"The mind is proof of god's existence."
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
31-01-2013, 03:03 PM
RE: "The mind is proof of god's existence."
(31-01-2013 01:27 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Very interesting Chas. So there is more to be learned in your closed system and nothing to be possibly learned outside that system.

The scene: 1600 AD

Matt: The moon? Someday, by God, man will walk on that alien planet.

Chas: I told you, it's a hole in the dome. We know that. There's nothing to walk on. Just because we haven't flown there yet doesn't mean there is room for any free thinking outside our closed system of knowledge.
No, the answer here is: Let's figure out how to fly up there and find out what it is, once and for all. Which is exactly what we did, 369 years after your conversation.

And the answer for neurology is to keep mapping the brain and figure out what we can, when we can, once and for all. Once the ENTIRE thing is mapped, we will then either have gaps to figure out or we won't. If we do map the ENTIRE thing and there are no gaps, your duality concept is debunked. If we map the ENTIRE thing and have gaps where we now can prove there is "mind" activity without neurological activity then your duality concept is viable.

Until then, we have two choices:

1. Hypothesize based on current knowledge and evidence: "mind" activity is a result of neurological responses in the brain.
2. Hypothesize based on random nonsense: some "mind" activity comes from unseen, undetectable, made-up external sources that have nothing to do with neurology.

It's all hypothetical, but it sure seems like option 1 makes way more sense.

"Whores perform the same function as priests, but far more thoroughly." - Robert A. Heinlein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Aseptic Skeptic's post
31-01-2013, 03:12 PM
RE: "The mind is proof of god's existence."
Quote:1. Hypothesize based on current knowledge and evidence: "mind" activity is a result of neurological responses in the brain.
2. Hypothesize based on random nonsense: some "mind" activity comes from unseen, undetectable, made-up external sources that have nothing to do with neurology.

It's all hypothetical, but it sure seems like option 1 makes way more sense.
Why did you limit yourself to 2 choices only? I picked neither one. I chose the wisest middle ground:
3. It is likely neurological but not confined to neurology. Chas's stance was closed minded.
Just like happenings in the natural world:
1. God didn't do it. 2. God did it all. 3. God and men have free will and some things are in God's purview and some in man's. I'm grateful that Jesus had salvation in His purview when He died and resurrected for us.
Your 1-2 punch seems as closed minded as Chas's comment on the face of it. Why are those your only two selections, 1) Totally neural and in the brain cavity (even though we both know the spinal cord nerves can respond to stimuli without wasting time going to the brain for processing) and 2) Anyone who disagrees with what I don't now know about neurology is a flake and a dualist?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-01-2013, 03:15 PM
RE: "The mind is proof of god's existence."
(31-01-2013 02:58 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
Quote:However, if you are trying to imply that human knowledge is a closed system, then no, it is not.

I am stating that the categorical, naturalist reponse of Chas could be paraphrased as "We cannot measure all thought as brain activity... yet."

If you support that position, you might as well as support any Christian's tenet that "We'll see God when we die, so there."

Chas's bias that we are not dualist (not that I care, proving we have a soul or are in a Matrix doesn't prove there is a God) colors his reponse to the truth that not all mind activity is measurable with his canard. He reminds me of people insisting the Moon is green cheese and obviating our need or desire to explore it in person.


Your words betray you.

You say Chas (and my own) position is no different to the A Priori assumption of a Christian.

The Chrisitan belief is an assumption of correctness, regardless. Chas' position would simply appear to be "We cannot show these things of your to be existent, so why include them in a model which is already far and away the best thing we have to explaining the phenomena. Until they can be shown, including them is pointless." (Sorry for putting words in yer mouth Chas, by all means; correct me if there is something wrong.) Chas' by your own wording, is open to future reform. A Christian very rarely will extend the same courtesy.




Fact is, there is no motivation for including your assumptions when there is no evidence to support them.

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
"Anti-environmentalism is like standing in front of a forest and going 'quick kill them they're coming right for us!'" - Jake Farr-Wharton, The Imaginary Friend Show.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-01-2013, 03:25 PM
RE: "The mind is proof of god's existence."
(31-01-2013 01:27 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Very interesting Chas. So there is more to be learned in your closed system and nothing to be possibly learned outside that system.

The scene: 1600 AD

Matt: The moon? Someday, by God, man will walk on that alien planet.

Chas: I told you, it's a hole in the dome. We know that. There's nothing to walk on. Just because we haven't flown there yet doesn't mean there is room for any free thinking outside our closed system of knowledge.
I don't see how you leap from my statement to your interpretation that I am closed-minded.

I was talking about where the evidence leads; there is no evidence supporting dualism.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-01-2013, 03:27 PM
RE: "The mind is proof of god's existence."
(31-01-2013 03:12 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
Quote:1. Hypothesize based on current knowledge and evidence: "mind" activity is a result of neurological responses in the brain.
2. Hypothesize based on random nonsense: some "mind" activity comes from unseen, undetectable, made-up external sources that have nothing to do with neurology.

It's all hypothetical, but it sure seems like option 1 makes way more sense.
Why did you limit yourself to 2 choices only? I picked neither one. I chose the wisest middle ground:
3. It is likely neurological but not confined to neurology. Chas's stance was closed minded.
Just like happenings in the natural world:
1. God didn't do it. 2. God did it all. 3. God and men have free will and some things are in God's purview and some in man's. I'm grateful that Jesus had salvation in His purview when He died and resurrected for us.
Your 1-2 punch seems as closed minded as Chas's comment on the face of it. Why are those your only two selections, 1) Totally neural and in the brain cavity (even though we both know the spinal cord nerves can respond to stimuli without wasting time going to the brain for processing) and 2) Anyone who disagrees with what I don't now know about neurology is a flake and a dualist?
I based my statement on the evidence, and I am open to new evidence. That is not the mark of a closed mind.

If you have evidence for dualism, please share it.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-01-2013, 03:29 PM
RE: "The mind is proof of god's existence."
Yes, you did put open words in Chas's closed words.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-01-2013, 03:33 PM
RE: "The mind is proof of god's existence."
(31-01-2013 03:12 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
Quote:1. Hypothesize based on current knowledge and evidence: "mind" activity is a result of neurological responses in the brain.
2. Hypothesize based on random nonsense: some "mind" activity comes from unseen, undetectable, made-up external sources that have nothing to do with neurology.

It's all hypothetical, but it sure seems like option 1 makes way more sense.
Why did you limit yourself to 2 choices only? I picked neither one. I chose the wisest middle ground:
3. It is likely neurological but not confined to neurology. Chas's stance was closed minded.
Just like happenings in the natural world:
1. God didn't do it. 2. God did it all. 3. God and men have free will and some things are in God's purview and some in man's. I'm grateful that Jesus had salvation in His purview when He died and resurrected for us.
Your 1-2 punch seems as closed minded as Chas's comment on the face of it. Why are those your only two selections, 1) Totally neural and in the brain cavity (even though we both know the spinal cord nerves can respond to stimuli without wasting time going to the brain for processing) and 2) Anyone who disagrees with what I don't now know about neurology is a flake and a dualist?
"wisest middle ground" Laughat
You only have this view because you start out with "God exists, therefore..." and interpret everything else accordingly. You are unable to think outside THAT box. Talk about closed-minded... Drinking Beverage

Remove god from the thinking and now what reason do you have for that middle ground?

"Religion has caused more misery to all of mankind in every stage of human history than any other single idea." --Madalyn Murray O'Hair
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-01-2013, 03:49 PM
RE: "The mind is proof of god's existence."
(31-01-2013 03:33 PM)Impulse Wrote:  
(31-01-2013 03:12 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Why did you limit yourself to 2 choices only? I picked neither one. I chose the wisest middle ground:
3. It is likely neurological but not confined to neurology. Chas's stance was closed minded.
Just like happenings in the natural world:
1. God didn't do it. 2. God did it all. 3. God and men have free will and some things are in God's purview and some in man's. I'm grateful that Jesus had salvation in His purview when He died and resurrected for us.
Your 1-2 punch seems as closed minded as Chas's comment on the face of it. Why are those your only two selections, 1) Totally neural and in the brain cavity (even though we both know the spinal cord nerves can respond to stimuli without wasting time going to the brain for processing) and 2) Anyone who disagrees with what I don't now know about neurology is a flake and a dualist?
"wisest middle ground" Laughat
You only have this view because you start out with "God exists, therefore..." and interpret everything else accordingly. You are unable to think outside THAT box. Talk about closed-minded... Drinking Beverage

Remove god from the thinking and now what reason do you have for that middle ground?

If I remove God as existing, I still have the logical possibility that someone/some thing outside my worldview/finite visibility acted. That's how ALL paradigm changes and scientific discoveries have occured.
Christians do have a tendency to "stick God in the gaps" as do non-Christians, even Atheists, as with many of the "There can't be a God because if He exists, He allows bad things to happen."
I'm very open minded. I'm sorry you came to the conclusion that theists are closed minded? How did that come to be your worldview?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-01-2013, 03:59 PM
RE: "The mind is proof of god's existence."
(31-01-2013 03:29 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Yes, you did put open words in Chas's closed words.
No, you don't understand what I said.

Please provide evidence of my closed-mindedness.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-01-2013, 04:18 PM
RE: "The mind is proof of god's existence."
PleaseJesus Wrote:If I remove God as existing, I still have the logical possibility that someone/some thing outside my worldview/finite visibility acted.
I have no clue how that applies to what was being discussed.

PleaseJesus Wrote:Christians do have a tendency to "stick God in the gaps" as do non-Christians, even Atheists, as with many of the "There can't be a God because if He exists, He allows bad things to happen."
How can that example be of an atheist "sticking God in the gaps" when it starts out with "there can't be a God"...?

PleaseJesus Wrote:I'm very open minded. I'm sorry you came to the conclusion that theists are closed minded? How did that come to be your worldview?
That's a big leap from what I said. I said your "middle ground" hypothesis to explain mind activity is closed-minded because it is based upon the starting premise "there is a God". How did you jump from a single point that you made to all theists?

"Religion has caused more misery to all of mankind in every stage of human history than any other single idea." --Madalyn Murray O'Hair
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: