Drinking a cup of tea can add plausible evidence God exists

[Rin Hato]

As I thought.

You've literally made up something that nobody knows the meaning of and has no basis in reality out with your own incoherent ramblings.

Here, let me try:

You know Cracklin Oat Bran? Why does it taste so good? You can tell me why I would find the sense of taste particular to Cracklin Oat Bran pleasing, but what is the "raw" pleasure I get? There must be done higher entity that gives me the "raw" pleasure when I eat Cracklin Oat Bran.

[mendacium remedium]

As I thought.

You've literally made up something that nobody knows the meaning of and has no basis in reality out with your own incoherent ramblings.

Here, let me try:

You know Cracklin Oat Bran? Why does it taste so good? You can tell me why I would find the sense of taste particular to Cracklin Oat Bran pleasing, but what is the "raw" pleasure I get? There must be done higher entity that gives me the "raw" pleasure when I eat Cracklin Oat Bran.

LOL  :rollin:

Let me extrapolate my argument from yours:

You can tell me how the sensation of taste comes about
You can tell me what happens on the molecular level
You can tell me how the system arose

BUT you can not tell me what that 'raw' emotion of taste is, and how neurotransmitters being detected = raw feeling.

[Rin Hato]

We can't tell you, because you just made it up. There is no "raw" feeling. It's just word salad you thought up while on drugs.

"Woah, man, hey, what about that "raw" feeling man? Like, we can feel, but what is, like the "raw feeling, man? This is some good shit man, spiritual."

[Navynukeman]

You still have not provided ANY evidence that god exists... you simply pointed out that we don't understand certain things yet... Even if that did prove a god exists, that still comes nowhere close to proving that the judeo/christian god is it.

Keep trying

[VaasMontenegro]

Quick poll guys:

Do you think if i designed a robot to move, 'detect', 'plan', 'strategize', the electrons whizzing around it's circuit board to it's CPU would ever result in the robot 'feeling'?

Well, I seriously doubt you could do it, but I'm damned sure that once our technology has reached sufficient levels that someone could easily do this, in-fact, very soon a computer will be made that could realize greater power than the human brain, in which case, it would easily be able to comprehend feelings if programmed as such.

Your analogies are weaker than the smell of an odourless gas.

[Colanth]

It just fascinates me...what exactly is the 'raw' feeling of pain.

Exactly what you say it is - a feeling.  What is a feeling?  Something that occurs in living creatures.  That you want it to be more than that has nothing to do with reality.  Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

[Hakurei Reimu]

Because it is not materialistic.  Your 'mind' is not material either.

These things are 'made' by the physical, but themselves aren't physical.

Because you say so.

Let me try another tact. How do you know you are not a p-zombie? That is, a human-shaped being that has all the outward appearance and behavior of a human being with qualia — that is, it moves, 'detects', 'plans', 'strategize', and even has the clever programming to 'think' that it 'feels', yet does not actually 'feel'? How do you know you are not a cleverly programmed biological robot, such that you need all that non-material stuff to exist to explain you? How do you know you are are a real person that actually feels, rather than a clever automaton that only behaves as if they 'feels'?

[Poison Tree]

The real question is: if you design a robot to move could it ever understand "raw" movement?

Oh, sure maybe it could tell you how it happens; maybe it could tell you where it is processed; maybe it could tell you why it's useful; maybe it could tell you how it's come about
But what is that 'raw' movement of the 'move' order

[Hakurei Reimu]

Quick poll guys:

Do you think if i designed a robot to move, 'detect', 'plan', 'strategize', the electrons whizzing around it's circuit board to it's CPU would ever result in the robot 'feeling'?

Why not, given sufficiently powerful hardware and suitable programming? You've given no argument any more convincing than "CPUS CANT FEEL—THEREFMORE, FEELING > PHYSICAL!" You've given nothing to establish 'feelings' as anything separate from 'processing.'

[sasuke]

What about monkeys? Do they feel 'raw' pain?
How about fish?
How about the ancient fish from which we evolved?
How about the ancient plants?

At what point during our evolution did the non materialistic power decide to insert the 'raw' pain experience 2.0 into its proper physical slot?

[St Giordano Bruno]

I thought for a second I saw God's image in my cup of tea, but it turned out to be just mine as I was looking down in it.

[AllPurposeAtheist]

MR..jeeez..

Masturbation feels good generally.. It's, for lack of a better term generally slippery friction does the trick so why not non slippery? Why not coarse sandpaper to the pecker till shavings fall off? Why? Because God hates you and wants you to burn in hell forever so he invented slippery friction..

I hope that helps and here's to slippery friction. Now go rape Mary Palm and all her sisters some more.. :roll:

[Thumpalumpacus]

Alright guys,

We just need to acknowledged we can not grapple or 'hack' human consciousness. In terms of science, there is so much more we have to learn, and the human brain has puzzled us.

My argument does not come from the 'god of the gaps' argument. I merely assert that we live in the physical. Sight, pain, all of these 'sensations' should not exist in a stimulus-response world.

Nonsense.  Thoughts, emotions, and other mental activities are material events, signified by the exchange of microvoltages along neural circuitry that is attuned to the phenomenon being sensed or pondered.  Consciousness is the recursive  phenomenon of the brain observing itself in action.

The most complex robot could never 'see' or 'feel'. Yes, it could 'respond' , 'detect' , 'plan', but never 'feel'.

I don't trust anyone who claims to have certain knowledge of the future.

You can tell me what causes pain, how it came about, what it's used for, what it does, but no-one can put a hand on that 'raw' feeling, which is a collosal gap that does make me lean towards the idea of there being an added component - not a soul, but certainly something else we have not discovered, and that we will never discover, because you can not tangibly 'touch' your mind.

That's because the mind is a process, not an object.  You're making a category error here.

And in any event, none of this stuff you're peddling has anything to do with any god.  My Corvette doesn't have a turbo-supercharger -- therefore god doesn't exist is just as logical.

[Rin Hato]

Quick poll guys:

Do you think if i designed a robot to move, 'detect', 'plan', 'strategize', the electrons whizzing around it's circuit board to it's CPU would ever result in the robot 'feeling'?

Well, I'm holding a basic version of such a thing in my hands. It's called an iPod.

Sensory information is detected and sent to the brain, right?

Similarly, a touch input on the screen is sent to the CPU.

This is literally what "feeling" is.

[Plu]

Do you think if i designed a robot to move, 'detect', 'plan', 'strategize', the electrons whizzing around it's circuit board to it's CPU would ever result in the robot 'feeling'?

If we were to design it for that, probably, yes. Of course it would have a massively different kind of architecture behind it, because we currently don't want robots to feel, we want them to do useful work. The reason you can't imagine a robot 'feeling', is because you're thinking about an extension to our current electronic hardware, which is absolutely not designed for the task.

It's about as pointless as asking if we'll ever design a pizza that has feelings. Of course we won't, that's not what we make them for. When we need a feeling robot, we'll model it after the kind of thing that we know has feeling, which will probably be an organic processing unit of some sort, because that kind of hardware is far more suited to the purpose.

Of course, the first steps have already been set. Here's an example of a feeling robot:
http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/201 ... nd-control

You might want to move the goalpost now by claiming that it's not a robot if it contains organic parts (which of course is a meaningless statement, because it's all just molecules) to keep your argument going a few years longer.