Evidence for a god. Do you have any ?

[LadyForCamus]

(I put this in the wrong thread earlier)

About this ‘supernatural’ business:

If something can be evident, or generate evidence of its existence in the physical world via interaction with it, then it’s a part of this world, and not supernatural. If you’re going to assert that a thing can exist in the world, affect it, and leave evidence behind, yet it is somehow not a part of it, you’re going to have to defend that position via describing the specific, positive attributes that disqualify it from the category of, ‘natural.’

Just once I would like a theist to take an honest crack at explaining to me what the supernatural actually is, and in what ways it is distinct from the categories of ‘natural’ and ‘non-existent’.

[possibletarian]

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?

No, we openly admit we don't know everything about the brain but i do know neither I or anyone else has interacted with a consciousness without one so what are to infer ? We know we can alter what the brain perceives by altering the brain chemistry, if this is not what you call consciousness then explain what is.

Now.. a question for you, how did you get from that to the brain is simply a conduit or interface for something that is not of the brain ?
and what is this 'out of brain' consciousness you claim ?

[LadyForCamus]

Well, Roo...it’s magic! Der!

[possibletarian]

[quote='LadyForCamus' pid='1829020' dateline='1539193582']

Just once I would like a theist to take an honest crack at explaining to me what the supernatural actually is, and in what ways it is distinct from the categories of ‘natural’ and ‘non-existent’.

god did it god did it

[polymath257]

I'm really wondering what you are expecting here. This is recognized generally by most cosmologists. For infinite space, it is supported by the zero curvature of space (although not proven).

Since most science articles are interested in the observational aspects, we don't see *proof* that there are infinitely many objects. But again, that is a different issue than whether it is a logical impossibility. After Cantor, it is generally recognized to not be a logical issue, but an observational one.

Take any article in cosmology and see if it allows for infinite space. Essentially every one does. Take any article that discusses something prior to the Big Bang and see if it allows for infinite time. Essentially every article of that type does.

if you really want a list from arxiv.org, I can supply one.

You misunderstand. I don't want a science article. I want to see an article that argues that an actual infinity of concrete objects can logically exists. Your entire argument rests on this. You are making metaphysical (not scientific) claims and therefore you need metaphysical reasoning to support your metaphysical claims.

The logical possibility is demonstrated by the consistency of the math. That is *all* that is required to show that the concept is consistent.

Metaphysics is usually simply re-arranging preconceptions.  It is flawed from the beginning. The *only* relevant questions are whether the concept of infinity is logically inconsistent (it isn't) and whether observation supports some actual infinity. I agree that we have no *positive proof* of an infinite space, for example, but the current evidence certainly allows for that possibility. But that isn't the issue. The issue is whether an actual infinity is *logically* contradictory. And the math shows that it isn't.

That we are talking about 'concrete' objects is irrelevant to the logical possibility. All that is required is an infinite extent of space (certainly a logical possibility) and concrete objects scattered in that infinite space.

[Minimalist]

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

No, we openly admit we don't know everything about the brain but i do know neither I or anyone else has interacted with a consciousness without one so what are to infer ?  We know we can alter what the brain perceives by altering the brain chemistry, if this is not what you call consciousness then explain what is.

Now.. a question for you, how did you get from that to the brain is simply a conduit or interface for something that is not of the brain ?  
and what is this 'out of brain' consciousness you claim ?

I'll take "He Pulled It Out Of His Ass" for $200, Alex.

[SteveII]

You misunderstand. I don't want a science article. I want to see an article that argues that an actual infinity of concrete objects can logically exists. Your entire argument rests on this. You are making metaphysical (not scientific) claims and therefore you need metaphysical reasoning to support your metaphysical claims.

The logical possibility is demonstrated by the consistency of the math. That is *all* that is required to show that the concept is consistent.

Metaphysics is usually simply re-arranging preconceptions.  It is flawed from the beginning. The *only* relevant questions are whether the concept of infinity is logically inconsistent (it isn't) and whether observation supports some actual infinity. I agree that we have no *positive proof* of an infinite space, for example, but the current evidence certainly allows for that possibility. But that isn't the issue. The issue is whether an actual infinity is *logically* contradictory. And the math shows that it isn't.

That we are talking about 'concrete' objects is irrelevant to the logical possibility. All that is required is an infinite extent of space (certainly a logical possibility) and concrete objects scattered in that infinite space.

Ahh--so all we need to do is declare some axiom (like the Axiom of Infinity) and PRESTO -- there exists the possibility of an infinite number of concrete objects in the real world. Got it. Glad to know your basis for your argument is so well founded. 

Whether some object is concrete or not is "irrelevant"!?  You don't even realize you are positing  metaphysical possibilities using a discipline that the real world has no constraints upon. No wonder you couldn't come up with an article.

[Mister Agenda]

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?

Not that hasn't already been done, which all amount to: affecting the brain affects consciousness and no effects on consciousness or the brain that aren't caused by physical phenomena, either within the brain or outside of it (such as blunt force trauma).

The hypotheses you present do not have that (or any) level of experimental support and amount to 'is there it some other explanation that can account for what we can observe while also bringing in the supernatural or mysterious quantum effects?'

A good hypothesis is based on observation, those are not based on observation, they're based on wishfulness. The observations are that everything about consciousness depends on the brain, adding unnecessary explanations to that is...wait for it...unnecessary. We don't add undetectable voltage faeries to electrical theory just because it's conceivable and we can't prove that they aren't real. All we can prove is that they aren't necessary. When something is observed happening to electrons for which voltage faeries are the best explanation, the matter can always be revisited.

[RoadRunner79]

(I put this in the wrong thread earlier)

About this ‘supernatural’ business:

If something can be evident, or generate evidence of its existence in the physical world via interaction with it, then it’s a part of this world, and not supernatural. If you’re going to assert that a thing can exist in the world, affect it, and leave evidence behind, yet it is somehow not a part of it, you’re going to have to defend that position via describing the specific, positive attributes that disqualify it from the category of, ‘natural.’

Just once I would like a theist to take an honest crack at explaining to me what the supernatural actually is, and in what ways it is distinct from the categories of ‘natural’ and ‘non-existent’.

We can discuss ET again. The structure of the definitions are similar. And so the answe is similar. Nothing in the definition precludes an extra-terrestrial from interacting with the terrestrial and still maintain the description.

[SteveII]

(I put this in the wrong thread earlier)

About this ‘supernatural’ business:

If something can be evident, or generate evidence of its existence in the physical world via interaction with it, then it’s a part of this world, and not supernatural.  If you’re going to assert that a thing can exist in the world, affect it, and leave evidence behind, yet it is somehow not a part of it, you’re going to have to defend that position via describing the specific, positive attributes that disqualify it from the category of, ‘natural.’

Just once I would like a theist to take an honest crack at explaining to me what the supernatural actually is, and in what ways it is distinct from the categories of ‘natural’ and ‘non-existent’.

Your definition of supernatural is wrong. You're actually creating your confusion by defining the word so it makes no sense.

su·per·nat·u·ral
ˌso͞opərˈnaCH(ə)rəl/
adjective

1. 1.
   (of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.
   

 
There is nothing in the definition that limits its interaction with natural things (those things that are governed by the laws of nature). 

Further, a miracle is not a violation of the physical laws, it is an effect in the natural world with a supernatural cause. To say it another way, a physical law describes the expected effect given certain conditions. If there is a supernatural cause, those certain conditions obviously do not obtain.