Six questions for Theists who endorse ET . . .

[robertb]

A materialist would say, all these things exist, only because they are somehow reducible to or reflected in, matter.

As an idealist I say, all these things exist, only because they are somehow reducible to or reflected in, mind.

So - materialism (everything which exists is reducible to matter), idealism (everything which exists is reducible to mind), dualism (matter and mind are independent existents, and neither is reducible to the other). Which option best describes you? (Or, you can propose a fourth option if you wish - I think these are the three main options, but I can think of others - one example of a fourth option would be the radical Platonism of Max Tegmark - everything that exists is reducible to mathematics.)

Minds are dependent on a mechanism with which to generate them.

What evidence do you propose that I consider in support of idealism?

[ZackMartin]

Minds are dependent on a mechanism with which to generate them.

But then what is that mechanism dependent on? The chain of dependency must either (1) be an infinite regress, (2) be circular, with something directly or indirectly dependent on itself, or (3) end in something which is not dependent on anything. So which of these three do you believe in? And if the answer is (3), why can't mind be that thing?

What evidence do you propose that I consider in support of idealism?

There is no convincing evidence for idealism; but there is no convincing evidence for materialism either. Your choice as to what you believe.

[robertb]

But then what is that mechanism dependent on? The chain of dependency must either (1) be an infinite regress, (2) be circular, with something directly or indirectly dependent on itself, or (3) end in something which is not dependent on anything. So which of these three do you believe in? And if the answer is (3), why can't mind be that thing?

The mechanism that produces a mind is dependent on a functioning brain. Without a functioning brain, there is no mind. I am not sure why your questions are actually relevant, though I suppose I would answer that we live in a universe that has enabled the development of functioning brains, thus enabling minds to exist.

There is no convincing evidence for idealism; but there is no convincing evidence for materialism either. Your choice as to what you believe.

All of the evidence we have supports materialism. I am not sure what you mean by the word "convincing" here, but it almost seems that you believe in idealism despite the actual evidence.

[ZackMartin]

The mechanism that produces a mind is dependent on a functioning brain. Without a functioning brain, there is no mind. I am not sure why your questions are actually relevant, though I suppose I would answer that we live in a universe that has enabled the development of functioning brains, thus enabling minds to exist.

OK, so you are a materialist.

All of the evidence we have supports materialism.

We have no evidence that demonstrates materialism to the exclusion of idealism. All the claimed evidence for materialism is equally compatible with idealism.

[robertb]

OK, so you are a materialist.

We have no evidence that demonstrates materialism to the exclusion of idealism. All the claimed evidence for materialism is equally compatible with idealism.

I do not see how. We have evidence that minds are created by functioning brains, we have no evidence to contradict this.

In order to consider idealism a possibility, you will need to show that a mind can exist apart from a functioning brain, or even some other mechanism from which a mind can emanate, (which would still defeat idealism).

[ZackMartin]

I do not see how. We have evidence that minds are created by functioning brains, we have no evidence to contradict this.

We have no evidence that minds are created by functioning brains. We have evidence that minds are sometimes correlated with functioning brains. But correlation does not prove creation, and a correlation between mind and brain is just as compatible with the idea that the mind creates the brain as it is with the idea that the brain creates the mind.

You might say we lack evidence of minds existing independently of brains, but we have no evidence of brains existing independently of minds either.

Several materialists agree that minds can exist without brains. Materialists who believe in strong AI agree that minds can exist without brains, since a strong AI would have a mind, but wouldn't have a brain. Those materialists who believe that mind uploading (transfer of mind from biological to electronic substrate) might be possible with more advanced technology believe that some of the individual minds now existing might outlive the brains they are currently attached to - if the technology is developed, and if someone now living lives long to see it developed, that would be a possibility.

We have no idea what happens to mind when the brain dies. Maybe it ceases to exist. Maybe it goes somewhere else. While most materialists insist that the death of the brain is the death of the mind, idealist involves no particular opinion on that issue. Personally I believe that minds are immortal and cannot cease to exist, but one does not have to hold that belief to be an idealist. For an idealist, there is no particular reason to suppose that the death of the mind, if such a thing exists, coincides with the death of the brain, but there is no impossibility in their coincidence from a merely idealist view either.

In order to consider idealism a possibility, you will need to show that a mind can exist apart from a functioning brain, or even some other mechanism from which a mind can emanate, (which would still defeat idealism).

In order to consider materialism a possibility, you will need to show that matter can exist apart from a mind to observe it.

[robertb]

We have no evidence that minds are created by functioning brains. We have evidence that minds are sometimes correlated with functioning brains. But correlation does not prove creation, and a correlation between mind and brain is just as compatible with the idea that the mind creates the brain as it is with the idea that the brain creates the mind.

You might say we lack evidence of minds existing independently of brains, but we have no evidence of brains existing independently of minds either.

On the contrary, we only have evidence of minds being created by functioning brains. Are you seriously trying to say that this is even in doubt? It seems like you are confusing our lack of a complete understanding of how the mind works with a mistaken idea that due to that lack of understanding, we somehow do not know whether a brain is required to have a mind in the first place. That is quite the stretch.

And, BTW, a dead brain is still a brain. So yes, we have plentiful evidence of brains existing independently of minds.

Several materialists agree that minds can exist without brains. Materialists who believe in strong AI agree that minds can exist without brains, since a strong AI would have a mind, but wouldn't have a brain. Those materialists who believe that mind uploading (transfer of mind from biological to electronic substrate) might be possible with more advanced technology believe that some of the individual minds now existing might outlive the brains they are currently attached to - if the technology is developed, and if someone now living lives long to see it developed, that would be a possibility.

You are just substituting the brain for another physical mechanism. As I said earlier, still a defeater for idealism.

We have no idea what happens to mind when the brain dies. Maybe it ceases to exist. Maybe it goes somewhere else. While most materialists insist that the death of the brain is the death of the mind, idealist involves no particular opinion on that issue. Personally I believe that minds are immortal and cannot cease to exist, but one does not have to hold that belief to be an idealist. For an idealist, there is no particular reason to suppose that the death of the mind, if such a thing exists, coincides with the death of the brain, but there is no impossibility in their coincidence from a merely idealist view either.

What? When the brain dies, so goes the mind. Again, you can believe what you wish, but you have no evidence to support your belief.

In order to consider materialism a possibility, you will need to show that matter can exist apart from a mind to observe it.

No, as all the evidence supports the position that minds are the function of brains, it is for the one making the completely unevidenced assertion that minds can operate independently of brains to provide a valid reason why we should not think of materialism as the only rational possibility. As a mind has never been evidenced to exist apart from a brain and brains are a product of matter, what you asked to be shown is pretty much self evident.

[ZackMartin]

On the contrary, we only have evidence of minds being created by functioning brains. Are you seriously trying to say that this is even in doubt?

Yes, it is completely in doubt, it is in fact false. We have zero evidence of minds being created by functioning brains.

It seems like you are confusing our lack of a complete understanding of how the mind works with a mistaken idea that due to that lack of understanding, we somehow do not know whether a brain is required to have a mind in the first place. That is quite the stretch.

No, I'm not participating in any such confusion at all. There is much we don't know about both mind and brain, much we are yet to discover. We do not know whether a brain is required to have a mind.

And, BTW, a dead brain is still a brain. So yes, we have plentiful evidence of brains existing independently of minds.

But how do you know a dead brain exists? Someone observed it. Who observed it? A mind, whether your own (if you saw the dead brain for yourself) or someone else (if you are relying on their testimony that they saw it). And if no one observes it, then we infer it. And who inferred it? A mind again; and the justification for this inference is memory or testimony (oral or written) of prior observations by minds. So dead brains do not constitute evidence for brains existing independently of minds, because dead brains are not truly independent of minds.

You are just substituting the brain for another physical mechanism. As I said earlier, still a defeater for idealism.

There is no evidence that the mind requires a physical mechanism to exist. There is no evidence that physical mechanisms can exist without minds to observe them.

What? When the brain dies, so goes the mind.

There is no evidence for that, it is an argument from silence. A truly neutral person, who had not already made up their mind, would simply be agnostic about what happens to minds after the brain dies, since we lack any evidence either way.

Again, you can believe what you wish, but you have no evidence to support your belief.

And you can believe what you wish, but you have no evidence to support your belief either.

No, as all the evidence supports the position that minds are the function of brains,

On the contrary, there is absolutely no evidence for this assertion.

it is for the one making the completely unevidenced assertion that minds can operate independently of brains to provide a valid reason why we should not think of materialism as the only rational possibility.

It is for the one making the completely unevidenced assertion that brains can operate independently of minds to provide a valid reason why we should think of materialism as the only rational possibility.

As a mind has never been evidenced to exist apart from a brain and brains are a product of matter, what you asked to be shown is pretty much self evident.

A brain has never been evidenced to exist apart from a mind.

[robertb]

Yes, it is completely in doubt, it is in fact false. We have zero evidence of minds being created by functioning brains.

Alzheimer's, dementia, lobotomy, etc.

We simply do have this evidence. Your denial of it not withstanding.

No, I'm not participating in any such confusion at all. There is much we don't know about both mind and brain, much we are yet to discover. We do not know whether a brain is required to have a mind.

Yes we have a lot to learn, but your position that we do not know whether a brain, or some other physical mechanism, is required to have a mind is simply false.

But how do you know a dead brain exists? Someone observed it. Who observed it? A mind, whether your own (if you saw the dead brain for yourself) or someone else (if you are relying on their testimony that they saw it). And if no one observes it, then we infer it. And who inferred it? A mind again; and the justification for this inference is memory or testimony (oral or written) of prior observations by minds. So dead brains do not constitute evidence for brains existing independently of minds, because dead brains are not truly independent of minds.

I will simply tell you that until such a time as you can point to a mind that exists independently of a brain, or some other physical mechanism with which to propogate it, I will consider your statements an interesting philosophical exercise, but irrelevant to the reality we are forced to deal with regardless of whether we are just brains in a vat.

There is no evidence that the mind requires a physical mechanism to exist. There is no evidence that physical mechanisms can exist without minds to observe them.

There is only evidence that the mind requires a physical mechanism to exist. As physical mechanisms are required for a mind to exist, there is only evidence that physical mechanisms are required for minds to exist.

There is no evidence for that, it is an argument from silence. A truly neutral person, who had not already made up their mind, would simply be agnostic about what happens to minds after the brain dies, since we lack any evidence either way.

There is no evidence that a mind can exist apart from a brain, or other physical mechanism. This has nothing to do with neutrality, as it is not a popularity contest. Agnosticism does not apply where the evidence is simply overwhelming with no evidence to contradict it. That is called willfull ignorance.

And you can believe what you wish, but you have no evidence to support your belief either.

On the contrary, I only have evidence that supports my position and none that contradicts it.

On the contrary, there is absolutely no evidence for this assertion.

It is for the one making the completely unevidenced assertion that brains can operate independently of minds to provide a valid reason why we should think of materialism as the only rational possibility.

A brain has never been evidenced to exist apart from a mind.

Only if you ignore all of the evidence which contradicts your assertion.

[ZackMartin]

Alzheimer's, dementia, lobotomy, etc.

None of those in any way demonstrate that minds are created by functioning brains. All they demonstrate is that the function of mind and the function of brain are correlated, but the arrow of creation could go either way.

We simply do have this evidence. Your denial of it not withstanding.

You simply don't have any evidence. Your assertion that you do not withstanding.

Yes we have a lot to learn, but your position that we do not know whether a brain, or some other physical mechanism, is required to have a mind is simply false.

Your position that we know that a brain, or some other physical mechanism, is required to have a mind is simply false.

I will simply tell you that until such a time as you can point to a mind that exists independently of a brain, or some other physical mechanism with which to propogate it, I will consider your statements an interesting philosophical exercise, but irrelevant to the reality we are forced to deal with regardless of whether we are just brains in a vat.

I will simply tell you that until such a time as you can point to matter that exists independently of a mind to observe it, I will consider your statements an interesting philosophical exercise, but irrelevant to the reality with which we are forced to deal.

There is only evidence that the mind requires a physical mechanism to exist. As physical mechanisms are required for a mind to exist, there is only evidence that physical mechanisms are required for minds to exist.

There is no evidence that the mind requires a physical mechanism to exist.

There is no evidence that a mind can exist apart from a brain, or other physical mechanism.

There is no evidence that a mind cannot exist apart from a brain, or other physical mechanism.

There is no evidence that a brain, or other physical mechanism, can exist apart from a mind to observe it.

This has nothing to do with neutrality, as it is not a popularity contest. Agnosticism does not apply where the evidence is simply overwhelming with no evidence to contradict it. That is called willfull ignorance.

Agnosticism applies where there is no evidence, which is the case here. Never-ending assertions that evidence exists does nothing to change the complete lack of any.

On the contrary, I only have evidence that supports my position and none that contradicts it.

On the contrary, you do not have any evidence that supports your position, even though you mistakenly believe that you do.

Only if you ignore all of the evidence which contradicts your assertion.

Only if you ignore that your supposed evidence isn't evidence at all for many of the propositions that you claim it is evidence of.

[robertb]

I suppose we will have to simply disagree.

Let me ask you something, you can answer if you think it appropriate.

Is your theism based on your philosophical position, or is your philosophical position based on your theism?

[ZackMartin]

Is your theism based on your philosophical position, or is your philosophical position based on your theism?

I see them as formally independent but complementary ideas. You could accept idealism without theism, or theism without idealism, but as a matter of fact I accept both.

[robertb]

I see them as formally independent but complementary ideas. You could accept idealism without theism, or theism without idealism, but as a matter of fact I accept both.

I suppose idealism would only argue for deism directly.

I just get the impression that you have created a compartment in your reasoning in order to personally rationalize some beliefs. I suppose you might consider me to be riding in the same boat, as it were.

[ZackMartin]

I suppose idealism would only argue for deism directly.

If all reality is mind, its not implausible that there is a "Big Mind". But then again, there is no requirement to believe in one either. John McTaggart is a good example of an atheist idealist - he believed all reality was ultimately mind, but he saw mind as ultimately plural (there will always be many, never just one), and did not believe that any of those minds was a "Big Mind". I've also encountered similar ideas when I studied Tibetan Buddhism - everything is mind, but there is no "Big Mind" - although Tibetan Buddhism is more monistic than McTaggart, but maybe not quite as monistic as many forms of Hinduism (such as Advaita Vedanta)

I just get the impression that you have created a compartment in your reasoning in order to personally rationalize some beliefs. I suppose you might consider me to be riding in the same boat, as it were.

Indeed, the feeling is mutual

[Markseasigh]

Six questions for Theists who endorse ET:

1) why should I think it reasonable that Evolution occurred over billions of years when Evolution is dependent on mutations and the great majority of mutations are either maladaptive or neutral.

2) why should I think Evolution, especially macro-evolution, is reasonable when there appears to be irreducibly complex systems in many/most organisms.

3) why should I be confident in Evolution when there are huge gaps in the fossil record.

4) why should I have confidence in Evolution when evidence such as soft tissue in T. Rex bones is dismissed.

5) why should I have confidence in scientific constructs surrounding Evolution, archeology, geology, etc., when they are based on the fundamental assumption of "Uniformity."

6) why should I accept that life started spontaneously billions of years ago when scientist cannot demonstrate that the required organic molecules could be assembled in a primordial earth. "Life comes from life."

PS Absolutely NO flaming, rudeness or need for documentation. If it is presented, documentation, I may or may not look at it. Sparko will enforce the other conditions for posting with his bloody Pirate sword.

Please keep it simple. I have a wide background in science . . . but not deep.

I HAVE YOUR ANSWER< AND ITS ANOTHER QUESTION>>>>>

WHY DO YOU THINK THAT IF YOU SAY THAT ALIENS ARE ANGELS THAT YOU BELIEVE IN MACRO EVOLUTION?

GOD MADE THE ANGELS TOO>

THe Fact that we are seeing ufo's only confirms the bible saying that there are angels watching over us.

If Aliens worship an almighty and powerful God that Created everything in the universe.
THEN
MAYBE WE SHOULD TOO!!!!!

I DO

PRAISE GOD FOR GOD IS WORTHY OF PRAISE!!!!!

There are several types of angels as far as I can tell.\

Cherubim Searaphim Ophanim Enim

the " IM" on the end of the name means plural form, or a type of people.
So a singular form of Cherubim is a Cherub. others ex. Seraph, Ophan, and En.

These are all different types of angels.
We also know of another type of angel.... DRAGON ANGELS.
The SERPENT RACE. These are remembered by the ancient civilizations of china and the mayans indians also believed in dragons. The snake in the Garden is a SNAKE not a large flying dragon angel with legs and arms.

here are their references

Seraph ( Isaiah 6:2 )
Cherub ( Ezekiel ch 1, 10 )

Neither the ophanim or ENIM are mentioned in the Bible by name.
So they do not exist.

The Enim are supposed to be the manlike creatures that Appear to lot in Sodom before it is destroyed Genesis 19:1

Ophanim have been said to be part of Gods throne in Isaiah, BUT I DON't See that name so no...

BUT SERPANT or Dragon Angels are real.
Revelation 12:7