Evidence for a god. Do you have any ?

[Amarok]

qualia is good evidence for existence of something supernatural

Really? Why do you say that? In particular, why do you think that qualia aren't just brain states?

He will trot out the Red Room or The Chinese test or the supposed hard problem of conscience or Nagels nonsense.

[robvalue]

We need to know what supernatural means, as well. Other than "currently unexplained", I find it meaningless.

[Dmitry1983]

qualia is good evidence for existence of something supernatural

Really? Why do you say that? In particular, why do you think that qualia aren't just brain states?

Scientists can't replicate qualia in a computer despite supercomputers being more powerful than human brain. It's likely that consciousness is immaterial

[RoadRunner79]

By saying that you can have something which is both endless and completed.

Since you believe that is a contradiction, which do you think God is not: endless or complete?

In what way?  Your questions seems somewhat vague and possibly may be equivocating (i'm unsure without some context).

For instance God is said to be all powerful, or infinity powerful, meaning having power without end.   However this doesn't mean that power is actualized infinitely in any particular time and place.

[possibletarian]

Really? Why do you say that? In particular, why do you think that qualia aren't just brain states?

Scientists can't replicate qualia in a computer despite supercomputers being more powerful than human brain. It's likely that consciousness is immaterial

That does not answer the question posed, we are aware that a supercomputer can compute faster than a brain, the question was Why do you think they are not simply brain states ?

[HappySkeptic]

Really? Why do you say that? In particular, why do you think that qualia aren't just brain states?

Scientists can't replicate qualia in a computer despite supercomputers being more powerful than human brain. It's likely that consciousness is immaterial

Arghh.  I thought the "qualia" argument was dead a long time ago.

Qualia are built in to how the brain works.  No, I don't know all the details, but they are how the conscious mind experiences its input.

Computers are not built to act in any way like a brain.  Qualia would literally have to be programmed in, and the computer would have to experience the world in some analog of how the brain works.  Neither happens today.

If you want to find out how the brain works, read something by Gerald Edelman.  He does not talk about consciousness or qualia, because that goes beyond what he knows scientifically, but he shows why computers operate in a completely different mode of operation to the brain.  The brain is designed to experience and adapt to that experience.  Qualia literally are how we experience.

[Dmitry1983]

Scientists can't replicate qualia in a computer despite supercomputers being more powerful than human brain. It's likely that consciousness is immaterial

Qualia are built in to how the brain works.  

You have to prove it scientifically. Brain can simply be transmitter/receiver.

[possibletarian]

Qualia are built in to how the brain works.  

You have to prove it scientifically. Brain can simply be transmitter/receiver.

A supercomputer is not a brain, nor does it attempt even to have the same architecture or experiences it is not a re-creation of a brain, to compare the two is fanciful at best, dishonest at worse.

We don't have to prove the brain is some kind of interface to a supernatural world as you suggest, we have absolutely no evidence of consciousness without material, you are making the claim. How about we follow the norms of the scientific approach and you supply the reasoning and evidence behind your claim.

If it's just another ''I can make any claim I like, and you have to prove otherwise'' then welcome to Disneyland.

[Mister Agenda]

Since you believe that is a contradiction, which do you think God is not: endless or complete?

In what way?  Your questions seems somewhat vague and possibly may be equivocating (i'm unsure without some context).

For instance God is said to be all powerful, or infinity powerful, meaning having power without end.   However this doesn't mean that power is actualized infinitely in any particular time and place.

So when you bring it up, it's cogent, but when I ask you how it applies to God, I'm being vague and possibly equivocating. I think I see how that works.

[Dmitry1983]

You have to prove it scientifically. Brain can simply be transmitter/receiver.

We don't have to prove the brain is some kind of interface to a supernatural world as you suggest, we have absolutely no evidence of consciousness without material

We also don't have scientific evidence of consciousness within human brain. Consciousness was never observed in scientific experiment. Scientifically we all are p-zombies.