"The mind is proof of god's existence."
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
31-01-2013, 04:53 PM (This post was last modified: 31-01-2013 04:58 PM by Vosur.)
RE: "The mind is proof of god's existence."
(31-01-2013 03:49 PM)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."
If I recall correctly, this popular argument actually goes along the lines of "There is/can be no omnibenevolent god because there is suffering in the world". I highly doubt that there are "many" atheists who have made the argument that you cited.

Additionally, the phrase "sticking god in the gaps" refers to the act of proposing god as an explanation for a phenomena that can (currently) not be explained by science. It is completely nonsensical to propose that atheists do or have ever done this.

[Image: IcJnQOT.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-02-2013, 07:15 AM
RE: "The mind is proof of god's existence."
This thread is wandering far from its original intention and I apologize.
The mind is not proof of God's existence, but its irreducible complexity (one man's mind on a scale rivaling all the world's libraries in depth of data) most certainly is evidence for if not an absolute proof for design. One can recall under hypnosis, for example, most anything that has ever happened, with a wealth of details. Astonishing!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-02-2013, 07:27 AM
RE: "The mind is proof of god's existence."
(01-02-2013 07:15 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  This thread is wandering far from its original intention and I apologize.
The mind is not proof of God's existence, but its irreducible complexity (one man's mind on a scale rivaling all the world's libraries in depth of data) most certainly is evidence for if not an absolute proof for design. One can recall under hypnosis, for example, most anything that has ever happened, with a wealth of details. Astonishing!


No, your understanding of recall under hypnosis is incorrect.

No one has proved that the mind is irreducibly complex. On the contrary, the evidence from neuroscience and psychology is that the mind is made up of a number of evolved gadgets. There is a continuum of complexity in brain and mind throughout the animal kingdom from simple to complex.

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
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
01-02-2013, 11:11 AM
RE: "The mind is proof of god's existence."
(01-02-2013 07:15 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  This thread is wandering far from its original intention and I apologize.
The mind is not proof of God's existence, but its irreducible complexity (one man's mind on a scale rivaling all the world's libraries in depth of data) most certainly is evidence for if not an absolute proof for design. One can recall under hypnosis, for example, most anything that has ever happened, with a wealth of details. Astonishing!


For fuck's sake, must I make this point again? I would have hoped you'd seen me spell this out for Lion IRC a few times already...

Just because we don't know, doesn't mean you get to assume what you want and pretend it's factually true or accurate.



Ignorance, lack of knowledge or understanding, is not proof of anything other than we don't know enough. It most certainly isn't proof for 'a god', let alone 'your god'. Or if you prefer a visual explanation...



[Image: 061-Your-inability-to-comprehend-biology...of-God.jpg]

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like EvolutionKills's post
01-02-2013, 11:41 AM
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?
Because there really are only those two choices: brain activity is neurological, or as I said, "some" brain activity is supernatural. I never said it's all or none, I never said god did it all. Nothing closed-minded about that. I did say it's all neurological which requires no supernatural mental attributes or some of it is beyond neurological, keyword being some.

As for your second point, I never said that. All I said was there are two possibilities, no supernatural activity or some supernatural activity, and any hypothesis that relies on the latter makes far less sense to me. How is that equated to calling someone a flake?

"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
[+] 1 user Likes Aseptic Skeptic's post
01-02-2013, 11:55 AM (This post was last modified: 01-02-2013 01:36 PM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: "The mind is proof of god's existence."
(01-02-2013 11:41 AM)Aseptic Skeptic 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?
Because there really are only those two choices: brain activity is neurological, or as I said, "some" brain activity is supernatural. I never said it's all or none, I never said god did it all. Nothing closed-minded about that. I did say it's all neurological which requires no supernatural mental attributes or some of it is beyond neurological, keyword being some.

As for your second point, I never said that. All I said was there are two possibilities, no supernatural activity or some supernatural activity, and any hypothesis that relies on the latter makes far less sense to me. How is that equated to calling someone a flake?


I concur, but feel I must also bring up another point to reinforce your own, and that is Occam's Razor...

Occam's razor (also written as Ockham's razor, Latin lex parsimoniae) is a principle of parsimony, economy, or succinctness used in logic and problem-solving. It states that among competing hypotheses, the one that makes the fewest assumptions should be selected.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor



So the first hypothesis, the one that does not posit supernatural intervention, makes far fewer assumptions; thus it is more likely closer to the truth because of it. Our constant technological progress has shown time and again that whenever we've used the supernatural to explain the unknown, it has always proven to be an invalid assumption. What makes you [PleaseJesus] think the brain and consciousness will turn out to be different than our assumption about a flat earth, the origin of lighting and other natural disasters, or the cause of disease and inheritance? All were assumed to be supernatural/divine, all have proven to have natural explanations that require no breaking of the laws of nature to accommodate.

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
01-02-2013, 01:24 PM
RE: "The mind is proof of god's existence."
ROFL! Not ad hom just saying, my friend.
Occam's razor says we have evolved via mechanistic processes over billions of years via punctuated equilibrium and catastrophe rather than being created?
There's no tenet of Atheism that falls under Occam's razor without being cut close enough to bleed to death by the same razor!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-02-2013, 01:27 PM (This post was last modified: 01-02-2013 01:32 PM by Vosur.)
RE: "The mind is proof of god's existence."
(01-02-2013 01:24 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Occam's razor says we have evolved via mechanistic processes over billions of years via punctuated equilibrium and catastrophe rather than being created?
No, Occam's razor tells us that the theory of evolution works without the assumption that a god has played any role in the process.

(01-02-2013 01:24 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  There's no tenet of Atheism that falls under Occam's razor without being cut close enough to bleed to death by the same razor!
Atheism is the absence of a belief in supernatural deities. It has no tenets that could be examined using Occam's razor.

[Image: IcJnQOT.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Vosur's post
01-02-2013, 01:28 PM
RE: "The mind is proof of god's existence."
(01-02-2013 01:24 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  ROFL! Not ad hom just saying, my friend.
Occam's razor says we have evolved via mechanistic processes over billions of years via punctuated equilibrium and catastrophe rather than being created?
There's no tenet of Atheism that falls under Occam's razor without being cut close enough to bleed to death by the same razor!
You don't seem to understand that evolution is the steady accumulation of change over time, with advantageous change retained and deleterious change not retained by differential survival.

The algorithm is elegantly simple and easy to understand.


That you have a hard time understanding that does not falsify 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
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
01-02-2013, 01:43 PM
RE: "The mind is proof of god's existence."
(01-02-2013 01:24 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  ROFL! Not ad hom just saying, my friend.
Occam's razor says we have evolved via mechanistic processes over billions of years via punctuated equilibrium and catastrophe rather than being created?
There's no tenet of Atheism that falls under Occam's razor without being cut close enough to bleed to death by the same razor!

Even though you phrased it badly ("tenet of Atheism" is nonsense since there are no such tenets, atheism is not a club or a religion or a belief system), I get what you mean. I'm even on your side here.

Occam's Razor is failing you because of your presupposition.

What if I phrase it your way? Which is more likely: (side note, I'm sticking with your definition of evolution because it's easier than trying to explain how it really works in this post)


1. A universe with god who doesn't interfere, evolution takes billions of years with trillions of micro-changes spurred by environment and catastrophe
or
2. A universe with god who just snaps his fingers and everything is instantly created?

In that case, I pick 2. Occam picks 2. Everyone picks 2. That is much easier, much more likely.

But that includes the presupposition "A universe with god"

Now let me phrase it my way. Which is more likely:
1. A universe without any supernatural deities, evolution takes billions of years with trillions of micro-changes spurred by environment and catastrophe
or
2. A universe somehow manages to spawn an immensely powerful, omnipotent, omniscient, supernatural, magical, perfect being without that being needing any explanation for his existence or any reason to exist or any mechanism by which he might exist, who just snaps his fingers and everything is instantly created for no obvious reason other than just because he wanted to, and then he hid himself from us and has never been seen since except by a few random people for a few centuries long ago in the middle east who still didn't see him but claimed they saw miracles and attributed them to him?


Now I pick 1. Occam picks 1. All atheists pick 1. But for some reason, theists still pick 2 - but it's not because they see it my way and pick 2, but rather, they still see the question the first way, your way, and ignore that we really should ask it the second way, if we're honest enough to do so.

"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
[+] 2 users Like Aseptic Skeptic's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: