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....

[otseng]

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

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

Moderator Comment

Please just keep it moving without the coded insinuations.

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.

[Diogenes]

The ultimate epistemological problem for those who believe in the supernatural or gods is that BOTH naturalists AND 'believers' accept science, use science, history and other empirical methodologies to prove their points and support their arguments. This validates the use of science by and for both 'sides;' however, only the religionists add 'faith' as a reliable way of knowing.

Of course some believers make the feckless and unsupported claim that science also uses faith, but this is incorrect and probably comes from mistaking probability calculation for 'faith.' This is the logical fallacy called 'equivocation.'

[SiNcE_1985]

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.

The idea that life originated from nonliving material...and that mindless processes can create mental constructs...those are examples of the fantasies you speak of.

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.

Strawman.

No one is asking for science to support supernatural claims..as science can't even support it's own natural claims.

In fact, we are having this very discussion PRECISELY because of science' inability to demonstrate how such alleged natural phenomenon could possibly occur under natural law.

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.

You've missed the point.

Smh.

[TRANSPONDER]

You've missed the point, too. You think the point is 'If science can't explain demonstrate and prove that the universe came from nothing, Life came from inert matter and consciousness came from cranial stodge....." (never mind Believers refusing to accept the evidence and insisting on it happening all the time before their eyes and Then they'd say 'Prove it isn't God doing that') then they Think that Jesusgod is the default answer.

It isn't, and never wast. 'Don't know' is the correct answer, and even if creationists could prove it was a god doing it (and by God, they've tried) that still would not say which one, and Creationists know it (1). The real point is Bible (specifically Gospel) reliability and that has always been the only argument for Christianity rather than for Deism.

But even then, the consciousness argument is the weakest of the Big three. Never mind how the Universe or even Life started. The evidence is that the first bioforms were blobs and fronds (Pre - Cambrian fossils) and lifeforms evolved through Cambrian sea - critters to reptilian land critters and then to mammal critters, and the animal minds evolved along with the bioforms and ended up with the smarter critters and humans trying to catch up.

That is what the evidence tells us even without the research into how lobes of the brain activate with particular thoughts, or how the thoughts fail when the brain gets sick.

All the evidence points to the brain doing the mind and it was an evolutionary process and Nothing whatsoever makes decent evidence for a god doing it, never mind a particular one. To repeat, Giddunnit is not the default theory.

The point is that the creationists have nothing but Faithclaims and denial, as well as Red herrings and the good old last ditch atheist stumper: "Who made everything, then?" Never mind where I suspect we have got to, which is impudent denial of everything just to wind an atheist up for Jesus

(1) following the Dover trial, Creationists tried to disassociate I/C from the Bible by arguing that I/C scientifically proved a creator but they made no claim about which one (though they believed it was Biblegod).

[Diogenes]

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.

The idea that life originated from nonliving material...and that mindless processes can create mental constructs...those are examples of the fantasies you speak of.

Not only is this a non-responsive reply; you make a false assumption. Your false assumption is apparently based on an a priori claim, that "just because you say so" life and thought cannot come from matter. In fact you make several unwarranted assumptions and fail to define your terms.
What do you mean by "non living?" If you had even the slightest inkling of the work on abiogenesis, you would not make such sophomoric claims and unwarranted assumptions.
How do you define 'life?' The question is more complicated than you may realize. Until recently viruses were not considered living. Now they are. Or are they?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2837877/

Similar questions are being asked today about the nature of 'thought' and 'mind.' AI is bringing these questions to a head. How do 100 billion neurons and their 100 trillion connections produce 'mind?' Calling mind 'soul' or 'spirit' and hypothesizing that it is just a magic gift from an unknown source [God?] answers none of these questions.

[SiNcE_1985]

Not only is this a non-responsive reply; you make a false assumption. Your false assumption is apparently based on an a priori claim, that "just because you say so" life and thought cannot come from matter. In fact you make several unwarranted assumptions and fail to define your terms.

Um, no..I did more than just make a claim.

I built an actual paragraph upon paragraph case for my position...a position that you've failed to address thus far.

What do you mean by "non living?" If you had even the slightest inkling of the work on abiogenesis, you would not make such sophomoric claims and unwarranted assumptions.
How do you define 'life?' The question is more complicated than you may realize. Until recently viruses were not considered living. Now they are. Or are they?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2837877/

No bio or techno babble needed.

Life..

"the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death."

Growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death.

Notice that consciousness isn't even mentioned...because that will put things in a whole nother' dimension.

Just an impossible thing to accomplish.

Similar questions are being asked today about the nature of 'thought' and 'mind.' AI is bringing these questions to a head. How do 100 billion neurons and their 100 trillion connections produce 'mind?' Calling mind 'soul' or 'spirit' and hypothesizing that it is just a magic gift from an unknown source [God?] answers none of these questions.
[/size]

Those questions were/are answered.

You just don't like the answer.

And last I checked, AI requires intelligent design, doesn't it?

[TRANSPONDER]

Not only is this a non-responsive reply; you make a false assumption. Your false assumption is apparently based on an a priori claim, that "just because you say so" life and thought cannot come from matter. In fact you make several unwarranted assumptions and fail to define your terms.

Um, no..I did more than just make a claim.

I built an actual paragraph upon paragraph case for my position...a position that you've failed to address thus far.

What do you mean by "non living?" If you had even the slightest inkling of the work on abiogenesis, you would not make such sophomoric claims and unwarranted assumptions.
How do you define 'life?' The question is more complicated than you may realize. Until recently viruses were not considered living. Now they are. Or are they?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2837877/

No bio or techno babble needed.

Life..

"the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death."

Growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death.

Notice that consciousness isn't even mentioned...because that will put things in a whole nother' dimension.

Just an impossible thing to accomplish.

Similar questions are being asked today about the nature of 'thought' and 'mind.' AI is bringing these questions to a head. How do 100 billion neurons and their 100 trillion connections produce 'mind?' Calling mind 'soul' or 'spirit' and hypothesizing that it is just a magic gift from an unknown source [God?] answers none of these questions.
[/size]

Those questions were/are answered.

You just don't like the answer.

And last I checked, AI requires intelligent design, doesn't it?

You wrote paragraph upon paragraph of invalid and irrational argument that was refuted by Diogenes. Paragraph upon paragraph of rubbish is still rubbish. Including the nonsense about Viruses. From long since, they were seen as somewhere between living and non -
living. Doesn't that just show that Life is not so much unlike unliving biochemical organisms and what they do to survive?

You talk of 'technobabble'. What is your 'definition'' of Life other than technobabble to try to make Life some magical property that cannot come from inert biochemicals - except that it demonstrably does by a process that seems to require biology, not a god? If that is not the purpose, what was the point of even defining it? Never mind going onto Consciousness which you remove to 'another dimension' as though it was more magical even than Life, when it is just as easily claimed to be evolutionary biology, which we know exists and explains all known processes of life and brain activity, and this is the default hypothesis for any unknowns.

'God' is simply a faithclaim without a scrap of decent evidence for it. And your rhetorical trick about AI requiring a (human) designer is irrelevant. Planting grain in a cultivated environment or breeding animals with an Intent does not mean that it cannot happen quite naturally without a bod being involved, and Life, Mind and bio - activity does not require an intelligent controller, either human or divine.

[SiNcE_1985]

You wrote paragraph upon paragraph of invalid and irrational argument that was refuted by Diogenes.

Really? Think so?

Geez. I'm sorry you feel that inaccurate way.

Paragraph upon paragraph of rubbish is still rubbish.

If I called your posts rubbish, my post will get reported and Otseng will gladly and without haste ding me for it.

You call my post rubbish, no one reports it and everyone turns a blind eye to it.



A crying shame.

Including the nonsense about Viruses. From long since, they were seen as somewhere between living and non -
living. Doesn't that just show that Life is not so much unlike unliving biochemical organisms and what they do to survive?

Do you need me to explain to you the difference between a human being and a virus?

You talk of 'technobabble'. What is your 'definition'' of Life other than technobabble to try to make Life some magical property that cannot come from inert biochemicals - except that it demonstrably does by a process that seems to require biology, not a god? If that is not the purpose, what was the point of even defining it?

My definition is what I shared.

And if you think that life requires nothing but biology, then I challenge you to go in a lab and do some biology.

Don't just talk about it, be about it.

Never mind going onto Consciousness which you remove to 'another dimension' as though it was more magical even than Life, when it is just as easily claimed to be evolutionary biology, which we know exists and explains all known processes of life and brain activity, and this is the default hypothesis for any unknowns.

All talk, no action.

Go in a lab, and produce life from nonliving material...and if you are lucky enough to pull off that stunt, then get that life to begin to think and talk.

I'll wait.

'God' is simply a faithclaim without a scrap of decent evidence for it. And your rhetorical trick about AI requiring a (human) designer is irrelevant. Planting grain in a cultivated environment or breeding animals with an Intent does not mean that it cannot happen quite naturally without a bod being involved, and Life, Mind and bio - activity does not require an intelligent controller, either human or divine.

More talk?

[Clownboat]

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

Pride comes before a fall.
Your questions have nothing to do with what science can or can't answer. YOU specifically asking questions is irrelevant. Science cannot answer how many angels can balance on the head of a pin even if you are the one to ask the question.
Copy/past to save time and sanity: "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."
I have no idea how you read that and somehow managed to take it personally.

I already knew that

It doesn't seem that you did. Hopefully you now have a better understanding.

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

Why you think scientific limitation would have anything to do with you is lost on me. Please provide just one effect from an untestable assumption or conclusion about the supernatural.

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".

For the love of all that is holy, if you have actual meat and potatoes that you would like addressed, please ask. It is not fair to expect me to pick out what I think is preaching compared to meat and potatoes.

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

Please get to the crux of your post. Try to avoid so much preaching.

"Taught" implies intelligence.

I reject this premise. Please see a book and how they can teach.

Intelligence requires a mind.

OK.

Nature has no mind and is not intelligent.

OK

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

OK. I have learned so very little. Please explain why you took the time to type these words.
Nature didn't create drawings of people... therefore....?

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

Please, I beg you. Make them. Try to avoid all the preaching as they may get hidden within.

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

Then call me out! Don't just say I failed. Post what I failed to address and if I continue to fail, it will be made known to the readers.

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

Quite the opposite. Again, if I missed points due to your preaching, please ask them again (and avoid the preaching if you can) and I'll address them.

I have no fear that consciousness could come from somewhere other than a working brain and I'm interested in hearing any logical arguments you might have. The same is not true for you I note. You need consciousness to come from elsewhere in order to maintain a previously held religious belief. This evokes emotions in you. Don't pretend that you and I are equal in this regard as I don't have a dog in this fight (still find it interesting to discuss though).