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 #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]

Ok we have a question. But the default position is not as you have in your diagram but the implied answer to the question is - do we believe the claim or not. You said that you do. Why? Where is the evidence. A 'neutral -natural' response would seem to be 'no I do not have the evidence'. Thus the default is not to believe until you do. Your arguments as I remember are wrong or irrelevant. Atheists can easily comprehend this cosmic mind or intelligent everything and contemplate the possibility or whichever way you put it. You were wrong in saying they do not or cannot. They simply do not believe because no persuasive evidence has been presented.

Your position of 'neither one nor the other 'may be your position or what you say it is (yet you say that you think that there there is such) but that is not an answer to the question, it is refusing to answer it. But that is irrelevant to the logical implications of the question, whether you refuse them or not. It certainly doesn't validate a cosmic intelligence. It sorta hands the win to non -belief - atheism.

That wasn't too hard and done without any elaborate and invalid diagrams. And, ok, I see no reason to ask you any more questions. I think you have told us all we need to know.

And i in return can say that you needn't question the validity of the burden of proof being on the claimant 'do we exist within a creation?' being 'yes we do' or 'no we don't'. The two positions are implicit in the question. 'Don't know' (or refusal to answer) hands the default to non -belief - atheism as I said. Atheism does NOT say 'we do not exist within a creation', not just because it needs to be defined whether that is Intelligent or natural creation but because natural physical processes (with no demonstrable intelligent creator) hands the default to materialism.

So it shakes down that materialist atheism is the logical default, whether you refuse the implied belief -(or credibility) question or not. Logically, atheism ought to be your bag, and I think you are smart enough to know that, or see it when it is explained. Though I'm sure we've done this before.

[William]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #111]

Ok we have a question. But the default position is not as you have in your diagram but the implied answer to the question is - do we believe the claim or not. You said that you do.

Citation please.

[William]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #111]

A 'neutral -natural' response would seem to be 'no I do not have the evidence'. Thus the default is not to believe until you do.

Incorrect. The default is actually "Since I have compelling evidence either way, I remain Natural- Neutral."
Belief and lack of belief have nothing to do with the answer to the question itself.

Q: Do we exist within a creation?"

Theist: I have belief that we do exist within a creation.

Atheist: I lack belief that we do exist within a creation.

Natural Neutral: I don't know and refuse to form belief or lack of belief as belief or non-belief provides me with no compelling answer.

viewtopic.php?p=1084036#p1084036

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #111]

Ok we have a question. But the default position is not as you have in your diagram but the implied answer to the question is - do we believe the claim or not. You said that you do.

Citation please.

you wrote in post #108 "I myself think that if there is an overall Cosmic Mind, "

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #111]

A 'neutral -natural' response would seem to be 'no I do not have the evidence'. Thus the default is not to believe until you do.

Incorrect. The default is actually "Since I have compelling evidence either way, I remain Natural- Neutral."
Belief and lack of belief have nothing to do with the answer to the question itself.

Q: Do we exist within a creation?"

Theist: I have belief that we do exist within a creation.

Atheist: I lack belief that we do exist within a creation.

Natural Neutral: I don't know and refuse to form belief or lack of belief as belief or non-belief provides me with no compelling answer.

viewtopic.php?p=1084036#p1084036

You wrote: "Since I have compelling evidence either way, I remain Natural- Neutral."

That is the same as "No, I do not have the evidence." The logical implications of that are what they, whether or not you recognise them.

[William]

do we believe the claim or not. You said that you do.

Citation please.

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #114]

you wrote in post #108 "I myself think that if there is an overall Cosmic Mind

IF, does not amount to my saying that I believe something is the case.

You wrote: "Since I have compelling evidence either way, I remain Natural- Neutral."

"Since I have compelling evidence either way" is, without too much brainwork, to be understood as a "typo"

Which is to say, "my bad" I meant to write that as "Since I have NO compelling evidence either way, I remain Natural- Neutral...

viewtopic.php?p=1084060#p1084060

[TRANSPONDER]

do we believe the claim or not. You said that you do.

Citation please.

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #114]

you wrote in post #108 "I myself think that if there is an overall Cosmic Mind

IF, does not amount to my saying that I believe something is the case.

You wrote: "Since I have compelling evidence either way, I remain Natural- Neutral."

"Since I have compelling evidence either way" is, without too much brainwork, to be understood as a "typo"

Which is to say, "my bad" I meant to write that as "Since I have NO compelling evidence either way, I remain Natural- Neutral...

viewtopic.php?p=1084060#p1084060

I'n not even going to debate the context of what you meant. If you don't even believe there to be a Cosmic Mind or a credible case for it, what are we even discussing? There is no valid evidencer or case other than an undisproven far -fetched possibility. Skepticism is validated logically without any need for discussion.

Looks like i made a typo. you should thank me. It allows you to claim a cheap irrelevant point, at least.

[William]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #116]

I'n not even going to debate the context of what you meant. If you don't even believe there to be a Cosmic Mind or a credible case for it, what are we even discussing? There is no valid evidencer or case other than an undisproven far -fetched possibility.

For my part, I am discussing the known existence of mind relating to matter, and how that can be extended to the possibility of the whole cosmos being mindful - because - if the parts are seen to operate mindfully there is no reason I can think of as to why the whole cannot also be seen to be mindful.

Skepticism is validated logically without any need for discussion.

That explains adequately why the interaction between you and I is not "discussion". You make a claim regarding what I said, I ask you to validate the claim, you responded with what you thought was validation, I point out your faulty reasoning re that, and you react as if I am the one at fault.

Prior to that - in some other interaction we had, you brought up and then mocked the idea of "the music of the spheres".
I responded by linking you to evidence supporting this notion, and you couldn't even bring yourself to acknowledge the correction.

Were I do agree with you is that it has become most obvious that there is no discussion to be had between you and I.

eta;

GM: Everyone: "In space nobody can hear you scream"
Saturn: "Hold my beer..."

William: Yes. "The Music of The Spheres"

GM: Are

William: Arrrr....

GM: "But hey, we can all hope that over time the mainstream view is tending towards the truth. It's certainly a lovely idea"
The Wider Reality:
"When In Doubt - Set It Aside"
{SOURCE}

[TRANSPONDER]

In a way, yes, The existence of the world we know and the workings scientifically verified without a Something More needed, established the materialist default.

The burden of proof falls on the one claiming Something more even through the Theistic assuming what is debated of 'If' (I've heard it before ..."Let's start by assuming that God exists. Then..."

Let's not say 'If'; Let's say 'What evidence do you have?' I seem to recall none that was presented. Just a diagram showing a refusal to accept the logical mandate of agnosticism - when we don't know, we don't believe until we do know. This is the logic whether you want to want to ask what you believe - or at least credit - or not.

I'd say that you have nowhere to go other than appeal to unknowns, and that is a fallacy. So yes, there is nothing to debate and you may speculate as much as you like. It's all good, as speculations raises possibilities and hypotheses to investigate and may even lead to discoveries. because I don't in principle reject the idea of Something more - a Cosmic Mind of some kind. But there, argument from 'Consciousness' in fact has less going for it that even argument from Cosmic origins (Just as in fact, argument from Life is a tinier gap for god than Cosmic origins).

This is all fine unless anyone rejects the logic of the atheist position, argues for some kind of fence - sitting logical position as valid rather than untenable and (which you may not have done but I recall you may have) argues that Theism is right and atheism is wrong. Atheism with regard to the Theist question (religious or not) is logically sound as the evidence, arguments and hypotheses for Theism are just not evidentually, logically or conceptually, good enough.

I'm reading it through, and checking it twice
as I want to be clear, as well as Mr. nice.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #116]

I'n not even going to debate the context of what you meant. If you don't even believe there to be a Cosmic Mind or a credible case for it, what are we ....

GM: Everyone: "In space nobody can hear you scream"
Saturn: "Hold my beer..."

William: Yes. "The Music of The Spheres"

GM: Are

William: Arrrr....

GM: "But hey, we can all hope that over time the mainstream view is tending towards the truth. It's certainly a lovely idea"
The Wider Reality:
"When In Doubt - Set It Aside"
{SOURCE}

"Willy, Willy, Willy, ye knaw ye canna tak me yeer drunk." (1)

I'm just posting this as a few nights ago I watched a talk by Lawrence Krauss which, new or not, sets out the case for a universe from nothing as well as I have ever heard it and answers why is there something rather than nothing? Because there has to be.



(1) 'The General danced at dawn' G M Fazer.

[William]

GM: Learned
"Any God-Mind claiming to be responsible for human beings existing, is going to have problems to deal with re that"
[What science [re materialism] does, is give cause for humans to celebrate the intelligence of consciousness while at the same time ignoring the hard problem of consciousness that this type of science has created for its supporters.]
[Free! Free! Free!
RPDK [Random pg dn key]
Finding the light]
Who Knows!
[EZPZ
Go with the Flow
Balance of power
Opinion
Intuit]
Narrative warfare
Be
"Even in the very quintessence of the individual."
Joy


William: Remarkably so, yes.
Transponders approach is less inviting re 'discussion'. The GM process is far more the type of communication I am keen to follow through with. There is always the way in which such discussion can be had - even that the discussion becomes internal...strictly of the mind...no supposed "skepticism" to keep it at bay...

GM: Be Aware
"Out of The Shadow Lands"
Wild freedom
[Sovereign
Technique of Exchange
Each
Go within
Stop. Listen. Observe.]

{SOURCE}