Evidence for a god. Do you have any ?

[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?