[Johan]

Your first argument is valid, but it isn’t sound since I don’t think that P1) is sufficiently supported to be considered sound. I don’t think that highlighting the difference between a created mind and a creator mind helps you at all here since the argument is broad enough to accommodate for both kinds of minds. If you want to make the distinction you need to change the premise to:

1. Created living thinking minds require design.

This premise would properly differentiate the types of minds. It would also allow God to be excluded from the need to be designed (assuming God is uncreated), however, I don’t accept that humans were created either though, so they don’t require design as well.

Your second argument is not valid because there are non-sequiturs and the premises don’t follow from each other in a coherent way, so the argument cannot go through.

• This reply was modified 1 year ago by  Johan.

[jayceeii]

JB: Your first argument is valid, but it isn’t sound since I don’t think that P1) is sufficiently supported to be considered sound.

JC: I think you mean the first argument listed, since it isn’t my argument but one upon which I was commenting. It seems you are finding alternative reasons to argue that it is flawed.

JB: I don’t think that highlighting the difference between a created mind and a creator mind helps you at all here since the argument is broad enough to accommodate for both kinds of minds.

JC: I think the latter implies you haven’t quite understood the former. My argument is that the minds are incommensurate, but you still insist this argument accommodates both. You don’t see a difference between these minds or think that God would be that different.

JB: If you want to make the distinction you need to change the premise to:

1. Created living thinking minds require design.

JC: This would make the argument beg the question, but I would agree with it. The argument relied on a general premise that all living thinking minds require design, then adding the proposition God is like that with no caveat the Creator may not be like a creature. If you begin with the premise as you state it, it is already admitted God’s Mind is not designed.

JB: This premise would properly differentiate the types of minds. It would also allow God to be excluded from the need to be designed (assuming God is uncreated), however, I don’t accept that humans were created either though, so they don’t require design as well.

JC: I guess here is how I might write it:

1. Living thinking minds such as humans possess require design.
2. God’s Mind could be described as “living and thinking,” but only in a way no created mind could comprehend.
3. No reasoning is possible making an analogy from a human mind to God’s Mind, but God’s design of that mind may have restricted the ability to see this.

It’s a test not exactly of imagination, but that of making hypotheses regarding potential reality in a context of a planet virtually flooded by reports (but no verified sightings) of God. If men conclude if there were a God He would be commensurate, they aren’t thinking well about God’s abilities and duties, in generating worlds and biospheres.

JB: Your second argument is not valid because there are non-sequiturs and the premises don’t follow from each other in a coherent way, so the argument cannot go through.

JC: Oh, that’s the argument of the ants, and I didn’t expect it to go through, instead to serve as an analogy which illustrates the incommensurateness of God to the created (or human as you deny creation), mind. My point in listing some of God’s abilities (that would be necessary to support creation), is that a person should think, “Those are not the kinds of things I can do or think about, therefore God is not a sugar-gatherer, such as I.”

For instance if you think of “living,” you think about existing in a body and experiencing the senses. God’s life isn’t anything like that, existing in all places through omnipresence and having no body. Anything your mind can associate with “living,” has nothing to do with and no similarities to God’s life. Then about “thinking,” you are a singular entity with one train of thought, but God is a massively parallel Entity (again, as necessary to support creation), with quintillions (or an outrageously high number) of trains of thought supported simultaneously, plus higher and higher integrating regions of thought at many levels. Anything of what “think” means to you, is incommensurate with “think” to God.

[Johan]

“1. Living thinking minds such as humans possess require design.
2. God’s Mind could be described as “living and thinking,” but only in a way no created mind could comprehend.
3. No reasoning is possible making an analogy from a human mind to God’s Mind, but God’s design of that mind may have restricted the ability to see this.”

Again, this argument does not follow. To steel man it, I would say:

1. Living thinking minds such as humans possess require design.
2. God’s mind is not a “living thinking mind such as humans possess”.
3. Therefore God’s mind does not require design.

Or to simplify it better:
1. Human minds require design.
2. God’s mind is not a human mind.
3. Therefore God’s mind does not require design.

Once again though, I don’t agree with (1), so I cannot accept the argument as sound.

[jayceeii]

Like the original argument I wasn’t offering a syllogism but a collection of what I’d call consistent sentences. Nonetheless I would agree with both your restatements in syllogistic form, as well that 1 is unproved at the moment.

The question is when can a mind consider a mind greater than itself, but not involve itself when the distance is very great? One can make similar propositions, that a human mind might not be able to conceive of what an angel’s mind or experience is like, that this may be another degree of incommensurateness with the divine.

I’ve suggested other places that this is how the disciples recognized the Lord, that whatever processes were going on behind that brow to generate those sentences, they could tell were unlike the processes occurring within themselves.

Further, the self-discovery of the exact operation of one’s own mind, would logically lead to the ability to detect when other minds are operating differently, to know authoritatively if the mind was created, and to begin to discriminate between superior and inferior.

[wonderer]

JC: “I’ve suggested other places that this is how the disciples recognized the Lord, that whatever processes were going on behind that brow to generate those sentences, they could tell were unlike the processes occurring within themselves.”

If so the disciples would have been committing a non-sequitur. There is a degree of uniqueness to what occurs in everyone’s mind. So how do you get from an individual thinks differently to that individual being God?

FWIW, I suspect that Jesus recognized that there was an unusualness to his thinking and that prompted him to ask, “Who do you say that I am?” However I don’t see any reason to think there needs to be a supernatural explanation for the idiosyncrasies of Jesus’ thinking.

That said, given the state of neuroscience in Jesus’ day, what would have been miraculous is if Jesus had arrived at a neuroscientific explanation for his idiosyncrasies. So it’s hardly surprising that Jesus would settle for a supernatural explanation.

JC: “Further, the self-discovery of the exact operation of one’s own mind, would logically lead to the ability to detect when other minds are operating differently, to know authoritatively if the mind was created, and to begin to discriminate between superior and inferior.”

Who do you think has ever discovered the “exact operation” of his own mind? And why do you think so? I would think someone would need to be considering the operation of his own mind awfully simplistically to think that he had discovered the exact operation of his own mind.

Furthermore, to see minds along a single dimension of superior/inferior is itself simplistic, and an indication of a lack of self awareness.

[jayceeii]

JC1: “I’ve suggested other places that this is how the disciples recognized the Lord, that whatever processes were going on behind that brow to generate those sentences, they could tell were unlike the processes occurring within themselves.”

WR: If so the disciples would have been committing a non-sequitur. There is a degree of uniqueness to what occurs in everyone’s mind. So how do you get from an individual thinks differently to that individual being God?

JC2: The souls are driven from within, but the Lord is driven from without. If you’re attuned to it, you can virtually see the Creator abiding in the Lord as His one platform. Since they are not God, the disciples don’t recognize the Lord from traces in themselves. Instead they recognize that of all at the table, He is the only one who COULD be God. From there on talk from the Lord about His divinity and Incarnation are taken seriously.

Humans (who are not disciples) can tell that the Lord is different but they interpret it negatively. So there is within every soul a sense of what can emerge from a soul. This is what caused Jesus to say, “As you do unto the least of these,” for He knew humans would regard Him of all people they knew, least likely to be God, as humans are NOT looking for one is different even though only one who is different could possibly be the Savior.

WR: FWIW, I suspect that Jesus recognized that there was an unusualness to his thinking and that prompted him to ask, “Who do you say that I am?” However I don’t see any reason to think there needs to be a supernatural explanation for the idiosyncrasies of Jesus’ thinking.

JC2: No, when you are with the Lord you are literally with God. In fact the Incarnation is the only channel through which the Creator can speak or act directly within His creation. So Jesus wasn’t puzzled by who He was, and He did not “figure it out.” It’s a revelation.

WR: That said, given the state of neuroscience in Jesus’ day, what would have been miraculous is if Jesus had arrived at a neuroscientific explanation for his idiosyncrasies. So it’s hardly surprising that Jesus would settle for a supernatural explanation.

JC2: You are again taking the model that Jesus has an independent soul or presence, and would be puzzled by His own manifestations. Instead it is the Creator there in knowledge.

JC1: “Further, the self-discovery of the exact operation of one’s own mind, would logically lead to the ability to detect when other minds are operating differently, to know authoritatively if the mind was created, and to begin to discriminate between superior and inferior.”

WR: Who do you think has ever discovered the “exact operation” of his own mind? And why do you think so?

JC2: All of “the fallen” have done so. I can tell because when they speak they exhibit creativity from above the senses, as well as an authority not present in most on Earth. They have a warmth or gentle radiance since no harm is in them. As I’ve admitted I do not have an army of holy angels beside me to help prove the point in a practical way. The fallen at present are fully convinced they are human, nor can I awaken them from this. This seems to be part of the curse, perhaps. But I think they could awaken if they wished.

WR: I would think someone would need to be considering the operation of his own mind awfully simplistically to think that he had discovered the exact operation of his own mind.

JC2: Or to have a very powerful mind capable of penetrating its vast inner complexity. This is something of the point about angels, they are powerful, though it may not seem so within the limits of embodiment unless they’re given a chance to stand at their full height.

WR: Furthermore, to see minds along a single dimension of superior/inferior is itself simplistic, and an indication of a lack of self awareness.

JC2: If the souls are arranged on a continuum the wise can see this very clearly. Also between themselves they can see marks of greater or lesser wisdom, as I’ve noted they might compare who has the most virtue, but not the most purity since all angels are pure. This superiority is not along a channel of domination, instead the ones who dominate for feelings of value are judged to be on the lower end. Instead it’s along a channel of nobility and selflessness, for instance who contributes most deeply to the universal joy.