How to prove God to an atheist (no, really)...

[sandandfoam]

Hi Mr Spinkles

stephenw,

Interesting post! I offer these questions for your consideration:
Can you identify a single mental process or state (fear, love, symbolic thought, awareness of self, passage of time, memory, alertness, recognition of faces) that is independent of the brain? I believe there are numerous studies that tie every one of these processes to our brains.

If the mind is independent of the brain, why is it that sudden trauma to the brain, or certain chemicals administered to the brain, cause us to lose consciousness?

I agree with you, empirical methods tie all that you have mentioned above to the physical brain, however Descartes method does not look to empirical methods or data to examine how minds and bodies are related, his method is a philisophical one, examining the way in which we conceptualize mind in order to illuminate any inconsistencies in that conceptualization. His method of doubt in my view points up a shortcoming in theoretical terms inherent in theories that conceive mind as requiring embodiement. This is not to say that mind exists independently of body but rather that current scientific methods cannot rule this out and either way in theoretical terms we are at a 'blockage' until this problem is resolved

 

[roli]

]Don't you think this goes against ideas that other Christians have put forward?

No, God calls us ,but we must accept his invitation, just because he calls us,it does not mean we are saved from sin.
It's like I write you a cheque for 10,000$, it's made out to you, it's designated specifically for you, the funds are there ,but it's a 2 step process to make it yours,
1) you must receive it, 2)you must deposit it.
You could hold on to the cheque for years and claim it's yours, beleive in the fact that it's yours, tell the world it's yours, you might even live as if you had deposited the money ,but it's not yours until you deposit it.
Jesus Christ paid the debt for sin once and for all, he did it for all men.
It's the gift of eternal life that is yours for the taking and the depositing.
A gift must be received.

Several people have told me that punishment of unbelievers in Hell is justified because God has called every person, and those who do not believe choose to do so wilfully

Whether it is justified or not ,not for me to say, but it's not God's will that we perish,but it is our choice to receive the gift or not .
But rationality,relativism and humanistic influence and just the carnal nature that men love to indulge in hinder people from accepting the gift and embrace the pleasure.
The bible says "they love the darkness and hate the light of Christ ,which is truth and will not come to the light for fear their deeds will be exposed

 

[rocketman]

Can you identify a single mental process or state (fear, love, symbolic thought, awareness of self, passage of time, memory, alertness, recognition of faces) that is independent of the brain? I believe there are numerous studies that tie every one of these processes to our brains.

If the mind is independent of the brain, why is it that sudden trauma to the brain, or certain chemicals administered to the brain, cause us to lose consciousness?

I agree with stephenw in that we don't know enough yet to call this one absolutely. My view is that if there is a spirit acting on the mind or somehow or other in unison with a (working) brain then I think we might expect to see a physical analogue, that is, areas of the brain will light up under certain inputs. This works both ways of-course, such as taking drugs to make one happy or sad, and in reverse knowledge recieved can cause the brain to produce some of those drugs or similar. What I find interesting about this is that the first way is largely devoid of specific knowledge, whereas the latter requires it. The brain/mind seems not so much an interface for any kind of spirit but more of a crude mirror. I know many religious people who have the reference of having had done all sorts of drugs in their time and they are adamant that their later conversions and/or other 'God' experiences where not physical sensations at all, they almost can never find the words to describe it.

Even if we find the 'seat' of conciousness, will we be able to measure conciousness somehow? It seems to me from studying much on neurology that the seat of conciousness is still as elusive as ever. It does leave a lot of room for some kind of other external bodily 'director'. I find it odd that the biological computer that we are can say 'I know that I know'. Whoever can build an artifical-intelligence circut than come come out with this saying without being told to will be up for a Nobel for sure. Penrose thinks it all might be quantum in nature.

I think I am a spirit, but I have no physical senses or mental faculty. The crude interface/mirror of my body relies on my deeper level impulses (will?) to process some of the higher-level voluntary tasks that it carries out for "me". Perhaps this is all a trick of my mind, but I don't think so. I offer no proof to my good fellow-posters of-course, I can only say that 'I know that I know'. I'm hoping one day to ditch this crude analogue (brain/mind) and move on to something more advanced. The fact that I can concieve of such a thing in a platonic sense is very telling to me about "me".

Yes, this all relates to the OP: I agree with the sentiment expressed elsewhere in this thread that willingness is essential for faith. The 'free will' factor causes me to believe that there is more to us than mere atoms and molecules (but they must be arranged and interacting properly, or no 'insight' into this 'place' is available) and I also think that the millions of highly educated, highly rational types (including some neurologists) who seriously believe that they have had some extra-physical conversion/'God' experience are onto something.

Is it possible to convert an atheist? The moment they are truly willing to believe would they still be an atheist? So whatever it takes at the individual level to get an atheist to be 'willing' is the answer, the rest would be up to God to make them feel welcome with his spirit I think. Then the individual would have all that they need to follow on that path without ever needing a 'miracle of proof' in this life again. I think the spirit, not the mind, has to "know". Thus I think that even faith is a gift to those who are willing to recieve it. Hope that makes sense.

 

[logician]

"Like many religionists, your understanding of God is that of an old man with a white beard looking over your shoulder and so you rightly deny God's existence. But that is an ugly, superstitious, primitive concept. I understand that people run with what they know, but this is the 21st century: there is more in mathematics an God than 2+2."

Sure, right, actually I have no concept of god because I don't believe it exists. The only concepts that seem at least digestible to me are the pantheistic ones. So how does your statement refute my statement that any supposed god doesn't give a rat's pettuti whether we believe in it or not?

 

[s2a]

Hello dust1n (and a belated welcome to RF).

You said:

It hasn't happened.

Um...Could you be more specific?

I don't see why you dismiss aliens though.

I don't, not really.

Arthur C. Clarke once proposed, when outlining his "Three Laws of Prediction", that:
{Rule #3) "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

I'd buy that. Let's be candid. Magic and "god(s)" are virtually interchangeable when "believers" (in/of either magic or deities) employ such rationalizations as explanations.

In other words, the fallacy of incredulity prevails in this rationale.
"If I can't understand it, or "explain it ("it" being an "unexplained" phenomena, or obscure/inevidenced claim of observed phenomena)...then...It must be "god" (or some other "paranormal", or "supernatural" force/entity).

I'm not especially picky within my presented premise. IF (and that's a determined caveat) any particular alien species could effect the "miracle" I propose as "proof" (assuming that that alien species sought to impress me into worshiping both their power and their every decree/mandate), I would readily bow down, and do so...happily, merrily, with full faith and belief that, "for all intents and purposes", that alien species WAS god(ly) enough to earn my pious adherence. Really).

If you can use something that we've never seen,
I don't see why we can't either.

Forgive me. I don't understand what your attempting to convey. Could you either elaborate, or simplfy that sentence for me?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Hey rocketman,

Thank you for your response. I read it with great interest. However, as far as I can tell, you did not actually address the question that I asked:

Can you identify a single mental process or state (fear, love, symbolic thought, awareness of self, passage of time, memory, alertness, recognition of faces) that is independent of the brain?

 

[s2a]

Hello roli,

You said:

I hope you find what your looking for,that is it sounds more of just wanting to debate ,as this is a debate forum ,I agree ,but if you seriously are'nt looking for God, as it seems to me, and your heart is not truly soul searching for answers ,but more so a search to debate, and be intellectually stimulated,arguing facts back and forth ,you won't find God, that way.

If I might, I will quote from my initial (my very first) introductory post in RF:
"I am not "searching" for a "reason", or "purpose" [of existence], or any existential "truths" (most especially...yours). "

Seldom does one find God that way ,I guess it can and has happened, but it is very rare.

If you say so...OK.

If your god is either a destination, or just a lost child in the wilderness, it's fair to state that I am neither "searching" for him, or the one most likely to pinpoint (of "find") His allegedly omnipresent self.

Although God can, according to his word ,he resists the proud and gives grace to the humble ,unless we are broken in our sin and sorry state ,will he reach down and save us.

Um, ok. Your piously lent "witness" is noted accordingly.

By the way, no Christian will or has ever proven the existence of God beyond a doubt to another although it has been going on forever.

Agreed. Yet many Christians will insist upon the undeniable "TRUTH" of their most adherent claims. Can you reconcile this evident dichotomy, beyond the promoted Christian concepts of divinely-inspired "revelation" (a tap on the shoulder from the Holy Ghost), or individualized (sincere) repentance; beseeched absolution; and the requisite penitent and sworn subservience to that God?

No man comes to God unless he draws them himself, period,we don't choose him he chooses us ,try if you may, but he calls us and when he does ,we will know it.

When He calls, does it show up on "Caller ID"?

If so, could you pass along His number to me? I have a few billion grievances to tender upon His present stewardship of humanity, and the cosmos in general.

You quoted me posting:
In order to provide demonstrably incontrovertible; universally observable; independently falsifiable; and unequivocal "faith-specific" evidence and proof of an omniscient and all powerful god,

You replied:

Ask God !!!!, man's answers will never satisfy you,the bible speaks of a parable where the rich man and the beggar died ,the rich man went to hell and was tormented ,he cried out to Abraham ,go and warn my brothers , Abraham said ,they have the law and the prophets, and they never listened , what makes you think they will lsiten to a dead man if one is sent.

Dear roli, I have no faith. Note that my "proposal" suggests that believers like yourself (not confined to the Christian faith, mind you...) "pray for/beseech of" your god to enact/perform such an unprecedented "miracle"...so that billions of heretical or denying unbelievers like myself might come to be "saved"...before the "end". I do not presume to qualify or minimize the power of your faith, prayer, or your god. If prayer can effect "god's hand" to intercede upon the course of human events (ie. healing, protection, salvation, etc.), then why not pray for your god to intercede on my behalf, as a "hard-hearted" skeptic?

I think the same is with you,you have an agenda and you just want share it ,so go for it

My only "agenda" within RF is also found within my initial posting to RF, and I quote:

"My interest in (both) contribution and debate is (primarily) in discussion of "why" people believe "what" they believe (especially as such may apply to matters of social policy and civic law).
In matters of reasoned discussion/debate, any proponent/adherent of a premised position (or abject opinion) should be able to foundationally establish and support "why" they believe "what" they believe. If one's beliefs are rooted in religious doctrine/dogma/texts/ideology, then said adherent should be able to provide such as support of their position.
[PS. Arguments along the lines of: "God said it. I believe it. That settles it."; or, "Why quote Scripture to an unbeliever?"...don't cut the mustard. If your position is predicated upon dogma/religious text, then *use* that source as foundation and support.]

I could spend hours discussing ,arguing,debating with you,but, as far as your concerned, and I could be wrong ,I sense you don't really want to know if God is there , you just want to philosophize, share your vast knowledge and display your superior intellect on your atheistic position and that is great, and that's what this is here for,but I can't be a aprt of it.

I am a skeptic, roli. That's all. I am an atheist because I am a skeptic.

You might be skeptical of my claim that an invisible pink elephant follows every living human on earth, day and night. You might be skeptical if I claim to have an invisible friend that resembles a six-foot rabbit, named Harvey.

If I'm sincere in my claims, and insist that invisible elephants and rabbits are "real" (to me), what would you do? What postion would you support? Would you accept my claims as "truth", or would you seek to have me (otherwise) seek professional counseling and (perhaps) committal to a mental health facility? Is it "crazy" for rational and reasoned people to "believe" in things that can not be seen, measured, quantified, verified, or evidentially "proved"?

It exhausts me just thinking about what you have to share and where this could go.

It could go somewhere...if you would care to answer the concluding question that the premised OP presents for considered answer to any and all believers...

"What's wrong with that?"

The standing invitation for you to do so remains...

 

[rocketman]

Hey rocketman,

Thank you for your response. I read it with great interest. However, as far as I can tell, you did not actually address the question that I asked:

Can you identify a single mental process or state (fear, love, symbolic thought, awareness of self, passage of time, memory, alertness, recognition of faces) that is independent of the brain?

Sorry, I was trying to steer it back to the OP. But as I'm sure you may know by now from the 'brain' thread elsewhere I don't see the identification of mental processes as necessarily being proof against the possibility of some platonic influence.

:rainbow1:

 

[sandandfoam]

Hey rocketman,

Thank you for your response. I read it with great interest. However, as far as I can tell, you did not actually address the question that I asked:

Can you identify a single mental process or state (fear, love, symbolic thought, awareness of self, passage of time, memory, alertness, recognition of faces) that is independent of the brain?

How about phenomenal consciousness? I am not saying definitively that it is independent of the brain but nor can it be tied to the brain

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

How about phenomenal consciousness? I am not saying definitively that it is independent of the brain but nor can it be tied to the brain

Nor, in fact, can the role of Pixie dust be "definitively" excluded. That said, is there any compelling reason to suggest that P-consciousness exists independent of ones neurophysiology?

 

[sandandfoam]

Nor, in fact, can the role of Pixie dust be "definitively" excluded. That said, is there any compelling reason to suggest that P-consciousness exists independent of ones neurophysiology?

I like your reference to Pixie dust.
Do you subscribe to Dennett's view that phenomenal consciousness is a conceptual confusion that does in fact not exist?
For arguments sake I will state that P-consciousness is not tied to the brain. Consciousness is tied to the brain but that the 'experience' or 'raw feel' of consciousness that is p-consciousness is not in fact tied to the brain.
Again, for arguments sake I would like to suggest that as Chalmers proposed, p-consciousness is a non-physical fundamental feature of the physical universe possessed by all objects. I.e. experience is a property of everything.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I like your reference to Pixie dust.

Thank you.

Do you subscribe to Dennett's view that phenomenal consciousness is a conceptual confusion that does in fact not exist?

"The map is not the territory."

For arguments sake I will state ...
Again, for arguments sake I would like to suggest ....

OK (for the sake of argument). Therefore?

 

[sandandfoam]

The compelling reason is that the sum of ones experiences is greater than the total of ones perceptions because experience is a property of all objects and as such experience (or p-consciousness) exists independent of our neuropsychology

 

[Super Universe]

A miracle is an event that people have no explanation for. Everything obeys physical laws. Everything. God does not violate His own laws. The reason we don't see miracles now is because we understand more about how things work. We've learned to trust science.

God should prove Himself to you? But who are you? What would make you think you've earned that? Have you ever proven yourself to an ant?

No one can prove anything to any person, that person must choose to believe. Instead of worrying so much about whether you or others are in the right, how about just go about your life.

 

[sandandfoam]

A miracle is an event that people have no explanation for. Everything obeys physical laws. Everything. God does not violate His own laws. The reason we don't see miracles now is because we understand more about how things work. We've learned to trust science.

God should prove Himself to you? But who are you? What would make you think you've earned that? Have you ever proven yourself to an ant?

No one can prove anything to any person, that person must choose to believe. Instead of worrying so much about whether you or others are in the right, how about just go about your life.

I disagree, I cannot explain blind faith that does not make blind faith miraculous.

Regarding everything obeying physical laws, probably, but do you think we currently know all those laws, I think our understanding is extraordinarily limited?

" We've learned to trust science" - again I disagree, vigorous science should make us skeptical.

"God should prove Himself to you?" -who's asking him to? If he/she/it had any kind of nature it would be more their line to save a few starving children than concern themselves with my curiosity.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

The compelling reason is that the sum of ones experiences is greater than the total of ones perceptions because experience is a property of all objects and as such experience (or p-consciousness) exists independent of our neuropsychology

[emphasis added]

We do not need to waste time arguing about whether or not our experience is independent of our neurophysiology. This is a claim that we can test experimentally and decisively.

Physically change your neurophysiology by taking a hallucinogenic drug. Or by staring at an optical illusion. Or by taking a strong anaesthesia. Or by bombarding your senses (which send signals to your brain) with different sounds, lights, or smells. Lesion your occipital lobe, or your temporal lobe, or other various parts of the brain, or suffer severre head trauma, or take drugs that cause hormonal imabalances (I don't recommend this, actually). Then note in what way(s) your experience changes.

We've already done these tests. The results are in: our experience is not independent of our neurophysiology.

This is not to say that the interaction between our environment and our neurophysiology is simple or easily predictable in all cases, of course.

 

[Super Universe]

I disagree, I cannot explain blind faith that does not make blind faith miraculous.

Regarding everything obeying physical laws, probably, but do you think we currently know all those laws, I think our understanding is extraordinarily limited?

" We've learned to trust science" - again I disagree, vigorous science should make us skeptical.

"God should prove Himself to you?" -who's asking him to? If he/she/it had any kind of nature it would be more their line to save a few starving children than concern themselves with my curiosity.

You know, just because I am a theist and you are not doesn't mean you have to disagree with everything.

I said a miracle is an event that people have no explanation for, I did not say all unexplainable events are miracles. Also just because you cannot explain blind faith does not mean others can't.

As for understanding the physical laws, no, you don't completely understand them all. As for being limited, you limit yourselves.

Save a few starving children? Then what would they learn? What would you learn? We could save them all if we really wanted to. Also, what in the world makes you think that the universe is all about humans?

 

[sandandfoam]

[emphasis added]

We do not need to waste time arguing about whether or not our experience is independent of our neurophysiology. This is a claim that we can test experimentally and decisively.

Physically change your neurophysiology by taking a hallucinogenic drug. Or by staring at an optical illusion. Or by taking a strong anaesthesia. Or by bombarding your senses (which send signals to your brain) with different sounds, lights, or smells. Lesion your occipital lobe, or your temporal lobe, or other various parts of the brain, or suffer severre head trauma, or take drugs that cause hormonal imabalances (I don't recommend this, actually). Then note in what way(s) your experience changes.

We've already done these tests. The results are in: our experience is not independent of our neurophysiology.

This is not to say that the interaction between our environment and our neurophysiology is simple or easily predictable in all cases, of course.

With respect the results if they are in are disputed:- "Neuroscientists ascription of psychological attributes to the brain may be termed the 'mereological fallacy' in neuroscience" Bennett and Hacker (2007)

 

[sandandfoam]

You know, just because I am a theist and you are not doesn't mean you have to disagree with everything.

I said a miracle is an event that people have no explanation for, I did not say all unexplainable events are miracles. Also just because you cannot explain blind faith does not mean others can't.

As for understanding the physical laws, no, you don't completely understand them all. As for being limited, you limit yourselves.

Save a few starving children? Then what would they learn? What would you learn? We could save them all if we really wanted to. Also, what in the world makes you think that the universe is all about humans?

I am not sure that I'm not a theist, I haven't figured it out yet, I have figured that I'm not an atheist, (unless something BIG comes to light) so that's not the basis of my disagreement. I don't think the world is all about humans although it is perhaps unavoidable that my will to understand things would have an egocentric bias.
I attempt to follow reason and if you can explain blind faith I'm open to reason. Also how would you tell which unexplained events are miracles and which ones are not?

 

[Super Universe]

I am not sure that I'm not a theist, I haven't figured it out yet, I have figured that I'm not an atheist, (unless something BIG comes to light) so that's not the basis of my disagreement. I don't think the world is all about humans although it is perhaps unavoidable that my will to understand things would have an egocentric bias.
I attempt to follow reason and if you can explain blind faith I'm open to reason. Also how would you tell which unexplained events are miracles and which ones are not?

I'm not sure I can explain blind faith. I would suggest that it is something that fills a need that a person has, perhaps a person isn't happy about the way they look or their family so they want there to be another existence after this or maybe a person has a need for there to be real justice in the universe since this life seems to be unfair. I would have to talk with a person for a while to figure out what personality traits they let control them.

As for which unexplained events are miracles and which are not, it seems to me that it is up to the individual. Some see miracles in tree bark and cloud formations. I see a miracle when children laugh, when a flower that opens toward the sun, when I'm under the shade of a Redwood tree, observing an ant colony, and flocks of humingbirds that flutter about in the tops of oak trees causing the acorns to fall like hard rain.

The bible is full of supposed miracles. Every single one of them has an explanation founded in the physical laws. No true physical law was ever broken, as this is not even possible, but time may have been bent more than once.