Is there finally an argument for the existence of God?

Debate Room
61

Nope, I have been very careful to use the word consciousness, if you claim experience can be present without sentience or consciousness then that is for you to evidence, and I have explained this exhaustively now, so am disinclined to keep repeating the fact, but the assertion "we only ever see sentience present in conjunction with a functioning brain" means the assertion that consciousness is an emergent property of the physical brain is based on that overwhelming objective evidence. if you can offer something beyond bare or unevidenced assumption and fallacious argument to support your claim that it is plausible to assume it can occur in inanimate inorganic matter (for example) then do so?

Until then your characterisation of the two claims as equally plausible assumptions is a preposterous piece of mendacity.

Since I never remotely claimed this, this is a straw man fallacy, sigh…anyone here will see the word prove in that assertion and know it did not come from me when talking about science.

You don’t get to tell me what to post or when to post it, Now where does that link evidence your original claim, quote it please, and give an accurate location for the quote in that lengthy citation? I am not reading it all only to find out you have lied or misrepresented it. I am not obliged to take your word for anything, you have come to an atheist debate forum to peddle your superstitious wares, the heavy lifting is all yours not mine.

You must do what you are minded to, as will I. I will not however take your word for it that expansive links evidence claims you make, without even a quote from the text from you to establish that claim.

The question was salient to claims you made, you’re simply being evasive and dishonest.

Unnecessary, you clearly don’t have the integrity to address the question with any candour, and would rather simply repeat your bogus claims and pursue your agenda, however this is a forum for open debate, and I am not obliged to stick to your biased notion of what represents a rigorous examination of those claims. You came to us remember…

It seems you don’t have any objective evidence for any deity, and don’t have the integrity to say so, not that much of a surprise really though, as this happens so often with religious apologists who come here, I am minded to wonder allowed what you think such dishonest evasion will achieve.

2 Likes
62

I reiterate that science cannot determine whether AI has “experience” or if a starfish possesses “experience.” There is no objective evidence for experience in anything material, except for personal evidence. Therefore, science has not proven the claims you make because it is unable to measure “experience” in the first place. If that were possible, the debate surrounding the hard problem of consciousness would have been resolved long ago.

Furthermore, it is important to note that science does not assert to have solved the hard problem of consciousness; hence, it remains a mystery within the realm of scientific inquiry.

Lastly, the same evidence that leads to the conclusion that brain activity is linked to “experience” can also be attributed to physical processes in general, rather than exclusively to brain activity. This explanation aligns equally well with our observations.

Renowned atheists such as David Chalmers and Bertrand Russell have reached conclusions that form the basis of my argument. Notions like panpsychism and Russellian monism lead to similar conclusions.

63

I am not interested in your tedious repetition of the argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, you have no objective evidence that consciousness or sentience is ever present without a functioning brain. Thus your claim this is possible, is meaningless.

I never claimed it had, so again this is a dishonest straw man fallacy.

As I said you presented a straw man, nor is anyone obliged to believe there is a reason why consciousness exists beyond it being an emergent property of evolution, this “why” question might simply be a loaded question theist use, that they can’t really justify, it’s begging the question. So since you’re the one adding unevidenced assumptions to the facts, that consciousness exists and all living things evolved, then Occam’s razor applies.

So you keep claiming, and each time I have asked you to demonstrate some objective evidence to support your claim, and each time you ignore the request, and dishonestly repeat the claim.

If someone stuck a pick axe through my brain then this exchange would cease, and no one would see my consciousness expressed again, this is objectively evidenced every single time someone dies, so if you want to pretend that’s a coincidence then crack on, but I find that lack of intellectual integrity laughable to be honest, especially when it is dressed up pretentiously as profundity or intellectual rigour.

Russell’s conclusions arrived at atheism ffs, oh fuck me that was hilarious. Well done… :rofl:

Yeah he (Russell) was a lifelong outspoken atheist, so thanks for playing, but I am not prepared to believe your prentions that you understand the rational conclusions of arguments Russell created, better than he did himself. Especially since what you have presented is risible and irrational.

You still haven’t told us which deity you are claiming is real? Or how your unevidenced claims that properties of consciousness are possible in inanimate inorganic things like rocks, evidences any deity either?

1 Like
64

That’s one long thread for, “science doesn’t yet know, therefore God”.

Sorry, but that’s a shit argument.

Could theists please for once try to form an argument, any argument, and replace God for something random and it holds equally the same amount of weight… that being, bugger all!

For example…

  • The eye is the development over time of relatively high complexity.

  • All things have a causal link.

  • Therefore The Predator created the universe and eye balls during a drunken game of ‘guess who’ in a science lab on new years eve.

You can literally replace God with anything and it’s just the same… pixies, Fairies, unicorns, legitimate politicians… all are from human imagination and have not been demonstrated to exist

3 Likes
65

You are spot on as ever, sadly if we leap on it from the get go they get all weepy, and flounce out. Actually now I’m saying it I can’t fathom why that is worse than this tortuous and pretentious word salad we’ve endured, that you’ve summed up in a single concise sentence.

That’s because the word god never has any explanatory powers in the apologetics they present. God did it is not an explanation, it is a claim.

True dat…

2 Likes
66

That’s all I could find. I was trying to find an actual argument but didn’t see one anyplace. I was going to request he put the argument into a logical syllogism.

  1. You are a mental entity.

  2. Mental entities have subjective experiences.

  3. Belief in god has nothing to do with any of this, so we can forget it and start over. I am not referencing this stuff or any activity.

  4. The physical process within you can generate subjective experiences independent of your brain. (See above)

  5. There are no current scientific models that explain the subjective experiences of people without brains.

  6. We don’t know, for example, if rocks have consciousness or not.

  7. Therefore God

I think this is absolutely solid. It should be submitted to one of the major philosophical journals for peer review. I suggest the Journal of Creationism. They love stuff like this.

4 Likes
67

The correlation between brain states and “experience” can be viewed as a misconception, as it presupposes that the film (brain states) is synonymous with the viewer (experience). “Experience” can emerge from diverse physical processes, whether they involve brain activity or not. The crucial distinction lies in the understanding that, in the latter interpretation, our experience does not cease to exist during unconscious periods; rather, our memory fails to register it, which is a distinct phenomenon.

Nevertheless, the correlation between brain states and “experience” is not as strong as you claim. There are instances where individuals have 90% of their brain missing and lead normal lives. Similarly, some people live normal lives without a cerebellum. Furthermore, not all brain activity aligns with experiences, and not all experiences correspond to brain activity. Specifically

“…This is significant, since it has often been assumed that experiences in relation to death are likely hallucinations or illusions, occurring either before the heart stops or after the heart has been successfully restarted, but not an experience corresponding with ‘real’ events when the heart isn’t beating. In this case, consciousness and awareness appeared to occur during a three-minute period when there was no heartbeat. This is paradoxical, since the brain typically ceases functioning within 20-30 seconds of the heart stopping and doesn’t resume again until the heart has been restarted. Furthermore, the detailed recollections of visual awareness in this case were consistent with verified events…”

While not providing definitive evidence, it suggests that “experience” is not exclusively tied to brain structures. It appears to emerge in unforeseen circumstances and amidst significant physical distortions. This reinforces the notion that it is a universal phenomenon rather than a specific capability of the brain.

You say…

… also you …

Can you provide evidence of “experience” when it is not measurable? Well, the only evidence available is your personal experience. However, this evidence pertains solely to yourself and does not provide any information about the experiences of other entities in the universe.

Indeed, it is a property lacking function that evolved but science is unable to measure.

You yourself admit that experience cannot be measured, and yet you demand evidence for something you acknowledge cannot be measured. Additionally, you affirm that science has proven a relationship between experience and the brain, while simultaneously acknowledging that science cannot measure it. Moreover, you claim that it evolved despite the fact that experience itself is unmeasurable and has no function. And so on…

68

An fmri measures the experience of pain.

And, by the way, science doesn’t do anything. It is a process.

69

Don’t forget #8. I’m a Chalmers groupie and he wrote a paper, so there!

70

My argument is more aligned with the notion that “explanations provided by science support the concept of God.” Whether it is panpsychism, Russellian monism, or even the consideration of “experience” as an emergent property, these perspectives acknowledge that matter can possess experiences. It is entirely reasonable to assume that such experiences are not confined to a specific material structure but are a universal phenomenon.

I believe you become angry when reason does not align with your preconceived notion that God should not exist. Well, I’m sorry, but the science of consciousness clearly demonstrates that it is arbitrary.

Currently, it is just as unverifiable to assert that nothing except humans possesses “experience” as it is to claim the opposite. However, of course, the latter opens the door to the possibility that you have been wrong all this time…

71

You wrote the above but I heard, “Damn it! I WILL get my fat foot into that glass slipper!”

No! It is not entirely reasonable to do so! You may find it so, but you are not the spokesperson for the rest of us. Please, ffs, personslize your assertions!

72

As I stated earlier, I withhold belief (or my preferred word confidence) unless sufficient evidence is provided.

It’s an easy standard. I will continue with the evidence thus provided that a brain :brain: is required for any form of awareness and consciousness, as evidence has thus established this fact. Continue living the life I know I have and experience.

tosses onto big pile of “I don’t know” mind-candy for future fun chewing

2 Likes
73

Well, it’s not just me; notorious atheists like Bertrand Russell and David Chalmers have paved the way for the ideas I am expressing. Their claims serve as the foundation for what I am saying. On the other hand, my intention is merely to open up the possibility of “experiencing” universality as a phenomenon. However, it seems that this has caused offense among you…

74

… evidence of something seemingly impossible to measure, referred to as ‘experience,’ which is said to occur solely within the brain. Oh, please show me…

Why is it so challenging to consider the idea that “perhaps experience could occur outside the brain, but without memory, brain functions, and other factors, it would be more akin to a passive state”? Or even to say, “Maybe it could happen, or maybe not”? That’s all… but you don’t even want to acknowledge the possibility, and it appears to me like a religious stance.

75

:rofl: quality…

2 Likes
76

I think this is absolutely solid. It should be submitted to one of the major philosophical journals for peer review. I suggest the Journal of Creationism. They love stuff like this.

Well, panpsychism has made it through indexed publication and is stating what I claim…

Mocking is not going to help you.

77

I have been under anesthesia. I have no memory of the operation. No conscious awareness. I have personally experienced having the body alive but not requiring conscious thought. I have no experience yet of the body being dead, yet experiencing conscious thought. No one knows what happens at death. I have listened to many accounts of NDE and there is a very interesting YouTube ( More to dying than meets the eye: Martha Atkins at TEDxSanAntonio 2013 - YouTube ) that shares many of the common end of life stages.

Why is it challenging to consider the idea? :stuck_out_tongue_closed_eyes:. I did. I have it on my pile of “I don’t know”. Besides, you aren’t the first one to offer this up. I’ve thought and considered this prior to your arrival. What do you think many “new age” ideology is based on?

EDITED to add: likewise I offered up many ideas that folks believe yet you passed them over :woman_shrugging:t2: - why? There’s equal amount of demonstrable evidence for the idea you’ve only existed 3 days. But that idea isn’t as appealing (subjective brain) perhaps :thinking:. Just because you want something to be true…

1 Like
78

The dearth of any of evidence to support your claim, and the overwhelming objective evidence that this is never observed without a functioning brain. So same as every other time you’ve been told really.

The possibility of any claim must be demonstrated, and you haven’t remotely done this. It is irrational to believe (as you keep claiming) that something is possible merely because one cannot demonstrate it is impossible (as you have also claimed). I don’t need to know if a claim is possible or not in order to withhold belief, and again this seems to be something you can’t grasp, who knows why.

Then you need to look religious and religion up in a dictionary. As once again your assertion is demonstrably erroneous, hilariously so in fact, for someone to come and peddle religion to atheists, then decry religious belief as if it is representative of poor reasoning or a closed mind.

79

Wrong again, it was definitely a welcome relief from the tedium of reading your unevidenced superstition.

'kay then…

Now I am dubious, as you have a track record for reeling off unsupported claims of this ilk. Now once and for all, how does panpsychism evidence any deity, and which one? Note you have claimed Russell favoured a version of panpsychism, and Russell was a lifelong and outspoken atheist, so you have all your work before you.

1 Like
80

“I remain unpersuaded, and I’m not alone in this. Even if we accept that basic physical entities must have some categorical nature (and it might be that we don’t; perhaps at bottom reality is just dispositions), consciousness is an unlikely candidate for this fundamental property. For, so far as our evidence goes, it is a highly localized phenomenon that is specific not only to brains but to particular states of brains (attended intermediate-level sensory representations, according to one influential account). It appears to be a specific state of certain highly complex information-processing systems, not a basic feature of the Universe.”

CITATION