Evidence for a god. Do you have any ?

[Dmitry1983]

[quote='possibletarian' pid='1828969' dateline='1539189651']

We do not even  know what consciousness is, but we do experience it and there is absolutely no evidence it happens outside of the brain, so why assume so ?

Why do you assume that consciousness is located inside brain if it was never observed scientifically?

I don't assume anything, we do however know there is always a brain involved the question is

Science doesn't know that. Science never observed consciousness. Scientifically consciousness doesn't exist so you can't claim that something that doesn't exist is located inside brain.

[Mister Agenda]

You claim that an actual infinite can't exist. It necessarily follows that if God exists, it is not an actual infinite. Maybe potentially infinite in some ways, but not an actual infinite. It's only a trap if you're trying to have it both ways and won't admit that your positions contradict each other. It's a binary question can be answered simply: either God is not an actual infinite (in any way), or God is an actual infinite (in at least some way or ways). If it's the latter, in your case, there's a contradiction with your position that no actual infinites can exist, while the first option would be consistent with your position on actual infinites.

The question is genuine, I just want to find out your position on the matter; because there's an apparent contradiction between an infinite God and 'no actual infinities'; which can be resolved if God is only infinite in ways that aren't actual. I'm also curious about whether you will choose to answer forthrightly or evade giving a real answer. You won't 'lose points' if you don't believe God is an actual infinite, it would only establish your consistency. And I'm presuming here that you don't believe in a God that is incomplete in any way, which is why I haven't pressed on that issue'; feel free to correct me on that if I'm mistaken.

I already answered in the 2nd post (I believe) in this particular series.  I'm not claiming an actual infinity in respect to God either.  If you just say that God is incomplete, then I ask in what way (so I can clarify my position better).   For one it may depend on how you are using the term incomplete.

I was pretty specific that I am not claiming God is incomplete. If God is not or does not contain any actual infinites, the issue of completeness is irrelevant as it is not a contradiction. Thank you for the direct answer.

[Dmitry1983]

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?

Can you do the same with existing methods?

[possibletarian]

I don't assume anything, we do however know there is always a brain involved the question is

Science doesn't know that. Science never observed consciousness. Scientifically consciousness doesn't exist so you can't claim that something that doesn't exist is located inside brain.

So can you give a single example of a consciousness existing without a brain, which of course is your claim?

All you seem to be doing is making some supernatural or 'spooky element claim without any evidence whatsoever.

[Foxaèr]

And here I thought consciousness existed in my foot. Silly me.

[Dmitry1983]

Science doesn't know that. Science never observed consciousness. Scientifically consciousness doesn't exist so you can't claim that something that doesn't exist is located inside brain.

So can you give a single example of a consciousness existing without a brain, which of course is your claim?

 Can you give a single scientific example of a consciousness existing inside a brain?

[Foxaèr]

 Can you give a single scientific example of a consciousness existing inside a brain?

https://www.sciencealert.com/harvard-sci...sciousness

[purplepurpose]

So can you give a single example of a consciousness existing without a brain, which of course is your claim?

 Can you give a single scientific example of a consciousness existing inside a brain?

Science doesn't know how exactly consciousness works. Religion doesn't offer detailed explanation either. The same story with souls, God's supernatural realm.

Привет, ты с России?

[SteveII]

You ma

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.

I edited my original answer to you as you were typing. I included this:

EDIT: The conclusion's probability cannot be higher than the lowest of the premise's probabilities that must be true for the conclusion. There are many premises that do not have to be true

As far as other evidence against the conclusion, they would fall in two categories: undercutting defeater and opposing defeater. Undercutting would lower the probability of the premise being true. Opposing would make the premise false. 

To oppose my argument, you could go two ways. 

1. Undercut the premises that are most needed for the conclusion and then all I have left are very low % premises. Fore example, if evidence were found that there were no first century churches, then who was Paul writing to, there was not some early group of people that believed the resurrection story, etc.--leaving several of my premises significantly less probable. 
2. Find only one that is needed for the conclusion and prove it false like convincing evidence that Jesus died while in vacation in the south of Gaul.

[Crossless2.0]

So can you give a single example of a consciousness existing without a brain, which of course is your claim?

 Can you give a single scientific example of a consciousness existing inside a brain?

How about we do some radically invasive surgery on your brain and you tell us about the state of your consciousness, before and after the procedure? Since we have no scientific reason (according to your Apologetics 101 sophistry) to think there is a necessary connection, you have absolutely nothing to lose, right?

I mean, you wouldn't indulge in cheap pseudo-skepticism to try to salvage a belief you don't really believe, would you?