Originally posted by Adam_PoE
This would be a category error [b]IF the property "brain wave activity" is incorrectly ascribed to the ontological type "electroencephalogram." The fact that you describe these properties as "physical correlates" suggests that a relationship exists between the properties and the ontological type.Providing an "operational definition" in the premises, of the phenomena intended to be proven to exist in the conclusion, committs the logic fallacy of Begging the Question.
It is your argument that "it is not reasonable to required direct empirical evidence for the existence of God," but without direct empirical evidence, the premise "God exists," is Untestable.
Your argument committs the logic fallacy of False Analogy because it attempts to draw a comparison between two relatively dissimilar things; the mind, which is an evanescent bi-product of brain functioning, and God, a sentient being.
My suggestion is that you provide evidence to support the claim "God exists," instead of fallacious and rhetorical arguments as to why you do not have to. [/B]
Brain wave activity is what an EEG measures. The assumption has been made by some that this activity is empirical evidence for mental activity. Again, the only empirical evidence an EEG provides is its own existence. It is assumed the readouts mean "unseen, subjective" mental phenomena "within," and we have good reason to make this assumption: it provides a reliable (if not valid) "as if." But squiggly lines do not a mind make.
An operational definition is merely a means of being specific in what we are going to test for. There are no limits in what one can define. Difficulties arise when one contrasts the definition with what one will accept as evidence.
You see mind as an "evanescent bi-product of brain functioning," and God as "a sentient being." Aside from the fact that these are your operational definitions, I make the comparison between the two merely to illustrate a point: that if empirical evidence is your criteria, then how can you reasonably expect to test for something "higher than mind" (as I'm operationally defining spirit), if no direct empirical evidence for mind exists.
It is not reasonable to expect empirical evidence for something which is not empirical. That is not the same thing as saying you can't test for it. It is simply a matter of what you will accept as evidence. If all one accepts is empirical evidence, then absolutely God as spirit is untestable, by definition. That's stating the obvious.
Lastly, and here you seem to have based your whole position on a false assumption as to where I am coming from: I am Not out to "claim 'God exists'." I am presenting how one might (possibly) scientifically test for his existence. I am sayng that if you want "scientific proof," you should...
1. Define the phenomena (hence the value of an operational definition)
2. Establish what tools and procedures you are going to use
3. Define what you will accept as proof.
The above is part of any sound scientific procedure, as you are no doubt aware. And to be fair, #2 and #3 should be reflective of #1. If I ask you to imagine your mom's face, clearly you are aware of that experience--it is being directly perceived, mentally, it is real in its own right, regardless of whether it is a "biproduct" or not--yet using a microscope for others to see it would be doomed to failure.
Clearly, you have taken an empiricist's point of view, if not a reductionist's. That's cool, to each his own. Many colors make a rainbow, and I thank you for a most stimulating debate.