God can exist

[lightgigantic]

Indeed.
Once upon a time, people were struck dead by 'magic'. In time, we grew to understand that they were really 'struck down' by a bacterium.

I'm sure we'll never agree on the god concept in general, but I will always place my faith in the inductive methodology that has enriched our lives and understanding rather than a purported divinity any day.

the issue is however that you have narratives running in your own life with an identical purported divinity - so what's the difference?

As to the OP: Can god (as yet defined feasibly) exist? Yes.
Is it probable? No.

here's a classic example of such divinity
if a set (ie this cosmic manifestation from the macro to the micro level) remains unknowable (IOW all you can lay claim to is a metonymic slice of knowledge with no ability to grasp the extent of the whole picture), how the hell did you determine the probability.
For instance if I have a six sided dice with the numbers 1-3 plus three sides that are covered with tape, how can you determine the probability of what lies under the tape?
The other sides may have the numbers 4-6 (based on my value based experience of other 6 sided dice) but it could also have the numbers 28, -2 and 4x or even a smily face or chinese characters

On that, I am in complete agreement with you.

yet you still can't see that you are simply talking of how you can conceive god doesn't exist?
:bugeye:

 

[lightgigantic]

Just curious LG, what's wrong with then defining "thinking feeling and willing" as merely information?

here is some information

"george bush is the president of the USA"

so when you think about that, how does that make you feel and how would you will the situation of presidency to continue.

IOW AI has no recourse to thinking, feeling and willing.
All it can exhibit are programmed responses from another conscious living entity.
If you designed a computer to respond to the situation of american presidency its response would not be meaningful to itself, mainly beacause it has no sense of self.

AI cannot "know" what it means to make a wrong move. It cannot respond to praise or insult in any meaningful way. All it can do is calculate.

 

[spidergoat]

Light,
I'm suggesting that consciousness is precisely information, nothing more. A neural network will make connections to this information, relating it to other information.

I think the model of consciousness that imagination machines use is basically the same as ours. There is one process that generates random ideas, and another that interprets and uses these ideas in a practical way.

I am confident that machines will be able to attain the thing we call consciousness before too long.

 

[lightgigantic]

Can "spiritual identity" be anything but a speculation (in that we cannot verify it, at least not in a foreseeable time)?
Given that we are stuck in "material identity" (and so our insights are tainted by it), how could we know for sure what our "spiritual identity" is?

from the platform of theory, it remains a speculation.
What solidifies all knowledge is practice.
Kind of like suppose we are talking about the taste of honey. The way to be sure that our insights about the taste of honey are not merely speculations would be to taste it.

in the same way developing a theoretical understanding of one's spiritual identity remains a mere concept (even if it is the correct theory) for as long as one abstains from the platform of practice

 

[lightgigantic]

Light,
I'm suggesting that consciousness is precisely information, nothing more. A neural network will make connections to this information, relating it to other information.

I think the model of consciousness that imagination machines use is basically the same as ours. There is one process that generates random ideas, and another that interprets and uses these ideas in a practical way.

I am confident that machines will be able to attain the thing we call consciousness before too long.

fine
that is your values speaking
not science

 

[glaucon]

the issue is however that you have narratives running in your own life with an identical purported divinity - so what's the difference?

You're implying that I hold something to be divine??

here's a classic example of such divinity
if a set (ie this cosmic manifestation from the macro to the micro level) remains unknowable (IOW all you can lay claim to is a metonymic slice of knowledge with no ability to grasp the extent of the whole picture), how the hell did you determine the probability.

One doesn't need the entirety of a system to validly predict on a case by case basis; if that were the case (which it cannot be, as this would require complete knowledge) then there would be no predicting, pure determinism would obtain.

yet you still can't see that you are simply talking of how you can conceive god doesn't exist?
:bugeye:

??

I fail to see your point.
I can easily conceive of a divinity, just as I can a flying purple octopus.

 

[glaucon]

here is some information

"george bush is the president of the USA"

so when you think about that, how does that make you feel and how would you will the situation of presidency to continue.

No immediate feelings arise. Even if they did, I would argue that these are nothing but muddled results of conditioning.

IOW AI has no recourse to thinking, feeling and willing.
All it can exhibit are programmed responses from another conscious living entity.
If you designed a computer to respond to the situation of american presidency its response would not be meaningful to itself, mainly beacause it has no sense of self.

AI cannot "know" what it means to make a wrong move. It cannot respond to praise or insult in any meaningful way. All it can do is calculate.

Just as all we can do is calculate. Feeling, willing etc., are nothing more than various terms used to describe different information. We, unlike your example, have the ability to program our own responses, but they are programs nonetheless.

 

[spidergoat]

fine
that is your values speaking
not science

Actually, it is science. You can now look at the brain as you think of something and see which parts of it show activity. To hypothesize that this activity is consciousness at work is a reasonable assumption. The need for some supernatural phenomenon or agent is long obsolete.

 

[lightgigantic]

??

I fail to see your point.
I can easily conceive of a divinity, just as I can a flying purple octopus.

just like you can easily conceive god doesn't exist ....

 

[lightgigantic]

Actually, it is science. You can now look at the brain as you think of something and see which parts of it show activity. To hypothesize that this activity is consciousness at work is a reasonable assumption.

once again, big difference between life and the chemicals that life utilizes

The need for some supernatural phenomenon or agent is long obsolete.

instead there is the post dated cheque (of your values) "one day we will understand"
:shrugs:

 

[(Q)]

My point is, even if you believe in Science, what is the scientific reason God cannot exist? Perhaps there is a Creator that did create this universe, with its own set of laws (like the physical laws), and then "nature" guided the rest; but in the first place, God created it

I am interested in hearing why God is an impossibility to the atheists.

"In The God Delusion, Dawkins contends that a supernatural creator almost certainly does not exist and that belief in a god qualifies as a delusion, which he defines as a persistent false belief held in the face of strong contradictory evidence. He is sympathetic to Robert Pirsig's observation that "when one person suffers from a delusion it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called religion."

Norsefire, read the book to get your answers.

 

[S.A.M.]

"In The God Delusion, Dawkins contends that a supernatural creator almost certainly does not exist and that belief in a god qualifies as a delusion, which he defines as a persistent false belief held in the face of strong contradictory evidence. He is sympathetic to Robert Pirsig's observation that "when one person suffers from a delusion it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called religion."

Norsefire, read the book to get your answers.

So what scientific method is Dawkins using to test his hypothesis?

 

[(Q)]

So what scientific method is Dawkins using to test his hypothesis?

Normally, he would us the one scientific method, how many methods are you aware?

 

[S.A.M.]

Normally, he would us the one scientific method, how many methods are you aware?

Several.

 

[Norsefire]

"In The God Delusion, Dawkins contends that a supernatural creator almost certainly does not exist and that belief in a god qualifies as a delusion, which he defines as a persistent false belief held in the face of strong contradictory evidence. He is sympathetic to Robert Pirsig's observation that "when one person suffers from a delusion it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called religion."

Norsefire, read the book to get your answers.

How is it a delusion, though? Again, tell me now, what scientific EVIDENCE does he present that makes the existence of a God an absolute impossibility?

 

[glaucon]

just like you can easily conceive god doesn't exist ....

Of course. Or, that a god does exist. Each option is conceivable.


Mind you, the only difference between the two options would be that, without having been introduced to the notion, I would not have any conception of a god.

 

[glaucon]

How is it a delusion, though? Again, tell me now, what scientific EVIDENCE does he present that makes the existence of a God an absolute impossibility?

You do realize of course that what you're asking for is impossible?

One cannot possibly provide evidence for the contrary of that which lacks evidence.

 

[Norsefire]

The point is, neither atheists nor theists can say, as fact, that they are right, and those that do attempt to are idiots; nobody knows, and we can only know when we die. If there is a God, we shall know, if not, we shall not know anything.
And since God is not impossible (as I have yet to see proof that proves that he is impossible), it is possible.
Therefore, atheists lack religion, but they cannot say as fact that there is no God. Nor can theists say, as fact, that there is God. They are both beliefs.

So don't try to pass your belief as fact. Nobody knows.

 

[Norsefire]

You do realize of course that what you're asking for is impossible?

One cannot possibly provide evidence for the contrary of that which lacks evidence.

Thus making them both only beliefs; my point is, neither side has evidence, and neither side can GET evidence, so neither side can say, as fact, that they are right. It's all a matter of belief, and both sides should show some respect to each other.

 

[glaucon]

Thus making them both only beliefs; my point is, neither side has evidence, and neither side can GET evidence, so neither side can say, as fact, that they are right.

Correct.

However, do recognize that the reason for this lies entirely with the 'nature' (or definition...) of god, not with the SM, or empiricism, or induction, et.el.

It's all a matter of belief, and both sides should show some respect to each other.

Agreed.

The point is moot.