Why do Athiests require 'proof' that God exists?

[Neo-Scholastic]

Fluff questions, designed solely to distract. If you put as much effort into finding a scrap of evidence for the existence of a God as you did into coming up with flowery questions like that, you'd still come up short. But hey, you'd have tried.

Another pussy. You cannot discuss the problems intelligently so you try to shift the discussion toward your familiar and inadequate demands.

[Paul the Human]

Asking theists to provide evidence (if not proof) that their god exists is a perfectly reasonable request. Otherwise, why should anyone believe their claims? I am not asking anyone to believe that a god does not exist... only to show me why I should believe them when they claim that one does.

And stop calling people that disagree with you "pussy". It makes you look like an asshat.

[genkaus]

Points 1 &3: Agreed. What I hoped to address was the dismissal of any ‘proof’ other that physically observed phenomena or empirically supported inferences. That shows an unwillingness investigate the intellectual tools and methods, like the scientific method, we use to investigate the natural world. Materialism doesn’t get a free pass on its metaphysical assumptions.

So far so good.

Point 2: Sure. Angels, symbols, and qualia fall into different categories of being. I don’t see that as directly relevant to the discussion, which I’m trying to focus on subjective experience.

This point addressed your statement that "the demand for physical proof of metaphysical entities is not a valid request". Clearly, since not all entities are equivalent, we cannot blanketly exempt them from physical proof.

Point 4 (the important one): Materialism does not adequately address the issue of subjective experience because it only speaks to half of the problem: brain functions. Materialist explanations of consciousness focus exclusively on operations, i.e. observed behaviors, neural activity, etc. The missing part is why the brain feels the way it does, i.e. how this specific form of wet grey matter gives interior life to our thoughts and sensations. ‘Emergent properties’ are sufficient for describing how various functional components can join to perform new functions, like gears and levers assembled into spring driven toys. Going beyond that causes a category error because combining simple physical operations to make a single complex operation is much different than making a sensation, or qualia.

I'd disagree. We've already seen such category shifts occur at higher level designs. For example, one might say that there is not reason why component chemicals coming together should give rise to the completely new phenomenon of life - which includes self-initiated motion and reproduction. Or how putting together various batteries, semiconductors and microchips together should not give rise to software. The emergent properties here - both life and software - are qualitatively different from and aren't found in any of the component pieces. Why wouldn't the same concepts be applicable to sensations, feelings or emotions?

First I would like to know, from a materialist perspective, why one set of neurons firing, identical to all others except physical location, gives rise to pain, another to the smell of vinegar and another the memory of your grandmother.

You are wrong if you think that they are identical in all aspects other that physical locations. The pathway or the series in which these are fired are different. Their arrangement and amount are different. There may be many more differences that we don't know about yet. For example, there may be three separate arrangements of units for pain, smell and memory and these units further arranged in a more complex manner to form the perception and memory centers.

Next, is sensation limited to biological matter and why? For example, if a robot behaved like a human does that automatically make it a sentient being?

Firstly, I don't think sensation is necessary for sentience. Even without the uniquely human capacities of seeing and feeling, perception is still possible and a machine capable of perception and reaction would likely be sentient as well.

Once we do understand the structure of our neural network, we may be able to mimic its properties electronically. Once that is accomplished, I believe the machines would be able to "feel" or experience sensations as well. Though, unlike god, I think only an exceptionally cruel scientist would give them nociception.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Asking theists to provide evidence (if not proof) that their god exists is a perfectly reasonable request.

Three points.
First, what qualifies as evidence, or proof, varies depending on the nature of the inquiry. Many of the atheist members seem unable or unwilling to recognize the differences.
Second, this thread is not an attempt to prove God exists, but is starting to become a thread about atheists evading or dismissing the inadequacies of materialism. Turnabout is fair play. If you cannot defend materialism against challenges then your beliefs are unfounded. Those who evade the debate are intellectual cowards, i.e. pussies.
Finally, atheism and materialism are not synonymous. There are other atheistic positions other than materialism. Belief in God, or the lack thereof, is actually irrelevant.

[Paul the Human]

Three points.
First, what qualifies as evidence, or proof, varies depending on the nature of the inquiry. Many of the atheist members seem unable or unwilling to recognize the differences.

Do you have any evidence at all that a god exists? Any at all? Or even a single reason to believe that one does? One reason. Got any of that? No? Exactly.

Second, this thread is not an attempt to prove God exists, but is starting to become a thread about atheists evading or dismissing the inadequacies of materialism. Turnabout is fair play. If you cannot defend materialism against challenges then your beliefs are unfounded. Those who evade the debate are intellectual cowards, i.e. pussies.

This thread started out as an ill-formed question and has turned into a thread where theists are talking out their asses. As an atheist, I have nothing to defend. You claim a god exists? I do not believe you. Can you show me some evidence to support that claim? No. Now stop being an asshat.

Finally, atheism and materialism are not synonymous. There are other atheistic positions other than materialism. Belief in God, or the lack thereof, is actually irrelevant.

The bolded part is the only thing that is relevant to atheism. Don't be an idiot.

I have to leave work now. Have fun with your asshattery. I've said all I care to say for now.

[Welsh cake]

This thread started out as an ill-formed question and has turned into a thread where theists are talking out their asses.

That seems to happen here a lot.

And they wonder why I'm virtually an apatheist. That stupid inane bullshit they spout out is enough to make anyone stop caring about what they have to say and rule everything out as "incoherent drivel".

[Neo-Scholastic]

We've already seen such category shifts occur at higher level designs.

To my mind, most of the examples you provided still represent functional shifts. Self-initiated motion? Within the materialist paradigm there are only chains of cause and effect. These do not require subjective experience, like shocking the nerves of a dead frog causing its leg to twitch. Reproduction describes the various states and actions of physical matter, a functional property derived from other functional properties.

…semiconductors and microchips together should not give rise to software.

To my mind that’s not a good example. Software doesn’t emerge from anything. Software instructions impose order on the hardware as it (the hardware) does its physical operations. Punch cards trip switches to make dials register in various positions. The directions encoded in the cards and the calculated results are meaningless to the computer itself.

You are wrong if you think that they are identical in all aspects other that physical locations…there may be three separate arrangements of units for pain, smell and memory and these units further arranged in a more complex manner to form the perception and memory centers.

I did exaggerate for rhetorical effect, but I think the concept still holds. What you describe sounds analogous to Morse Code. The clicks are meaningless in themselves. A higher scale of reality, human intelligence, is required to interpret them. What is the higher level of reality that interprets neural clicks? That’s really not a fair question, but you get the idea.

Firstly, I don't think sensation is necessary for sentience. Even without the uniquely human capacities of seeing and feeling, perception is still possible and a machine capable of perception and reaction would likely be sentient as well.

Not sure I fully understand what you’re saying. I know electronic neural nets can be trained for facial recognition, for example. Is that what you mean by perception? Otherwise I’ve always considered perception a more complex construct of sensations, something I may need to reconsider.

[The Grand Nudger]

Is the spirit world going to keep receding into whatever is difficult for a believer to fathom Chad?

[Neo-Scholastic]

The list of atheists unwilling take a stand in defense of materialism or positively contribute to the discussion continues to grow! Welcome to the growing chorus of intellectual lightweights, Rhythm.

[The Grand Nudger]

Chad, there's nothing to defend. We know nothing else, can find nothing else. We have no reason to suppose there is anything else. It's that simple. Materialism and materialists are under no obligation to explain to you whatever thing you find mysterious at any given point. If it interests you that much, go figure it out. There's a Nobel in it for you.

"You can't explain that - ergo spirits" and you're tossing out the title "intellectual lightweights?" Give me a fucking break. How's about this, would you like to explain how spirits give rise to consciousness? Good fucking luck( there'd be a Nobel in that too, btw). Put your magical realm into whatever cubby hole you wish, try not to be disappointed if it turns out that the cubbyhole was never there in the first place. Just as it it has in each and every case since the first breath of the word god was ever spoken.

(almost forgot..the immaterial, btw, is symbolism)