Refuting Plantinga's God and Other Minds

[free_thinker_at_last]

Hi Vinny,

I'm not a big philosopher so by evidentialist, you mean a person who will only accept proof of something if that proof can be totally confirmed by our five senses and totally supported by hard evidence, right?

If so, I don't think that I am. For example, I think a multiverse of some sort exists but in all reality, our universe is the only one for sure that we know exists. The multiverse may exist and can be showcased in physics and cosmological modals and in theory be detectable; however, we don't have any "hands-on"evidence of it.

As to your second question, I don't know how I would deal with it on evidentialism, if I was an evidentialist. I guess that's why I'm here getting some help from fellow atheists on these topics...ha.

I thought that a lot of research in neuroscience has provided sufficient evidence between brain/mind and a great amount of evidence has pointed towards the corner that w/o a physical brain, we can't possibly have a mind. Because humans have brains, surely, we must have minds. It would be strange to think that only I have a mind and everyone else is just a robot. Likewise, anyone else w/ some sense of reason would feel the same.

How would one deal with the this other minds issue?

Hey, I'm no big philosopher either. I'm just glad there are atheists who think about these issues beyond simply bleating about their antipathy towards religion.

But could you point to the work that shows that brains are conclusive evidence of the existence of minds? I'm not familiar with any such work.

I don't know of any definitive works. I just hear some talk about it from high profile atheists. I would assume that with all the knowledge we have in this modern day and age, I'm sure there's got to be something out there.

What is the stumbling problem with the brain/mind issue that prevents us from saying that without a physical brain someone cannot possibly have a mind?

Put it in layman's terms for me.

Thanks.