Proof that God exists

[Agnosty]

You mean -more- examples?

I'm still waiting for the one.  

All that's done is send us down an insufferable rat-hole of the Theists Usual Objections To Everything™. 

Insufferable?  I thought it was fun     Without me, who would you talk to?  If you're here for fun, then let's banter.  What's the problem?  Everyone acts like they want an echochamber until they realize: without differing opinions, there is nothing to talk about.  "Love your enemies!"

Have you ever considered the possibility that you're so fundamentally wrong about what you think evolutionary biology says or does that no opinion built off of those assumptions is informative?

Of course I could be wrong.  "There is a wonderful security in admitting you're wrong because, when you're wrong, you're sure to be right." - Alan Watts.  The only way to be right is to first be wrong.  If I can't be wrong, I can never be right... it's like a deadend... a blockage that prevents further progress.  Intelligence, therefore, is a function of one's propensity to admit error.

"The fool who persists in his folly will become wise." - William Blake.

Alan used the example of the flat-earther.  He said you can't convince a flat-earther the earth is round because he KNOWS it's flat.  You have to make him persist in his folly... that is, you have to take him for a walk to have a look over the edge... and when he comes back to the place he started, he is convinced the earth is at least cylindrical lol.

The Backfire Effect happens when evidence is presented contrary to the beliefs of a person which causes the opposite of the intended effect.  In other words, the more evidence you produce, the more they dig in.  The way around that is to help them "persist in their folly" by asking them to explain their position more specifically until you get them to the point that they realize they don't know as much as they thought.

Everyone should be aware of this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qe5pv4khM-Y

I'm not a bad guy.  If I'm wrong, I'll say I'm wrong and I suspect I'm the only one on the internet to have ever done so  

That when you make the statement "I have issues with x that make me lean gods", your "issues with x" are not issues, and don't have anything to do with gods? 

x = believing the conscious came from the unconscious.
The rest of your statement doesn't seem to follow because issues with x are legitimate issues and have something to do with a godlike thing (aka consciousness), but not in the way you're thinking about god (the bearded man in the sky barking orders - I don't believe that.)

You can't distinguish between a dam and a forest,

I can distinguish, but I see no distinction in the context we were discussing (intelligence).  A forest exists by some remarkable process that we don't fully understand and the beaver builds a dam by some remarkable process that we don't fully understand.  Both are awe inspiring.

and when a bee flaps it's wings you must be amazed to see that the flower stays on the ground.

 
Hence why the illusion that they're separate entities persists.  If we remove all flowers, the bee no longer flaps its wings.

You can't distinguish between that bee being drawn to specific nectar and the cloning method that we were discussing for apples and blueberries.

Distinguish is different from distinction.  For instance I can distinguish between honey and syrup, but there is no distinction from a dietary perspective since they're both sugar.

Why would your incompetence or incredulity in any of these regards (or any of the others you professed to be unable to grasp) be a problem for evolutionary theory..or an indicator of gods?

Surely you don't believe I'm too incompetent to understand evolution.

I am, however, seemingly ill-equipped to understand why you believe I don't understand evolution.  I've posted videos showcasing how evolutionary biology was harnessed in solving difficult problems.  I've even said (another thread) that I believe the fine-tuning argument is evidence for a type of evolution.  I'm not aware how I could have given you indication that I'm missing anything more than a nuance regarding evolutionary theory.  All I can think is because you conclude "no god" and I conclude "god" that therefore you conclude I know nothing of evolution simply because we've arrived at different destinations.

At the end of the day, you believe the conscious can evolve from the unconscious and I don't.  It's just a matter of preference at this point... like chocolate vs vanilla.  It doesn't mean either of us are stupid or bad people.

So let's get back to your telling me about the birds and the bees

[The Grand Nudger]

Surely you don't believe I'm too incompetent to understand evolution.

I'm beginning to, you're very convincing. 

I am, however, seemingly ill-equipped to understand why you believe I don't understand evolution.  I've posted videos showcasing how evolutionary biology was harnessed in solving difficult problems.  I've even said (another thread) that I believe the fine-tuning argument is evidence for a type of evolution.  I'm not aware how I could have given you indication that I'm missing anything more than a nuance regarding evolutionary theory.  All I can think is because you conclude "no god" and I conclude "god" that therefore you conclude I know nothing of evolution simply because we've arrived at different destinations.

That's a pretty easy way to see that someone doesn't understand evolutionary biology.  There's simply nothing in it that leads to gods, and your "issues" have been as far from legitimate as can be imagined. You believe weird shit at odds with evolutionary biology and observed fact. That's your issue, in it's entirety.

At the end of the day, you believe the conscious can evolve from the unconscious and I don't.  It's just a matter of preference at this point... like chocolate vs vanilla.  It doesn't mean either of us are stupid or bad people.

Well if it's all just like, opinions, man, what's the point?  You -were- the "unconscious" at a significant stage of your development. As in you, personally. It seems that there's been little improvement since. What any of that has to do with gods is beyond me, and obviously beyond you as well. Where is a god supposed to have inserted itself in making you, or our species, conscious? Unless you can articulate the fine points of that..then your insistence that this god position of yours is informed by a problem in evolutionary biology is useless pretext. You may believe it to be true..but you believe in many silly things...so?

[LadyForCamus]

Why be bothered with evolutionary biology when you can simply assert, “god done that!” Waaaay easier. 😏

[The Grand Nudger]

IKR.  Here's what I wonder, though.  If somebody is compelled by Lazy Cosmology then what's the point of referencing any of this evo devo shit?  The explanation is faeries all the way down. What makes the grass grow? What makes water wet? Why do organisms change over time and what process effects this?

Faeries, faeries...and faeries...respectively.

[Cyberman]

That's why I've often said that it's impossible for a cretinist to shoehorn real scientific explanations into their fairy stories without pulling the ripcord labelled 'magic' at some point. I think the record is three sentences.

[Agnosty]

Surely you don't believe I'm too incompetent to understand evolution.

I'm beginning to, you're very convincing. 

Sometimes birds that fly high look small, my friend

That's a pretty easy way to see that someone doesn't understand evolutionary biology.  There's simply nothing in it that leads to gods,

Never said it "leads to gods".  Evolution is evidence of life and therefore life precedes the evolution (ie does not lead to).  There is no evidence to suggest otherwise because evolution has never been observed apart from life and therefore you're conjuring a fairy by implementing this concept of evolution in place of "god", absolutely no different than the creationists.

x creates life
x = god
x = evolution
Either way, same thing because both are concepts invoked to create life.

In my view, life exists codependently with evolution.  Life is eternal and cannot be created because, if it were created, it would have to be created from nonlife and that's absurd.

and your "issues" have been as far from legitimate as can be imagined.  You believe weird shit at odds with evolutionary biology and observed fact.   That's your issue, in it's entirety.  

If you assert the conscious comes from the unconscious,  then offer some evidence for the assertion.  At least offer an observation.  Mostly what you have done is chant repetitiously how incompetent I am to see the evidence that you can't or won't produce.

Well if it's all just like, opinions, man, what's the point?   

The point of claiming our differences boil down to a matter of preference was to illustrate how you're being just as religious as the religious because faith is all you have supporting your theory (ie it's your preference).  If I'm wrong, then offer the evidence.  Using ad homs to redirect attention from the issue to my incompetence is not evidence.

You -were- the "unconscious" at a significant stage of your development.

How do you know?  Lack of memory does not necessitate unconsciousness.  And what do you mean by "you"?  Do you mean this persona I'm pretending to be?  Fine, but it doesn't exist except as a construct.

It seems that there's been little improvement since.

 
Cute, lol,  but "slander is the tool of the loser" - Socrates.

What any of that has to do with gods is beyond me, and obviously beyond you as well.  

People who are out of ammo invariably resort to throwing mud.  If you could manage a post without disparagement, it would improve your position immensely.  If all you can do is insinuate my stupidity, then all I can do is assume my theory is irrefutable.

Where is a god supposed to have inserted itself in making you, or our species, conscious?  

The problem is that you're projecting your image of god, the bearded man in the sky who is independent of the universe, onto my conceptualization and I've repeatedly said it is not accurate.  God is not a deity or object of worship, but all that there is.  God didn't create anything except illusions simply for kicks.

Unless you can articulate the fine points of that..then your insistence that this god position of yours is informed by a problem in evolutionary biology is useless pretext.

 
I have and if i did again, you'd simply call it a wall of text and leave it unaddressed while following with some jabs about my incompetence, presumably, as a way to save face in lieu of sensible rebuttal.  Because that's really what's at issue here... you've built this huge persona on the site and being wrong is simply not an option and therefore there is no way you can be objective without risking self-destruction.  I, on the other hand, have nothing at stake... no reputation, no post-count, no incentive for confirmation bias, and no face to lose.  If I am proven wrong, that would be completely awesome because then I would be right for sure!  After being armed with the info you gave me by kicking my ass, I could then go to a theist site, kick some ass and build a huge ego...    I'm just waiting for the info

You may believe it to be true..but you believe in many silly things...so?

I believe you can do better than this display.  Silly?  I hope not.

Let's forget all that and get back to the birds and bees.
_________________________________________________________________________

My rationale is as follows:

I am my thought of myself.  In order to have a thought, I need a brain.  The brain needs sugar, oxygen, salt, and an army of defenses to ward off opportunistic parasites or contaminants.  So a blood stream is needed to carry the cargo and lungs are required to oxygenate the blood and a gut is needed to energize the blood with sugar.  The gut needs a mouth and a mouth needs feet to move to find food.  Feet need ground in order to move and the ground needs a planet and a planet needs a solar system and that needs a galaxy which needs a universe.

So if we remove the words and substitute brain = A, sugar = B, blood = C and so on so that we can look at this logically, then "I" need A, B, C, D, E, F, G.... in order to exist.  Now, draw the line where my organism ends and the environment begins.  Any place you draw the line will be completely arbitrary.  When we substitute the words back in, you fall for the illusion that it's not arbitrary because the illusion makes it completely obvious that the organism begins at the skin, but logically and realistically, it's not so.

When I look at an animal, a dog or cat or whatever, I see a brain dragging a bunch of baggage around, which is unfortunately necessary to make the brain work.  Really, the brain itself is a bunch of baggage too because, essentially, we are just a thought of ourselves and do we really need a brain for that?  Why not a microchip instead?  Trade carbon for silicon.  I'm just saying... if you want to get to the meat of it, the whole universe is my environment, which includes my body and brain.  Or we could say the whole universe is my body.

The distinction between the organism and environment could be a useful concept, but it's just a concept of our imagination and not something that really exists.  Like inches aren't something that really exist; they're just arbitrary divisions that we made up.  Useful? Yes.  Real? No.

Now, anticipating objections, you may claim that my body is defined by what I have control over, but do I have control over how I beat my heart or grow my hair?  I have more control over my garden than most of my body.  I can raise or lower the temp of the air on a whim.  I divide the light from the dark with a flip of a switch.  I create peace and make evil.  I the lord do all these things lol. (parody of Isaiah 45:7)  But I can't make a hair white or purple. (parody of Jesus)

The division of organism and environment is a lie we tell ourselves in order to think we're special and distinct from the universe so we can feel justified in kicking it around and imposing our will on it.

As it happens, there are some published works on this idea as well:

Integr Physiol Behav Sci. 1998 Oct-Dec;33(4):321-34.
The theory of the organism-environment system: I. Description of the theory.

The theory of the organism-environment system starts with the proposition that in any functional sense "organism" and "environment" are inseparable and form only one unitary system. The organism cannot exist without the environment, and the environment has descriptive properties only if it is connected to the organism. Although for practical purposes we do separate organism and environment, this common-sense starting point leads in psychological theory to problems which cannot be solved. Therefore, separation of organism and environment cannot be the basis of any scientific explanation of human behavior. The theory leads to a reinterpretation of basic problems in many fields of inquiry and makes possible the definition of mental phenomena without their reduction either to neural or biological activity or to separate mental functions. According to the theory, mental activity is activity of the whole organism-environment system, and the traditional psychological concepts describe only different aspects of organization of this system. Therefore, mental activity cannot be separated from the nervous system, but the nervous system is only one part of the organism-environment system. This problem will be dealt with in detail in the second part of the article.

Integr Physiol Behav Sci. 1998 Oct-Dec;33(4):335-42; discussion 343.
Significance of nervous activity in the organism-environment system.

Philosophical Explorations 34:90-100 (1999)
Role of efferent influences on receptors in the formation of knowledge

It is argued, on the basis of experimental evidence and theoretical considerations, that the senses are not transmitters of environmental information, but they create a direct connection between the organism and the environment, which makes the development of a dynamic living system, the organism - environment system, possible.

Integr Physiol Behav Sci. 2000 Jan-Mar;35(1):35-57.
The problem on mental activity and consciousness.

Front Neurol. 2015 Oct 19;6:217. doi: 10.3389/fneur.2015.00217. eCollection 2015.
Exploring Music-Based Rehabilitation for Parkinsonism through Embodied Cognitive Science.

We argue that these phenomena involve previously unconsidered aspects of cognition and (motor) behavior, which are rooted in the action-perception cycle characterizing the whole living system.

You can download a whole pdf file here for free https://www.researchgate.net/publication...Psychology

In biology, the unitary approach makes it explicit why no organism can be thought of without an environment. An organism as a skin bag is no functioning system; it may be such only together with the relevant environmental parts. The same applies to neurophysiology or “cognitive” brain research: without the rest of the world the nervous system is not a system at all; neither is the agent of the behavior a part of the body, such as the brain.

Therefore, if I am reading that right, my mind isn't in my head, my head is in my mind.  That's mind blowing!

Can't imagine how one could refute the logic.  Seems easier to believe as I do  Oh, I forgot... y'all have a substantial stake in being opposed to this.  Well, maybe it's easier to dig-in then.  

So to bring this all together, if I am the universe and if I am alive, then the universe is alive.  If the universe is eternal, which it ultimately has to be, then I am eternal.  Not me as this character that's being acted, but the actor behind all the masks.

- Also, in my view, there is no immorality because there is only one real being who is playing all the parts.  One cannot be immoral to their self.  In christians' view, immorality is recompensed by god, but that doesn't undo the act or remove the immorality.  Likewise, in the atheist view, the immorality is left dangling.  That is, unless the atheist doesn't believe people exist in a sense that they could possibly be immoral because, for instance, they don't believe in freewill.  I suppose if there are no entities, then no immorality can happen.  If no immorality can happen, then what is the basis for morality to the atheist if there is no freewill?  I suspect no atheist wants to be in that position and will ultimately have to assume he has freewill and a solid basis for morality, which leaves all immoralities unaccounted for.

Therefore, if entities exist, the only way around the morality problem is the existence of only one entity.  There can only be 1 or 0 entities or we're left with a bind.

- Also, my view offers a theory for why the universe can never be fundamentally known, which is that the universe cannot look at itself just like we cannot see our I-center.  Look inward all you want, but there is no there, there.

- Also, my view is a better gamble... If I bet there is a god and I'm right, then it would be a good laugh at those players who really fooled themselves (even though fooling themselves was the whole point, which would be a laugh at me for screwing up and figuring it out.  But either way, it's a laugh.).  But if I bet there is a god and there is not, then no one would be the wiser

This conclusion is the line of least resistance for me, but I look forward to being a fool because then I will know for sure!

(Please note: any further ad homs will be interpreted as a method of conceding.  I'll be away for a while focusing on other things, so you have plenty of time to contemplate your next move.)

[The Grand Nudger]

[Mystic]

Agnosty, I see there is a new champion that actually thinks instead of dead hearts and can very well prove God from multiple avenues.

I hope you can guide them through reasoning, I think they have become allergic to me so no matter how reasonable my words, it will fall on deaf ears.

I wish you luck.

[GrandizerII]

Agnosty, I see there is a new champion that actually thinks instead of dead hearts and can very well prove God from multiple avenues.

I hope you can guide them through reasoning, I think they have become allergic to me so no matter how reasonable my words, it will fall on deaf ears.

I wish you luck.

Or maybe we're just allergic to clearly terrible reasoning. When/If you ever come up with good logic, I'll be one of the first to commend you for it.

[Crossless2.0]

Agnosty, I see there is a new champion that actually thinks instead of dead hearts and can very well prove God from multiple avenues.

I hope you can guide them through reasoning, I think they have become allergic to me so no matter how reasonable my words, it will fall on deaf ears.

I wish you luck.