Our Brain, Our Brain on "God"

[POI]

The default position is that a physical brain is necessary to produce "conscious thought". Theists will argue, in addition, an "external source" is also necessary to give us some or all of our "conscious thought". And by 'external source', this could mean a Christian God, another god(s), or maybe even an evil source, or other such as acting as a 'medium' for dead relatives/other.

For debate: Does the material brain need/require an external source, or 'god(s)', to give us any information? I'm leaning towards no-ish. Why?

1) The only time we get information in which we could not have conjured up completely on our own is when we engage other humans/other. Such as, in a classroom, communicating with others at work, etc... However, when one states they are receiving messages from some "invisible/external source", it seems to be information they can manufacture on their own?
2) If a part of our brain becomes damaged, altered, or destroyed, which controls particular function(s), the brain is no longer able to produce/function in the same manor.
3) Brain tumors have been known to change a person's personality and/or impulse behaviors. It is no longer thought to be because of "evil" external sources.

I'll stop here....

[SiNcE_1985]

See where I went with that one?

You went nowhere with that. Refusing to watch a short vid (which would save you a ton of time), which is also gift-wrapped and placed at your feet, vs, asking your interlocutor to go and find some unspecific response somewhere out yonder is (apples and oranges). it would be like me telling you, I've already responded to that before, go find it.

I explained why I don't watch posted videos, didn't I?

Well, all I say is that your position IS another one of these "god of the gaps" arguments, and you have no rebuttal. Hence, your response above.

No, because I am appealing to God based on what I know, rather than blindly appealing to God via faith based on what I don't know.

That point alone, is a huge difference. You also left out that this creator could be illogical.

The homework has already been done, and I've found the concept of generic theism to not only be logical...but logically, absolutely, positively NECESSARY.

You also left out that this creator could be a trickster.

Still reaching, are we?

You also left out polytheism.

Polytheism is still a form of theism.

It is like, a potato.

Christian theism is a loaded baked potato with Jesus' face carved somewhere on the skin.

Polytheism is like...French fries

Same stuff, different dish.

And besides, I appeal to Ockham's Razor here.

We don't need to multiple causes beyond what's necessary to produce the effect.

You do not logically get to jump from this topic, directly to Jesus. Sorry.

Again, yes.

At the name of Jesus, flee!!

Why would I accept something for which I doubt exists? That is silly. If your hopes hinge upon a collection of books, which is filled with sus material, then I do not know what more to say to you?

Gotchaaa.

Or, you could just cut/paste what you feel is the 'deathblow' punch here. I stopped playing Where's Waldo as a child.

So, are you going to present the evidence for the creator/operator of the brain?

Crazy because, I actually agree with you.

But, I am admittedly stubborn (and too lazy) to dig it up.

[POI]

I explained why I don't watch posted videos, didn't I?

Yes. But it's no one's policy to play Where's Waldo. You affirmed it at the bottom of this exchange, when you state "I agree with you."

No, because I am appealing to God based on what I know, rather than blindly appealing to God via faith based on what I don't know.

We don't have a verified source beyond the brain itself. You don't know. So yes, you are applying fallacious reasoning here. Sorry.

The homework has already been done, and I've found the concept of generic theism to not only be logical...but logically, absolutely, positively NECESSARY.

An atheist can easily say this about all of the theist's arguments. But then there would be no use for this forum.

Still reaching, are we?

Why would that be reaching? Why is stating the creator is a jokester 'reaching'?

We don't need to multiple causes beyond what's necessary to produce the effect.

Still waiting for evidence to suggest a creator/operator for the brain...

Gotchaaa.

Sorry dude. Locating an external source for the brain does not then invoke the Bible God as the next topic. Especially when we can logically point out the suspect material in which requires "Christian apologetics."

Crazy because, I actually agree with you. But, I am admittedly stubborn (and too lazy) to dig it up.

You see, and you were the one who wrote this apparent be-all-end-all answer too. I would think you would hold it dear, and at least know what you said, and where you said it. Don't ask me to find it.

[SiNcE_1985]

Yes. But it's no one's policy to play Where's Waldo. You affirmed it at the bottom of this exchange, when you state "I agree with you."

My agreement with you was more along the lines of "I agree with you, but unfortunately, my stance will not change.

We don't have a verified source beyond the brain itself. You don't know. So yes, you are applying fallacious reasoning here. Sorry.

Um, you've yet to even attempt to make a case for your unproven assertion that thoughts emerge from the brain.

Thus, the theory is unverified.

I made the case for my position and I've seen nothing from you or anyone else that can convince me otherwise.

An atheist can easily say this about all of the theist's arguments. But then there would be no use for this forum.

?

Why would that be reaching? Why is stating the creator is a jokester 'reaching'?

Ever heard of a non-existent jokester?

Me either.

If the Creator jokes, the creator exists.

Still waiting for evidence to suggest a creator/operator for the brain...

It'll come back around.

Sorry dude. Locating an external source for the brain does not then invoke the Bible God as the next topic. Especially when we can logically point out the suspect material in which requires "Christian apologetics."

Open your heart, brother.

Let God in.

You have potential. I can see it.

You see, and you were the one who wrote this apparent be-all-end-all answer too. I would think you would hold it dear, and at least know what you said, and where you said it. Don't ask me to find it.

Well, this is your thread.

If I created a thread, I would be in tune with the threads activity because the thread is my turf and I own it...and I'm not gonna let folks come on my thread and make points and counter arguments without me addressing them..whether they are talking to me or not.

Butttt, I guess you don't feel as I do

[POI]

My agreement with you was more along the lines of "I agree with you, but unfortunately, my stance will not change.

Them you agree that asking your interlocutor to 'go find it instead of just producing it', is nonsense.

Um, you've yet to even attempt to make a case for your unproven assertion that thoughts emerge from the brain.

I'm trying to throw you a bone here. Like a 'computer', a builder/operator is easily verified. You believing folks have had hundreds, if not thousands of years, to demonstrate the same thing about the brain. But you folks don't. Maybe because there isn't one after all? Maybe it's true that brain thoughts come from the brain alone, with no outside help?

?

A skeptic can also make the exact same case about "the homework has already been done." All theist arguments have been debunked. My point is you are making the same case in which the atheists can very well make. There is no new argument under the sun. We are merely regurgitating old and tired arguments, which has already been addressed and debunked by skeptics ad nauseum. This entire website does not really even need to exist. But it's still fun to do it.

Ever heard of a non-existent jokester? Me either. If the Creator jokes, the creator exists.

You are missing my point. If some creator/operator exists, why could they not be deceptive? One of the many obstacles still remaining, to not allow going from a builder/operator of the brain, directly to a Jesus claim.

It'll come back around.

I've asked umpteen times now. If you haven't provided it by now, you likely ain't gonna.

Open your heart, brother. Let God in. You have potential. I can see it.

All anyone sees, is your deflection. The claims to the veracity for Jesus are quite suspect. This is why 'faith' is doing some very heavy lifting.

Well, this is your thread.

*facepalm*

If I created a thread, I would be in tune with the threads activity because the thread is my turf and I own it...and I'm not gonna let folks come on my thread and make points and counter arguments without me addressing them..whether they are talking to me or not.

Butttt, I guess you don't feel as I do

You would have some kind of a point, but half the time, your responses don't even address what I am actually saying or asking. Hence, I do not bother to read much of what you write to other people. If you feel you have the be-all-end-all response, make it.

Please provide the evidence to demonstrate the brain has a builder/operator.

[SiNcE_1985]

Them you agree that asking your interlocutor to 'go find it instead of just producing it', is nonsense.

Sure, it would be nonsense if you were tasked to go dig up a weeks/months old post.

Not the case here...we are talking the same thread, of which is only a handful of pages long.

And plus, you've been too dismissive to the stuff that you have been responding to, in my opinion...which makes me not wanna exert energy into finding stuff for you if you haven't given our exchanges thus far enough TLC (tender loving care).

Also, you been on the record of "liking" the posts of others that are directed towards me...so even if you don't follow my posts directly, you've been following them indirectly.

I'm trying to throw you a bone here.

With all due respect, sir..

I did not ask for, nor do I need your help here.

I've got a pretty good handle on things here.

Thank you, though.

Like a 'computer', a builder/operator is easily verified. You believing folks have had hundreds, if not thousands of years, to demonstrate the same thing about the brain. But you folks don't. Maybe because there isn't one after all? Maybe it's true that brain thoughts come from the brain alone, with no outside help?

Ok...so tell me (make a case) for how, if a brain is sitting there...how will this chunk of matter (brain) begin to produce mental images about things that are completely independent of it.

This is about the fourth time you've been prompted to make a case for your current empty assertion(s).

So far, nothing.

A skeptic can also make the exact same case about "the homework has already been done."

It's not about what you can say...it's about what you can prove/demonstrate.

Anyone can say anything.

All theist arguments have been debunked. My point is you are making the same case in which the atheists can very well make. There is no new argument under the sun. We are merely regurgitating old and tired arguments, which has already been addressed and debunked by skeptics ad nauseum. This entire website does not really even need to exist. But it's still fun to do it.

You are missing my point. If some creator/operator exists, why could they not be deceptive? One of the many obstacles still remaining, to not allow going from a builder/operator of the brain, directly to a Jesus claim.

Um, no.

No one is going directly to a Jesus claim... I said based on the argument from Jesus' resurrection (the truth value of the argument), that is what gets you to Christian theism.

You jump to Jesus, only after the argument has been demonstrated to be true.

I've asked umpteen times now. If you haven't provided it by now, you likely ain't gonna.

I've asked you umpteen times to prove your thoughts emerge from the brain assertion.

So hey.

All anyone sees, is your deflection. The claims to the veracity for Jesus are quite suspect. This is why 'faith' is doing some very heavy lifting.

Is your heart open?

You would have some kind of a point, but half the time, your responses don't even address what I am actually saying or asking.

Then I guess I lack the basic reading comprehension skills needed to keep up with you, oh wise one.

Hence, I do not bother to read much of what you write to other people. If you feel you have the be-all-end-all response, make it.

You should read more of what I write.

No charge for the lessons.

Please provide the evidence to demonstrate the brain has a builder/operator.

I said what I said about this matter.

[POI]

Also, you been on the record of "liking" the posts of others that are directed towards me...so even if you don't follow my posts directly, you've been following them indirectly.

Did I happen to like a post that retorted your said response about demonstrating an owner/operator for the brain? If so, then that would mean it fully rebutted whatever you so happened to produce/provide anyways. Again, if you feel your response to this question was worth its weight in salt, you would have NO PROBLEM cut/pasting it to one of my many inquiries about asking the same question over and over and over again, with no response at all, or worth while.

Ok...so tell me (make a case) for how, if a brain is sitting there...how will this chunk of matter (brain) begin to produce mental images about things that are completely independent of it.

This is where I'm throwing you the bone. Think of the brain like a computer. All you need to do now is produce/provide the evidence for the builder/operator. Can you do that?

Your response here tells me that you finally understand what I am actually saying. Thanks.

Um, no.

No one is going directly to a Jesus claim... I said based on the argument from Jesus' resurrection (the truth value of the argument), that is what gets you to Christian theism.

You jump to Jesus, only after the argument has been demonstrated to be true.

Again, false. If a source has been demonstrate to feed the brain, which you have yet to do, and likely never will, you do NOT get to jump to a Jesus claim. The Bible rises and falls upon its own merits. And from the exchange in the other thread, all it took to take you down completely was one response from Benchwarmer, and a video.

Is your heart open?

You have a short memory. It would not matter. The Bible states "every knee will bow and every tongue will confess". Which means opening your heart is irrelevant. I also told you about my ex in high school. I was completely closed to the accusation that she was cheating on me. But when the evidence was presented, regardless of how closed-minded I was, I was still convinced.

I said what I said about this matter.

You said nothing which demonstrates that a builder/operator controls the brain.

[SiNcE_1985]

Did I happen to like a post that retorted your said response about demonstrating an owner/operator for the brain? If so, then that would mean it fully rebutted whatever you so happened to produce/provide anyways. Again, if you feel your response to this question was worth its weight in salt, you would have NO PROBLEM cut/pasting it to one of my many inquiries about asking the same question over and over and over again, with no response at all, or worth while.

I told you..I am stubborn and lazy.

This is where I'm throwing you the bone. Think of the brain like a computer. All you need to do now is produce/provide the evidence for the builder/operator. Can you do that?

If the brain is like a computer, that would mean that the images on the computer screen emerged on the screen from within the computer.

This is not possible.

There is this thing called the argument from intentionality (look it up).

How will the images on the computer screen get there, without an external casual connection?

Let's imagine that a computer evolved over time, from random parts and material at whatever factory you can think of.

Now, let's say on the computer screen, there is an undoubtedly obvious red apple.

The question is simple, how can the image (red apple) on the computer screen be about something (an actual red apple) that is completely independent, and completely non-casually connected to it?

It can't happen.

That is why, if a computer requires intelligent design, then it follows that the mind behind the computer also requires intelligent design.

To think otherwise is simply a textbook example of the taxi cab fallacy.

Again, false. If a source has been demonstrate to feed the brain, which you have yet to do, and likely never will, you do NOT get to jump to a Jesus claim. The Bible rises and falls upon its own merits.

?

And from the exchange in the other thread, all it took to take you down completely was one response from Benchwarmer, and a video.

?

You have a short memory. It would not matter. The Bible states "every knee will bow and every tongue will confess". Which means opening your heart is irrelevant.

The Bible also states that those whose name was found in the Lamb's book of life were saved from eternal damnation.

I assume that those who are saved had open hearts.

Thus, making an open heart relevant.

I also told you about my ex in high school. I was completely closed to the accusation that she was cheating on me. But when the evidence was presented, regardless of how closed-minded I was, I was still convinced.

Your heart became open to the idea (and beyond) after convincing evidence was presented.

You said nothing which demonstrates that a builder/operator controls the brain.

Sure, pal.

[POI]

That is why, if a computer requires intelligent design, then it follows that the mind behind the computer also requires intelligent design.

Still throwing out that same bone for you.... Demonstrate the builder/operator of the brain. I've asked like 15 times now. You merely regurgitated what I already setup for you, regarding a 'computer/brain' analogy. All you need to do now is to actually demonstrate it, not just apply an "inference".

?

You would be nowhere close to jumping directly from a) the demonstration of a builder/operator to b) Jesus. I've already explained why.

?

In the other thread about "why do the Gospels disagree", your argument was easily refuted by Benchwarmer and my video alone. The Gospels are suspect, at best. They are not trustworthy. So even if you were to demonstrate the builder/operator, you would never get to a Jesus.

The Bible also states that those whose name was found in the Lamb's book of life were saved from eternal damnation.

Yes, it states a lot of things which conflict with one another. But of course, that's because we skeptics are reading them out of context.

I assume that those who are saved had open hearts. Thus, making an open heart relevant.

Assumptions are irrelevant. It's what you can demonstrate. Just like your mere assumption that a brain has a builder/operator is irrelevant.

Your heart became open to the idea (and beyond) after convincing evidence was presented.

You missed the point entirely. Your heart does not need to be open. When enough evidence compels you, you then have no choice. It's not about opening your heart.

[SiNcE_1985]

Still throwing out that same bone for you.... Demonstrate the builder/operator of the brain. I've asked like 15 times now. You merely regurgitated what I already setup for you, regarding a 'computer/brain' analogy. All you need to do now is to actually demonstrate it, not just apply an "inference".

I said what I said.

In the other thread about "why do the Gospels disagree", your argument was easily refuted by Benchwarmer and my video alone.

Yeah, ok.

The Gospels are suspect, at best. They are not trustworthy. So even if you were to demonstrate the builder/operator, you would never get to a Jesus.

Looks like we simply disagree.

Yes, it states a lot of things which conflict with one another. But of course, that's because we skeptics are reading them out of context.

Well, the Bible conflicts and God doesn't exist.

Gotcha.

So no need for anymore questions from you about the actions of a God that doesn't exist.

Assumptions are irrelevant. It's what you can demonstrate. Just like your mere assumption that a brain has a builder/operator is irrelevant.

I said what I said.

You missed the point entirely. Your heart does not need to be open. When enough evidence compels you, you then have no choice. It's not about opening your heart.

Cool. Your heart does not need to be open.

[POI]

The rest of my points above have been untouched by you, but I wanted to drive home one other point that you still did not get; even though I already explained that one too.

So no need for anymore questions from you about the actions of a God that doesn't exist.

If copious amounts of people were seriously arguing for Santa Claus, you might then find me on a 'Debating Santa" forum. I come here because I still have family members who believe this stuff. To avoid discourse, as things often get too heated, I now instead come here to get my skepticism challenged, among many other reasons for coming here.