Evidence for a god. Do you have any ?

[Mister Agenda]

Qualia are built in to how the brain works.  

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

Then it should be impaired when placed inside a Faraday Cage.

[RoadRunner79]

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.

I just asked for more information on what you are specifically talking about.   I'm not claiming  an actual infinity, so I think that there may be a misunderstanding or poor assumption.   If this is too difficult for you, then I suspect your purpose was more to attack and try to trap me, not to see how anything works.  Is your intention rhetoric or discussion?

[Mister Agenda]

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.

I just asked for more information on what you are specifically talking about.   I'm not claiming  an actual infinity, so I think that there may be a misunderstanding or poor assumption.   If this is too difficult for you, then I suspect your purpose was more to attack and try to trap me, not to see how anything works.  Is your intention rhetoric or discussion?

You don't believe God is actually infinite. Good on you. It's a trap that can only catch weasels.

[possibletarian]

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.

Seriously ? in 100% of cases where we have evidence of conscious thought there is a brain present. again I ask, what leads you to believe that it is from a supernatural or non material source ?

[SteveII]

@ SteveII:

Inductive line of reasoning:

a. Jesus most certainly was born, baptized, and died in the time period claimed. (other sources)
> Cite your Sources.

b. Pete, James and John were known eyewitnesses to both the public and private events of Jesus' three year ministry.
> Prove it.

c. They presided over the early church.
> Prove it.

d. This early church instructed Paul.
> Prove it.[/size]

e. As evidenced by Paul's letters, this early church believed the claims later outlined in the gospels (long before they where written).
> Prove it.

f. Peter, James and John eventually wrote letters emphasizing the themes found in the gospels.
> Prove that apostles Peter, James and John were the actual authors of said gospels.

g. Luke wrote Luke and Acts with the purpose of outlining the events from the birth of Christ through his present day.
> Prove it.

h. The editors of Matthew, Mark, and John were all alive during the lifetimes of these people above (it is unknown if the actual people with the pen were eyewitnesses).
> Prove it.

i. The editors would have been know to the recipients of the gospels. The books were name by which apostle influenced that particular book.
> Prove it.

j. The early church, who we know believed the claims of Jesus already, accepted the gospels. There is nothing in the early church writings that questioned them.
> Prove it.

k. The gospels dovetail nicely with Paul's writings based on his training directly from all the eyewitnesses (completing a loop).
> Prove it.

THEREFORE it is reasonable to infer that the events of the gospels are at the very least good representations of what really happened.
> Only if the above claims can be proven to be historically accurate.

This is where you are not following along. I don't have to prove  anything. You know very well my sources. This is an inductive argument and the probability of the conclusion follows from the probability of the premises. It does not claim proof of anything. This is where you have to be careful. You can't say I am wrong--because you bring on yourself a burden of proof (which you can't provide). You can only say that the evidence I cited is not convincing to you --which I never doubted.

[Dmitry1983]

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

Then it should be impaired when placed inside a Faraday Cage.

It won't help if quantum mechanics is involved.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mind

---

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.

Seriously ? in 100% of cases where we have evidence of conscious 

We don't have any such cases
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_other_minds

 Solipsism maintains that no matter how sophisticated someone's behavior is, behavior on its own does not guarantee the presence of mentality.

[Mister Agenda]

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.

[RoadRunner79]

I just asked for more information on what you are specifically talking about.   I'm not claiming  an actual infinity, so I think that there may be a misunderstanding or poor assumption.   If this is too difficult for you, then I suspect your purpose was more to attack and try to trap me, not to see how anything works.  Is your intention rhetoric or discussion?

You don't believe God is actually infinite. Good on you. It's a trap that can only catch weasels.

What you said, I think means something different from what I said.   So I'll ask again, is your intention here rhetoric or discussion?  
Perhaps you should clarify what you are trying to say, if you're not just trolling.

[Mister Agenda]

Then it should be impaired when placed inside a Faraday Cage.

It won't help if quantum mechanics is involved.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mind

---

A hypothesis is not evidence unless it has withstood testing. Without experimentation or useful predictions to support it, a hypothesis is no more than a 'maybe'.

[Dmitry1983]

It won't help if quantum mechanics is involved.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mind

---

A hypothesis is not evidence unless it has withstood testing. Without experimentation or useful predictions to support it, a hypothesis is no more than a 'maybe'.

It's just as valid as hypothesis that consciousness exists inside brain