Monotheism and Minds: Why Monotheism Is Untenable

[Nephew Twiddleton]

Social context is not needed for thought. I'm saying this from a biological perspective.

There are plenty of species of animal with otherwise complex nervous systems that do not socialize. They're still capable of thought because they still have to interact with their environments. This even works with humans. Picture yourself as the absolute last human in existence. You would probably talk to yourself a lot at first, and then maybe gradually get silent. Other animals you come across are food. No socializing. Let's just say dogs are totally gone too. There's no particular reason to think anything about anything outside of your immediate needs, but when the sun goes down and your food is consumed, are you going to still wonder, or are you just a meat automaton because there's no other automatons to communicate with?

[QueenThera]

Social context is not needed for thought. I'm saying this from a biological perspective.

There are plenty of species of animal with otherwise complex nervous systems that do not socialize. They're still capable of thought because they still have to interact with their environments. This even works with humans. Picture yourself as the absolute last human in existence. You would probably talk to yourself a lot at first, and then maybe gradually get silent. Other animals you come across are food. No socializing. Let's just say dogs are totally gone too. There's no particular reason to think anything about anything outside of your immediate needs, but when the sun goes down and your food is consumed, are you going to still wonder, or are you just a meat automaton because there's no other automatons to communicate with?

I'd need to read up on feral children cases. And I am interested in these non-social intelligent animals too. Most of the ones I've read about are social. ...except octopi, I think. Octopi and some squid? Or some octopi and some squid.

But yes, I suppose my feeble OP argument is pretty thoroughly demolished. Thanks! 

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

And now it's fairly moot, since evidently people can think without thought.

People can think without language. To be clear. I am assuming that this is just a slip o'the tongue, so to speak, but just to make sure...

...I cannot create a post without saying something stupid, can I? Damn.

That's another interesting thing about the mind and language. Sometimes the mind just jumps the sentence and knocks over a word or two in the process. Happens all the time, even to the most deliberate communicator.

The funny thing is, when two people are on the same wavelength, the other person might not even notice because they were anticipating, and therefore heard, what the other person MEANT to say, rather than what they actually said.

I've noticed that in written communication when you revisit the conversation. You don't notice the errors at the time, but when you go back it's like, wait, ohh... right. How did I not catch that before? It's like catching your own autocorrect errors after the fact, except someone else made them

I have seen similar kinds of things in my chat logs.

It's disturbing to find out first-hand how inscrutable your own thought process is to others.

Ahem. Back on the topic that I sorta started? I was defining God as Mind preceding Matter. By God, I meant the Creator implied by Creationism and the Finely-Tuned Universe, the opponent to militant atheists like Dawkins. God exists before the Big Bang in this scenario, and thus probably precedes matter. I suppose the question, put better, was how a Mind could exist without a social context.

OK, so you ARE talking about a Judeo-Christian definition of God? Are you gonna stick with this one?

Nigel has noted that I almost implied God needs an evolutionary context to emerge from. Well, now I state it outright: I am not sure how you can have a mind WITHOUT a social context to emerge from. The organizers of raw primordial soup that you see in polytheistic myths (including the pluralistic take on Elohim) strike me as closer to early humans founding civilization than to watchmakers building their watches. A watchmaker implies a whole culture outside himself. I was using language as a short-hand for the need for other people: I speak because I expect others to listen. As has been noted, time-binding can explain language just fine.

I think you need to clarify your thesis a little better. Are you saying that the existence of "mind" requires evolutionary context, or that the existence of "mind" requires social context? And now you refer again to polytheistic myths including the Judeochristian Elohim... are you referring to them as a sensical model or as an example of an unworkable model? This entire paragraph seems incredibly unclear and not well thought through. I can't even identify your thesis statement in it.

Now...does the definition of Monotheist God as Mind preceding Matter hold water? How wrong is it to assume the first Mind needed to be one of many?

Probably not wrong, as much as self-referential intellectual wankery that completely depends on following your own definitions for every element of the question.

And why does Doktor Howl hate my avatar? One too many fans of Discord shitting up the forums?

No, because of bronies.

[LMNO]

Let's put it this way: You create a God from a definition that isn't found in any mythology.

You then constrain that God with rules that, as a God, are completely arbitrary.

You then argue against a God acting within those constraints.


You're sort of creating an easily defeatable argument, aren't you?

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Let's put it this way: You create a God from a definition that isn't found in any mythology.

You then constrain that God with rules that, as a God, are completely arbitrary.

You then argue against a God acting within those constraints.


You're sort of creating an easily defeatable argument, aren't you?

That kinda seems like a nice, concise description of what's going on.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

And now it's fairly moot, since evidently people can think without thought.

People can think without language. To be clear. I am assuming that this is just a slip o'the tongue, so to speak, but just to make sure...

...I cannot create a post without saying something stupid, can I? Damn.

That's another interesting thing about the mind and language. Sometimes the mind just jumps the sentence and knocks over a word or two in the process. Happens all the time, even to the most deliberate communicator.

The funny thing is, when two people are on the same wavelength, the other person might not even notice because they were anticipating, and therefore heard, what the other person MEANT to say, rather than what they actually said.

I've noticed that in written communication when you revisit the conversation. You don't notice the errors at the time, but when you go back it's like, wait, ohh... right. How did I not catch that before? It's like catching your own autocorrect errors after the fact, except someone else made them

I have seen similar kinds of things in my chat logs.

It's disturbing to find out first-hand how inscrutable your own thought process is to others.

Ahem. Back on the topic that I sorta started? I was defining God as Mind preceding Matter. By God, I meant the Creator implied by Creationism and the Finely-Tuned Universe, the opponent to militant atheists like Dawkins. God exists before the Big Bang in this scenario, and thus probably precedes matter. I suppose the question, put better, was how a Mind could exist without a social context.

Ok, hang on a minute here. It seems like you're lumping your premises in as necessarily entwined. Which is probably why I thought you were conflating monotheism with Judeochrislam. I think I've already touched on how a mind can exist without a social context. A mind only exists to make sure that a particular pattern of nucleic acids replicates to a certain degree. I myself am not an atheist, but one of my favorite quotes is actually a Dawkins quote and has nothing to do with atheism, but with the chicken and the egg. He basically said the chicken is merely a means for the egg to make more eggs. And if you ever studied even an overview of plant evolution, you would know that that's a pretty apt comparison (mosses, which are more "primitive" spend most of their life cycle in the haploid stage, whereas flowering plants which are more recent spend most of their time in the diploid stage. If you don't know what that means, humans are haploid when they are sperm and egg, and diploid when they are embryo to corpse)

Nigel has noted that I almost implied God needs an evolutionary context to emerge from. Well, now I state it outright: I am not sure how you can have a mind WITHOUT a social context to emerge from. The organizers of raw primordial soup that you see in polytheistic myths (including the pluralistic take on Elohim) strike me as closer to early humans founding civilization than to watchmakers building their watches. A watchmaker implies a whole culture outside himself. I was using language as a short-hand for the need for other people: I speak because I expect others to listen. As has been noted, time-binding can explain language just fine.

A god needs nothing. A theology does. And a human language to express the concept. I'm still not exactly sure what you mean by God, even within a monotheistic model. Is it omnipotent? Omniscient? Omnipresent? Benevolent? Eternal? Has personhood? Has complicated system of ethics? Intervenes in the affairs of a quirk species on a random planet? Promises immorality after biological death? I used to worship the Irish gods. Mythologically speaking, I was at any point in my life perfectly able to kill one of them if I had a whim to do so and they were physically present before me.

Now...does the definition of Monotheist God as Mind preceding Matter hold water? How wrong is it to assume the first Mind needed to be one of many?

We can't know what preceded the universe as we understand it. The question, objectively, is meaningless. If you want to conceive of mind preceding matter, you have to be able to demonstrate a model where a mind can exist without matter. We don't know if there is an outside of this Universe. If there is, that opens up a lot of questions. Questions we might not be able to answer because our universe is a closed system. As far as we can tell.

And why does Doktor Howl hate my avatar? One too many fans of Discord shitting up the forums?
[/quote]

I don't recognize your avatar. Maybe you're putting too much importance on its significance and recognizability.

[LMNO]

Let's put it this way: You create a God from a definition that isn't found in any mythology.

You then constrain that God with rules that, as a God, are completely arbitrary.

You then argue against a God acting within those constraints.


You're sort of creating an easily defeatable argument, aren't you?

That kinda seems like a nice, concise description of what's going on.

And it only took me three days to get there!

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Let's put it this way: You create a God from a definition that isn't found in any mythology.

You then constrain that God with rules that, as a God, are completely arbitrary.

You then argue against a God acting within those constraints.


You're sort of creating an easily defeatable argument, aren't you?

That kinda seems like a nice, concise description of what's going on.

And it only took me three days to get there!

Shit, I don't even know what he's getting at anymore, so you're one ahead of me.

[QueenThera]

Let's put it this way: You create a God from a definition that isn't found in any mythology.

You then constrain that God with rules that, as a God, are completely arbitrary.

You then argue against a God acting within those constraints.


You're sort of creating an easily defeatable argument, aren't you?

That kinda seems like a nice, concise description of what's going on.

And it only took me three days to get there!

Shit, I don't even know what he's getting at anymore, so you're one ahead of me.

...to be fair, neither do I. I think I was trying to argue against creationism, instead of specific mythologies? Blargh.

Fuck, it's been too long since I've had to argue anything with people who actually knew what they're talking about.

[QueenThera]

And now it's fairly moot, since evidently people can think without thought.

People can think without language. To be clear. I am assuming that this is just a slip o'the tongue, so to speak, but just to make sure...

...I cannot create a post without saying something stupid, can I? Damn.

That's another interesting thing about the mind and language. Sometimes the mind just jumps the sentence and knocks over a word or two in the process. Happens all the time, even to the most deliberate communicator.

The funny thing is, when two people are on the same wavelength, the other person might not even notice because they were anticipating, and therefore heard, what the other person MEANT to say, rather than what they actually said.

I've noticed that in written communication when you revisit the conversation. You don't notice the errors at the time, but when you go back it's like, wait, ohh... right. How did I not catch that before? It's like catching your own autocorrect errors after the fact, except someone else made them

I have seen similar kinds of things in my chat logs.

It's disturbing to find out first-hand how inscrutable your own thought process is to others.

Ahem. Back on the topic that I sorta started? I was defining God as Mind preceding Matter. By God, I meant the Creator implied by Creationism and the Finely-Tuned Universe, the opponent to militant atheists like Dawkins. God exists before the Big Bang in this scenario, and thus probably precedes matter. I suppose the question, put better, was how a Mind could exist without a social context.

Ok, hang on a minute here. It seems like you're lumping your premises in as necessarily entwined. Which is probably why I thought you were conflating monotheism with Judeochrislam. I think I've already touched on how a mind can exist without a social context. A mind only exists to make sure that a particular pattern of nucleic acids replicates to a certain degree. I myself am not an atheist, but one of my favorite quotes is actually a Dawkins quote and has nothing to do with atheism, but with the chicken and the egg. He basically said the chicken is merely a means for the egg to make more eggs. And if you ever studied even an overview of plant evolution, you would know that that's a pretty apt comparison (mosses, which are more "primitive" spend most of their life cycle in the haploid stage, whereas flowering plants which are more recent spend most of their time in the diploid stage. If you don't know what that means, humans are haploid when they are sperm and egg, and diploid when they are embryo to corpse)

Nigel has noted that I almost implied God needs an evolutionary context to emerge from. Well, now I state it outright: I am not sure how you can have a mind WITHOUT a social context to emerge from. The organizers of raw primordial soup that you see in polytheistic myths (including the pluralistic take on Elohim) strike me as closer to early humans founding civilization than to watchmakers building their watches. A watchmaker implies a whole culture outside himself. I was using language as a short-hand for the need for other people: I speak because I expect others to listen. As has been noted, time-binding can explain language just fine.

A god needs nothing. A theology does. And a human language to express the concept. I'm still not exactly sure what you mean by God, even within a monotheistic model. Is it omnipotent? Omniscient? Omnipresent? Benevolent? Eternal? Has personhood? Has complicated system of ethics? Intervenes in the affairs of a quirk species on a random planet? Promises immorality after biological death? I used to worship the Irish gods. Mythologically speaking, I was at any point in my life perfectly able to kill one of them if I had a whim to do so and they were physically present before me.

Now...does the definition of Monotheist God as Mind preceding Matter hold water? How wrong is it to assume the first Mind needed to be one of many?

We can't know what preceded the universe as we understand it. The question, objectively, is meaningless. If you want to conceive of mind preceding matter, you have to be able to demonstrate a model where a mind can exist without matter. We don't know if there is an outside of this Universe. If there is, that opens up a lot of questions. Questions we might not be able to answer because our universe is a closed system. As far as we can tell.

And why does Doktor Howl hate my avatar? One too many fans of Discord shitting up the forums?

I don't recognize your avatar. Maybe you're putting too much importance on its significance and recognizability.
[/quote]Well, I changed the avatar since I've had the original dissed by Howl one too many times.

And, well, I know the stupid OP argument is stupid, but I swear its definition of God isn't totally from inside my own head. I just elided over things not relevant to the aspect I wanted to concentrate on.

God cannot be situated in space or time, or composed of atoms, if He created all of them from scratch. ...according to Christian apologetics that I read years and years ago.

...Eh, I suppose I should just abandon this, and maybe reread The Case for Christ.

[hooplala]

You keep saying "God cannot".  Based on what?

[QueenThera]

You keep saying "God cannot".  Based on what?

Some bullshit argument that I once read that tried to prove God must be the same as what Christians believe. So...nothing, really.

[Doktor Howl]

You keep saying "God cannot".  Based on what?

God would have to stand outside the universe, or he'd just be another natural - if very powerful - critter.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

To build a really solid argument about the nature of God, you first would have to get all of your audience to agree on a definition of God... and since neither Dok Howl nor LMNO nor Twid nor I agree on the definition of God, I can tell you right now that's a fruitless endeavor when it comes to this board.

Basically, you could build an argument according to an "if...then" modus ponens structure, but I could almost lay money on people challenging the "if" no matter how you laid it out, unless you can find a specific argument (for example, the Christian book you refer to) that you are counterarguing (in which case you might find very limited interest in the topic among those here, because you won't be talking to us or about anything most of us are familiar with).

[Doktor Howl]

and since neither Dok Howl nor LMNO nor Twid nor I agree on the definition of God,

You guys should stop being wrong.  All I'm sayin'.