely invisible to detection with human instruments of science.
Unfortunately he also suffered from intense bouts of depression and the two dynamics proved too much for him and he hung himself one sunny day, while his wife and child were away visiting the sea-side.
Tragic no doubt, and more so because only a few years later, his theory was being accepted and became one of the pillars of scientific understanding re the nature of our reality.
The mind is even more inaccessible than we once thought the atom was. This is because the mind does not appear to be made up of matter, even that it appears that it might be emergent of matter.
The truth is, it might be. The truth is not that it is or it isn't.
I don't think it leads to closed -mindedness. In fact I have found it a reliable basis that allows consideration of all kinds of woo stuff like a holographic universe, a reality that is an illusion and indeterminacy, without a mental panic that would lead to rejection of such ideas.
'Whatever is happening at quantum level, the laws of Newton still apply'. My mind is not closed to a Cosmic Mind, Creator or god. I just require some better evidence than 'not disproved' and 'possible'. The truth in some cases it is or it isn't. Our knowledge is in some cases 'it might be'. True, but irrelevant. As much as sad tales about people who could not get a hearing from ossified mainstream experts. You don't need to tell me. But don't fall into the Black swan fallacy. Even things we now know are true have had to be validated. We do not credit claims without good evidence.
Produce it.
-
OnlineWilliam
- Savant
- Posts: 13970
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
- Location: Te Waipounamu
- Has thanked: 904 times
- Been thanked: 1629 times
- Contact:
Re: The mind as evidence of god
Post #94William: What do these unsupported statements have to do with the subject?
Transponder: Everything
William: Do you include the mind along with Everything?
[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #93]
[Our positions are therefore unaligned.]
Your position assumes established truth where no such truth has been established re whether or not we exist within a creation.
The data is there to hunt down and to study. An open minded non-judgmental approach is essential to that process. The process is also dependent upon the position one is approaching the data from. The closeminded belief that one does not exist within a creation can only ever lead one to learn things through that filter.
No amount of evidence given should ever be hoped for in order to change any individuals mind from the influencing aspects of their chosen position, regardless if those positions be theist or atheist based.
On top of that, it is very apparent that the type of convincing evidence you are demanding from the position you are demanding it from, will unlikely be available to any of us in this lifetime.
Thus, we are forced for now to do most of our hunting, solo.
We can of course, cross reference with other open-minded fellows...but the open-mindedness derives from the Natural Neutral position, not the theist or atheist positions.
I think that atheists strongly defend their position on the question as to whether or not we exist within a creation - to the point that they believe we don't and make claims about that - has something to do with the need to say "I told you so" now, because it will be too late to utter such belief-based expressions - after they are dead and gone.
I can see the attraction from a phycological perspective, but saying "I told you so" before any such thing has been established, is jumping the gun, and might even lead to embarrassment if it turns out one still exists after the fact ones brain has died.
Still, such is the power of belief-based positions. They tend toward making proclamations which imply established truth, when no such truth has been established.
eta: woo-woo
/ˈwuːˌwuː/ relating to or holding unconventional beliefs regarded as having little or no scientific basis, especially those relating to spirituality, mysticism, or alternative medicine.
What does slang woo woo mean?
Noun. woo woo (countable and uncountable, plural woo woos) (slang, derogatory) A person readily accepting supernatural, paranormal, occult, or pseudoscientific phenomena, or emotion-based beliefs and explanations. That reporter is a bit of a woo woo. (slang, derogatory)
Transponder: Everything
William: Do you include the mind along with Everything?
[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #93]
Your unsupported statements have what to do with whatever I mean by "Mind" and whatever I mean by "Everything"?Certainly - whatever you mean by Mind and whatever you mean by Everything.
Whereas I can and logically must assume the Natural Neutral position on any matters yet to be unproven or proven.Well I can and logically must imply an established 'truth' (a natural world that so far has shown no Cosmic Mind or 'God') that is the default position that requires anything as yet unproven to be proven.
[Our positions are therefore unaligned.]
Your position assumes established truth where no such truth has been established re whether or not we exist within a creation.
The very fact that your choice of word ["woo"] belies the open-mindedness you proclaim to have.I don't think it leads to closed -mindedness. In fact I have found it a reliable basis that allows consideration of all kinds of woo stuff ...
I am reminded of a hunter who goes out and gets food for himself rather than expecting the food to come to him/her.My mind is not closed to a Cosmic Mind, Creator or god. I just require some better evidence than 'not disproved' and 'possible'.
The data is there to hunt down and to study. An open minded non-judgmental approach is essential to that process. The process is also dependent upon the position one is approaching the data from. The closeminded belief that one does not exist within a creation can only ever lead one to learn things through that filter.
No amount of evidence given should ever be hoped for in order to change any individuals mind from the influencing aspects of their chosen position, regardless if those positions be theist or atheist based.
On top of that, it is very apparent that the type of convincing evidence you are demanding from the position you are demanding it from, will unlikely be available to any of us in this lifetime.
Thus, we are forced for now to do most of our hunting, solo.
We can of course, cross reference with other open-minded fellows...but the open-mindedness derives from the Natural Neutral position, not the theist or atheist positions.
I think that atheists strongly defend their position on the question as to whether or not we exist within a creation - to the point that they believe we don't and make claims about that - has something to do with the need to say "I told you so" now, because it will be too late to utter such belief-based expressions - after they are dead and gone.
I can see the attraction from a phycological perspective, but saying "I told you so" before any such thing has been established, is jumping the gun, and might even lead to embarrassment if it turns out one still exists after the fact ones brain has died.
Still, such is the power of belief-based positions. They tend toward making proclamations which imply established truth, when no such truth has been established.
eta: woo-woo
/ˈwuːˌwuː/ relating to or holding unconventional beliefs regarded as having little or no scientific basis, especially those relating to spirituality, mysticism, or alternative medicine.
What does slang woo woo mean?
Noun. woo woo (countable and uncountable, plural woo woos) (slang, derogatory) A person readily accepting supernatural, paranormal, occult, or pseudoscientific phenomena, or emotion-based beliefs and explanations. That reporter is a bit of a woo woo. (slang, derogatory)
- brunumb
- Savant
- Posts: 5992
- Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
- Location: Melbourne
- Has thanked: 6606 times
- Been thanked: 3208 times
Re: The mind as evidence of god
Post #95How do you know that? If you have found any yourself, please show it to us.
George Orwell:: “The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.”
Voltaire: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
Gender ideology is anti-science, anti truth.
Voltaire: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
Gender ideology is anti-science, anti truth.
-
OnlineWilliam
- Savant
- Posts: 13970
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
- Location: Te Waipounamu
- Has thanked: 904 times
- Been thanked: 1629 times
- Contact:
Re: The mind as evidence of god
Post #96[Replying to brunumb in post #95]
I don't know whether it is thinly veiled contempt/disrespect or simply the product of an inability to communicate adequately, or some other reason, but it doesn't lend itself to decent conversation.
Single line responses are a poor substitute for well thought out responses...
All I will do is C&P the post which you snipped to quote me out of context and away from the relevant data which should have [but didn't] prevent you from your one-liner response.
[Re that, what use is data if it is treated in such a manner?]
It is important to the discussion process to acknowledge the content of another's post, rather than to give one-line replies skipping over pertinent aspects.How do you know that? If you have found any yourself, please show it to us.
I don't know whether it is thinly veiled contempt/disrespect or simply the product of an inability to communicate adequately, or some other reason, but it doesn't lend itself to decent conversation.
Single line responses are a poor substitute for well thought out responses...
All I will do is C&P the post which you snipped to quote me out of context and away from the relevant data which should have [but didn't] prevent you from your one-liner response.
[Re that, what use is data if it is treated in such a manner?]
I am reminded of a hunter who goes out and gets food for himself rather than expecting the food to come to him/her.
The data is there to hunt down and to study. An open minded non-judgmental approach is essential to that process. The process is also dependent upon the position one is approaching the data from.
The closeminded belief that one does not exist within a creation can only ever lead one to learn things through that filter.
No amount of evidence given should ever be hoped for in order to change any individuals mind from the influencing aspects of their chosen position, regardless if those positions be theist or atheist based.
On top of that, it is very apparent that the type of convincing evidence you are demanding from the position you are demanding it from, will unlikely be available to any of us in this lifetime.
Thus, we are forced for now to do most of our hunting, solo.
We can of course, cross reference with other open-minded fellows...but the open-mindedness derives from the Natural Neutral position, not the theist or atheist positions.
I think that atheists strongly defend their position on the question as to whether or not we exist within a creation - to the point that they believe we don't and make claims about that - has something to do with the need to say "I told you so" now, because it will be too late to utter such belief-based expressions - after they are dead and gone.
I can see the attraction from a phycological perspective, but saying "I told you so" before any such thing has been established, is jumping the gun, and might even lead to embarrassment if it turns out one still exists after the fact ones brain has died.
Still, such is the power of belief-based positions. They tend toward making proclamations which imply established truth, when no such truth has been established.
-
- Savant
- Posts: 7862
- Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
- Has thanked: 922 times
- Been thanked: 3466 times
Re: The mind as evidence of god
Post #97That's all ok observation or saying how you see it. It doesn't change the situation and what we can verifiably be confident of, while allowing the door open for new information. Thanks for clarifying Woo. The point I was making (using the term in a particular way) is that the cutting edge of science can sound as strange and unsettling as woo, but reliance on sciance can give us the mental security to consider such things seriously without the mind shunning such unsettling stuff or sailing off in to the blue yonder with no logical basis other than latching onto ideas pulled out of thin air and stubbornly held to like dogma.William wrote: ↑Wed Jul 06, 2022 5:07 pm William: What do these unsupported statements have to do with the subject?
Transponder: Everything
William: Do you include the mind along with Everything?
[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #93]
Your unsupported statements have what to do with whatever I mean by "Mind" and whatever I mean by "Everything"?Certainly - whatever you mean by Mind and whatever you mean by Everything.
Whereas I can and logically must assume the Natural Neutral position on any matters yet to be unproven or proven.Well I can and logically must imply an established 'truth' (a natural world that so far has shown no Cosmic Mind or 'God') that is the default position that requires anything as yet unproven to be proven.
[Our positions are therefore unaligned.]
Your position assumes established truth where no such truth has been established re whether or not we exist within a creation.
The very fact that your choice of word ["woo"] belies the open-mindedness you proclaim to have.I don't think it leads to closed -mindedness. In fact I have found it a reliable basis that allows consideration of all kinds of woo stuff ...
I am reminded of a hunter who goes out and gets food for himself rather than expecting the food to come to him/her.My mind is not closed to a Cosmic Mind, Creator or god. I just require some better evidence than 'not disproved' and 'possible'.
The data is there to hunt down and to study. An open minded non-judgmental approach is essential to that process. The process is also dependent upon the position one is approaching the data from. The closeminded belief that one does not exist within a creation can only ever lead one to learn things through that filter.
No amount of evidence given should ever be hoped for in order to change any individuals mind from the influencing aspects of their chosen position, regardless if those positions be theist or atheist based.
On top of that, it is very apparent that the type of convincing evidence you are demanding from the position you are demanding it from, will unlikely be available to any of us in this lifetime.
Thus, we are forced for now to do most of our hunting, solo.
We can of course, cross reference with other open-minded fellows...but the open-mindedness derives from the Natural Neutral position, not the theist or atheist positions.
I think that atheists strongly defend their position on the question as to whether or not we exist within a creation - to the point that they believe we don't and make claims about that - has something to do with the need to say "I told you so" now, because it will be too late to utter such belief-based expressions - after they are dead and gone.
I can see the attraction from a phycological perspective, but saying "I told you so" before any such thing has been established, is jumping the gun, and might even lead to embarrassment if it turns out one still exists after the fact ones brain has died.
Still, such is the power of belief-based positions. They tend toward making proclamations which imply established truth, when no such truth has been established.
eta: woo-woo
/ˈwuːˌwuː/ relating to or holding unconventional beliefs regarded as having little or no scientific basis, especially those relating to spirituality, mysticism, or alternative medicine.
What does slang woo woo mean?
Noun. woo woo (countable and uncountable, plural woo woos) (slang, derogatory) A person readily accepting supernatural, paranormal, occult, or pseudoscientific phenomena, or emotion-based beliefs and explanations. That reporter is a bit of a woo woo. (slang, derogatory)
So I don't mind the analyses of how we (atheists) think or how people should think. The logical and evidence -based position remains the same - the material/natural is known and anything else requires proof.
-
OnlineWilliam
- Savant
- Posts: 13970
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
- Location: Te Waipounamu
- Has thanked: 904 times
- Been thanked: 1629 times
- Contact:
Re: The mind as evidence of god
Post #98[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #97]
Please explain what 'anything else' is. I find the statement appears to be oxymoron without that additional information....the material/natural is known and anything else requires proof.
- brunumb
- Savant
- Posts: 5992
- Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
- Location: Melbourne
- Has thanked: 6606 times
- Been thanked: 3208 times
Re: The mind as evidence of god
Post #99In other words you've made a sweeping claim that you can't support and then you waffle on with a lot of hand waving that amounts to an attack on me for daring to ask you about it. I guess if you are going to dodge a question that's one of the best ways to go about it.William wrote: ↑Wed Jul 06, 2022 10:28 pm [Replying to brunumb in post #95]It is important to the discussion process to acknowledge the content of another's post, rather than to give one-line replies skipping over pertinent aspects.How do you know that? If you have found any yourself, please show it to us.
I don't know whether it is thinly veiled contempt/disrespect or simply the product of an inability to communicate adequately, or some other reason, but it doesn't lend itself to decent conversation.
Single line responses are a poor substitute for well thought out responses...
All I will do is C&P the post which you snipped to quote me out of context and away from the relevant data which should have [but didn't] prevent you from your one-liner response.
[Re that, what use is data if it is treated in such a manner?]
I am reminded of a hunter who goes out and gets food for himself rather than expecting the food to come to him/her.
The data is there to hunt down and to study. An open minded non-judgmental approach is essential to that process. The process is also dependent upon the position one is approaching the data from.
The closeminded belief that one does not exist within a creation can only ever lead one to learn things through that filter.
No amount of evidence given should ever be hoped for in order to change any individuals mind from the influencing aspects of their chosen position, regardless if those positions be theist or atheist based.
On top of that, it is very apparent that the type of convincing evidence you are demanding from the position you are demanding it from, will unlikely be available to any of us in this lifetime.
Thus, we are forced for now to do most of our hunting, solo.
We can of course, cross reference with other open-minded fellows...but the open-mindedness derives from the Natural Neutral position, not the theist or atheist positions.
I think that atheists strongly defend their position on the question as to whether or not we exist within a creation - to the point that they believe we don't and make claims about that - has something to do with the need to say "I told you so" now, because it will be too late to utter such belief-based expressions - after they are dead and gone.
I can see the attraction from a phycological perspective, but saying "I told you so" before any such thing has been established, is jumping the gun, and might even lead to embarrassment if it turns out one still exists after the fact ones brain has died.
Still, such is the power of belief-based positions. They tend toward making proclamations which imply established truth, when no such truth has been established.
George Orwell:: “The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.”
Voltaire: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
Gender ideology is anti-science, anti truth.
Voltaire: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
Gender ideology is anti-science, anti truth.
- otseng
- Savant
- Posts: 20490
- Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
- Location: Atlanta, GA
- Has thanked: 197 times
- Been thanked: 335 times
- Contact:
Re: The mind as evidence of god
Post #100Moderator Comment
Please debate without making comments about others. Also, if someone does attack you, please just report it and do not respond back to it.
Please review the Rules.
______________
Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.