One of my favorite arguments for God. Conciousness and Minds.

[209vaughn]

I'm just the gunna leave this here. I'm not here to debate Dr. Moreland's points, but I do think it's one of the best arguments for God/dualism I've ever listened too.




http://www.closertotruth.com/video-p...Moreland-/1168

[Tamorlane]

I'm just the gunna leave this here. I'm not here to debate Dr. Moreland's points, but I do think it's one of the best arguments for God/dualism I've ever listened too.




http://www.closertotruth.com/video-p...Moreland-/1168

will watch later. thanks

and I agree with your title

[ViolentZ]

The one subject that scientist don't have an answer to and religious people allready hijacked it.

In b4 God of the gaps

Also, cliffs please (what's the best argument and/or evidence that he presents in favor of dualism ?)

[209vaughn]

The one subject that scientist don't have an answer to and religious people allready hijacked it.

In b4 God of the gaps

Also, cliffs please (what's the best argument and/or evidence that he presents in favor of dualism ?)

Why dont you just watch the video instead of post nonsense like a troll?

[batmanman]

brb I can only correlate the third degree burns with me putting my hand on the red hot stove top

can't prove what caused my 3rd degree burns

brb believing in god and burning the **** outta my hand every day

[lasher]

Gonna watch OP, but can I take a guess and say this is going to be an extension on Plantinga's theory on God and other minds?

[209vaughn]

Gonna watch OP, but can I take a guess and say this is going to be an extension on Plantinga's theory on God and other minds?

I haven't read that book. But IDK, Moreland is quite the independent thinker so I think it's probably a lot of his own material.

[ViolentZ]

Why dont you just watch the video instead of post nonsense like a troll?

Why the phuck would I watch a long ass video from a creationist.

Here, some bunch of videos for you, go watch it


Just phucking cliff me *******. You obviously listened to it and you were convinced by it. So can you share his arguments and or evidence (I don't mind copy pastas)

[209vaughn]

Why the phuck would I watch a long ass video from a creationist.

Here, some bunch of videos for you, go watch it
[youtube]pCofmZlC72g[youtube]

Just phucking cliff me *******. You obviously listened to it and you were convinced by it. So can you share his arguments and or evidence (I don't mind copy pastas)

Calm down bro. Harris is actually a compatibilist which a lot of Chrisitans actually agree with.

[SheHadMANHands]

In after God of the gaps.

Argument seems to be based on the gigantic leap that consciousness is somehow beyond the physical realm, simply because it is not yet fully understood. While I think consciousness, and the subjective experience, are incredible in their own right, there's no reason to believe it won't eventually be explained in full.

This J.P. Moreland is not a neuroscientist, or a scientist period. He's a Christian apologist with his own agenda.

[209vaughn]

In after God of the gaps.

Argument seems to be based on the gigantic leap that consciousness is somehow beyond the physical realm, simply because it is not yet fully understood. While I think consciousness, and the subjective experience, are incredible in their own right, there's no reason to believe it won't eventually be explained in full.

This J.P. Moreland is not a neuroscientist, or a scientist period. He's a Christian apologist with his own agenda.

You didn't even deal with his argument. How would scientific advances change the argument? Be specific please.

[SheHadMANHands]

Also, did not know Jerry Stiller was conducting the interview.

[Rune]

Consciousness is a function of both structure and materials. It's purely physical, no magic.

As to why it exists at all. As a feedback/correction mechanism.

[cheeseman182]

I find his argument a little confusing.

1) consciousness is non-physical
2) you can't get consciousness from matter so it's fundamental
3) consciousness doesn't exist on its own, it needs a "self"

Therefore consciousness needs a fundamental subject; god.

Is that pretty much the gist?

[Tamorlane]

I find his argument a little confusing.

1) consciousness is non-physical
2) you can't get consciousness from matter so it's fundamental
3) consciousness doesn't exist on its own, it needs a "self"

Therefore consciousness needs a fundamental subject; god.

Is that pretty much the gist?

Yes, his gap is that the universe is the subject of our collective consciousness, therefore it may be God. Although I agree with this, it is an illogical jump to conclude through philosophy alone.

[Shoesfly]

Can we make a distinction here between God (a supreme being/entity and/or a creator) and institutionalized religion? The two concepts are mutually exclusive you know.

[SheHadMANHands]

You didn't even deal with his argument. How would scientific advances change the argument? Be specific please.

I don't accept his premise, to begin with. He vaguely splits everything into two groups, matter and "mind", with the assumption that "mind", or consciousness, is outside of the physical domain. He has no evidence or argument for this, outside of that it isn't yet fully understood. This is a "God of the gaps" stance dependent on ignorance.

Argument (J.P. Moreland)
There must have been a conscious creator, if the universe started with consciousness ("mind"), as there is no such thing as consciousness without a conscious subject.

[SheHadMANHands]

What is interesting that he pointed out, is the science cannot tell us (it seems) what, say, the conscious sensation of seeing the color red is like. We can point out the brain patterns that are associated with the sensation, but the actual subjective experience of seeing red, of feeling pain, hunger, sexual lust, etc.. these cannot be understood via scientific instruments.

I think it's still an incredible leap to then say though, that these things must be somehow outside the physical domain of reality. Of course, how you get from the point, if you were even able to demonstrate it some day, to the God of the Old Testament is another cosmic leap.

[209vaughn]

Consciousness is a function of both structure and materials. It's purely physical, no magic.

As to why it exists at all. As a feedback/correction mechanism.

Whos talking about magic? Whos denying that it's a feedback mechanism? What does either of these points have to do with anything he said. Be specific now, dont just resort to red hearings.

I find his argument a little confusing.

1) consciousness is non-physical
2) you can't get consciousness from matter so it's fundamental
3) consciousness doesn't exist on its own, it needs a "self"

Therefore consciousness needs a fundamental subject; god.

Is that pretty much the gist?

That's a pretty good summary from what I recall.

Can we make a distinction here between God (a supreme being/entity and/or a creator) and institutionalized religion? The two concepts are mutually exclusive you know.

That's a fair distinction that I thought went without saying.

I don't accept his premise, to begin with. He vaguely splits everything into two groups, matter and "mind", with the assumption that "mind", or consciousness, is outside of the physical domain. He has no evidence or argument for this, outside of that it isn't yet fully understood. This is a "God of the gaps" stance dependent on ignorance.

Argument (J.P. Moreland)
There must have been a conscious creator, if the universe started with consciousness ("mind"), as there is no such thing as consciousness without a conscious subject.

You cant argue against anything with resorting to claiming "God of the Gaps" can you. He just cited plenty of evidence for his argument, were you not listening?

[ImproperOne]

I'm just the gunna leave this here. I'm not here to debate Dr. Moreland's points, but I do think it's one of the best arguments for God/dualism I've ever listened too.




http://www.closertotruth.com/video-p...Moreland-/1168

I don't like watching videos of philosophical subjects because all they do is argue without a counterpart.

Tell me your thoughts on the matter instead.

[lasher]

I don't like watching videos of philosophical subjects because all they do is argue without a counterpart.

Tell me your thoughts on the matter instead.

it's a 10 minute video. Take your add medicine and contribute. Or shut up and go away.

[ImproperOne]

Can we make a distinction here between God (a supreme being/entity and/or a creator) and institutionalized religion? The two concepts are mutually exclusive you know.

God isn't neccessary at all but another complication on the matter, even if there was a duality it doesn't imply god in any way, shape or form and most certainly not the "sky fairy" of a god that most refer to when it comes to god.

That said, consciousness has been measured for decades, we're well aware who is and isn't conscious by simply measuring brain activity, it's an electrochemical reaction in the brain and that is all it is.

The laymans "consciousness" as in a knock on the head or such doesn't equal actual "loss of consciousness" as in the end of the electrochemical stimulation of the neurons in your brain that make you dead or alive, when you actually lose consciousness to the degree of random impulse, you are dead, clinically dead.

Nothing changed, not one thing but that the normal electrochemical signals ceased, the consciousness you once possessed, that what makes you into you is gone.

You are going back to where you came before you were even a wiggler in your fathers semen and you will turn back into the stuff that we are all made out of but not in one piece, in about one centillion pieces, all of equal value and all just as much you.

[ImproperOne]

it's a 10 minute video. Take your add medicine and contribute. Or shut up and go away.

I asked for his opinion on the matter, not yours and not that from a video that is useless.

Perhaps reading isn't for you?

[cheeseman182]

I find his argument a little confusing.

1) consciousness is non-physical
2) you can't get consciousness from matter so it's fundamental
3) consciousness doesn't exist on its own, it needs a "self"

Therefore consciousness needs a fundamental subject; god.

Is that pretty much the gist?

That's a pretty good summary from what I recall.

I pulled that pretty much word for word from the video.


The second point is where he loses me. Our brains are the only things that we know of that produce consciousness. Our brains are physical and made of matter. Therefore matter can produce consciousness.

And why does he think that consciousness needed to be there first? Why couldn't the universe have created the first consciousness? He says that's because that's "something from nothing" but who says that consciousness is 'something' outside of matter? Consciousness is not matter but as far as I know its dependent on matter.

You can replace the word "consciousness" with any abstract idea and the argument works the same.

1) calculus/love/logic is non-physical
2) you can't get calculus/love/logic from matter so it's fundamental
3) calculus/love/logic doesn't exist on its own, it needs a "mind"

Therefore calculus/love/logic needs a fundamental mind; god.

[lasher]

1) calculus/love/logic is non-physical
2) you can't get calculus/love/logic from matter so it's fundamental
3) calculus/love/logic doesn't exist on its own, it needs a "mind"

Therefore calculus/love/logic needs a fundamental mind; god.

That actually does follow. Those concepts do need a fundamental mind.

[KRANE]

Why dont you just watch the video

Why?

[Tamorlane]

That actually does follow. Those concepts do need a fundamental mind.

to be interpreted though. I think he's right that calculus, love and logic are not proof of God whatsoever. However, if God/Creator does exist, then these (mathematics, logic and love) are by-products of it's creation. Proving that is a whole different story, which is why I mentioned that it can't be reasoned through philosophy alone.

[Rune]

Whos talking about magic? Whos denying that it's a feedback mechanism? What does either of these points have to do with anything he said. Be specific now, dont just resort to red hearings.

His primary assertion is that consciousness is more than just the arrangement and flow of information, that somehow the fact that a subject exists within the abstract representation of reality that consciousness provides is somehow evidence of God.

[ImproperOne]

That actually does follow. Those concepts do need a fundamental mind.

They do? Why would they when reality provides the concept and the individual mind provides the interpretation?

And even if it did, the basic premise is wrong, it's baed on electrochemical reactions in our own evolved minds, this has been proven numerous times in different studies.

Love does indeed activate electrochemical stimulation in a part of your brain, the various chemicals you produce during this time date back to the animal stages of humanity where ovulation was the indicator and we still produce those feromones much like we did when we were much less intelligent.

All in all, it seems to be dependant on two things, the reality presented and the interpretor of that reality.

Then there are intepretors that get nuts and say "god is clearly doing this love thing because it's so special" but they are just nuts.

[cheeseman182]

That actually does follow. Those concepts do need a fundamental mind.

Why? If there was no "god" and no human (or any other kind of mind) then would a rock stop being a rock? (law of identity)

And calculus and mathematics are models of real phenomena we use for reasoning to provide insight or predictions. Calculus isn't this thing that's floating around until we discover it; its something we created as a tool.

There isn't a schematic floating around for a house/weapon/computer/desk/car somewhere in somewhere until we just discover it.