Proof that God exists

[Agnosty]

I prefer Sagans "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe".  

Cool!  I'll have to remember that one.

One could describe the notion that life arises from organic chemistry -as- the notion that the universe is, in some sense, "contaminated with life" in that the universe is contaminated with organic chemistry, and life of some sort may be an inexorable product thereof.

Yes I suppose that's right.  I actually thought of typing that yesterday, but didn't think it would paint the picture I wanted to convey, but now that you've mentioned organic chemistry, then I think we're on the same page.

If life is defined as or indicated by a decrease in entropy, then chemistry doesn't fully capture the process of what it means to grow.  The chemical process of burning wood results in all sorts of disorganization while the chemical process of a sprouting seed results in organization, so it's more than just a succinct descriptor of a dumb process.  Perhaps there is a 5th fundamental force affecting entropy.

The question being asked is whether or not on this planet, in this universe, the life which does exist could arise by natural process.  So, no, no one has to "make their own dirt" or their own universe to answer that definitively, and if a scientist created life in a lab it would demonstrably prove that it was possible, lol.

Define natural.

Full disclosure, I work with plants and have a creepy plant fetish (so..yes, artificial selection is a real thing..I do it for a living, lol.

 
No shit?  You're my buddy now lol!  Plants are my thing too, but I don't do it for a living... more like killing myself keeping everything alive lol.

I'm going to seize the opportunity to run a couple quick questions by you because I think I'll get an answer I can rely on.  I've air-rooted before and got 2 out of 9 and 2 out of 5 survival rates (pear and blueberry respectively), but feel like I'm missing some understanding concerning the cloning of plants.  This spring I'm planning to clone some apple and blueberry bushes (old blueberry bushes  30-40yrs.).  I was wondering what insight you give me regarding my endeavor.  I select green shoots right?  Pull all the leaves off to prevent desiccation?  Or do I leave a couple leaves?  What is the reasoning when deciding how to balance the transpiration and photosynthesis for the goal of growing new roots?  My understanding is that the roots need sugar to develop and that comes from the leaves, but the leaves also dry-out the plant.  So I'm confused and have no experience to call upon.

Alright, back to arguing lol

Artificial as in artifice..not as in "unnatural" or "fake").

Artifice - clever or cunning devices or expedients, especially as used to trick or deceive others.

So, "artificial" is a product of intelligence and that makes a beaver dam artificial.     Intelligence is also a product of the universe and therefore artificial things are natural things with an artificial and arbitrary distinction.  

The martian soil is not suitable, either.  Too sharp.  So you really would need your own dirt in that case.  Very, very little would grow in a pop up with atmo on martian soil (we're actually running experiments on this..you should google it, cool as shit).

Well, the martian soil should function as cation exchange sites and I figured the soil may be lacking in certain cations and anions, but that's what i mean about having to also take the environment.... We'd need little critters living in the soil to break it down into minerals and of course they need their environment as well.  On and on the list would go.

Thanks for the tip.  I'll look into the ongoing experiments.

As to the rest,  are you trying to describe how the organism depends on the environment?  Yeah...sure.  That's evolutionary biology 101.  Natural selection wouldn't be as effective if that weren't true.

I'm going further and claiming they are one organism.  A tree growing in a pot is sold as a tree and I'm not charged separately for the pot and dirt... all of it is the tree because we can't have a tree without the dirt.  Or would you be saying that if you asked someone to hand you a tree that they would yank it from the pot and shake the dirt off the roots? "Here you go sir; the tree you requested."  

Sure, good thing we have a universe, and a planet, and soil, right?  The apples you're talking about..though...they're heavily artificially selected - but also grafted.  It;s two trees you're thinking of whenever you think of an apple tree.  They don't exist the way you know them in the wild.  We did that- just like all the rest of our food - leveraging evolutionary biology before we even knew what it was.

 
Heck, all of our food resulted from us.  Corn resulted from us.  Tomatoes, potatoes, and even livestock couldn't exist without us.  I have some ducks and have fully realized the phrase "sitting duck" because never before have I seen such a helpless creature and found that keeping them alive requires extensive protection from predators of the air, ground, and water.

But even so, humans are natural to the earth and it's utterly impossible for any human to do an unnatural act.  If an advanced alien group of scientists studied the earth, they would observe the humans in their natural environment with no distinction from any other animal species, except possibly to note their global proliferation and fanciful hives they've constructed.

"even if the others guys turned out to be right it wouldn;t prove anything to me

That's cute but perceived as a twist with nefarious intent because I made it plain the reasoning I used (contamination with life) which is quite different from a display of dogmatism.  I didn't imply I have a hard head and will never change my mind regardless what you say, I simply recited my reasoning for my belief... which is what you asked for so you could see where my problem lie.

and it's not like anyone can study it anyway!"

We're relegated to thought experiments.

Can you understand my disconnect?

 
Yes.  I think you're assuming things about me that aren't true and it's causing you to disconnect  It could be the result of the time-gaps in the flow of conversation which causes us to forget the context in which something was said.  I'll try to be more timely.

You don;t seem to have an accurate picture of evolutionary biology,

Then correct me or lay out an accurate picture.  I feel like a have a decent handle on it and if I don't, it's not for lack of studying.

I don't see why it has anything to do with the god/no god proposition.  That proposition could be true or false regardless of evolutionary biology.

 
In a sense, you're right that it doesn't make any difference.  After all, in my view of things, you're god playing the part of the guy who doesn't believe in god.  That's perfectly fine and it makes no difference.  There is no reason for me to proselytize except to have my own logic critiqued and that's only because I'm god playing the part of the guy who finds it fun to solve these puzzles.  You and I are part of the same process and the same ground of being.

Menachem Mendel of Kotzk said, "If I am I because I am I, and you are you because you are you, then I am I and you are you. But if I am I because you are you and you are you because I am I, then I am not I and you are not you!"

Certainly -some- gods would then be false.  (like the one that made mud men in magic book)...but them's the breaks when it comes to lying about our origins, or..to put it more generously, professing knowledge in ignorance.

How is it that you see they had a choice?  As far as I can tell, the only ones who believe in freewill are the judaic religions (and maybe the hindus to an extent.)  I'm not sure I've heard any of the 4 horsemen asserting freewill and I recall Sam Harris being all over youtube proclaiming no freewill.  Do you believe you have freewill?

The fact of evolution - the observation that organisms change over time. 

 
Yes, but evolution is the process OF an organism itself.  Evolution is a process that organizes information over time through selection of the best-equipped-of-the-bunch in each iteration.  If life is defined as a decrease in entropy, then evolution is evidence of life.

We (as lifeforms) use the principle of evolution in algorithmic programming to find solutions to complicated problems.  I'm pretty sure that is how cars drive themselves (they learn in an evolutionary process).  Therefore evolution is a tool to create order from disorder and when spotted in nature as a spontaneous happening, it must be considered evidence of life.

The darwinian end-
Natural selection - organisms better adapted to their environment tend to survive and produce more offspring.
Artificial selection-  the selective breeding of organisms for a desirable trait.
(darwin was not aware of what mechanism, specifically, either of the above was achieved by)

The mendelian end- 
The Laws of Heredity- a description of the chemical process by which traits are passed from one generation of organisms to the next.  
(this guy was a monk)

So..if looking at the above, you don't have any "issue" with that..then you don't have an issue with modern synth, or with evolution, or with natural or artificial selection.  Evolution doesn't have to be supervised or watched over any more than you have to supervise an ice cube in order for it to melt...

That's my point... there is no selective pressure for consciousness, so how did it get here?

but it can be, as in artificial selection (conversely, you could throw the ice cube in a hot oven, lol).  

The intelligence you think you have is just a determined process of the universe (if/then statements).  For example, if I want to melt ice, then I utilize an oven.  So, there is no difference in artificial and natural selection because both are being driven by processes that you ultimately have no control over.  To think you have control over it is an illusion.  

Now, my question becomes: Why is the illusion necessary?  It's not!  So why do I see it?  Well, because god was bored, I guess, and wanted to watch a show.  What else?  I mean, there is no reason I have to be in this skin, watching the game go on.  And further, why do I have this point of view and not some other?  I could have the point of view of a goose and would have been just as entertained within that neural framework.

Nor does it have anything to do with creating universes, it;s something that happens

You say "happens", I say "grows".

-where there is a universe (this universe, lol)
-and where there is life (here we are)
-which does encode and pass along genetic material (which we do)
-which doesn't uniformly manage perfect copies in that process (which we don't)
-and who have to then live and compete in an environment upon which they depend (earth goes hard).  

It doesn't matter -how- we ended up with this planet.  It doesn't matter if a god created this planet, or if it got here by natural processes itself (spoiler alert, it's the latter).  Once you have these conditions, by any means, you have evolution.

Which implies life because evolution is a product of life and not the other way around.

Fun banter!

---

I think buddhism is pretentious horseshit, btw, and also terminally boring.  I forgot to respond to that, lol. Talk about a crap religion, their pantheon is garbage.
(that's not an "atheist opinion" - just mine...I think we have a few filthy buddhists here, I'm sure some of them are very fine people )

I think you may be holding a misunderstanding of buddhism because it's not pantheistic.  Hinduism may be what you're thinking about, but even then it's not really pantheistic since everything in the universe is a part acted by the one god called Brahman.  Ironically, the only pantheistic of the popular religions I can think of is christianity because of the trinity and a christian will argue both sides of the fence to the death in insisting that god is one, yet in 3 distinct entities.

Anyway, from what i can tell, the atheist's enemy are the Abrahamic religions because they are the ones shoving their beliefs down other's throats in legislation and sometimes door-to-door and the odd suicide bomber.  Right?  Well, sometimes it's easier to convert a theist into another theist than an atheist and if all you really want is to be left alone, then offering multiple strategies to the prospective convert is to your advantage and therefore the buddhists should be your buds.  How could a buddhist ever impose his will on you when he doesn't even believe he exists? lol

---

How did you make your two posts separate and why are mine combined? Can I turn the combining off somehow? Smaller posts are probably easier to reply to.