Please list your evidence for God

Whatsisface

Well-known member
I don't understand your objections.
It's simple enough. If someone seriously argues that under atheism all our thoughts would be are just brain fizz, then how can they trust what they think? Reason being, atheism might be true and all their thoughts and conclusions are just their brain fizzing. How could they tell if their thoughts were coherent or just brain fizz? There is no way out of this self constructed trap.
You already believe you are material, dirt and mostly water.

Your thoughts are electrical stimuli.

What other 'mystery' there be is no mystery for you, it's just material arranged in a certain configuration, with temporary stimuli animation.

Pretty simple really.

If you truly believe something substantially different, state so.

Otherwise live with the above, it's all you got by your own definition of life, the universe, and everything.
The brain fizz argument is fallacious for two reasons, one as I've said above, the other, I've never seen it justified, only asserted.
 

Nouveau

Well-known member
The brain fizz argument is fallacious for two reasons, one as I've said above, the other, I've never seen it justified, only asserted.
It makes about as much sense as saying that you can't trust your computer to do anything because it's just electrons whizzing through circuits.
 

sbell

Active member
It makes about as much sense as saying that you can't trust your computer to do anything because it's just electrons whizzing through circuits.
It is just electrons whizzing through circuits. Those electrons act in accordance with the law of cause and effect, so if I create a cause, it gives me the expected effect precisely because of those laws. Now, if the computer gained consciousness and decided not to do what I programmed it to do, I would start to say it doesn't make sense. Until then, I can trust the computer to do what it does because it follows those natural laws. But in a purely naturalistic world, aren't we just giant walking meat computers. How does a natural world account for free choice?
 

Whatsisface

Well-known member
It is just electrons whizzing through circuits. Those electrons act in accordance with the law of cause and effect, so if I create a cause, it gives me the expected effect precisely because of those laws. Now, if the computer gained consciousness and decided not to do what I programmed it to do, I would start to say it doesn't make sense. Until then, I can trust the computer to do what it does because it follows those natural laws. But in a purely naturalistic world, aren't we just giant walking meat computers. How does a natural world account for free choice?
You haven't given good reason to think your contention would be true.

How do you escape your self constructed trap that materialism is true and all you've written is just your brain fizzing?
 

Nouveau

Well-known member
It is just electrons whizzing through circuits. Those electrons act in accordance with the law of cause and effect, so if I create a cause, it gives me the expected effect precisely because of those laws. Now, if the computer gained consciousness and decided not to do what I programmed it to do, I would start to say it doesn't make sense. Until then, I can trust the computer to do what it does because it follows those natural laws. But in a purely naturalistic world, aren't we just giant walking meat computers. How does a natural world account for free choice?
Have you looked into compatibilism? I recommend Dennett's Freedom Evolves.
 

sbell

Active member
It's simple enough. If someone seriously argues that under atheism all our thoughts would be are just brain fizz, then how can they trust what they think? Reason being, atheism might be true and all their thoughts and conclusions are just their brain fizzing. How could they tell if their thoughts were coherent or just brain fizz? There is no way out of this self constructed trap.
That's precisely the point. Under a purely naturalistic worldview, what is your justification that are thoughts are more than just brain fizz? If you have one, I would love to hear it explained. What is the objective evidence that thoughts and consciousness is more than just the natural consequence of neurons firing?
The brain fizz argument is fallacious for two reasons, one as I've said above, the other, I've never seen it justified, only asserted.
The justification is the law of cause and effect. You start an effect 13 billion years ago, that effect is the cause of more effects, those effects are the cause of more effects, the interaction of all matter and energy is simply one effect that can be traced back to that single cause. Your brain and consciousness are simply matter and energy, so must also trace their effects back to that original cause. In a purely natural worldview, what is your evidence or reason that it's anything but that?
 

sbell

Active member
You haven't given good reason to think your contention would be true.

How do you escape your self constructed trap that materialism is true and all you've written is just your brain fizzing?
I don't think materialism is true. I was of the impression you thought materialism is true and was curious as to how you can account for a conscious making real decisions in a materialistic worldview.
 

Whatsisface

Well-known member
That's precisely the point. Under a purely naturalistic worldview, what is your justification that are thoughts are more than just brain fizz? If you have one, I would love to hear it explained. What is the objective evidence that thoughts and consciousness is more than just the natural consequence of neurons firing?

The justification is the law of cause and effect. You start an effect 13 billion years ago, that effect is the cause of more effects, those effects are the cause of more effects, the interaction of all matter and energy is simply one effect that can be traced back to that single cause. Your brain and consciousness are simply matter and energy, so must also trace their effects back to that original cause. In a purely natural worldview, what is your evidence or reason that it's anything but that?
So how can you tell your thoughts aren't just your brain fizzing?
 

Whatsisface

Well-known member
I don't think materialism is true. I was of the impression you thought materialism is true and was curious as to how you can account for a conscious making real decisions in a materialistic worldview.
How do you know this question is coherent rather than just brain fizz?
 

Furion

Well-known member
It's simple enough. If someone seriously argues that under atheism all our thoughts would be are just brain fizz, then how can they trust what they think?

How does trusting what one thinks change the materially evidenced truth that your brain is nothing more than electrical stimuli?

Reason being, atheism might be true and all their thoughts and conclusions are just their brain fizzing. How could they tell if their thoughts were coherent or just brain fizz? There is no way out of this self constructed trap.

The brain fizz argument is fallacious for two reasons, one as I've said above, the other, I've never seen it justified, only asserted.

I see nothing here persuading me otherwise, other than your assertions.

It has nothing to do with whether atheism is right or wrong.
 

Whatsisface

Well-known member
How does trusting what one thinks change the materially evidenced truth that your brain is nothing more than electrical stimuli?
That the brain would be nothing more than electrical stimuli needs more than just the claim you've made here.
I see nothing here persuading me otherwise, other than your assertions.
You have yet to justify your claim.
It has nothing to do with whether atheism is right or wrong.
Oh. I thought the claim was, if materialism, therefore atheism is true, then our brains would be just brain fizz.
 

Furion

Well-known member
That the brain would be nothing more than electrical stimuli needs more than just the claim you've made here.
Then claim otherwise.
You have yet to justify your claim.
No I don't.
Oh. I thought the claim was, if materialism, therefore atheism is true, then our brains would be just brain fizz.
I'm not claiming anything. I have no reason to think it be more than that in a material universe.

If you think it more, state so.
 

Whatsisface

Well-known member
Then claim otherwise.

No I don't.

I'm not claiming anything. I have no reason to think it be more than that in a material universe.


If you think it more, state so.
Oh dear. Whatever you want to call it, it needs more than what you've said to take it even half way seriously.
 

sbell

Active member
How do you know this question is coherent rather than just brain fizz?
I find no compelling reason to believe it's just brain fizz because I believe consciousness is supranatural and didn't derive from matter and energy. Do you have any compelling reason to believe it isn't just brain fizz?
From your responses, I don't think you do. In fact, your responses start to sound religious in nature.
"That ability transcends molecules bumping into molecules."
"In one way we are the most remarkable things in the universe, because we are little islands of the universe made aware of itself."
You say remarkable, but with no material explanation for for how the universe became aware of itself, it sounds like miraculous would be a better word, although one I'm sure you're not comfortable with.
If you have no compelling reason, and it's just something you believe without reason or evidence, I'm cool with that. It's at least honest. If you do have reason to believe non-conscious matter somehow can become conscious matter and transcend the laws of nature, I'm curious to hear how you came to that conclusion.
 

sbell

Active member
Have you looked into compatibilism? I recommend Dennett's Freedom Evolves.
I'm familiar with compatibilism, although I haven't read Dennett's work on it. I do find it interesting an atheist is using compatibilism as an argument because it's the same argument the Calvinist uses when pressed with the seeming contradiction of predestination and free-will. Determinism is just another way of saying predestination.

My problem with compatibilism is the laws of nature are a specific thing. To say a law of nature acts upon matter or energy is to say that it is impossible for the matter or energy to react in other way than the law determines. It's why the scientific method is so reliable. We observe and discover these laws, then deem them to be laws because we can predict how matter/energy will respond based on these laws. Compatibilism says somehow these deterministic laws some how don't apply once matter/energy becomes animated through life. Once agency is involved, the agent somehow breaks free of the laws of nature to some degree and is able to exercise free choice. I'm just not buying it that non-living matter become living matter through some purely material way, but in doing so gains some measure of free will that is somehow removed from the law of cause and effect.
 

Whatsisface

Well-known member
I find no compelling reason to believe it's just brain fizz because I believe consciousness is supranatural and didn't derive from matter and energy. Do you have any compelling reason to believe it isn't just brain fizz?
From your responses, I don't think you do. In fact, your responses start to sound religious in nature.
"That ability transcends molecules bumping into molecules."
"In one way we are the most remarkable things in the universe, because we are little islands of the universe made aware of itself."
You say remarkable, but with no material explanation for for how the universe became aware of itself, it sounds like miraculous would be a better word, although one I'm sure you're not comfortable with.
If you have no compelling reason, and it's just something you believe without reason or evidence, I'm cool with that. It's at least honest. If you do have reason to believe non-conscious matter somehow can become conscious matter and transcend the laws of nature, I'm curious to hear how you came to that conclusion.
I will answer this with three points. First, saying you have no compelling reason to believe it's just brain fizz etc could be just your brain fizzing. How would you know it's not? You may think it's not fizzing, but that's just your fizzing brain making you think that.

You have yet to give any justified reason to think under naturalism or atheism our thoughts would be just brain fizz. Just saying it would be molecules bumping into molecules doesn't show you know that's how it would be.

From the naturalist standpoint evolution explains how we achieved consciousness as a survival advantage. This has a lot of evidence in it's favor where with your brain fizz thing you've presented none.
 

sbell

Active member
You have yet to give any justified reason to think under naturalism or atheism our thoughts would be just brain fizz. Just saying it would be molecules bumping into molecules doesn't show you know that's how it would be.
What you've failed to answer is how it could be anything more than molecules bumping into molecules, which is another way of saying the interaction of matter and energy? Can you provide a coherent illustration of how our thoughts are anything more than the interaction of matter and energy?

Here's my reason to believe under a naturalist worldview our thoughts are nothing more than the interaction of matter and energy. In a naturalist worldview, there is nothing but matter and energy.
 

sbell

Active member
From the naturalist standpoint evolution explains how we achieved consciousness as a survival advantage. This has a lot of evidence in it's favor where with your brain fizz thing you've presented none.
Can you point me to some of this evidence that consciousness is a result of random mutations resulting in a survival advantage? You can point to consciousness, and you can tell me a story about how it results in a survival advantage, but a story isn't evidence, it's speculation about why this thing we're observing is here.
 

Nouveau

Well-known member
Compatibilism says somehow these deterministic laws some how don't apply once matter/energy becomes animated through life. Once agency is involved, the agent somehow breaks free of the laws of nature to some degree and is able to exercise free choice. I'm just not buying it that non-living matter become living matter through some purely material way, but in doing so gains some measure of free will that is somehow removed from the law of cause and effect.
That is not at all what compatibilism says. It is definitely not about breaking free of or becoming removed from cause and effect. Compatibilism rather argues that the only kind of freedom we need or should even want is a freedom that remains entirely compatible with everything being causally determined.
 
Top