Brainless Mind vs. No Something from Nothing

My previous Tie breaker Article was about un-caused God vs, Un-caused universe[1], This One is about Mind vs cause,. William Lane Craig and other Christian apologists have at times argued that we  have no example of anything coning to be without a prior cause. Yet some atheists assert the universe can pop into existence out of nothing with no prior cause merely because we think some quantum particles seem to do that.To which some atheists have been known to respond, "there is no example  of a consciousness without being produced by a brain." Actually there is such an example.

There are these things called "slime molds" they are found under old logs and things, they look like cheese or like,mac and cheese and yellow oatmeal they are causing scientists to re-evaluate intelligence, Farris Jabr tells us:

Single-celled amoebae can remember, make decisions and anticipate change, urging scientists to rethink intelligent behavior...Something scientists have come to understand is that slime molds are much smarter than they look. One species in particular, the SpongeBob SquarePants–yellow Physarum polycephalum, can solve mazes, mimic the layout of man-made transportation networks and choose the healthiest food from a diverse menu—and all this without a brain or nervous system. "Slime molds are redefining what you need to have to qualify as intelligent,[2]

These slime molds seem to be making choices and believing intelligent ways, well ways appropriate to a petri dish.[3] They are not thoroughing wild parties or going to the library. Of course this is a proverbs 26:5  kind of answer.[4] 

The problem is The skeptic is usually claiming that naturalistic explanations account for everything. So it's not unfair to expect that the Skeptic's answer should be empirically observable. since most skeptics of the naturalistic vent claim to be empiricists and many athetists adhere to the maxim don't believe things without empirical proof. At that rate then there should be empirical proof that something could come from nothing rather than merely making faith statements embracing optimistic readings of data that experts argue over.

But what about  other side of the equation? The Theist is not claiming that God is a product of the natural world. The theist is not claiming that God is one of many recurring phenomena. We are saying that God is the basis of all reality, thus God  is off scale form empirical evidence. God is not given in sense data (thus is not amenable to empirical evidence or investigation). The existence of God must be deiced logically or argued in terms of warrant  based upon best evidence, Best evidence can be shaky, It makes no sense to hold this thing that transcends our understanding to comparison to the products of a nature the thing itself created."Science is the study of the natural world through observation and experiment. A scientific explanation is a way of explaining something we see in the natural world that's based on observations and measurements." [5] So then why try to subject God to Scientific evidence? 

It's no good asking then how can one intellectually justify  belief in God? I just alluded to that, Either logical argent or rational warrant, It's not that empirical evidence is not irrelevant but it can't be direct evidence for or against God. For example in my God arguments empirical data is mediated through the notion of the co-determinate; the co-determinate (God's metaphorical finger print) has to be a good logically deduced reason to accept the co-determinate. Examples of recurrence in nature is not going to be one of them. Mystical experience is a valid one because it;s close to the reason for religion in the first place and its an example of divine activity in one's life. It's the ultimate transfomrative experience that enplanes the human problematic. 

Should the Skeptic charge that we are just imposing our limited human understanding on the world, that;s all science is doing. We can see that clearly when  skeptics try to impose the mystique of science upon matters for which they have no empirical evidence but they not only try to pretend that they do but they also try impose those expectations upon religious belief as though God is just another occurrence in nature. But in accessing the implications of mind in nature as a whole, as with all causality, it;s going to come down to the tightness of the correlation, just as it does in accessing naturalistic causality. 

The difference is there is no reason to expect universal mind to be mediated through  naturalistic  brain,  We don't need to expect universal mind to be echoed in the micro examples. But we can understand qualities of mind on a larger scale as with fine tuning  for example. Or with rules change argument  for temple beginning,those would have to be written in at the macro level to make sense. 

I think what both sides are missing is the metaphorical nature of our understanding as a who;e. It;s the metaphors that allow meaning and understanding to literal adherence to the rigid meaning. our understanding of God is metaphor but the experiential aspects are the point of religion.





Sources


[1] Joseph Hinman, "Tie Breaker, God Cannot Be A Brute Fact." Metacrock's Blog (Nov. 7,2017)

[2] Ferris Jabr, "How Brimless Slime Molds Redefine Intelligence," Scientific American (Nov 7,2012)

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/brainless-slime-molds/
(accessed 3/12/2018)

[3] Ibid

[4] Proverbs 265, "answer a fool according to his folly." in other words give stupid question stupid answers,

• on