1: I am taking a logical stance. I don't claim to be taking a 'more scientific stance', whatever that actually means.
2: I did not claim that consciousness wasn't dependent on the brain. I said that it is unknown either way whether consciousness continues after death.
Accidents which damage the brain is not death.
3: An interesting observation. If a person considers their self to be the physical body and finds their self still existing after death but absent a physical form, it would take some getting used to I imagine.
If a person considers their self to be consciousness then it could be less of a problem adjusting to the new situation.
But I don't really see that it is illogical to think that you as consciousness would be any different in personality through such a transition from being in a physical form to not being in a physical form.
4: You can assume if you like, that is an individual choice, but assumption is not science it is personal opinion and if the assumption evolves into claiming the opinion as an absolute, then it is belief.
5: Science deals with the physical universe. By defining that god as an idea is not physical in nature, it is easy enough for anyone claim for example that 'god does not exist as a physical entity in the physical universe' but it cannot be claimed absolutely that god does not exist altogether, and scientific method is applicable only to the physical universe.
So if the definition of god is said to be "God as an idea exists as a physical entity in the universe" it could be said then that 'god does not exist' is scientific statement. But it is not a scientific statement to claim 'god does not exist.' and certainly not without defining what is meant by 'god' in relation to the physical universe.
In the same way, science has no evidence that extraterrestrials exist, so it could be said that to say 'extraterrestrials do not exist' is a 'scientific statement' due to your reasoning that it can be falsified, (by showing that extraterrestrials exist).
5: 'A cop out' is not a scientific statement. What am I 'copping out' of? Taking sides? Being against those you are against? Deciding that choosing one way or the other is pointless and illogical is not a 'cop out'. It is sensible and rational.
7: I am not pretending any such thing. See my answer to (1).
1. You do however continually hark to science in you arguments, claiming that it is unscientific to make the statement that god does not exist. I think I have shown that that is incorrect: As Brian-M has just pointed out, no scientific statement is absolute. Every scientific "conclusion" is provisional. A hypothesis is accepted as a theory after it has met every challenge and test that we can come up with to "throw at it". But even then, it is still open to being altered or overthrown altogether if further evidence comes to light. Gravity used to be one such theory, which in relatively recent times has had to accommodate the discovery of "dark energy", which was discussed in terms of "negative gravity" when it was first coming out.
2. I demonstrated that consciousness is dependant on the activity of the brain. A person literally becomes a different person with brain damage. Ergo, the consciousness of a person cannot possibly be continued without a brain, at least not as it was before the cessation of brain existence (not "brain death" which can turn out to be very deep coma… I'm talking dissolution of the physical brain).
To say that it is not known whether consciousness continues after death is therefore to say that you are A) expecting that it's possible for some non-material something to take over the function of the physical brain, which is tantamount to saying that this new substance must replicate physical functioning, and therefore it is in fact physical, or B) that you expect a new as yet undiscovered physical medium to exist which can take over the physical function of the brain. Either way, since we have found no phenomena so far which cannot be dealt with in the realms of the four forces we know about, there does not seem to be a requirement for such speculation.
3. Here you are again ignoring the facts as we know them that the brain does indeed affect the consciousness. If altering the brain makes an actually new person, why would you expect to be the same mind after your brain has been destroyed? It is completely illogical to assign some inviolable authenticity to your current state of consciousness, flying in the face of the evidence.
I submit that there are many times in life when one can be conscious without analysing or being aware of one's body, as in dreams or in fits of creative fugue, and the transitions into and out of such states are likewise unconscious, so I can't see that if a consciousness were to survive death in some way there would necessarily be any "getting used to it" required.
4. Here is the nub of the matter: I'm sorry if I didn't make it clear, but my use of the word "assume" is not making an absolute statement, it is stating the null hypothesis, which is the scientific position to take, not a personal choice. The null hypothesis is the scientific assumption that something doesn't exist until it is demonstrated. This is because a scientific statement has to be falsifiable, and it is impossible to falsify a statement which requires proving a negative.
Surely you understand this: I can prove that unicorns exist by finding one. Therefore, the statement "unicorns do not exist" is falsifiable by the simple demonstration of finding one.
I can never prove that unicorns do not exist, because there might be one on the other side of the universe, and I can never check every place in the universe. Therefore the statement "unicorns exist" is unfalsifiable, and not a scientific position.
It's the same with gods. The scientific and logical position is that god does not exist, until some evidence comes to light to change that null hypothesis.
5. You are right that science deals with the physical universe. Now that you are defining god as an idea, you seem to be necessarily claiming that "god" has no interaction with the physical universe. I submit that if you are going to define god as having no interaction with the physical universe, then you are just talking for the sake of it, and you are not engaging with science. This tautological situation is nevertheless where you seem to be pitching your tent.
For the concept of "god" to have any meaning beyond being a meme passed on through physical means such as language, and indeed the firings of neurones (which both require physical media), it has to have some independent existence. What sort of existence there could be without either physical dependance or interaction is the realm of pure speculation. Fantasy, with no meaning or consequence. The final resting place of the god of the gaps.
For if god as an idea even once interacted with the physical world, it would be effecting a physical connection, and would no longer be able to divorce itself from the physical as an "idea", which concept is just an "ideal" conceit (an old word meaning effectively "a confection, or an idle construction, of a thought").
As to your extraterrestrials, you are abandoning the "idea" ideal you apply to god. As a matter of fact, there is nothing in our knowledge which forbids the physical existence of extraterrestrials. In fact it looks more and more likely that life will occur wherever energy exchange is possible, which is most places in the universe, so the scientific evidence makes the statement "ets are likely to exist" more justifiable than either "ets cannot exist" or "god might exist".
None of which plays into your conceit that "god is an idea". If that's all you were saying, I would agree with you: "god" is an idea.
Where we differ is that I go on to say that "god" is
only an idea, and that idea exists in the physical media of our brains and in our language (in books and in speech). The
consequences of the idea of god do exist, in the exalted states of consciousness mediated through the interaction of concepts and music and various tricks to induce biochemical fluxes, etc., all of which take place via physical interactions.
To sum up: to speak of "god" "existing" as an "idea" beyond any interaction with the physical universe (which includes our human consciousness) is a conceit which is forever beyond any meaningful reality. It has absolutely no relevance to existence. Your own definition of god as an idea has defined that god out of existence.
5. You are copping out of any meaningful discussion of the issue of god's existence, and you are copping out of following the logic of the discussion to it's necessary conclusion. On top of that, you do hark to science and try to claim that it is unscientific to make the statement that god does not exist. I hope you are willing to accept that, since all scientific statements are de facto provisional, it is the only valid scientific conclusion to arrive at that god does not exist.
A) Everything we know points to that conclusion.
B) It is a falsifiable statement.
C) There is nothing that requires us to even beg the question of any other force or entity to explain the state of the universe or our place in it.
I do think your position of allowing for a nonphysical ineffective entity (which by definition can have no interaction with us and the universe), and your equally disconnected concept of a non-physical survival of consciousness beyond the universe (whatever that could mean), is an illogical and pointless conceit. It is indeed irrational. And I can think of times and situations where it would be far from sensible.
Good luck. aSyd
