This is your brain on God

[Ecurb Noselrub]

Well, no one can know anything for sure. But that is the running theory based on evidence. I think there for I am, so I know I am there. As for a cosmic puppet master, there are too many inconsistencies. When in doubt use bayesian theory to analyse probabilities.

There are lots of options other than a cosmic puppet master.  There could be an advanced alien civilization that is listening to all our communications, for example. Or a deist creator. Or maybe we are in a simulation.  I think sometimes we overreach with our dichotomies.

Possibly but no evidence for either hypothesis. Especially the last one (simulation) since we only come up with that idea as soon as we developed computers with algorithms. It's an association fallacy.

The absence of evidence does not equal evidence of absence.  The most one could say is that "I don't see any evidence that someone is there." 

I'm not convinced that the simulation possibility (I hesitate to call it an hypothesis) is an association fallacy.  If two things seem to operate according to the same rules, it's at least worth inquiring whether they are at least in the same class of objects.  It hasn't been affirmatively eliminated as a possibility, so it's still a viable option.  Perhaps evidence will be developed in the future.  For the time being, we just don't know. 

[Essie Mae]

Research has found that the language part of the brain lights up during prayer. It's as though they are actually talking to someone, although no-one is actually there.

It's engrained in our DNA due to our evolution. A survival mechanism.

How do you know no one is there?

Why doesn't god heal amputees?

Why don't the museums stick arms on those broken statues?

So with you on that last one Bad Penny II. Venus de Milo and the like give me the shivers and I wouldn't even look at her in The Louvre.

[Arturo]

Well, no one can know anything for sure. But that is the running theory based on evidence. I think there for I am, so I know I am there. As for a cosmic puppet master, there are too many inconsistencies. When in doubt use bayesian theory to analyse probabilities.

There are lots of options other than a cosmic puppet master.  There could be an advanced alien civilization that is listening to all our communications, for example. Or a deist creator. Or maybe we are in a simulation.  I think sometimes we overreach with our dichotomies.

Possibly but no evidence for either hypothesis. Especially the last one (simulation) since we only come up with that idea as soon as we developed computers with algorithms. It's an association fallacy.

The absence of evidence does not equal evidence of absence.  The most one could say is that "I don't see any evidence that someone is there." 

I'm not convinced that the simulation possibility (I hesitate to call it an hypothesis) is an association fallacy.  If two things seem to operate according to the same rules, it's at least worth inquiring whether they are at least in the same class of objects.  It hasn't been affirmatively eliminated as a possibility, so it's still a viable option.  Perhaps evidence will be developed in the future.  For the time being, we just don't know.

I think, given the amount of time that humans have been studying psychology (which started out as the study of the soul) and how that has correlated with neuroscience, that that is sufficient evidence to me that there is no soul. And if there is no soul, the you can start to make the argument that there is no God. We've spent hundreds of years looking for souls and found none. And if God supposedly gave us all a soul and there is none, then maybe God does not exist.

[Ecurb Noselrub]

I think, given the amount of time that humans have been studying psychology (which started out as the study of the soul) and how that has correlated with neuroscience, that that is sufficient evidence to me that there is no soul. And if there is no soul, the you can start to make the argument that there is no God. We've spent hundreds of years looking for souls and found none. And if God supposedly gave us all a soul and there is none, then maybe God does not exist.

I don't think the lack of a "soul" is proof of the absence of God or of any other "someone there".  I don't accept the idea of a soul, but I do accept the idea of a creative intelligence (God).  Apples and oranges.

[Arturo]

I think, given the amount of time that humans have been studying psychology (which started out as the study of the soul) and how that has correlated with neuroscience, that that is sufficient evidence to me that there is no soul. And if there is no soul, the you can start to make the argument that there is no God. We've spent hundreds of years looking for souls and found none. And if God supposedly gave us all a soul and there is none, then maybe God does not exist.

I don't think the lack of a "soul" is proof of the absence of God or of any other "someone there".  I don't accept the idea of a soul, but I do accept the idea of a creative intelligence (God).  Apples and oranges.

Yes but apples and oranges are still fruit. Some preach about the soul and it being given to you by God. And the lack thereof is in itself not "proof" that there is no God. But I'm saying that the point I made can be used in a larger argument that there is none. If one day we as a society, have the knowledge that many scientists today already have, and that knowledge becomes common sense, then I think an argument of that kind could be made among regular people.

However, I do not claim to have that knowledge. Only that I am going off what I hear from people who speak for science. I do though, have some knowledge in psychology, which is how I can make that argument about the soul and God.