[JoachimS]

If we define a god as having magical powers, and there would be scientific, testable proofs for this. Those proofs had to be really good and numerous independent verifications. So probably a long time.

But the comparison isn't fair, relevant. Proving and accepting that gods exist is not the same thing as an AI possible have consciousness. That is not a magic superpower and the AI being a deity. It is placing the AI in the same category as... us.

[TheOtherHobbes]

A machine that performs observable miracles or magic would have at least one of the attributes of a god.

A machine that performs actions that mimic emotionality is not the same as a machine that experiences emotions.

Both could still be automatons. We have no way of knowing if those machines have subjectivity.

Unless someone invents a consciousness measurement device, we never will.

My take on it is that this is the next big frontier for science. Our consciousness is clearly having serious issues understanding physics, and it's not great at understanding our own psychology in a useful way.

But literally everything we experience and believe - and possibly even can experience - is filtered through it.

So that is a little bit of a problem for our science. So far we've done our best to ignore it. AI is one of a number reasons we're going to have to stop doing that.

[graemep]

There is an important distinction (more than one, but this is what is relevant here) between the powers of God and magic. God is a being who decides whether to do anything, so is intrinsically not testable.

Magic is testable.

God exists outside the universe, magic within.

[JoachimS]

Is that really objectively facts?

That a god exists outside of the universe - are we talking about a multi universe interpretation? My understanding is that many of the gods humans have invented are really thought to be within the universe, at least temporarily. Tor, Oden certainly are. And in other beliefs they are part of nature itself.

[yencabulator]

The comment you're replying to confuses "Abrahamic God" for "God", and with an implied omnipotence which many religions may not imbue on their figures of worship. American bias, I assume.

[graemep]

I am not American. In fact I was born in Asia.

The biggest group of people that believe in any God believe in an Abrahamic. The next biggest group are pantheists which is a different concept of God but still distinct from magic.

[latexr]

> If we define a god as having magical powers, and there would be scientific, testable proofs for this.

If you can scientifically test and prove the magic, then it stops being magic and starts being science.

[jodrellblank]

Man: “God, please make this mountain disappear”

God: “Ok”

Man: “We measure that the mountain is gone, its mass-loss has measurably changed Earth’s orbit, weather patterns have changed, visually it’s not there anymore, we can walk though the space where it used to be.”

God: “Where is the mass of the mountain, and how did I make it disappear?”

Man: “God only knows! Pardon me; If I saw you do magic and can measure and test it, then that means it wasn’t magic. Internet people said so.”

God: “that doesn’t sound like a satisfying explanation”

Man: “it didn’t sound like a satisfying claim when it was just words on the internet either, but what can you do?”

God: “I’m God I can do anything”

Man: “can you make a boulder so heavy you can’t lift it?”

God: “yes”

Man: “how?”

God: “haven’t we just gone over showing you that I can do ‘impossible’ things, and you seeing them happen with your own eyes, and still refusing to accept?”

[defrost]

Any documented examples of these disappearing mountains?

We do have examples of billions upon billions of tonnes of iron being moved that have altered (slightly) the spin axis, also examples of ground water pumping at scales that have done the same .. but I'm unaware of any mountain sized objects that have vanished overnight.

[jodrellblank]

No, none. The point is not to claim that magic exists, but to to show the illogic in the claim “if magic exists then that makes it science”.

“Nothing happens unless it has an explanation within the laws of physics” is an assumption; if it was broken then it would be broken. The mountain would be inexplicably gone, not explicably gone.

[yencabulator]

I think what the comment tries to express is the well-trodden "if we can control magic then that makes it science", while the original conversation really was "what if God controls magic".

In that hypothetical, there could be testable proof of "a magic event occurred" without magic becoming part of science.

[defrost]

Sure, and I appreciate the science behind your blank nom de guerre.

That said, in the cut and thrust of conversation and or debate the example by dialogue isn't perhaps as clear cut a device as it may have seemed from your keyboard.

That might just be my reading <shrug>

[lazyasciiart]

It seems very clear to me, yes.

[mcswell]

The Appalachians haven't disappeared yet, but they're believed to be much smaller than they used to be.

Yes, I get your point...

[ToValueFunfetti]

God: "What is the mass of your consciousness? How is it formed? Where does it reside in space?"

Man: "Uhh..."

God: "How can you rectify quantum mechanics and relativity into a single coherent model? How does physics work, exactly?"

Man: "Well, you see, um. Hmm."

God: "And the Collatz Conjecture? Why does it always trend to 1?"

Man: "I'm obliged to say magic because I don't have a better answer?"

God: "Exactly. I did magic for all of those ones"

[JoachimS]

If a deity appears and by hand waving divide the red sea we could measure, observe it happen. And we can test, observe what fields, forces being used. But how the heck she project these forces may take a while to understand - be magical.

But my argument was more about comparing gods to AIs, that it is an incorrect comparison. What AI perform are not magical, and we can always figure out what the AI do.