Searching for GOD...

[bluehillside Retd.]

Spud,

The Jews believing that he performed miracles would add to the evidence that he did.

No, it provides evidence only that the Jews believed he did. The same is true of countless other miracle-believing traditions that you believe to be mistaken.

[Spud]

It doesn't.

In the same way that Liz Truss thinks she is a competent politician doesn't make it so.

Has Liz Truss spoken to anyone who has witnessed her being a competent politician?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

How would you know it was self aware and not exercising some sophisticated computation that simulated it?

What makes you think that human self-awareness isn't itself a "sophisticated computation"? 

[Spud]

Spud,

No, it provides evidence only that the Jews believed he did. The same is true of countless other miracle-believing traditions that you believe to be mistaken.

I only said it would add to the evidence.

[Aruntraveller]

Has Liz Truss spoken to anyone who has witnessed her being a competent politician?

Some tories think she was.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Spud,

Has Liz Truss spoken to anyone who has witnessed her being a competent politician?

Kwasi Kwarteng?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Spud,

I only said it would add to the evidence.

Do you think that ancient Egyptians believing Horus miraculously cured people adds to the evidence that Horus miraculously cured people?

[ProfessorDavey]

... and indeed one or two other secular writers from that era, the Jews did believe that Jesus performed miracles, but did not believe that the source of his power was God.

I do not believe there are any 'secular' (i.e. non-christian) writers that are contemporaneous.

The nearest are Tacitus, writing 80 years after the purported events, Josephus writing just before 100CE, Pliny the Younger from 110CE and Suetonius around a similar time. Noe are contemporary and mostly their contributions tell us that early christians existed (well we knew that anyway) and that these early christians followed someone who was reported to have been executed (Tacitus). Josephus basically tells us nothing more, once you remove the sections considered by serious scholars to be obvious later christian interpolations.

I think all mention that early Christians were persecuted.

As far as I am aware none of these writers (excluding the later Christian additions) mention anything about miracles. And of course none of these writers are contemporaneous.

[ProfessorDavey]

For example, Paul says "After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep." Presumably these 500 had also witnessed other miracles.

Which brings me back to my earlier comment.

If this actually did happen (along with all sorts of other claimed miracles, with literally thousands of claimed witnesses) how come christianity failed to get any significant foothold amongst those very people.

If there were all these eye witnesses to astonishing miracles, how come christianity failed to get any meaningful foothold in the place where it arose (where those eye witnesses actually lived). Those most likely to have been witnesses to Jesus' life and teaching by and large did not accept that he was anything special, did not accept him to be the son of god, did not join the developing christian movement. Weird if they were witnesses to astonishing miracles!

[Nearly Sane]

It doesn't.

In the same way that Liz Truss thinks she is a competent politician doesn't make it so.

Liz Truss is god

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I wouldn't. Just as  I can't know you are. As was covered in the post.

I still don't know in what way you find it plausible a self aware robot could exist. Is it the same Humeian envisaging that can propose a stone popping into existence from nothing?

[Gordon]

Which brings me back to my earlier comment.

If this actually did happen (along with all sorts of other claimed miracles, with literally thousands of claimed witnesses) how come christianity failed to get any significant foothold amongst those very people.

If there were all these eye witnesses to astonishing miracles, how come christianity failed to get any meaningful foothold in the place where it arose (where those eye witnesses actually lived). Those most likely to have been witnesses to Jesus' life and teaching by and large did not accept that he was anything special, did not accept him to be the son of god, did not join the developing christian movement. Weird if they were witnesses to astonishing miracles!

My guess is that the propaganda and theobollocks didn't get added until much later - this being one or the risks if mistakes and lies cannot be meaningfully excluded. 

[Nearly Sane]

I still don't know in what way you find it plausible a self aware robot could exist. Is it the same Humeian envisaging that can propose a stone popping into existence from nothing?

I think you are confused. It was Prof D that said a self aware robot wad plausible. I was just highlighting that we can't assume anyone else is self aware so all we have is a set of tests that things pass.

Again, I can't be sure you are self aware.

ETA I'm not sure a self aware robot is plausible or implausible but a robot that appears to me self aware is entirely plausible and almost certainly going to happen.

[ProfessorDavey]

My guess is that the propaganda and theobollocks didn't get added until much later - this being one or the risks if mistakes and lies cannot be meaningfully excluded.

Telling too that the gospels are considered to have been written not only much later (and likely modified later still) but in places very remote from the scene of the purported action, and also in languages not spoken by those present.

Rather easier to pull the wool over the eyes of people far removed in time and space from the claim, 'look at all these witnesses claimed to exist, must be true'. Far harder in the time and place, where you may have someone wander over and say - 'yup I was there, it didn't happen like that at all - you are talking bollox'. And realistically the fact that christianity didn't get a meaningful foothold amongst those people most likely to have been witnesses, suggests that by and large the people in the time and in the place of the claims didn't believe they happened either.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I think you are confused. It was Prof D that said a self aware robot wad plausible. I was just highlighting that we can't assume anyone else is self aware so all we have is a set of tests that things pass.

Again, I can't be sure you are self aware.

ETA I'm not sure a self aware robot is plausible or implausible but a robot that appears to me self aware is entirely plausible and almost certainly going to happen.

I'm sorry. My apologies.

[Nearly Sane]

I'm sorry. My apologies.

Alan appears though to declare self awareness does not exist in other animals, and robots, should they appear to be self aware, simply because it's not allowed. What's your position on self awareness in other animals?

[Nearly Sane]

For info


https://projects.research-and-innovation.ec.europa.eu/en/horizon-magazine/why-robots-are-being-trained-self-awareness

[Maeght]

That's almost what I meant, yes. Believing that the world was created, or that it came about by chance. We have to believe one or the other, and both require faith. But you might disagree?

We don't have to believe in one or the other, we can say we don't know.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Maeght,

We don't have to believe in one or the other, we can say we don't know.

Depends what you mean by “know”, but there’s no equivalence here. A non-purposive world is consistent with reasoning and evidence, whereas a purposive world is not. To that extent at least therefore, we do know.   

[Nearly Sane]

Maeght,

Depends what you mean by “know”, but there’s no equivalence here. A non-purposive world is consistent with reasoning and evidence, whereas a purposive world is not. To that extent at least therefore, we do know.   

What reasoning and evidence is against it being purposive?

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

What reasoning and evidence is against it being purposive?

The reasoning and evidence that falsifies the arguments that it is purposive. 

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

The reasoning and evidence that falsifies the arguments that it is purposive.

No, that just falsified those arguments. They are not arguments against it being purposive. You are left with Maeght's don't know.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

No, that just falsified those arguments. They are not arguments against it being purposive. You are left with Maeght's don't know.

That’s why I said it depends on what he meant by “know”. We “know” that the world’s existence isn’t purposive to the same degree that we “know” that gravity isn’t done by invisible pixies holding stuff down with strings: the arguments for both are wrong, and there’s no evidence for either. That’s not the say that the purposive world/invisible pixies conjectures are necessarily wrong, but it is to say that we can treat them both as such beyond reasonable doubt.   

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

That’s why I said it depends on what he meant by “know”. We “know” that the world’s existence isn’t purposive to the same degree that we “know” that gravity isn’t done by invisible pixies holding stuff down with strings: the arguments for both are wrong, and there’s no evidence for either. That’s not the say that the purposive world/invisible pixies conjectures are necessarily wrong, but it is to say that we can treat them both as such beyond reasonable doubt.   

No. That's just assertion. It's not even in the general direction of 'know' even if you squint and give it a piggy back.

You are making a positive assertion that the 'world' is not purposive, where is your reasoning and evidence?

[Alan Burns]

Really? Why not - it seems perfectly plausible that a sophisticated robot can become self aware. And the phenomenon of self awareness is something shared by many higher animal species, but not by many others. So it isn't something that is inherently a human phenomenon, but one that is associated with a level of biological complexity.

The first convincing evidence of self awareness in humans began with the ancient cave paintings in which humans of their own volition started to depict in abstract form what they were aware of.  I have seen no such evidence in any other species.  Sophistication or complexity alone does not define self awareness.  The burden of proof lies with you to show how material reactions alone can self identify.