The problem with John

I had watched some of this video (click) and John has - many problems, but the main problem is, I think that there can not be a distinction between non-mind events and mind events.

I'll explain.

After AronRa gets quite upset at John for saying that Aron Ra is "making things up" John gets around to listing his "evidence" for God.

The first: fibonacci sequence.

He says, that we "never" have a pattern without a mind.

AronRa of course, rejects that in full, but for John its true.

The problem here is that John thinks that a mind (God) made EVERYTHING thus, when John says we have never had a pattern without a mind, John thinks that is the case - because God made all the patterns we see. 

So, for John, there is no way to ever point to anything at all in the universe and say that God is not responsible for that thing. There is nothing random. There can not be anything out of place, everything must have a reason and order to it, because God put it there, just so. Of course, if John believes in free will that would, I dare say conflict with this, although I'm sure 

John could come up with several hoops for us to jump though to get past that problem.

So for John, when you point at "nature" you are pointing at "God" - God drives the wind, even the sand dunes must be God letting us know its there, if we could only see the patterns.

There is nothing that could not be positive evidence for God for John.

If there is a single thing that God is not responsible for, then there is at least one thing that can be done without God - and that would ruin the whole thing for John because one example means that God might not be needed for anything else.

I would dare say that although we no longer (broadly speaking) say that lighting is due to God, that John would say no - lighting no matter how well we understand it, is in the end, due to God.

That is the problem with John, and for others in that mindset there is nothing to point to and say "not mind" vs "mind" - there can not be any comparison made. There are no "natural" objects - all objects are created.

That is a mighty big problem for John, but he doesn't understand that.

Now, maybe you who reads this might wonder why that is a problem - well if we have no way to point to something and say "mind did that" and point to something else and say "mind did not do that" then everything becomes proof of your idea of a mind doing it - and that locks you in.

For some, that would be fine, but not for me, as I want to be able to be wrong and find out what is correct, I need to have my ideas be ones that could be falsified.

John, and those like him I'd bet, do not want the idea to be falsified, because that would be the end of that version of God.

Perhaps that would be for the best.