Evidence for a god. Do you have any ?

[Mister Agenda]

You ma

If each premise is 90% likely to be true, with 11 premises, the inductive conclusion is 31.38%. And that's being quite generous with the probability of each premise. Inductive arguments don't work well with many uncertain premises.

You do NOT multiply probabilities together to come up with a net probability in a syllogism. The conclusion's probability is equal to the lowest of the premise probabilities. Think about it--the more premises you have that are likely true would reduce the net probability if you multiplied them together.

You make a good point. On consideration, I realize that I was in error on how to arrive at the probability. Thank you for correcting me.

I'm afraid that based on that consideration, I think I still see a critical flaw in your argument. A valid inductive argument can't be built only of evidence that supports the conclusion unless all of the available evidence supports the conclusion. It also has to include evidence (if any) that renders the conclusion less probable. If, as you say, the evidence that supports the conclusion the least determines the probability of the conclusion, then adding one piece of evidence against the conclusion could significantly reduce the probability of the whole argument. I'm not sure about the 'least probable premise determining the probability of the conclusion' though; intuitively it seems like a large mass of strong evidence that supports a conclusion might outweigh one or two items that seem to render it drastically less likely. Maybe the strength of the evidence has to be considered, one disconfirming fact can topple the conclusion, but only if it is very strong.

It also occurs to me that the argument doesn't consider alternatives to the conclusion that you reached.

Inductive reasoning isn't really supposed to be an 'argument', it's essentially basing conclusions on the available facts. Like a doctor inducing your disease from your symptoms, and reasoning that it's most probably one condition, but hopefully ranking the others since they haven't been ruled out. Are there possible alternative conclusions, and is your conclusion more probable than all of them put together.

Again, thanks for prompting me to think more deeply about your argument and induction in general.

---

 Things that affect the brain affect consciousness, e.g., specific memories and feeling 'a presence' can be invoked by electrical stimulation of the brain, 'qualia' can be altered by drugs or damage that affect the brain, and the more we understand the brain, the more supported the hypothesis that consciousness resides there becomes. 

Affecting brain of p-zombie will give you same results so you can't claim that you are affecting consciousness

---

If we're p-zombies, consciousness doesn't exist and there is no point in discussing its mechanisms, except as an illusion. I don't see the point of this discussion if you don't concede consciousness is real. Can you think of an experiment using the hypothesis of quantum mind or supernatural transmissions that would reveal a p-zombie? If you're not arguing that we are not actually conscious, this seems an irrelevancy.