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.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #97]

...the material/natural is known and anything else requires proof.

Please explain what 'anything else' is. I find the statement appears to be oxymoron without that additional information.

Anything else (Aka "Something more") is, without to much brainwork, to be understood as unvalidated claims or Hypotheses, the supernatural, undisproven possibilities and the like.

[William]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #97]

...the material/natural is known and anything else requires proof.

Please explain what 'anything else' is. I find the statement appears to be oxymoron without that additional information.

Anything else (Aka "Something more") is, without to much brainwork, to be understood as unvalidated claims or Hypotheses, the supernatural, undisproven possibilities and the like.

Do you see any difference between unvalidated claims and discussing subjects which fall under the heading of unvalidated hypotheses, the supernatural, possibilities and the like?
viewtopic.php?p=1083931#p1083931
Further to that, what type of "proof" could possibly be provided re subjects which fall outside the material/natural without that proof being material/natural itself?

Do you have some examples?

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #97]

...the material/natural is known and anything else requires proof.

Please explain what 'anything else' is. I find the statement appears to be oxymoron without that additional information.

Anything else (Aka "Something more") is, without to much brainwork, to be understood as unvalidated claims or Hypotheses, the supernatural, undisproven possibilities and the like.

Do you see any difference between unvalidated claims and discussing subjects which fall under the heading of unvalidated hypotheses, the supernatural, possibilities and the like?
viewtopic.php?p=1083931#p1083931
Further to that, what type of "proof" could possibly be provided re subjects which fall outside the material/natural without that proof being material/natural itself?

Do you have some examples?

Unvalidated claims and unvalidated hypotheses can overlap, but if I had to make a definitive distinction, a claim would be an assertion without much explanation or mechanism. An unvalidated hypothesis should, rather have some mechanism and explanation but hasn't been validated. This can go so far as Dark matter/energy, string theory and the Holographic universe. Like the Higgs -Boson, Black holes and relativity there was support to make them a plausible hypothesis even before they were validated by experiment. That is very different from 'Flying saucer pilots created humans', the Atlantis -claims and of course the various supernatural claims.

So we have examples of hypotheses that are validated by experiment. I seem to recall a number of experiments, or claims rather, that were refuted or at least evidence shown to not validate the claim . Weight of a soul, dowsing, various predictions and prophecies, alternative medicine, the ID arguments and of course NDEs are surely shown to Not be what they are claimed to be, though what they may really be is still being researched, but an effect of the brain is the default. It would not be hard to devise various tests and some have been done and the Claims failed. Either a debunk or pushing it back to 'unvalidated'. And the logical position there is, of course, to not believe or credit the claim or even hypothesis where there is an explanatory mechanism, until validated. And science, it has to be said is the only method that has credibility in such validation. It is why alternative science, the supernatural -claimants and woo -fanciers have an ambivalent attitude towards the sciences: they recognise the clout it has and long for science to validate their beliefs, and they also resent science because it doesn't.

[William]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #103]
You specifically called for proof for anything other than the material/natural, which is why I asked for clarity on your part.
My question;
Q: What type of "proof" could possibly be provided re subjects which fall outside the material/natural without that proof being material/natural itself?

reflects the oxymoronic nature of such statements - the likes of;

"I require physical proof for unvalidated claims or hypotheses, the supernatural, possibilities and the like."

which are - by their very nature, non-physical.

It appears to be absurdity to demand physical evidence for non-physical conceptual things of the mind.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to William in post #104]

This is not an unfamiliar question. Theists often ask 'What evidence would convince you of God'; 'What Soprt of evidence would you require?'

The snarky answer would be 'That's the problem for the theist, not atheists', but I already said what would be required - evidence of God in nature. Or a creator, hands on intelligent designer or cosmic Mind. Where this is misunderstood is that the Theists is really asking 'Since there is no good evidence for a god, what else would convince you?'

The way I've put it before, in connection with the Bible, but it applies to ID and the cosmic Mind idea, 'Water under the bridge. The evidence that ought to be there isn't. It is like asking 'How can we prove to you the earth is flat? We know it isn't and no evidence can be found now to prove otherwise'. It's too late now to to 'prove' Biblegod. It's not totally like that with a sorta - god, but it pretty much is with any Personal god. The evidence for Biblegod (or Allah) is not going to be found now, and the case for ID has collapsed. They are just doing denial (and trying to get political control to force their denial on everyone. Remember that when you vote).

A god of the gaps (Creator of Everything or at least the stuff from which everything was made) is still a gap, and evidence such as dark matter as an ordered intelligence or a intelligent information single point source for a holographic universe, or some sign of a mind working, like Creationists tried to show in DNA. That gap is still open but we really do require the evidence to show up and be convincing. Until then, the logical rule is no belief without convincing evidence.

Of course there's God's Gordian not. Whatever it is could simply come down and appear on chat shows. Christians (and Muslims) have argued that atheists would never believe and (black swan fallacy) the skeptics would be right to question what could be a crafty alien looking to exploit us. But in time and with evidence, atheists would come to credit that it really was God. Rather it is the religionists who would deny it - if it wasn't endorsing their own particular Dogma. But of course, you are not talking about Biblegod or Qurangod, but a possible Cosmic Mind, so that's all by the way.

[William]

Q: What type of "proof" could possibly be provided re subjects which fall outside the material/natural without that proof being material/natural itself?

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #105]

This is not an unfamiliar question. Theists often ask 'What evidence would convince you of God'; 'What Sort of evidence would you require?'

Be that as it may, this is not the question I asked.

The question I asked has to do with the demand for proof. You specifically called for proof for anything other than the material/natural, which is why I asked for clarity on your part.

I am not asking "what evidence would convince you of God". I am asking you to explain what proof could possibly be presented which is not material/natural.

I already said what would be required - evidence of a Cosmic Mind in nature.

We have discussed this already and have come to no agreement, because our positions on the question of whether we exist within a creation or not, are different.

Atheists and theists have their established beliefs and stipulations on the matter.

Those who are in neither of those two positions have established no beliefs and accompanying stipulations 'for' or 'against' the question.

The existence of mind, could lend itself as evidence that what is being experienced is a created thing.
The observation of mindful activity has that going for it and it does not influence me what theists or atheists say about their own established conclusions re that because the truth is, they don't know either way.

I accept that [they don't know either way] is true.
That truth, is good enough for me.

Rather than concern myself with filling up the Gap of Ignorance with "God-did-it or It did itself" beliefs, I simply allow for the fact that the question remains unanswered at this stage and accept the Gap of Ignorance for the lack of knowledge that it represents.

That gap is still open but we really do require the evidence to show up and be convincing. Until then, the logical rule is no belief without convincing evidence.

The position of Natural-Neutral is the only position which allows for that to genuinely happen without forcing belief-based stipulations [realistic or otherwise] into the mix - re the question of whether we exist within a creation or not.

For example, any scientist worthy of the title will answer the question "Could reality be a simulation?" with "Possibly."

This is to say, they do not have scorn for the idea or say "until there is evidence of it, we will assume the atheist position"

Not knowing either way means one is Naturally Neutral - which, incidentally, is exactly how scientific process proceeds in regard to the initially unknown.

[TRANSPONDER]

Q: What type of "proof" could possibly be provided re subjects which fall outside the material/natural without that proof being material/natural itself?

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #105]

This is not an unfamiliar question. Theists often ask 'What evidence would convince you of God'; 'What Sort of evidence would you require?'

Be that as it may, this is not the question I asked.

The question I asked has to do with the demand for proof. You specifically called for proof for anything other than the material/natural, which is why I asked for clarity on your part.

I am not asking "what evidence would convince you of God". I am asking you to explain what proof could possibly be presented which is not material/natural.

I already said what would be required - evidence of a Cosmic Mind in nature.

We have discussed this already and have come to no agreement, because our positions on the question of whether we exist within a creation or not, are different.

Atheists and theists have their established beliefs and stipulations on the matter.

Those who are in neither of those two positions have established no beliefs and accompanying stipulations 'for' or 'against' the question.

The existence of mind, could lend itself as evidence that what is being experienced is a created thing.
The observation of mindful activity has that going for it and it does not influence me what theists or atheists say about their own established conclusions re that because the truth is, they don't know either way.

I accept that [they don't know either way] is true.
That truth, is good enough for me.

Rather than concern myself with filling up the Gap of Ignorance with "God-did-it or It did itself" beliefs, I simply allow for the fact that the question remains unanswered at this stage and accept the Gap of Ignorance for the lack of knowledge that it represents.

That gap is still open but we really do require the evidence to show up and be convincing. Until then, the logical rule is no belief without convincing evidence.

The position of Natural-Neutral is the only position which allows for that to genuinely happen without forcing belief-based stipulations [realistic or otherwise] into the mix - re the question of whether we exist within a creation or not.

For example, any scientist worthy of the title will answer the question "Could reality be a simulation?" with "Possibly."

This is to say, they do not have scorn for the idea or say "until there is evidence of it, we will assume the atheist position"

Not knowing either way means one is Naturally Neutral - which, incidentally, is exactly how scientific process proceeds in regard to the initially unknown.

I'd say that the explanations about providing evidence of 'God' also applies to the provision of evidence of a god, Intelligent Creator or Cosmic mind. Specifically that the god, Creator or Cosmic mind has not been refuted as terminally as Biblegod and perhaps a few others.

Now, the question of what evidence (and we are talking not only material/Natural but also scientific evidence) can be provided that is...how did you put it...?
"what proof could possibly be presented which is not material/natural." None Because everything that is in existence is natural, if not material. The thing is the 'supernatural' claim only means that it refers to things that (it is claimed) are outside of our knowledge and understanding and without any scientific explanation. This is why Bigfoot and UFOs actually fall within the remit of the supernatural, though they are not usually called such unless some kind of 'spiritual' aspect is claimed. And example of the supernatural that may become natural is ball lightning. At one time considered a supernatural claim, it is now considered scientifically valid. So would Bigfoot UFOs or indeed a Cosmic Mind if it could be validated, even if there was no scientific explanation.

If you ask what sort of evidence could be presented, I already said that the kind of evidence we'd look for, e.g the work of creation in the natural world, has not been found and I can't think (apart from something in Dark matter or the Holographic universe) of where we might look for such evidence. But the hard truth is that the dwindling of the 'gaps for god' is a problem for Theists and not for atheists. It is not the responsibility of the skeptics to say what evidence is needed and where it is to be found, especially since we strongly doubt that it is going to be found and there is anywhere to look for it.

It is not our fault if God does not exist.

The existence of mind (as you say) does not look to me like any evidence of a 'god' or creator. Evolution and the physical biology seems enough of an explanation (at least potentially) that there is no reason to suppose there is 'something more' and no reason to go looking for it. I leave that to the Theists as they have tried with appeal to 'Consciousness' and NDE's. They have in fact failed to make their case.

Your final remarks I have no problem with, but have to reiterate that the logical position on 'Unknown' or 'unproven' is Non -belief (or non -credence) until it is known and proven. Atheism is the default until there is validation and proof of Theism. .

As I've said before, this is logically sound and quite simple. But it seems the hardest thing for the Theist to accept.

I reckon we know why, too. They like to have belief in those things and it's hard for them to deal with people that do not. Just as atheists find it hard to deal with people that do. We both seem to end up saying 'believe what you like, then' and then get busy trying to persuade the other side.

[William]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #107]

I'd say that the explanations about providing evidence of 'God' also applies to the provision of evidence of a god, Intelligent Creator or Cosmic mind. Specifically that the god, Creator or Cosmic mind has not been refuted as terminally as Biblegod and perhaps a few others.

Those are theist concepts of course - and specific to religious belief systems. As such, they don't answer the question "Do we exist within a creation?" and simply assume that we do, and go about telling us what the creator of said creation 'is'.

Kind of horse before cart stuff...or... as I wrote to a 'full time activist atheist' yesterday;

Listening to your commentary in your video's to do with things atheists shouldn't say, I think your position is closer to Natural Neutral than to Atheism.

The problem [as I see it] with atheism as it has evolved is that it is primarily described as a position of lacking belief in GODs.

Atheists describe themselves in relation to the generic position - "Lacking belief in GODs - which is why you think of yourself as an Atheist - because you know that you lack belief in GODs...

However, the subject of belief in GODs is not fundamental to the question of existence...therefore any belief or lack of belief in GODs is not fundamental to the question of existence...but rather, a subset of the question "Do we exist within a creation?"

In other words, the argument for or against the existence of GODs relies upon the fundamental requirement of first establishing whether we exist within a creation...and since this has yet to be established one way or the other, the subject of GODs has to remain of secondary consideration - something to ask after the fundamental question "Do we exist within a creation", is answered.

"what proof could possibly be presented which is not material/natural." None

Since this is the case,, why would anyone make that a condition? Why ask to be provided with something which one knows cannot currently be produced?

And example of the supernatural that may become natural is ball lightning. At one time considered a supernatural claim, it is now considered scientifically valid.

I am not concerned with the so-called "supernatural" as it is a convenient label used to describe the Gap of Ignorance and tends to imply that the unknown is therefore - somehow - unnatural...
I myself think that if there is an overall Cosmic Mind, referring to such as "supernatural" only muddies the waters perhaps conveniently so for those who use the word to describe such things.

But the hard truth is that the dwindling of the 'gaps for god' is a problem for Theists and not for atheists.

I don't particularly care who's problem it is as it is not a problem for those in the Natural-Neutral position and has no bearing on said position.

The existence of mind (as you say) does not look to me like any evidence of a 'god' or creator.

Isn't is better to simply accept that we have been over all this already? What are you attempting to achieve here, repeating stuff?
Our positions are different. You appear not to accept that atheism is the reason that you cannot see that the existence of mind, or life on this planet could be interpreted as a mindful process.

That's fine. That's your 'thing'. That's an expected conclusion - something one expects to see from the atheist position, because that is how most atheist appear to express said position.
For anyone to see that mindfulness is involved, perhaps even to the extent that the whole process of life on earth is mindful...they would have to set aside all those things which apparently make atheists, atheists...

Atheism is the default until there is validation and proof of Theism.

I think this makes me chuckle the most. Perhaps it is because it has taken me so long to work out that atheists - and perhaps even theists - believe that there are only two relevant positions on the question "Do we exist within a creation?".

The truth is that it is not logically sound to claim 'Atheism is the default' because it is based on the misconception that there is only atheism or theism.

I reckon we know why, too. They like to have belief in those things and it's hard for them to deal with people that do not. Just as atheists find it hard to deal with people that do. We both seem to end up saying 'believe what you like, then' and then get busy trying to persuade the other side.

Generally the whole content of you post is focused on something outside of what I myself am arguing. To me it looks like the usual 'atheists complaints about theists' which has little if anything to do with the position I am arguing from.

I have tried to say as much, in my previous posts - but the message apparently isn't getting through.

I see no point in going around in these particular circles with you while you still retain the belief that only two positions are relevant, and of those two, only one of them is correct.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #107]

I'd say that the explanations about providing evidence of 'God' also applies to the provision of evidence of a god, Intelligent Creator or Cosmic mind. Specifically that the god, Creator or Cosmic mind has not been refuted as terminally as Biblegod and perhaps a few others.

Those are theist concepts of course - and specific to religious belief systems. As such, they don't answer the question "Do we exist within a creation?" and simply assume that we do, and go about telling us what the creator of said creation 'is'.

Kind of horse before cart stuff...or... as I wrote to a 'full time activist atheist' yesterday;

Listening to your commentary in your video's to do with things atheists shouldn't say, I think your position is closer to Natural Neutral than to Atheism.

The problem [as I see it] with atheism as it has evolved is that it is primarily described as a position of lacking belief in GODs.

Atheists describe themselves in relation to the generic position - "Lacking belief in GODs - which is why you think of yourself as an Atheist - because you know that you lack belief in GODs...

However, the subject of belief in GODs is not fundamental to the question of existence...therefore any belief or lack of belief in GODs is not fundamental to the question of existence...but rather, a subset of the question "Do we exist within a creation?"

In other words, the argument for or against the existence of GODs relies upon the fundamental requirement of first establishing whether we exist within a creation...and since this has yet to be established one way or the other, the subject of GODs has to remain of secondary consideration - something to ask after the fundamental question "Do we exist within a creation", is answered.

"what proof could possibly be presented which is not material/natural." None

Since this is the case,, why would anyone make that a condition? Why ask to be provided with something which one knows cannot currently be produced?

And example of the supernatural that may become natural is ball lightning. At one time considered a supernatural claim, it is now considered scientifically valid.

I am not concerned with the so-called "supernatural" as it is a convenient label used to describe the Gap of Ignorance and tends to imply that the unknown is therefore - somehow - unnatural...
I myself think that if there is an overall Cosmic Mind, referring to such as "supernatural" only muddies the waters perhaps conveniently so for those who use the word to describe such things.

But the hard truth is that the dwindling of the 'gaps for god' is a problem for Theists and not for atheists.

I don't particularly care who's problem it is as it is not a problem for those in the Natural-Neutral position and has no bearing on said position.

The existence of mind (as you say) does not look to me like any evidence of a 'god' or creator.

Isn't is better to simply accept that we have been over all this already? What are you attempting to achieve here, repeating stuff?
Our positions are different. You appear not to accept that atheism is the reason that you cannot see that the existence of mind, or life on this planet could be interpreted as a mindful process.

That's fine. That's your 'thing'. That's an expected conclusion - something one expects to see from the atheist position, because that is how most atheist appear to express said position.
For anyone to see that mindfulness is involved, perhaps even to the extent that the whole process of life on earth is mindful...they would have to set aside all those things which apparently make atheists, atheists...

Ok. You are not concerned with the 'so called supernatural'. But you did raise the point. Essentially it is question of, do we credit what is validated by evidence or do we credit also that which is not?

Ok you do not care about the 'problem for theists' as you are in what you call a 'neutral -natural' position. Though I don't quite know what position that actually is.

I keep repeating stuff because you keep repeating stuff. I do not see the the "existence of mind, or life on this planet could be interpreted as a mindful process." as relevant to the discussion until such a hypothesis is supported by evidence. You posted:

That's fine. That's your 'thing'. That's an expected conclusion - something one expects to see from the atheist position, because that is how most atheist appear to express said position.
For anyone to see that mindfulness is involved, perhaps even to the extent that the whole process of life on earth is mindful...they would have to set aside all those things which apparently make atheists, atheists..." Yes. Making claims without any decent evidence.

Atheism is the default until there is validation and proof of Theism.

you posted

I think this makes me chuckle the most. Perhaps it is because it has taken me so long to work out that atheists - and perhaps even theists - believe that there are only two relevant positions on the question "Do we exist within a creation?".

The truth is that it is not logically sound to claim 'Atheism is the default' because it is based on the misconception that there is only atheism or theism.

It seems to me that there are just two positions - the claim is true or it isn't Not knowing logically mandates not crediting (let alone believing) the claim until there is decent evidence for it. What third position do you suggest?

I reckon we know why, too. They like to have belief in those things and it's hard for them to deal with people that do not. Just as atheists find it hard to deal with people that do. We both seem to end up saying 'believe what you like, then' and then get busy trying to persuade the other side.

Generally the whole content of you post is focused on something outside of what I myself am arguing. To me it looks like the usual 'atheists complaints about theists' which has little if anything to do with the position I am arguing from.

I have tried to say as much, in my previous posts - but the message apparently isn't getting through.

I see no point in going around in these particular circles with you while you still retain the belief that only two positions are relevant, and of those two, only one of them is correct.

again what other position do you propose? I have only seen you mention 'Neutral - natural' but I don't know what you mean by that. You said that you think there is an overall Cosmic mind. That is irrelevant. What matters is what evidence you have for it.

[William]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #109]

It seems to me that there are just two positions - the claim is true or it isn't

The position I take on the matter is "Natural Neutral" because it may or may not be true and does not present as a 'claim' but simply a question.

Q: Do we exist within a creation?

Not knowing logically mandates not crediting (let alone believing) the claim until there is decent evidence for it.

Not only that, but not knowing also logically mandates the same process for all claims.
Questions on the other hand, are dealt with differently.

[Some folk mistakenly conflate a question with being a claim.]

I have only seen you mention 'Natural-Neutral' but I don't know what you mean by that.

To repeat myself, what I mean by that re the question "Do we exist within a creation?" my position is neither theist or atheist.
Or - as I recently wrote in another thread;

William: Clearly, neither theist or atheist belief re that has proven itself, so the Natural-Neutral position is to understand that both/all labels re "Energy" and "Spirit" are speaking about the same thing, albeit, differently, depending upon the position one is speaking from.

Theist: I don’t see how those being the same is the natural or neutral position. Why do you think that?

William: Energy and QF refers to the nature of the universe, thus the "Natural" part.

Re the question "Do we exist within a creation?", one remains neutral until such a time as nature reveals for certain, either way, thus the "Neutral" part

Transponder: I have only seen you mention 'Natural-Neutral' but I don't know what you mean by that.
William: I don't know why you are unaware of this, since we have had this discussion before.


↑
[Those things require only one person to make them go around - please do not ask me any more questions which I have already given you answers to]