Proof that God exists

[Agnosty]

That's not what I'm saying... I'm saying an omniscient god can't even know how the universe works, regardless if he exists.  Whether he exists is inconsequential to the point.  How can something exist that can't be known?  How does something like that come into being?  It's as if it had no cause... because if it had a cause, then it could be known.

Ok, I'm confused about the insistence on such an objection. Is this based on something philosophers have a long history of arguing, or is this a personal objection of yours? If former, give me something to google, so I can understand better why the need for this objection.

It's personal.  If you want something to read, maybe the last couple pages of this thread will help get inside my head.  Apart from that, all I know to do is reiterate what I've already said.

Coin flips and lotteries are determined events because they're large in size and all outcomes are knowable, but on the quantum level, nothing is determined.  In other words, why a particle is found here or there has no causal mechanism... it just happens that way.  We have to figure that randomness won't lead to order because there is no mechanism for it, and if entropy means anything, it's that.  Yet ordering is what we see and that ordering is why we exist.  How does an ordered universe result from random noise?  And how does it sustain itself that way for 14 billion years?  It's just mindblowing... that's about all I'm saying.

That's assuming Copenhagen interpretation, no? What about deterministic ones, like the Many Worlds Interpretation?

That's assuming the verified one.  Have a look at 50:00 to 55:00 here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6k6BuYK_PwQ

Many worlds is deterministic?  I never gave it much thought because many worlds seems a giant waste of energy.

---

The text walls are too much.  Find some specific thing and make a thread.  You're expressing a far too elaborate set of misconceptions to deal with all at once.

Oh man that's a shame you feel that way.  I was looking forward to continued banter.  Oh well, if you change your mind and make a specific objection to what I've said, I'd be happy to elaborate on the point.  As far as my starting a thread, I don't know which point is of your interest.

Long story short, your "issues with biology" are not issues with biology.  They are personal issues.  Claims you insist upon about biology (and a host of other things) - asserted to be true and then held up as "problems".

You'd have to give me an example to illustrate what you mean.

(def pm me anytime you want to talk about plants, btw - I'm always down.)

I'll take you up on that!