Evidence for a god. Do you have any ?

[Amarok]

Nope.  There are clearly three separate categories. 

It implies that such a category exist 

Conceptualized existence (Regarded in thought as existing),

Which does not mean it's a thing separate existence 

natural existence (Something observable in the natural world),

So an actual category we know exists 

and supernatural existence (supersedes natural existence

Assuming any such category exists  and  requires a separate standard 

No card here, but there's no purpose of providing evidence on something if there's no explanation of what would be considered evidence.

Yeah see they above and again this is again seemingly a attempt at making assertions evidence free. It assumes it the disbelievers job to define the evidence but it's not .

So you just repeated the same thing over again

[T0 Th3 M4X]

Nope.  There are clearly three separate categories. 

It implies that such a category exist 

Conceptualized existence (Regarded in thought as existing),

Which does not mean it's a thing separate existence 

natural existence (Something observable in the natural world),

So an actual category we know exists 

and supernatural existence (supersedes natural existence

Assuming any such category exists  and  requires a separate standard 

No card here, but there's no purpose of providing evidence on something if there's no explanation of what would be considered evidence.

Yeah see they above and again this is again seemingly a attempt at making assertions evidence free. It assumes it the disbelievers job to define the evidence but it's not .

So you just repeated the same thing over again

Then it ends up in a stalemate.  You want evidence, but I don't know what you consider evidence.


If I'm in a court room and a judge wants evidence, I would need to know what he or she considers evidence, or they would just dismiss everything that didn't meet their standard.

[Dmitry1983]

No, p-zomibes would behave exactly like conscious humans including movements.

So they're conscious and aware of their surroundings

No, they behave like they're conscious and aware but they don't have any subjective experience.

---

No, p-zomibes would behave exactly like conscious humans including movements.

Now, how exactly do you think that much expressiveness would be possible without having an internal state?

Complex enough software can make robots behave exactly like humans but that doesn't mean that they have consciousness.

---

No, p-zomibes would behave exactly like conscious humans including movements.

What causes them to move ?

Neurons

[Amarok]

It implies that such a category exist 



Which does not mean it's a thing separate existence 


So an actual category we know exists 



Assuming any such category exists  and  requires a separate standard 


Yeah see they above and again this is again seemingly a attempt at making assertions evidence free. It assumes it the disbelievers job to define the evidence but it's not .

So you just repeated the same thing over again

Then it ends up in a stalemate.  You want evidence, but I don't know what you consider evidence.


If I'm in a court room and a judge wants evidence, I would need to know what he or she considers evidence, or they would just dismiss everything that didn't meet their standard.

Nope it's a victory for the nonbeliever as the asserter as produced nothing to back their assertion and the unconvinced can go along their merry way 

If a you show up in court make up a bunch of assertions the judge is a allowed to simply throw the the case out .

---

No, they behave like they're conscious and aware but they don't have any subjective experience.

P zombies are rubbish 

Complex enough software can make robots behave exactly like humans but that doesn't mean that they have consciousness.

Which in no way makes us not conscience 

Neurons

We also have those

Another idiot who take P zombies seriously

[Rahn127]

Sounds like a p-zombie is a magical creature.

[polymath257]

---

So, once again, you can distinguish the difference between the existence of a concept and the existence of the object of that concept. Having the concept of a flying horse doens't imply the existence of such. Same goes for deities.

It implies the existence of it conceptually.  I thought we already went through this.   If you suggest it exists naturally, then that's a whole different category.  If you say it exists supernaturally, that's  also another category.  More than likely, we would use different means for identifying and assessing each based on the category it falls under.   If you don't think that's fair, then feel free to disagree.  If not, then how would you suggest we assess evidence for anything categorized as being supernatural?

OK, I disagree. The *concept* exists. The object does not. There is an important distinction there that is undermined when you say it 'exists conceptually'.  So yes, different terms are required.

Since I have no idea what it means to 'exist supernaturally'. The closest I can get it 'imaginary'.

---

So they're conscious and aware of their surroundings

No, they behave like they're conscious and aware but they don't have any subjective experience.

---

Now, how exactly do you think that much expressiveness would be possible without having an internal state?

Complex enough software can make robots behave exactly like humans but that doesn't mean that they have consciousness.

---

What causes them to move ?

Neurons

OK, please define what you mean by the term 'subjective experience' and 'consciousness'. it seems to me that any software that would be able to *exactly* mimic a human in all behavior would require an internal state that it has access to, which seems to fall under the definition of 'subjective experience' in my book.

How, precisely, is it possible to program a computer to exactly reproduce human behavior that does NOT have a subjective experience and consciousness?

[Gwaithmir]

What is evolutionary purpose of subjective experience? P-zombies would be just as good at survival as conscious humans. Can atheists explain that?

What the heck is a P-zombie?

[polymath257]

What is evolutionary purpose of subjective experience? P-zombies would be just as good at survival as conscious humans. Can atheists explain that?

What the heck is a P-zombie?

A p-zombie (short for philosophical zombie) is a being that is physically identical to a person in every way (including behavior) and yet does not have subjective experiences or consciousness.
The concept was introduced by Chalmers and has been a staple of philosophical discussions of consciousness.

[unfogged]

What is evolutionary purpose of subjective experience? P-zombies would be just as good at survival as conscious humans. Can atheists explain that?

What the heck is a P-zombie?

It's a thought experiment in philosophy

A philosophical zombie or p-zombie in the philosophy of mind and perception is a hypothetical being that from the outside is indistinguishable from a normal human being but lacks conscious experience, qualia, or sentience. For example, if a philosophical zombie was poked with a sharp object it would not feel any pain sensation, yet could behave exactly as if it does feel pain (it may say "ouch", recoil from the stimulus, and say that it is feeling pain).

[Dmitry1983]

OK, please define what you mean by the term 'subjective experience'

Something that qualia is part of.

it seems to me that any software that would be able to *exactly* mimic a human in all behavior would require an internal state that it has access to

Robots can already mimic many aspects of human behavior and they don't seem to have any subjective experience. Advances in programming will make their behavior more human like but that doesn't mean that they will be able to feel pain.