Why do Athiests require 'proof' that God exists?

[Anomalocaris]

I take it that you, Genkaus, consider consciousness an algorithmic (Turing) process independent of the specific form of the processor/brain. Is that correct? Does consciousness serve a necessary function or is it an epiphenomenon, a functionless by-product of deterministic events?

---

It is trivial that consciousness effect the behavior of the possessors of the consciousness, therefore it clearly has a turing function.

How do you define necessary?

Do you mean "does consciouness fulfill a pre-determined purpose"?

[Neo-Scholastic]

Both parts of this statement is nonsensical. Mass and charge are not properties of reality. Reality has existed as a perception for eons before the vaguest notion of charge and mass ever came into being.

Let the record show that Chuck does not believe in mass or charge. And reality is a perception? By who? Humans? Reality (presumably) existed before humans. That leaves God. But you don’t believe in God. Who’s spouting nonsense now?

So, clarify whether you assert mental phenomena to be fundamental to the perception of reality, but which is not necessarily fundamental per se to any universe that might provide an external framework in which perception of reality can emerge; or you assert that mental phenomena is indeed to fundamental per se to any universe, or a fundamental constituent that may exist independent of perception of really, but which thorugh contingents events, may have become part of perception of reality.

I don’t understand the question. Try simplifying the grammar.

It is trivial that consciousness effects the behavior of the possessors of the consciousness…

Nothing is trivial about experiencing the rich tapestry of colors, sounds and scents of life. To say these have no effect on behavior is absurd. We avoid pain because it is painful. We seek pleasure because it feels good.

How do you define necessary?... Do you mean "does consciousness fulfill a pre-determined purpose"?

I use ‘necessary’ in the everyday sense, synonymous with ‘required’. In the context of my comment, my question is whether sensation is required to produce sentient behavior, i.e. does it have any purpose or effect?

To properly simulate consciousness, your machine should have the capacity for sensations and self-awareness.

Are you saying that a machine capable of simulating the outwards behaviors of a sentient being must have the inner experiences similar to our own?

The mechanism in place that gives rise to and effects your subjective experience is a part of your identity…You would not be able to say for certain that the machine had a consciousness for a fact…

Okay then we generally agree that subjective experiences can only be know by the sentient entity having them, i.e. “privileged access.” In my thought problem of the cyberlink, I was thinking of reports made by the human after severing the link. They’d say something like, “I felt the position of things, kind of like hearing, but more like a picture in my head.”

[genkaus]

Are you saying that a machine capable of simulating the outwards behaviors of a sentient being must have the inner experiences similar to our own?

No, I'm saying that before we start to judge the sentience of a machine, we must make sure that the mechanism required for inner experiences is in place.

I do believe that a machine would be incapable of correctly simulating the outward behavior of sentience without having the inner experiences, but I'm not using that as an argument.

kay then we generally agree that subjective experiences can only be know by the sentient entity having them, i.e. “privileged access.” In my thought problem of the cyberlink, I was thinking of reports made by the human after severing the link. They’d say something like, “I felt the position of things, kind of like hearing, but more like a picture in my head.

That is what I was addressing. I'm saying that that testimony would be useless for determining subjective experiences or consciousness because, since that capacity is already a part of the human who was connected, there simply wouldn't be a way to show that the machine had a separate consciousness.


On a side note, I find this idea that a scientist would be able to create a completely sentient and intelligent machine, without understanding how that sentience comes about and being perpetually perplexed every time the machine gave an indication of being conscious, to be unrealistic. I'm reminded of the great Greek philosopher and inventor Mechanicles (form Aladdin), who was not only able to create sentient, intelligent and responsive machines out of nothing but gears and levers, but never showed any surprise at those properties. And whatever his other moral failings, he always treated them with a great deal of affection.

[houseofcantor]

I can shoot watermelons from my tits. I won't show you under and circumstances, but I can do it. PROVE ME WRONG.

I can't prove you wrong and I accept that. However I do have serious doubts - biology and physics say its an impossibility.

[Minimalist]

The metaphysically necessary preconditions for the existence and intelligibility of normative and necessarily true propositions.

Wow. Am I glad I bought one of these.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

The metaphysically necessary preconditions for the existence and intelligibility of normative and necessarily true propositions.

Wow. Am I glad I bought one of these.

Thanks mate,mine broke with my last encounter with Ryft.. I though it might have been faulty

[jason56]

There are some things we cannot prove.

For example one cannot prove ones own existence - I could argue that you are a figment of my imagination, like a person in a dream. You would be unable to prove that you were a self aware, autonomous human being.

Using atheist logic I should therefore consider all other humans to not be self aware, sentient, concious beings as they cannot 'prove' they have these qualities.

Would it not be better to accept that I can never know if other people are self aware like me? That I can never know if God exists or not?

Can't you imagine the humans who thousands of years ago looked up at "the giant ball of fire" and claimed it to be magic?

The only reason God still exists is because it strictly benefits mankind.

Maybe that is a sort of logic, I still haven't worked that out.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

There are some things we cannot prove.

Yep,heaps. So what ?

That means I say "I don't know" when I don't know.What I do NOT say is "I don't know,therefore God/aliens' That approach is called an 'argument from incredulity ' or 'god of the gaps', I guess understandable in neolithic man,but since the Greek thinkers of about 600 bce, such an attitude has indicated ignorance, a lazy mind or stupidity.



--------------------------------------------------------------

Argument from incredulity/Lack of imagination

Arguments from incredulity take the form:

P is too incredible (or: I cannot imagine how P could possibly be true); therefore P must be false.
It is obvious that P is true (or: I cannot imagine how P could possibly be false); therefore P must be true.

These arguments are similar to arguments from ignorance in that they too ignore and do not properly eliminate the possibility that something can be both incredible and still be true, or appear to be obvious and yet still be false.

[zebo-the-fat]

Why do Athiests require 'proof' that God exists?

Actually we don't, why would we need proof of something we don't think exists, I don't need proof that pixies or goblins or honest Politicians exist!

[Minimalist]

The only reason God still exists is because it strictly benefits mankind.

Such as?