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]

The rest of my points above have been untouched by you

"The rest of my points"

Let me know when an actual point has been made.

, but I wanted to drive home one other point that you still did not get; even though I already explained that one too.

Yes, because you are too smart for me to keep up with, oh wise one.

If copious amounts of people were seriously arguing for Santa Claus, you might then find me on a 'Debating Santa" forum.

Or you can join the "leave people alone because their views don't concern you" 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.

I am the proud proponent of your challenged skepticism.

[POI]

Let me know when an actual point has been made.

Oh, that's easy. The ones you conceded in post 48.

[Clownboat]

Because one question begs another.

It is called a follow-up question.

You do understand what a follow-up question is, correct?

It was and is still a dodge. You don't want to address the fact that consciousness cannot be detected without a brain, so you dodge this observation and instead ask other questions, one of which was the brain chilling, smoking a blunt!

If the brain originated before consciousness, and everyone knows that this whole evolutionary process takes hundreds of millions of years for one teeny tiny change to occur...you are basically insinuating that the brain was sitting there for X amount of time before consciousness emerged.

I never insinuated what you claim. Before a brain was capable of having internal dialog, I would assume it was controlling bodily functions and such. You suggest chilling and smoking blunts which makes you hard to take seriously. You're also wrong about teeny tiny changes needing hundreds of millions of years to occur, but that only puts on display your lack of knowledge about that which you argue against.

I simply asked you what was the brain doing in all that time.

It is a legitimate question, one of which I'd like an answer to as I attempt to unpack this mess.

Answers to this ridiculous question have been supplied. It's as if you don't know what brains do besides for seeming to supply consciousness and that is on you.

The gap has been filled with "Goddidit".
And the gap is so tightly filled that there is no leaks or air getting through it.

Please show that you speak the truth or kindly retract your statement for being one of faith which holds no weight in reasoned debate.

Is that so the gods have somewhere to be inserted, or do you not want to tackle the fact that consciousness cannot be detected without a functioning brain as that would then suggest that consciousness is an emergent property of a working brain?

Baseless assertion.

Nope, the above is an observation.
If I'm wrong, please suggest where consciousness can be detected outside of a functioning brain.

If you cannot explain and/or demonstrate how a chunk of matter can emerge mental states of self awareness, then you have a faith based atheistic (naturalistic) system.

Stop being so wrong please. I don't need to demonstrate how a brain supplies consciousness (there are hypothesizes if you care to investigate) to make the observation that consciousness cannot be detected without a functioning brain which suggest that consciousness is an emergent property of a working brain. If you cannot come up with any reason to doubt this reasonable observation, then that is on you and your position should likely be more open rather than just inserting one of the many available god concepts as the source.

"Consciousness is an emergent property of a working brain".

Easy to say.

Hard to prove.

Derp. That's because it is unproven. We have observations and hypothesizes though. You have a faith based claim and name some unknown god as being the cause. Your approach stops future learning, mine leaves it open and will allow future discoveries.

Imagine if the claim that the gods cause the rain was never questioned because people just inserted their favorite god as the cause. That is all you are doing here.

Have you observed something that would require consciousness to be something outside of a functioning mind?

Yes.

It is apparent that emotions like happiness, sadness, anger, etc..

Those emotions are not experienced by anything in my brain.

You need to learn that which you debate against.
Scientists have identified a specific region of the brain called the amygdala, as the part of the brain that processes fear, triggers anger, and motivates us to act. Researchers have also found that the prefrontal cortex is the area of the brain that controls reasoning, judgment and helps us think logically before we act.
https://psychcentral.com/blog/anger/201 ... he-brain#1

None of the electrons/neurons in my brain are happy or sad.

You ignore the 'whole' by only by making this about what the 'whole' is made of. See above, no one outside of yourself is suggesting that electrons/neurons are what processes such emotions.
You make a strawman argument in order to have something to try to knock down.

So, who is experiencing these emotions?

You taint your learning by inserting a 'who'. Parts of the brain are processing these emotions. The parts have now been supplied to you and you can amend your thinking.

It is as if there is an immaterial "me" (self) that experiences these emotions.

That is only because you want such a thing to be true. Again, we know what parts of the brain process these emotions.

And this "self" is completely independent of my physical self.

Incorrect, the amygdala and the prefrontal cortex are very much not independent from your physical self.

Now, what does this mean?

I can't answer this as it would likely warrant a moderator giving me a warning even though my answer would be honest.

This means that your mind and brain (body) are not the same thing (law of identity).

Please show a 'mind' absent of a brain if you want to even slightly attempt to address my observation. I'm certainly not claiming that the mind and brain are the same as the mind refers to our ability to think, feel, and engage in physical activity. The brain, on the other hand, refers to the physical organ in our head that supports/processes these functions.

Nor can your brain be the sole originator of your mental self...because let's say you had a human brain that you shaped/configured.

And you wanted the brain to feel the emotion of sadness.

Where would you get this emotion from?

From the amygdala.

First you'd have to get the brain conscious in the first place...to give it the ability to feel emotion.

False. A brain does not need to be conscious in order to make your heart beat. It's the brain doing what it does. You should learn about the amygdala and prefrontal cortex.

And then you'd have to obtain the actual emotion.

Now this is where you say "it doesn't work like that!!"

And you will proceed to give any typical atheistic (with a naturalistic twist) response as to why it doesn't work like that.

This is just a weak attempt to poison the well and doesn't deserve a response.

Yet, on your apparent view...you have a mindless, blind process that was able to get the brain into conveniently shaped skull, and also give it consciousness!!!

Mindless yes, blind no. Please correct your thinking.

Um, the point is, context is important and anything can appear to be a contradiction if all you want to do is take a certain part that you thinks serves you best and run with it without reading the context behind it.

Once again, that there are contradictions in the Bible is not the topic of this thread.

[Clownboat]

Or you can join the "leave people alone because their views don't concern you" forum.

This bothers me a bit and here is why.

Atheists, those who currently don't find any of the available god concepts as being believable leave room for believers of the gods to exist. Believe in your god, I (the generic atheist) just don't currently find the arguments compelling or really any different than arguments for competing gods, so I therefore withhold belief until that changes.
Believers do not leave room for atheists or other religious people because they believe they have answers to currently unknowable things. Pretending to know is the problem. Atheists in general are not saddled with this problem. Therefore hearing a religious person say 'leave people alone because their views don't concern you' is like trying to slay with irony IMO.

For example.
Atheist: I currently don't find your reasoning for the god concept you argue for to be compelling, but I'm open to hearing better reasoning if there is any. (This leave room for those that currently think differently).
Christian theist: My god concept made the world, supplied consciousness, loves you, but will send you to hell if you don't accept it. (There is no room for anyone that currently thinks differently).

Readers, ask yourself as to which position you think is better for society.

[otseng]

Yes, because you are too smart for me to keep up with, oh wise one.

Moderator Comment

Please avoid making personal sarcastic remarks.

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.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #54]

Readers, ask yourself as to which position you think is better for society.

I am convinced the position you are putting forward is "better for society." In other words, I have been convinced by the evidence that Jesus was resurrected from the dead. I do not insist that everyone come to the conclusions I have, and I do not insist that society should be governed by the beliefs I hold. This means, if there are Christians who insist they must and have to be correct, when they cannot demonstrate this to be the case, and then go on to insist that society should be governed upon the beliefs they hold, then they are being unreasonable.

On the other hand, if there are those who want to insist there is no reason to believe the Christian claims, which they were once convinced of themselves, when they cannot in any way demonstrate this to be the case, then you have one who is being unreasonable. I can assure you that simply because you had no reason to believe what you were once convinced of, does not in any way demonstrate there would be no reason to believe what you were once convinced of. The only thing this demonstrates is, it does not take a whole lot to convince you. In other words, it did not take a whole lot to convince you Christianity was true, and therefore it did not take a whole lot to convince you it was false.

The better way is to acknowledge that there are facts, and evidence for the resurrection, and some of us look at the facts, and evidence and come to one conclusion, while there are others who come to a different conclusion, both acknowledging there is reason on both sides, and in this way, we are not insisting that either side must or has to be correct, but are rather conversing with each other attempting to discover what it is the other believes, and why they believe it, in order to have a conversation which may help all those involved.

It seems to me you are saying that we should all "leave room for those who think differently" and I am on board with this, as long as one side or the other does not attempt to enforce what they believe upon the other, and I will agree that it is MOSTLY Christians who are attempting to enforce what they believe upon others, which I have been actively fighting against. However, simply because this is true, does not in any way demonstrate there would be no reason to believe the claims of the resurrection, nor does the fact that you were once convinced for no reason at all, demonstrates there would be no reason to believe.

[Clownboat]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #54]

Readers, ask yourself as to which position you think is better for society.

I am convinced the position you are putting forward is "better for society." In other words, I have been convinced by the evidence that Jesus was resurrected from the dead. I do not insist that everyone come to the conclusions I have, and I do not insist that society should be governed by the beliefs I hold. This means, if there are Christians who insist they must and have to be correct, when they cannot demonstrate this to be the case, and then go on to insist that society should be governed upon the beliefs they hold, then they are being unreasonable.

On the other hand, if there are those who want to insist there is no reason to believe the Christian claims, which they were once convinced of themselves, when they cannot in any way demonstrate this to be the case, then you have one who is being unreasonable. I can assure you that simply because you had no reason to believe what you were once convinced of, does not in any way demonstrate there would be no reason to believe what you were once convinced of. The only thing this demonstrates is, it does not take a whole lot to convince you. In other words, it did not take a whole lot to convince you Christianity was true, and therefore it did not take a whole lot to convince you it was false.

The better way is to acknowledge that there are facts, and evidence for the resurrection, and some of us look at the facts, and evidence and come to one conclusion, while there are others who come to a different conclusion, both acknowledging there is reason on both sides, and in this way, we are not insisting that either side must or has to be correct, but are rather conversing with each other attempting to discover what it is the other believes, and why they believe it, in order to have a conversation which may help all those involved.

It seems to me you are saying that we should all "leave room for those who think differently" and I am on board with this, as long as one side or the other does not attempt to enforce what they believe upon the other, and I will agree that it is MOSTLY Christians who are attempting to enforce what they believe upon others, which I have been actively fighting against. However, simply because this is true, does not in any way demonstrate there would be no reason to believe the claims of the resurrection, nor does the fact that you were once convinced for no reason at all, demonstrates there would be no reason to believe.

To the underlined... there certainly are reasons to believe in god concepts.
- God concepts provide answers as to why we are here, what happens to us and our loved ones after we die and a place to go for those we consider evil for example. Humans tend to fear what they don't understand, so the gods remove said fear by providing these answers (More than just what I listed above, like why is the earth quaking or why did that mountain erupt and other now understood things for which the gods are no longer needed, but once were). These are/were reasons to believe in one or more of the gods and I acknowledge it.
- God concepts are also a mechanism for rulers to control their population, even to the extent of getting the population to support genocide. In some instances, for no other reason than for the other humans believing in a different god concept.

Humans throughout all known time and throughout the entire globe it seems have invented gods, the examples above I would assume are the reasons. Do you have a different thought as to why these god concepts came about? If people from Asia came to the Americas 15,000 years ago as is currently thought, by what mechanism did their god concepts come about?

To the bold:
There is no known mechanism for three day old dead bodies to reanimate to life is one reason.
The bodies of all the dead saints that came out of their tombs to walk the streets of Jerusalem would have been noted in material outside of religious promotional material for another.

Matthew 27:52-53 and the tombs broke open. The bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. (53) They came out of the tombs after Jesus’ resurrection and went into the holy city and appeared to many people.

I do agree that we should leave room for those that think differently. I note that atheism allows this in a much better way when compared to a religious idea that outsiders deserve to burn in a hell for eternity for their lack of believing for one example. The majority of atheists are just not convinced (I'm leaving out strong atheists obviously), this leaves room for being convinced if sufficient reasoning is supplied. A religious person is already convinced and accepts the provided claims. This doesn't leave much room for being convinced that another god concepts may be valid.

You mentioned that you have facts and evidence that a 3 day old corpse reanimated to life sometime in the past. Please provide what you consider to be the best fact that this happened or at least the evidence you have that it indeed happened. Much appreciated!

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #57]

You waste time bringing up the "god concepts" because I did not bring them into the equation. Rather, I am claiming there is evidence for the resurrection, which has nothing to do with the reasons you bring in for "god concepts". My friend, the fact that we have scholars who attempt to come up with alternative explanations for the facts, and evidence we have for the resurrection surely demonstrates there are facts, evidence, and reasons to believe the resurrection, otherwise there would be no reason for the alternative explanations. This is not at all like other religions in which the scholars can say that it is simply a man-made religion which folks are deceived into believing, but is rather based upon what is at least claimed to be real historical events, which would be next to impossible for the early followers of Christ to pull off in the face of those who would have had every reason to put the movement down. This is exactly why a good number of scholars today are coming to the conclusion that these early followers were at least convinced they had seen Jesus alive after death, which means there was no sort of hoax involved on their part, and the reason they are coming to such a conclusion is that there is no other explanation which could explain all the facts, and evidence we have. In fact, there are now scholars who will not even attempt to come up with alternative explanations, exactly because they understand that there are no other explanations which can explain all the facts, and evidence we have. In other words, the scholars who dedicate their lives to the study of these things, know good and well that as far as the Christian claims are concerned, it is not as simple as the whole thing was made up, exactly because of the facts, and evidence we have which must have some sort of explanation.

In other words, it is not as simple as you would have us to believe simply by pointing to things such as,

"There is no known mechanism for three day old dead bodies to reanimate to life is one reason.
The bodies of all the dead saints that came out of their tombs to walk the streets of Jerusalem would have been noted in material outside of religious promotional material for another."

If it were that simple, the scholars could simply point out such things, and leave it at that, but they understand that it is not at all that simple in the least, and that is because of the facts, and evidence involved. The fact of the matter is what you bring up above does not at all demonstrate there would be no reason to believe the claims but is rather a cause for doubt and there is a tremendous difference. In other words, there is a tremendous difference between what may be a cause for doubt, as opposed to there being no reason at all to believe the claims.

With all the above being the case, I understand there are very good reasons to believe the claims, and I also understand there may be reasons to doubt, and I have no problem at all with those who doubt, nor do I have a problem with those who outright do not believe in the least. The problem comes in when there are those who doubt, and, or do not believe, who then want to go on to insist there would be no reason to believe the claims, especially when such a person claims to have been convinced of the claims themselves.

So then, to be clear, I have no problem with those who doubt, do not believe, nor even those who may have once believed but no longer believe. The problem comes in when and if these folks want to go on to insist there would be no reason to believe.

[Diogenes]

It seems to me you are saying that we should all "leave room for those who think differently" and I am on board with this, as long as one side or the other does not attempt to enforce what they believe upon the other, and I will agree that it is MOSTLY Christians who are attempting to enforce what they believe upon others, which I have been actively fighting against.

I appreciate this candor. Why do you suppose it is that "... it is MOSTLY Christians who are attempting to enforce what they believe upon others...."
My issue is epistemological. Considering empirical observations and conclusions based on such data there is general agreement. Those conclusions can be tested. But when it comes to 'faith' or any sort of mystical or supernatural epistemology, the conclusions are not limited by reason or anything else. I am not so much discounting the possibility of a faith based deduction as I am concerned that ANYTHING can thereby be believed. Thus we have religion based people who don't believe we are hurting our environment, or that their god will fix it.

This has led to more pollution and lower life quality for all. ... not to mention the 'enforcement' you mention where in the extreme nonbelievers are tortured because they don't believe the 'right' things.

[SiNcE_1985]

It was and is still a dodge. You don't want to address the fact that consciousness cannot be detected without a brain, so you dodge this observation and instead ask other questions, one of which was the brain chilling, smoking a blunt!

A dodge?

Excuse me, but I made my point very clear that the origin of consciousness cannot be explained via natural processes...and I could care less how it can be detected by the brain only after the divine/supernatural circumstances of which it originated from in the first place.

I never insinuated what you claim. Before a brain was capable of having internal dialog, I would assume it was controlling bodily functions and such.

Now you have to explain the origins of the body...and what was the body doing before the brain developed its power to control anything, let alone the ability to become sentient.

You are in quicksand...and the more you try to maneuver you way out of the sand, the more/quicker you begin to sink.

You suggest chilling and smoking blunts which makes you hard to take seriously.

Ok, take "chilling and smoking blunts" out of the equation, and pretend i never said it.

Now, answer the question.

You're also wrong about teeny tiny changes needing hundreds of millions of years to occur, but that only puts on display your lack of knowledge about that which you argue against.

Oh, my bad. Since we are talking origins/evolution of the brain, I thought we had to sprinkle hundred of million of years into the theory.

You know, the same way we do with other stuff...like reptiles to birds, and whales from the land to the sea.

Because, you know, those things tend to take time.

Answers to this ridiculous question have been supplied.

The question ain't what is ridiculous.

The answers, on the other hand..

It's as if you don't know what brains do besides for seeming to supply consciousness and that is on you.

I am asking how did the brain become self-aware, from a previous state of unawareness.

You are clearly unable to answer that question...so that is on you.

Please show that you speak the truth or kindly retract your statement for being one of faith which holds no weight in reasoned debate.

Please show how consciousness emerged from the brain, or kindly retract your statement for being one of faith which holds no weight in reasoned debate.

Nope, the above is an observation.
If I'm wrong, please suggest where consciousness can be detected outside of a functioning brain.

Again, before we can talk detection, we have to talk origins.

The consciousness has to originate before it can be detected by anything.

We are not putting the cart before the horse.

My question remains; how can mental constructs originate from physical entities?

Stop being so wrong please. I don't need to demonstrate how a brain supplies consciousness (there are hypothesizes if you care to investigate) to make the observation that consciousness cannot be detected without a functioning brain which suggest that consciousness is an emergent property of a working brain.

So basically, "I don't need to make a positive case for my unsubstantiated claims".

Gotcha.

If you cannot come up with any reason to doubt this reasonable observation, then that is on you and your position should likely be more open rather than just inserting one of the many available god concepts as the source.

I already made my case, and it stands until someone can come along and bring contrary facts against anything I've said thus far.

So far, nothing.

Derp. That's because it is unproven. We have observations and hypothesizes though. You have a faith based claim and name some unknown god as being the cause. Your approach stops future learning, mine leaves it open and will allow future discoveries.

"It is unproven".

That's all I needed to see.

Imagine if the claim that the gods cause the rain was never questioned because people just inserted their favorite god as the cause. That is all you are doing here.

God is the cause of rain.

You need to learn that which you debate against.
Scientists have identified a specific region of the brain called the amygdala, as the part of the brain that processes fear, triggers anger, and motivates us to act. Researchers have also found that the prefrontal cortex is the area of the brain that controls reasoning, judgment and helps us think logically before we act.
https://psychcentral.com/blog/anger/201 ... he-brain#1

Not sure how any of that addresses my question.

When you are sad, your amygdala isn't sad..and neither your amygdala or prefrontal cortext are self-aware.

The self-aware part of you does not correspond to any physical part of you...although they correlate, they are independent...and one cannot explain the origins of the other.

No emotion that you experience is experienced by any physical part of you..making the "thing" that is experiencing these emotions (X).

X is unaccounted for (from a naturalistic standpoint).

However, X is accounted for from a spiritual standpoint.

You are more than just a blob of matter...you have an invisible part of you (spirit) that works in harmony with the physical part of you.

You were made in God's image, as God is spirit....thus, making your existence not just some byproduct of some freakish, random incident in nature...but you were wonderfully made in the image of the invisible God.

You ignore the 'whole' by only by making this about what the 'whole' is made of. See above, no one outside of yourself is suggesting that electrons/neurons are what processes such emotions.
You make a strawman argument in order to have something to try to knock down.

Um, electrons and nuerons are fundamental parts of brain activity, and I was just making the point that neither are experiencing emotions...and the same thing applies to any other physical substance within the brain...which covers just about EVERYTHING.

You taint your learning by inserting a 'who'. Parts of the brain are processing these emotions. The parts have now been supplied to you and you can amend your thinking.

I taint my learning by inserting "who". Yet, you've experienced the emotion of "happy" before, which answers the question of "who".

So, your apparent lack of understanding here is apparent.

However, the "who" question is still not answered.

That is only because you want such a thing to be true. Again, we know what parts of the brain process these emotions.

Every time you mention "process" in context with the brain, tells me that you just don't get it.

Incorrect, the amygdala and the prefrontal cortex are very much not independent from your physical self.

"I am sad".

Who is sad? The amygdala or the prefrontal cortext.

Now, I know you are itching to use the word "processes" here...so I will now ask, once the emotion is processed...who is experiencing the emotion?

Please show a 'mind' absent of a brain if you want to even slightly attempt to address my observation. I'm certainly not claiming that the mind and brain are the same as the mind refers to our ability to think, feel, and engage in physical activity. The brain, on the other hand, refers to the physical organ in our head that supports/processes these functions.

If the brain cannot be used to explain the origins of the mind (which I've demonstrated it can't), then it logically follows that the mind can only come from an unembodied mind.

Now, I know that this isn't the kind of answer that allows you to sleep well at night, but that sounds like a personal problem.

From the amygdala.

Where will the amygdala get the emotion of sadness from??

False. A brain does not need to be conscious in order to make your heart beat. It's the brain doing what it does. You should learn about the amygdala and prefrontal cortex.

Reading comprehension. Heartbeats have nothing to do with emotions, which is what I am speaking of.

Mindless yes, blind no. Please correct your thinking.

Oh, nature has eyes and vision, but no brain and mind?

Hmm.

Once again, that there are contradictions in the Bible is not the topic of this thread.

You set'em up, and I'll knock'em down.