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....

[Clownboat]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #88]

I have questions that science isn't in the position to answer.

Science has limits and can't answer certain types of questions, including those based on untestable assumptions and conclusions about the supernatural.
Untestable assumptions and conclusions about some supernatural realm is the domain of competing religious claims.

The scientific method got us to the moon. Religions fight with each other about which god put the moon there.
Therefore it is silly to compare the method we call science to that of mere religious claims.

It is also a very powerful feeling to convince oneself that it is meaningful to offer up questions that science can't answer. Suddenly a person can feel like they're the expert, and that is a good feeling. Why wouldn't such a person want to maintain that feeling?

[William]

So POI is therefore an agency of the brain that created POI.

And therein POI (as the agency created by the brain) is declaring to be the brain that created the agency.

A brain thus created POI and the agency thus declares itself to being the brain which created the agency, rather than being the agency the brain created.

In effect, the agency has declared that it is not really the agency but is really the brain.

However, what is not clear, is why the brain would create the agency for the purpose of having the agency then declare for the brain that the agency is the brain (rather than a product of thought (also agency) and where is the evidence that the agency is speaking truth and telling it as the brain would have it told?

The agency could be declaring false information perhaps designed to give the impression that the agency is actually its own creator, rather than being a creation of thought - rather than of being a created agency.

[Replying to POI in post #98]

Whatever you say William.

I am simply attempting to get clarification re your claim POI.

At any given time, the brain performs function(s) in which "my self-aware part" are both aware, and unaware of. All "my aware-parts' know is that all "brain-states" originate from the brain alone, (aware or unaware), until further notice.

Please define what you mean by "brain states".

Perhaps it has something to do with the thread title?

Also, wouldn't it be more appropriate re your claim to word that differently? Are "you" (the "awareness") the property of said brain or is that brain the property of "yours" (the awareness)?

I remember creating a thread I called "The Theist and non-Theist Brain" and this thread reminds me of that time I was exploring the idea...

eta

[SiNcE_1985]

Science has limits and can't answer certain types of questions, including those based on untestable assumptions and conclusions about the supernatural.

Untestable assumptions and conclusions about some supernatural realm is the domain of competing religious claims.

The scientific method got us to the moon. Religions fight with each other about which god put the moon there.
Therefore it is silly to compare the method we call science to that of mere religious claims.

It is also a very powerful feeling to convince oneself that it is meaningful to offer up questions that science can't answer. Suddenly a person can feel like they're the expert, and that is a good feeling. Why wouldn't such a person want to maintain that feeling?

Basically, a "Godofthegaps" accusation.

If you'd like to address the meat & potatoes of what I actually said in my last post to you, I'd love to hear it.

If not, I'll take the W and keep on pushing.

[POI]

Please define what you mean by "brain states".

Any 'thought'/"action" from the brain. Whether it be 'consciousness' or not, prove the source of any/all such thought/action(s) do not originate from the physical brain alone? (i.e.): The hypothalamus, a part of the human brain, regulates body temperature. Or is the claim that only the 'consciousness' part is not sourced from the brain alone?

(I) think (you) also know what (I) mean when (I) use these bracketed terms, verses "human vessel"

[Clownboat]

Basically, a "Godofthegaps" accusation.

It was a teaching lesson. You were provided the opportunity to update your thinking on what science can provide answers to compared to what it cannot provide answers to. Where science cannot provide answers is untestable assumptions and conclusions about the supernatural. Untestable assumptions and conclusions about some supernatural realm is the domain of competing religious claims.

If you'd like to address the meat & potatoes of what I actually said in my last post to you, I'd love to hear it.

From that post:
Gen 1:1 "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth".
"Without God, our existence is no more special than that of cockroaches or ants."
"Open your heart, and let God in."
"When God created you, he was able to make a marriage between the physical self, and the mental self...something that is impossible by way of natural processes."
"See Jesus of Nazareth."
"Yes, you are missing something...you are missing the love and grace of Jesus."
"Newsflash, amigo; you are special...you were created in the image of the living God...and he loves you...you were on his mind when he created you."
"Think about it...the God who created this universe loves you."
"Open your heart, brethren."
This is debate and none of this deserves a response. This stuff is important to you. You projecting it on to others does not make it important to them. Preaching is also against the rules on this debate site.

Perhaps you meant this from that post?:
"Well, if a blind person can't draw the person, then a blind process can't MAKE the person.
That's my reasoning."
A person can learn to draw without seeing, by replacing visual perceptions with tactile feedback. In pioneering experiments in the 1970s, psychologist John Kennedy at the University of Toronto taught adults who had never had sight before how to draw using a rubber mat placed under a sheet of drawing paper.
https://www.cooperhewitt.org/2018/03/30 ... ng%20paper.

If not, I'll take the W and keep on pushing.

If there is something from that post that you feel deserves a response, please relay it to me and I'll respond.

[William]

[Replying to POI in post #104]

Please define what you mean by "brain states".

Any 'thought'/"action" from the brain. Whether it be 'consciousness' or not, prove the source of any/all such thought/action(s) do not originate from the physical brain alone? (i.e.): The hypothalamus, a part of the human brain, regulates body temperature. Or is the claim that only the 'consciousness' part is not sourced from the brain alone?

That's why I asked if it has something to do with the thread title. Is "our brain" and "our brain on "God"" different and if so, please explain/clarify the difference.

Also, wouldn't it be more appropriate re your claim to word that differently? Are "you" (the "awareness") the property of said brain or is that brain the property of "yours" (the awareness)?

I remember creating a thread I called "The Theist and non-Theist Brain" and this thread reminds me of that time I was exploring the idea...

(I) think (you) also know what (I) mean when (I) use these bracketed terms, verses "human vessel"

When (you) say you "think" (I) "know what (you) mean" are you simply guessing or assuming that to being the case or is it something truthful (you) think (your) brain is telling you?

Generally there is a clear difference between what a person is and what a brain is, but (you) seem to be arguing against that and this is why I am asking questions of (you), that some clarity might be engaged with.

[POI]

[Replying to William in post #106]

So, (you) don't get confused, replace (I), (you), (me), (our), etc. with "it" or "the brain" or some other object void of actual "ownership". Please answer the following...

"Brain-states" - Any 'thought'/"action" from the brain. Whether it be 'consciousness' or not, prove the source of any/all such thought/action(s) do not originate from the physical brain alone? (i.e.): The hypothalamus, a part of the human brain, regulates body temperature. Or is the claim that only the 'consciousness' part is not sourced from the brain alone?

[SiNcE_1985]

It was a teaching lesson. You were provided the opportunity to update your thinking on what science can provide answers to compared to what it cannot provide answers to.

Oh, so science cannot provide answers to my questions as it relates to this subject?

I already knew that, but thanks for reinforcing that fact, though.

Where science cannot provide answers is untestable assumptions and conclusions about the supernatural.

Not my fault that science has limitations and lacks explanatory power to explain certain effects.

Untestable assumptions and conclusions about some supernatural realm is the domain of competing religious claims.

The fact that you cannot create consciousness or life from nonliving material is not a religious claim....that is an observed fact.

This observed fact has been tested, and is no assumption.

We are well past assumptions, we are stating the actual factuals now.

If you'd like to address the meat & potatoes of what I actually said in my last post to you, I'd love to hear it.
From that post:
Gen 1:1 "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth".
"Without God, our existence is no more special than that of cockroaches or ants."
"Open your heart, and let God in."
"When God created you, he was able to make a marriage between the physical self, and the mental self...something that is impossible by way of natural processes."
"See Jesus of Nazareth."
"Yes, you are missing something...you are missing the love and grace of Jesus."
"Newsflash, amigo; you are special...you were created in the image of the living God...and he loves you...you were on his mind when he created you."
"Think about it...the God who created this universe loves you."
"Open your heart, brethren."
This is debate and none of this deserves a response. This stuff is important to you. You projecting it on to others does not make it important to them. Preaching is also against the rules on this debate site.

Oh, so instead of actually addressing the crux of my former post to you, you went through the daunting task of piecing together little snippets of what I said to you about God over the course of 2 or 3 posts...just to accuse me of "preaching".

You did that, instead of addressing the crux of my post that actually pertains to the subject matter of this thread?

Wow.

Red herring fallacy.

Perhaps you meant this from that post?:
"Well, if a blind person can't draw the person, then a blind process can't MAKE the person.
That's my reasoning."
A person can learn to draw without seeing, by replacing visual perceptions with tactile feedback. In pioneering experiments in the 1970s, psychologist John Kennedy at the University of Toronto taught adults who had never had sight before how to draw using a rubber mat placed under a sheet of drawing paper.
https://www.cooperhewitt.org/2018/03/30 ... ng%20paper.

"Taught" implies intelligence.

Intelligence requires a mind.

Nature has no mind and is not intelligent.

Yet, it did not create drawings of people, it created actual living, breathing, sentient creatures.

Smh.

If there is something from that post that you feel deserves a response, please relay it to me and I'll respond.

Nonsense.

Relay it to you?

How about simply responding to the points I made in the post.

You made two posts to me since that post, and neither one addressed my points.

Oh, I get it, ignore it and it'll go away?



I'll just take the W and keep it moving.

[Diogenes]

It was a teaching lesson. You were provided the opportunity to update your thinking on what science can provide answers to compared to what it cannot provide answers to.

Oh, so science cannot provide answers to my questions as it relates to this subject?

I already knew that, but thanks for reinforcing that fact, though.

Where science cannot provide answers is untestable assumptions and conclusions about the supernatural.

Not my fault that science has limitations and lacks explanatory power to explain certain effects. ....

You are correct that science cannot answer all questions. This is not exactly a 'news flash.' For centuries we have agreed that fantasy is beyond the empirical realm.
Science does not address questions beyond the scope of observation. Terms that do not have operational definitions are not testable.

If you want to enter the realm of fantasy with it's wizards and warlocks, witches and werewolves, goblins and gods, then have fun, but don't expect science to support your fantastic claims.

But when you demand 'explanatory power' I have to laugh. Science can indeed explain things within it's scope. But not fantasy. Fantasy has no explanatory power for its claims. "God" and his 'workings' are not explainable, thus the fantasist continually states, "God works in mysterious ways." So you expect SCIENCE to explain what your own fantasies cannot? Good luck with that.

[TRANSPONDER]

None of the apologetics are the science or rather rational argument from observed evidence that is suggested. It is rather rhetoric comprising stock creationist arguments.
One can argue that we see life (and consciousness) grow out of inanimate matter all the time. Seeds for instance. The mechanics from which the inert biochemical become a life form (and even with reactions instincts and awareness) are observable (and genetical) and that is the hypothesis about how life stated and consciousness evolved. By reason of observation.

IF we were able to create life in a laboratory, that wouldn't be accepted as proof that it happened naturally, but as proof that it needed an intelligence to do it. It is a rhetorical apologetics trick designed to hand creationism the win which ever way it goes.

The real argument is that nobody knows for sure how it started, but abiogenesis at least has a mechanism for how it could happen, even it it hasn't been reproduced in a lab.

Creationism only has an act of magic, and even that doesn't tell us which god is supposed to have done it. The fact is the faithbased assumptions (it was a god, and we know which god) renders their argument irrational from the start and they cannot see it.

Put it this way; if we goddless were to concede the Big Three - origins of the Cosmos and universe, origins of Life and origins of consciousness were likely done by a god, we'd just say "Which god are we talking about?" It would not validate the god of the Bible, never mind Christianity (Islam uses the same argument for Allah).

The Big Three are irrelevant Unknowns and red herrings. The Real argument is about NT veracity and specifically reliability of the resurrection. If that fails, then origins of Life becomes an academic discussion and scientific speculation, which is all it ever was.