Evidence for God from Science

RickD wrote:

Audie wrote:RD, you simply assert that the mind is non physical, then walk away when challenged. Id say that may be the best move.

Audie, I realize my mistake now. I assume dualism to be true. And it seems you disagree.

That's why this is going nowhere. If you don't believe in God(a non-physical existence), then I can't expect you to agree that the human mind is in at least some respect, non-physical.

So, you can't recognize my question for what I'm asking, because to you, the mind has to be physical. Anyone that holds to the ToE as the be all, end all, would have trouble with anything spiritual. Hence, your reluctance to discuss philosophy.

So, like I said, it's a pointless discussion. Nevermind.

Rick, does non-physical existence imply God? my ventures into Buddhism are consistent with both non-physical mind alongside the pointlessness of making an internal decision as to the source. I don't buy into dualism of the body/mind but it seems perfectly reasonable to make such a distinction without invoking God.

Proinsias wrote:

RickD wrote:

Audie wrote:RD, you simply assert that the mind is non physical, then walk away when challenged. Id say that may be the best move.

Audie, I realize my mistake now. I assume dualism to be true. And it seems you disagree.

That's why this is going nowhere. If you don't believe in God(a non-physical existence), then I can't expect you to agree that the human mind is in at least some respect, non-physical.

So, you can't recognize my question for what I'm asking, because to you, the mind has to be physical. Anyone that holds to the ToE as the be all, end all, would have trouble with anything spiritual. Hence, your reluctance to discuss philosophy.

So, like I said, it's a pointless discussion. Nevermind.

Rick, does non-physical existence imply God? my ventures into Buddhism are consistent with both non-physical mind alongside the pointlessness of making an internal decision as to the source. I don't buy into dualism of the body/mind but it seems perfectly reasonable to make such a distinction without invoking God.

I don't think the non-physical necessarily implies God. But I think it needs something other than the ToE to explain it. Or at the very least, I think the existence of the human mind, implies purpose.

'Implies purpose' is hurting my head, red wine is compounding the issue. I will return after sleep, bacon & lots of tea.

Proinsias wrote:'Implies purpose' is hurting my head, red wine is compounding the issue. I will return after sleep, bacon & lots of tea.

Dont take it hard, I'm sure it was just a typo for "implicates".
Or "porpoise". Maybe both.

Hey Audie,

First, you do recognize the call for proof is unreasonable, yes ...

regardless of what aspect of science? well now... you may be challenged by the scientific resolution of either pure mathematics or logic without proofs !

I dont "know" the mind evolved. No one does, and that my friend, is the point. The argument is circular at best, therefore no one should hang their hat on one post or the other unless or until conclusive evidence of the mind's evolution is/can be verified.

Self awareness is an interesting mystery. I dont choose to assume its beyond investigation or understanding. Me neither, but today, in this conversation, it is not.

I also dont think the transition from non self aware to self aware is the vast leap that necessitates or implies the supernatural. Here we part company, I already miss you

I wonder what it was like, for each of us, when we did it as babies? Think we're getting closer here, but not sure. IMO, It almost certainly originates in the womb, prebirth.

It's a good conversation, but neither of us has a leg to stand on, scientifically. However, we can be mindful of evolution's deficiency in this subject's regard.

Proinsias wrote:'Implies purpose' is hurting my head, red wine is compounding the issue. I will return after sleep, bacon & lots of tea.

I'm definitely Scottish then. Because I really enjoy sleep, bacon, and lots of tea.

Och, you forgot the haggis!

Storyteller wrote:Och, you forgot the haggis!

The English ancestry in me hates haggis.

Me too! I want to like it but I have to confess I don`t.

EssentialSacrifice wrote:Hey Audie,

First, you do recognize the call for proof is unreasonable, yes ...

regardless of what aspect of science? well now... you may be challenged by the scientific resolution of either pure mathematics or logic without proofs !

I dont "know" the mind evolved. No one does, and that my friend, is the point. The argument is circular at best, therefore no one should hang their hat on one post or the other unless or until conclusive evidence of the mind's evolution is/can be verified.

Self awareness is an interesting mystery. I dont choose to assume its beyond investigation or understanding. Me neither, but today, in this conversation, it is not.

I also dont think the transition from non self aware to self aware is the vast leap that necessitates or implies the supernatural. Here we part company, I already miss you

I wonder what it was like, for each of us, when we did it as babies? Think we're getting closer here, but not sure. IMO, It almost certainly originates in the womb, prebirth.

It's a good conversation, but neither of us has a leg to stand on, scientifically. However, we can be mindful of evolution's deficiency in this subject's regard.

Well, let us know if the need for a supernatural entity to poof a mind into place is anything but an argument from ignorance.

Audie wrote:Well, let us know if the need for a supernatural entity to poof a mind into place is anything but an argument from ignorance.

That is the very definition of an argument from ignorance (literally).

RickD wrote:I don't think the non-physical necessarily implies God. But I think it needs something other than the ToE to explain it. Or at the very least, I think the existence of the human mind, implies purpose.

The plan went well, I achieved all three of my goals!

Not made a great deal of progress on the mind/body problem, but the bacon was excellent. I don't see the implication of purpose evident in the human mind, it's seems more of chocolate or vanilla type problem than an obvious implication.

Audie wrote:Dont take it hard, I'm sure it was just a typo for "implicates".
Or "porpoise". Maybe both.

So long, and thanks for all the fish

Evolution might be good at describing physical traits, but sadly fails to explain those immaterial parts of life like consciousness.

True science does NOT address what can NOT be observed.
Evolution doesn't fail to explain anything like the "immaterial", it simply does NOT address them.
Sure, some biologists with ulterior motives may SUGGEST it does or some atheists philosophers like Same Harris.
They would be wrong of course.

Byblos wrote:

Audie wrote:Well, let us know if the need for a supernatural entity to poof a mind into place is anything but an argument from ignorance.

That is the very definition of an argument from ignorance (literally).

I was thinking the same thing Byblos.

Proinsias wrote:
Not made a great deal of progress on the mind/body problem, but the bacon was excellent. I don't see the implication of purpose evident in the human mind, it's seems more of chocolate or vanilla type problem than an obvious implication.

I can kinda understand why someone who doesn't believe in God would say that. Simply because if there is no God, there really is no purpose to anything.

Frankly, it just seems silly to me, that the human mind can be anything except a product of an intelligent creator.

1 Corinthians 2:14
But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.