Drinking a cup of tea can add plausible evidence God exists

[Shiranu]

My argument is that we are creatures who have immeasurably precise designation and placement of atoms. If we also designed a robot with a cpu this time with amazing complexity, could it 'feel'?

I think the answer is no. I can understand responding to stimuli, how the nervous system works, how it all occurs...but the 'raw' agony of touching a flame?

If a computer was given organic receptors underneath an organic skin, and was given currents from these receptors that were processed like ours... why not? Just because we don't have that technology yet doesn't mean one day we couldn't make an organic robot that runs on a man-made brain.

And why do we know the "raw" feeling of anything, as opposed to any other animal? How do we know that an eel, elephant, cat or dog isn't what feels the most "raw" feeling and we merely feel "less raw" feelings? What about sight? There animals that can see in spectrum's beyound or vision... can they see more "raw" light waves? What about dogs, who's sense of smell is far superiour to ours?

For that matter, what part of us feels the "True raw" feelings? If you burn your finger, it will feel different from burning your foot, tongue, eye, lip, etc.. If you pierce your nose it is vastly different from having your tongue, ear or nipple pierced. Would your genitalia not be the best organ for sensing the "True raw" feelings of something, because of its abundance of receptors?

Sorry, but the fact that we don't have a uniform sense of touch rules this out to me. Added onto the fact that animals may feel and interpret their senses different than ours, and the concept of a "raw" feeling seems baseless.

These objects would feel like nothing if there was nothing to perceive them. There is no objective feeling or perception of anything.

[Jason78]

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.

Has it ever occurred to you that you might be asking the wrong question?
That there is no 'raw' sensation.  That it is just a chain reaction from an initial stimulus?

[NitzWalsh]

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.

I didn't know that taste was an emotion. What the hell are you talking about?

[VaasMontenegro]

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.

I didn't know that taste was an emotion. What the hell are you talking about?

I wouldn't ask him that, because I'm not sure he even knows. It's just a load of shit that he made up.

[AllPurposeAtheist]

MR.. I'm obviously a heretic of the worse kind because I don't really like tea all that much and definitely don't get your divine hardon sipping warm tea..
I do however take out my pecker and jerk off in public to a good cup of coffee, but that's only because I was a bottle baby. God has nothing to do with it. :roll:

[leo]

What about drinking a  pepsi ? This also proves god exists ?

[BarkAtTheMoon]

MR, you're aware there are people with a rare condition who don't feel pain, right? Their life pretty much sucks. Pain is necessary for survival and makes all kinds of evolutionary sense.

I completely acknowledge that. I acknowledge you can operate a body, use anesthesia, and they won't feel pain.

My argument is only , when someone does feel pain we can talk about how the pain is caused, (stimulus, sensory neuron), how it travels (transmitters across synapses), how it's detected/processed in the brain. That's all fair.

But that is what it does, how it helps, how it's processed.

What is the 'raw' agony of touching a fire?

And you answer your own question, ie. stimulus, neurons, synapses, and processing in the brain, then focus entirely on this "raw" sensation that has no real objective meaning outside of the neural processing you just described.

That is your answer. Touching a fire, and that "raw agony" is your body's way of telling you to get the fuck away from the fire because it'll severely damage your body. The more damaging, the more intense the pain. It's your internal warning system, but it also has coping mechanisms like doing an endorphin dump to block the pain signals after the initial shock so it's more bearable. Go to your local college and take a few 200-300 level psych courses, and you can learn all about the nervous system.

[NonXNonExX]

Everyone knows the real proof of god is the sound of one hand clapping. Can you describe it? Can you even tell me how it's done? Of course not, only god knows for sure.

BTW, drinking coffee is a much better way to prove the existence of god. I only drink tea when i'm in a Chinese restaurant, and you know the Chinese are a godless people.

[WitchSabrina]

Everyone knows the real proof of god is the sound of one hand clapping. Can you describe it? Can you even tell me how it's done? Of course not, only god knows for sure.

BTW, drinking coffee is a much better way to prove the existence of god. I only drink tea when i'm in a Chinese restaurant, and you know the Chinese are a godless people.

 :rollin:

[widdershins]

but the actual 'raw' feeling...the ability to 'feel' that raw feeling, definitely is not materialistic...

I see what you're doing here.  It's actually kind of clever.  Let me break it down.  All of your argument attempt to dismiss any physical process as a possibility for some thing, any thing, so that the only thing left is your god.  Actually, you're not even to that point yet.  You just want an admission that it must be supernatural, then you'll move on to narrowing it down to only your god in later arguments.  In this case you do that in several steps.

1) Admit the existence of all known physical processes involved
2) Claim that none of those physical processes are what you're talking about
3) Make up a completely undefined term to describe what you're talking about
4) Resist all requests to define that term
5) Insist that all physical processes presented do not address this undefined concept

So long as you never define the term "raw feeling" you can continue to deny that any physical process mentioned deals with it.  You get to group them with the physical processes you've admitted to, but keep this undefined term separated from them by a shroud of "what the hell is this guy talking about?"  This argument is pointless until you have clearly defined the concept so that all can understand it.  But your argument will fall apart the very moment you do.  Same old head games and dishonest argument style you've been using the whole time, only this time you've found a way to shroud it in more confusion than usual.  Well played.

[WitchSabrina]

Is it sad that most of MR's questions can be googled?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotion

definitions and articles concerning *raw emotion* can be found online in the plenty category.

Just because human beings have complicated minds and are capable of raw emotional responses, etc does nothing to prove a creator.  Nothing.
MR needs to get OUT of the "I have no answer for _________" therefore insert God.  

derrr
this is getting old

[Davka]

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.

We're learning more about the human brain all the time.

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.

Of course they should.

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

This is nothing more than your opinion. Homo Sapiens is the most complex robot we are aware of, and we certainly seem to see and feel.

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.

This is nothing more than an argument from ignorance. You don't know what consciousness is, so you decide that this particular area of ignorance is a good place to put your god.

What you are doing is no different from primitive people concluding that because they do not understand lightning, it must be sent from the gods. The history of science is a steady replacement of supernatural explanations with natural ones. So far, nothing we have examined has turned out to require a supernatural explanation. I see no reason why consciousness should be any different.

[widdershins]

Is it sad that most of MR's questions can be googled?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotion

definitions and articles concerning *raw emotion* can be found online in the plenty category.

Just because human beings have complicated minds and are capable of raw emotional responses, etc does nothing to prove a creator.  Nothing.
MR needs to get OUT of the "I have no answer for _________" therefore insert God.  

derrr
this is getting old

Yes, really all of his arguments break down to exactly the same claim, don't they?  "We don't understand it, therefore God."  The only real deviation from that is the enormous amount of assumptions he makes in each argument, each one convenient to his argument.

[Mathias]

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.

The "interpretation" the brain does about the sensations he gets and "tell" the body what is happening, can be understood by neurological and electro biochemistry studies.  This happens mostly with all social animals with nervous systems evolved.

Such an interpretation, even if partially explained means absolutely nothing that part yet unexplained suggest something supernatural, same way with  quantum physics, atomic theory, abiogenesis, the multiverse, evolution...

[ApostateLois]

You can tell me what causes pain, .

We have nerves, nerve endings.  :shock:  :shock:  :shock:  Google it.

jesus MR............   this is getting kinda silly don't you think?

I know how pain is caused.
I know how it came about to exist.
I know the mechanisms.

But what is the 'raw' emotion?

Nerve endings are not the 'raw' agony.

I don't even know what the hell you are asking. Nerves transmit sensations to the brain, which registers the sensations as pleasant, painful, burning, itching, whatever. What is it that you need to know? And how does ANY of it translate as evidence of God?