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]

This is a common human error of imperfect perception. The way things look to us are not always the way things are. Material is not solid. These things are made of atoms and atoms are made or near nothing as makes no difference. Reality is what matter does, not what it is. That is why Physicists sometimes call the reality of Physics 'God', because it is all (on all evidence) there is and is big and mysterious but is not (so far as anyone has been able to show) intelligent and forward - planning.

Everything makes more sense if it is finding its' own way to work and survive; chemical evolution, biological and social. Mind evolved from survival reaction, instinct, social co - operation, problem - solving and reasoning. It is an error to think that because we can evolve breeds to suit ourselves, a god made everything to suit itself. Because humans imitate mind with computers does not mean that a big invisible human had to make consciousness.

You lost me here, and I don't wanna be found.

Now, don't trouble to tell us what you believe or do not. tell us why you think that a god made consciousness. The computer analogy is debunked by the evidence.

I don't know why.

On judgement day, ask him.

[TRANSPONDER]

I rest my case. Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury, you decide who has the better case.

[POI]

First off, it isn't as if I can grab God by the collar to your doorstep and say "here he is"...as you can conceivably do with computer designers.

Oh, I can wait, I have patience. But I certainly won't hold my breath in the meantime.

All I can do is provide valid/sound reasoning as to why...

Hmm...?

1. Mind/body dualism is true.

Source please?

2. Intelligent design is necessary for human consciousness.

Source please?

And although you disagree, I've accomplished just that, on both ends.

Hmm..?

Check my response to clownboat.

I don't keep track of your responses to others. It is your job to provide it, not instead to ask me to go find it somewhere.

The god of the gaps thing is an arkiac accusation used by atheists to believers...believers of whom exhibited blind faith as they were unable to offer sound/valid reasoning for their beliefs.

Nowadays, not so much.

If an origin of something is not verified, why assume it's not only a god, but your god? The reason the accusation(s) is/are archaic, is because theists never tire of still invoking a god, (after thousands of years), and there never has yet to actually be one. There's a reason the gaps get smaller and smaller. I guess this is one of the last bastions of the theist. Womp womp.

[SiNcE_1985]

I don't keep track of your responses to others. It is your job to provide it, not instead to ask me to go find it somewhere.

Then I guess you've missed the boat.

The clownboat.

If an origin of something is not verified, why assume it's not only a god, but your god?

Because the argument from consciousness only gets you to generic theism.

If you want to get to Christian theism, then the argument will have to be supplemented with the historical case for Jesus' resurrection.

The reason the accusation(s) is/are archaic, is because theists never tire of still invoking a god, (after thousands of years), and there never has yet to actually be one. There's a reason the gaps get smaller and smaller. I guess this is one of the last bastions of the theist. Womp womp.

We invoke God because the idea that mindless/blind processes can create eyes, ears, brains, consciousness...we are unwilling in all rationale and common sense to accept this.

[TRANSPONDER]

Well, you are right and wrong, yet again. The evolutionary process not only is a workable explanation for the increase in complexity and sophistication of bioforms in morphology and mentality, but there is sequential evidence for it, not to say, Proof.

Goddunnit creation has nothing but an old book of imaginary stories and argument from incredulity 'I don't understand it, so it can't be true'.

And even if it (ID/IC) was valid, it wouldn't tell you which god or religion.

Which is the bit you got right - the actual argument is the evidential support for Christianity and specifically, the resurrection. If that is built on sand, the whole edifice collapses.

[POI]

Then I guess you've missed the boat. The clownboat.

I'm not going to go exploring to locate some response out there somewhere. If it is a proper response, copy it and paste it here.

Because the a) argument from consciousness only gets you to b) generic theism.

a) Wrong and b) wrong.

a) It demonstrates <yet another> "god of the gaps" argument in which the theists have been placing forth for thousands of years now.
b) "Generic deism" must be demonstrated before you get to instead leap directly to 'generic theism'.

If you want to get to Christian theism, then the argument will have to be supplemented with the historical case for Jesus' resurrection.

Then I guess we are done here. All it took, for you to not make that case, was one video and also a single response from benchwarmer to demonstrate that the Bible's veracity, regarding the events surrounding a "resurrection claim", are more than sus

We invoke God because the idea that mindless/blind processes can create eyes, ears, brains, consciousness...we are unwilling in all rationale and common sense to accept this.

I know, right...? Just like I still cannot wrap my head around how time and gravity works, using mere common sense. It must be "goddidit" to make it more palpable for me then, via common sense

Until you demonstrate an actual builder/operator of 'brains', like we can easily do with 'computers', all we see is thought 'emerging' from brains. The brain looks to be the source of thought. I would be more than happy to be demonstrated to the contrary. You say source thought comes from elsewhere. Please prove it. Prove the existence of the builder/operator.

[SiNcE_1985]

I'm not going to go exploring to locate some response out there somewhere. If it is a proper response, copy it and paste it here.

Oh, is that right?

It must be against your policy.

See where I went with that one?

a) Wrong and b) wrong.

a) It demonstrates <yet another> "god of the gaps" argument in which the theists have been placing forth for thousands of years now.

Whatever you say, pal.

b) "Generic deism" must be demonstrated before you get to instead leap directly to 'generic theism'.

Well, deism is theism...the only difference is with theism, God cares.

With deism, he doesn't.

Actually, you strike me as an almost deist.

Not quite a resident of deist-ville, but in & out the town looking at the scenery and considering moving there.

But yeah, I get your point on deism.

Then I guess we are done here.

Yeah, at the name of Jesus...flee.

All it took, for you to not make that case, was one video and also a single response from benchwarmer to demonstrate that the Bible's veracity, regarding the events surrounding a "resurrection claim", are more than sus

All it takes is to accept Christ for the free gift (free to you) of salvation.

I know, right...? Just like I still cannot wrap my head around how time and gravity works, using mere common sense. It must be "goddidit" to make it more palpable for me then, via common sense

Until you demonstrate an actual builder/operator of 'brains', like we can easily do with 'computers', all we see is thought 'emerging' from brains. The brain looks to be the source of thought. I would be more than happy to be demonstrated to the contrary. You say source thought comes from elsewhere. Please prove it. Prove the existence of the builder/operator.

Well, I will await clownboat's response...you know, someone that is actually engaging what I say instead of dismissive repeats.

[SiNcE_1985]

Well, you are right and wrong, yet again. The evolutionary process not only is a workable explanation for the increase in complexity and sophistication of bioforms in morphology and mentality, but there is sequential evidence for it, not to say, Proof.

I appreciate your humble and honest response to the fact that there is no proof for it.

But I now must accuse you of being right and wrong here.

Right: There is no proof for the natural origins of consciousness.

Wrong: However, there is sequential evidence for it.

I can't even give you that much

Goddunnit creation has nothing but an old book of imaginary stories and argument from incredulity 'I don't understand it, so it can't be true'.

But I'm not basing it off what I don't understand.

I am basing it on what I do understand.

And even if it (ID/IC) was valid, it wouldn't tell you which god or religion.

Which is the bit you got right - the actual argument is the evidential support for Christianity and specifically, the resurrection. If that is built on sand, the whole edifice collapses.

Sure, Christian theism would collapse...which would only mean that the quest for any other specific god continues.

[TRANSPONDER]

Well, you are right and wrong, yet again. The evolutionary process not only is a workable explanation for the increase in complexity and sophistication of bioforms in morphology and mentality, but there is sequential evidence for it, not to say, Proof.

I appreciate your humble and honest response to the fact that there is no proof for it.

But I now must accuse you of being right and wrong here.

Right: There is no proof for the natural origins of consciousness.

Wrong: However, there is sequential evidence for it.

I can't even give you that much

Goddunnit creation has nothing but an old book of imaginary stories and argument from incredulity 'I don't understand it, so it can't be true'.

But I'm not basing it off what I don't understand.

I am basing it on what I do understand.

And even if it (ID/IC) was valid, it wouldn't tell you which god or religion.

Which is the bit you got right - the actual argument is the evidential support for Christianity and specifically, the resurrection. If that is built on sand, the whole edifice collapses.

Sure, Christian theism would collapse...which would only mean that the quest for any other specific god continues.

I believe that I said there is no 100% proof either way. But the 'sequential evidence' hands the go -to to evolution as the explanation. The weight of credence goes to an evolutionary explanation of consciousness. Ascribing it to a god requires dismissal of the evidence and relying on faith and that doesn't tell you which god.

As you say, the search for something else may continue. But even looking for a different god assumes that there is a god to be searched for, so that quest is as faithbased and therefore without evidence support as the search for a specific god. You really have nothing but Faith here. If you 'understand' anything in support of theism more than that (for an explanation of Consciousness) I shall be fascinated to hear it.

And even if that search was going on any case for any particular religion (other than Scientology and Buddhism, perhaps) would have collapsed. That will do secularist humanism very nicely, thanks.

[POI]

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.

Whatever you say, pal.

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.

Well, deism is theism...the only difference is with theism, God cares.

That point alone, is a huge difference. You also left out that this creator could be illogical. You also left out that this creator could be a trickster. You also left out polytheism. You do not logically get to jump from this topic, directly to Jesus. Sorry.

But yeah, I get your point on deism.

All it takes is to accept Christ for the free gift (free to you) of salvation.

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?

Well, I will await clownboat's response...you know, someone that is actually engaging what I say instead of dismissive repeats.

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?