You say that my theory only works if I take my conclusion for granted...but that is exactly what materialists do!
Yeah, no.
"Materialists" ("naturalists" may be a better term) ask for
evidence of the claims in question. So, if you claim that "birds are designed," you need to show evidence of that design.
For example, the materialist or naturalist doesn't
start with the assumption that "deities exist" or "deities do not exist." What they do is look at the evidence, and use that evidence to develop a theory. They then try to test that theory and/or compare it to new evidence, over and over, until the theory is essentially complete. E.g. Darwin closely observed a number of bird species in the Galapagos Islands, and based on those observations, developed early theories of evolution and natural selection. Subsequent evidence showed how genetics, and features like random mutation and genetic drift, influence natural selective processes.
In contrast, you need to promote your theory
in spite of the evidence. There is no evidence that random changes in DNA, some of which result in biological changes that are better adapted to the current environment, some of which result in biological changes that are worse adapted to the current environment, are manipulated by a conscious entity. So, you have to retreat, and claim that a fundamentally random process like natural selection is "really" created by God -- even though there is no evidence for that claim, either. As a result, you end up with unfalsifiable claims built on positing the existence of a deity that even you claim is superfluous to the results.
As it happens my explanation works outwards from what we know at a personal level to explain reality whilst yours works back from a foregone unproven conclusion that the Universe is mindless.
lol, no. You have it 100% backwards.
The materialist or naturalist or physicalist
starts with observation. You look at the world, you look at the evidence, you experiment, you test, you see which hypotheses work and which fail and why. If there was actually evidence of design in speciation, then scientists would need to explain it. Or, if there was evidence of conscious thought behind physical phenomena ranging from the quantum to cosmic scales, scientists would need to explain that. But, there isn't, so they don't.
In contrast, it is obvious that you are starting with the claim that "God exists," and are throwing out rationalizations, positing immensely complex entities, and violating your own criteria to jam that square peg into the round hole. Since there is no evidence, you end up with unfalsifiable claims whose entailments you conveniently ignore, or fail to comprehend in the first place.
The idea that a mindless Universe is simpler is complete bull****...exactly the same stuff exists in your mindless happenstance Universe as in my mindful one.
lol
Even your own phrase puts lie to your claim. If I see a motionless mannequin, is it simpler to posit that it is, or is not, conscious? Obviously it is simpler to say it is not conscious. When the "exact same stuff" happens in both scenarios, the "mindless" version is
unquestionably simpler.
In this theory brains do not cause thoughts, brains and thought correlate, that correlation is caused by God.
And again, that is
less parsimonious! It is truly stunning that you simply cannot comprehend how adding a stupendously complex element that violates all the laws of physics is the more complicated option here.
For example,
how does God correlate those thoughts? God can't actually interact with any of the neurons or axons or neurotransmitters or electrons that are in your brain, without violating the laws of physics. Why would God make brains full of neurons anyway? Is he just trying to dupe us into thinking that God doesn't exist? All you can do is handwave or invoke *cough* magical thinking.
This system would clearly explain why we have a degree of free will (freedom to choose between available options)...which we all experience directly.
LOL! No, it doesn't, not even close. If the activities in the brain have to route through a deity, how does that create free will? Your brain can't act on its own, can't think on its own, without the deity. Needless to say, a deity whose deliberate intervention is required in order for you to think, and whose involvement is
completely undetectable, could also be manipulating your thoughts without you having any awareness of it. God could be manipulating you into thinking you have free will, when you don't.
Again, this is the problem with the kinds of unfalsifiable claims you're positing. Once you open the door, you cannot contain the subsequent surge of possibilities that you did not consider, and which contradict your claims or are otherwise unpalatable.
