Does the problem of evil disprove the existence of God?

The problem of evil challenges the idea of an all-powerful and benevolent God. Philosophers argue that suffering may serve deeper metaphysical or moral purposes.

Is morality possible without God?

Some philosophers argue that morality arises from reason and human flourishing, while others believe it ultimately requires a transcendent foundation.

Can reason prove the existence of God?

Classical philosophers proposed arguments such as the cosmological and moral arguments to support belief in God, though critics debate whether these provide proof or philosophical justification.

Mind Uploading and Personal Identity | The Digital Soul

Bostrom: Let me raise the most radical case — mind uploading. The hypothesis is that the mind is, at bottom, an information-processing system, and that if you could map and replicate that system in a digital substrate with sufficient fidelity, the resulting entity would be you — with all your memories, personality, dispositions, and subjective experience — but no longer subject to biological decay. The philosophical case for this rests on a functionalist account of mind: what makes you you is the pattern, not the substrate. If the pattern continues, you continue.

Vallor: This is where I think the transhumanist vision runs headlong into the hardest problems in philosophy of mind — and doesn't fully reckon with them. The functionalist account you describe says that mental states are defined by their functional roles — their causal relationships to inputs, outputs, and other states — not by what they are made of. Fine. But even granting functionalism, there remains a question that functionalism cannot answer: is the resulting system experiencing anything? The hard problem of consciousness — why there is something it is like to be a system, rather than merely something the system does — is precisely what makes the upload question unanswerable by reference to information alone. You might produce a perfect functional replica of me. It might report all my memories and preferences. And there might be — nothing it is like to be it.

Bostrom: I grant the Hard Problem is genuine — I am not a naive functionalist. But consider: the same scepticism applies to other minds generally. I cannot verify that you are conscious rather than a very sophisticated information-processing system that reports being conscious. We extend the presumption of consciousness to other humans on the basis of structural similarity and behavioural evidence. If an uploaded mind has the same structural similarity and the same behavioural evidence, the rational stance is to extend the same presumption. To deny consciousness to a sufficiently detailed upload while granting it to a biological brain is not principled scepticism — it is carbon chauvinism.

Vallor: The "carbon chauvinism" charge is clever, but it sidesteps the identity question entirely. Even if we grant that the upload is conscious — genuinely, fully conscious — it does not follow that it is you. Imagine the process: your brain is scanned with perfect fidelity, the digital copy is instantiated, and — at the moment of copying — you, the biological original, are still here. Two conscious entities now exist with the same memories and the same sense of being you. Which one is you? The original who will age and die? The copy who will not? If you say "both," you've abandoned the concept of personal identity. If you say "the digital one," you've made a decision that the original — lying on the scanning table — has been told does not involve their death. But it does.

Bostrom: The scenario you describe is one possible uploading procedure — destructive copying. But imagine instead a gradual replacement: neuron by neuron, each biological element replaced by a functional digital equivalent, until the entire substrate is silicon but the process has been continuous. Is there a moment at which "you" died and a copy took over? If not, then the gradual process preserves identity — and the sudden copy is simply a less elegant version of the same thing. Personal identity is not a binary. It is a matter of continuity — psychological continuity, which the upload preserves by hypothesis.

Vallor: Psychological continuity is one theory of personal identity — Derek Parfit's, broadly. But Parfit himself concluded that, on reflection, personal identity matters less than we think — that what matters is psychological continuity and connectedness, whether or not it is "strictly" identity. If he is right, then the upload question loses much of its urgency in one direction — but gains it in another. If personal identity is a not a deep metaphysical fact but a practical construct, then the decision to upload is not the decision to survive. It is the decision to create a successor. And creating a successor is a very different thing from living forever.