Proof that God exists

[The Grand Nudger]

I think there is a difference:

We can't say entropy reverses because a law says so.
We can't say entropy reverses because it's inconsistent with what we've always seen.

One is appeal to authority and the other is appeal to evidence.  If there is evidence saying what we've always seen will always be what we see, then what is that evidence?  Until that evidence arises, it seems to be an error to assume.

Didn't we just discuss, between us, that the term natural law is shorthand for "what we've always seen"?  The only authority being appealed to when someone mentions natural law is the authority of an overwhelming weight of observational evidence. 

-even if the person doing it doesn't know that, lol.

As to the latter part, do you consider it to be an error to assume that a ball will roll down a ramp "just because" that's what it's always done?  

Good point about etymology, but the meaning of "law" hasn't changed in the way "car" has, which was kinda my point... that we inherited "law" from theology and the original meaning persists to this day.  A law implies some authority to enforce it.

Law derives from lagu, old english by way of norse - laid down or fixed.  That's a more apt description of a natural law than car is as a chariot.  We didn't inherit this one from theology, and it doesn't imply an "authority to enforce" either conceptually or in point of fact.    Much was cribbed in this way...here..amusingly, from one of the last pagan kingdoms of the middle ages - and a remarkably secular one to boot with respect to "law". Germanic and/or norse law was kind of a thing of envy for early christers. We didn't steal this one from god belief, god belief re-appropriated and, after enough time had passed, told yet another lie about it's origin.

You know what I mean, silly.  A funny quip from a creationist goes, "Hydrogen - a colorless, odorless gas that, given enough time, turns into people.  "  Isn't that what the atheist believes?

Um.......................no, lol.

Apparently that's what the creationists think the atheists believes, but I'm not atheist, so I can only guess at what they believe.  I don't want to step on any toes and I know that atheist are sensitive to misconceptions about what it means to be atheist, but I have to generalize the group in some way.

Atheists don't believe in gods.  Stick with that.

My assumptions of atheist beliefs are:

The universe is not teleological, meaning processes do not aim for a goal, but just happen.  What exists, exist by a natural selection from a realm of possibilities which requires no conscious guidance.  So it would seem that life exists as a consequence of complexity that just happened within enormous quantities of matter and time.  The shear quantity of stuff, time, and complexity is mindboggling enough to make it seem plausible even though the exact mechanism isn't readily apparent.  To me, it doesn't seem much different from substituting the stuff, time, complexity with god... only one is a peeping tom and the other isn't lol.

OH IDK, what can gawk in nature does seem to gawk as a matter of habit. If evo-devo had eyes, it would use them.  

You're conflating facts with "atheists beliefs" above, though.  What exists (by which I take it you mean life like yourself since that;s the question you've asked a variety of ways) -does- exist by natural selection..which doesn't require any conscious guidance...even if there is any, as there is in artificial selection..which is also a thing that accounts for some of what exists as it it currently exists.   Evolutionary biology isn't some substitute for a god.  If there were a god, evolutionary biology would still be as accurate and effective as it is now. We would still have to account for demonstrable truths about it and how it relates to us.

That it -seems-.....partiularly to believers and demi-believers, to be a substitute is down to the fact that the people who told god stories spun blatant lies about our origins, and whose fault is that when their pattern of silly and pointless lying turns out to be wholly and hilariously wrong?

RE: eastern spiritualism
That it's any less silly or any better aligned with some western ideology x..or that, fundamentally, it's a different thing than western spiritualism.

(I'd really love to figure out what it is, specifically, you're having trouble with in biology - or the confluence of god and biology, I actually enjoy the opportunity to help believers reconcile their god with facts - even if I don't believe in their gods. In my experience, when it can be pulled off, it's a productive and enjoyable experience. Faith strengthening, even - just one less fact a person feels compelled to deny in maintaining their belief. Let me help you take the load off? )

[Agnosty]

Didn't we just discuss, between us, that the term natural law is shorthand for "what we've always seen"?  The only authority being appealed to when someone mentions natural law is the authority of an overwhelming weight of observational evidence. 

I think people are likely to interpret "law" written in a textbook with the same connotation as they would "law" in any other context unless instructed otherwise.  The only reason this technicality arose for us to debate is the fact that I didn't know if my audience knew that law doesn't mean law.  Even if you assure me that you can make the mental substitution, that doesn't say anything about the other people who may have never given it any consideration.

As to the latter part, do you consider it to be an error to assume that a ball will roll down a ramp "just because" that's what it's always done?

Thanks for critiquing my logic... your point is interesting to contemplate.  What comes to mind first is how cats always run into the path of a car rather the opposite way.  It's a catastrophic strategy, so why did the cat successfully evolve it?  My point with that is: things aren't always intuitive and nature has to make some assumptions based on experience.  The assumption the cat makes is that the car is going to veer in its direction, therefore the cat should force the assailant to make a sharp turn rather than try to outrun it in the other direction.  It works with predators, but not with cars.

We can project this instinctual behavior on humans.  It seems likely the ball will continue on down the ramp in a straight path because that is our experience, but did we consider all the variables?  Perhaps a stone lie in the path which will cause the ball to head the direction we instinctively and intuitively choose for safety.

The universe is too complex to ever say we've considered all the variable to therefore declare a law.  There is no perfect strategy to cover all the possibilities and every strategy has a downside to be exploited by random chance.

You can cherry-pick instances to make a case one way while discarding instances that aren't so compelling, so it boils down to the strategy you'd prefer to adopt.  Myself, I like the fluidity of not making hardcore assumptions when contemplating the universe and other times I may take a more rigid approach, for instance, when ducking snowballs, I tend to assume a trajectory

Law derives from lagu, old english by way of norse - laid down or fixed. 

Fixed = written in stone, like the 10 commandments.

That's a more apt description of a natural law than car is as a chariot.  We didn't inherit this one from theology, and it doesn't imply an "authority to enforce" either conceptually or in point of fact.

That's a statement of authority, lol, because there is no offered rationale to support it.  All you've done is say I'm wrong.

We inherited "law" from theology because religion existed long before anything we could regard as science and is the most probable explanation for how "law" made it into our physics books.  Before the first law of science was ever written, we had been observing laws of god and community for centuries and by the time of Newton and Galileo, science and religion were a twisted mess.  Over the years, people retained the old terminological convention.

As a glaring example, Newton's second law of motion was wrong.  It works for small velocities, but higher up the scale it doesn't factor in the change in mass due to the increased velocity.  Most folks aren't privy and assume F=ma is written in stone (I did for many years and that includes all of college.  It wasn't until the internet that I learned Newton wasn't exactly right and further up in time until I started questioning laws of nature in general.)

In almost all cases, and certainly in the case of the common person, law implies an authority that enforces it.  If you ask an average person to name a law, they'll recite one of the 10 commandments or a law of the state and that just goes to show in what regard most people would view the meaning of law.

noun
1. the principles and regulations established in a community by some authority and applicable to its people, whether in the form of legislation or of custom and policies recognized and enforced by judicial decision.
2. any written or positive rule or collection of rules prescribed under the authority of the state or nation, as by the people in its constitution.
3. the controlling influence of such rules; the condition of society brought about by their observance:
4. a system or collection of such rules.
5. the department of knowledge concerned with these rules; jurisprudence:
to study law.
6. the body of such rules concerned with a particular subject or derived from a particular source:
commercial law.
7. an act of the supreme legislative body of a state or nation, as distinguished from the constitution.
8. the principles applied in the courts of common law, as distinguished from equity.
9. the profession that deals with law and legal procedure:
10. legal action; litigation:
11. a person, group, or agency acting officially to enforce the law:
12. any rule or injunction that must be obeyed:
13. a rule or principle of proper conduct sanctioned by conscience, concepts of natural justice, or the will of a deity:
14. a rule or manner of behavior that is instinctive or spontaneous:
15. a statement of a relation or sequence of phenomena invariable under the same conditions.
16. a principle based on the predictable consequences of an act, condition, etc.:
17. a rule, principle, or convention regarded as governing the structure or the relationship of an element in the structure of something, as of a language or work of art:
18. a commandment or a revelation from God.
19. (sometimes initial capital letter) a divinely appointed order or system.
20. the Law, Law of Moses.
21. the preceptive part of the Bible, especially of the New Testament, in contradistinction to its promises:
the law of Christ.
22. British Sports. an allowance of time or distance given a quarry or competitor in a race, as the head start given a fox before the hounds are set after it.

Much was cribbed in this way...here..amusingly, from one of the last pagan kingdoms of the middle ages - and a remarkably secular one to boot with respect to "law".  Germanic and/or norse law was kind of a thing of envy for early christers.  We didn't steal this one from god belief, god belief re-appropriated and, after enough time had passed, told yet another lie about it's origin.

That's fine... science got it from theology who got it from pagans.

Atheists don't believe in gods.  Stick with that.

That doesn't add much clarity.

You're conflating facts with "atheists beliefs" above, though.  What exists (by which I take it you mean life like yourself since that;s the question you've asked a variety of ways) -does- exist by natural selection..which doesn't require any conscious guidance...

Oh yes, natural selection!  I'm on board with that. I could even see natural selection selecting for the speed of light through a multiverse-whatever, but I cannot see it selecting for consciousness because if life is just chemical reactions then there is no need for a conscious observer and no natural-selective-mechanism to explain its existence.  If life is a series of if/then statements, then why do I need to supervise it?

even if there is any, as there is in artificial selection..which is also a thing that accounts for some of what exists as it it currently exists.

   
There is no such thing as artificial selection; humans are natural to the universe and any interference they produce is just what the natural universe is doing.

Evolutionary biology isn't some substitute for a god.  If there were a god, evolutionary biology would still be as accurate and effective as it is now.  We would still have to account for demonstrable truths about it and how it relates to us.

 
Let's suppose I'm a christian who believes in evolutionary biology and then I reject god and fill the space with evolutionary biology.
Now let's suppose I'm a christian who believes in creationism and then I reject god and... with what will I substitute?  Evolutionary biology because, without god, that's all there is.

EB doesn't have to be a substitute for god, but it often is.

That it -seems-.....partiularly to believers and demi-believers, to be a substitute is down to the fact that the people who told god stories spun blatant lies about our origins, and whose fault is that when their pattern of silly and pointless lying turns out to be wholly and hilariously wrong?

 
I see what you mean.

RE: eastern spiritualism
That it's any less silly or any better aligned with some western ideology x..or that, fundamentally, it's a different thing than western spiritualism.

The way I understand it, atheists and buddhists should be best buds.

(I'd really love to figure out what it is, specifically, you're having trouble with in biology - or the confluence of god and biology, I actually enjoy the opportunity to help believers reconcile their god with facts - even if I don't believe in their gods.

 
That's really cool of you to offer!

In my experience, when it can be pulled off, it's a productive and enjoyable experience.  Faith strengthening, even - just one less fact a person feels compelled to deny in maintaining their belief.  Let me help you take the load off? )

Yes, one of the reasons I am here is to get a perspective on how an atheist sees things.

My problem with biology is similar to this joke:  

God was once approached by a scientist who said, “Listen God, we’ve decided we don’t need you anymore. These days we can clone people, transplant organs and do all sorts of things that used to be considered miraculous.”
God replied, “Don’t need me huh? How about we put your theory to the test. Why don’t we have a competition to see who can make a human being, say, a male human being.”
The scientist agrees, so God declares they should do it like he did in the good old days when he created Adam.
“Fine” says the scientist as he bends down to scoop up a handful of dirt.”
“Whoa!” says God, shaking his head in disapproval. “Not so fast. You get your own dirt.”

Cute huh  

If you claim life comes from a bunch of junk, you still need to show the junk isn't contaminated with life.  Even if, one day, we could produce life in a test tube, that doesn't prove anything because my contention is that life will spontaneously arise anywhere in this universe... another planet, in sulfur lakes, volcanoes, or the bottom of test tubes and the fact that it happens that way settles nothing.  What you would have to do is create your own spacetime complete with gluon field, quarks, protons, neutrons, electrons, etc and have life result from a known sterile sample and then you could proclaim that life results from nonlife.  Essentially, you'd have to create your own dirt to be scientifically certain.

That realization came about after contemplating if I could take a seed to mars and expect it to grow in martian soil if I could provide the right atmosphere, then I quickly saw that the environment is codependent with the organism and they are two sides of the same coin.  And it's much deeper than that because the environment requires the whole universe and therefore the organism and universe are one inseparable thing.

An apple requires a tree which requires dirt which requires a planet which requires a solar system which requires a galaxy which requires a universe.  One measly apple requires a whole universe to produce and can never be a thing by itself.

So to string some atoms together in a lab and make life.... that just doesn't prove anything to me because whatever life is, it's inherent to the whole universe in a continuum and it isn't something that can be dissected out and examined anymore than you could remove the north pole of a magnet without also taking the south.

[The Grand Nudger]

My problem with biology is similar to this joke:  

God was once approached by a scientist who said, “Listen God, we’ve decided we don’t need you anymore. These days we can clone people, transplant organs and do all sorts of things that used to be considered miraculous.”
God replied, “Don’t need me huh? How about we put your theory to the test. Why don’t we have a competition to see who can make a human being, say, a male human being.”
The scientist agrees, so God declares they should do it like he did in the good old days when he created Adam.
“Fine” says the scientist as he bends down to scoop up a handful of dirt.”
“Whoa!” says God, shaking his head in disapproval. “Not so fast. You get your own dirt.”

Cute huh  

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

If you claim life comes from a bunch of junk, you still need to show the junk isn't contaminated with life.

I don't, and neither does evolutionary biology, so NP..right?  Some folks might refer to panspermia, but ultimately that just pushes the question back to another planet, and for the most part credible hypothesis in that regard aren;t that life came here from other planets, but some of the chemical constituents of early life. 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.

Even if, one day, we could produce life in a test tube, that doesn't prove anything because my contention is that life will spontaneously arise anywhere in this universe... another planet, in sulfur lakes, volcanoes, or the bottom of test tubes and the fact that it happens that way settles nothing.  What you would have to do is create your own spacetime complete with gluon field, quarks, protons, neutrons, electrons, etc and have life result from a known sterile sample and then you could proclaim that life results from nonlife.  Essentially, you'd have to create your own dirt to be scientifically certain.

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.

That realization came about after contemplating if I could take a seed to mars and expect it to grow in martian soil if I could provide the right atmosphere, then I quickly saw that the environment is codependent with the organism and they are two sides of the same coin.  And it's much deeper than that because the environment requires the whole universe and therefore the organism and universe are one inseparable thing.

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

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.

An apple requires a tree which requires dirt which requires a planet which requires a solar system which requires a galaxy which requires a universe.  One measly apple requires a whole universe to produce and can never be a thing by itself.

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.

So to string some atoms together in a lab and make life.... that just doesn't prove anything to me because whatever life is, it's inherent to the whole universe in a continuum and it isn't something that can be dissected out and examined anymore than you could remove the north pole of a magnet without also taking the south.

"even if the others guys turned out to be right it wouldn;t prove anything to me and it's not like anyone can study it anyway!"

...............................?

-therefore god?

Can you understand my disconnect? You don;t seem to have an accurate picture of evolutionary biology, but laying that aside..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. 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.

---

I thought this might help.

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

The theory of evolution - Modern Synth.  



-Modern Synth
The unifying theory of biology.  A fusion of mendelian genetics and darwinian evolution.  

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...but it can be, as in artificial selection (conversely, you could throw the ice cube in a hot oven, lol). Nor does it have anything to do with creating universes, it;s something that happens

-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.

[The Grand Nudger]

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 )

[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.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Forum software overrides readability.

[The Grand Nudger]

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.

LOL, so, firstly, don't clone old fruit bushes you knob.  Get new ones.  They're more productive.   

 For apples, ideally no, you don't want green shoots.  You want to pick a dormant tip from last season now, in winter (closer to spring is better, above freezing but still dormant). At least two buds, but no sign of growth.  If you're going to grow on it's own roots obviously you want to hit the end with rooting hormone and shove it into a container full of peat, perlite, and sand.  1/1/2parts.  Tent it, keep it moist.  

But.....if you have the opportunity, use the process above to create scions for grafting.  If you have the right rootstock for your area you can graft two or three varieties onto one tree.  You can even graft apples and pears onto the same tree.   If you select a dwarfing stock you can graft multiple scions in a ring and turn multiple tall habit trees into a single low shrub.  You mentioned that you've air rooted, so, the process for a ring graft is alot like an air root in that you debark a portion of the rootstock (and notch the bottom portion of that) to slide the scions in, the difference being that you seal the exposed woods with ag wax after the graft.  

Blueberries otoh -are- best cloned with green wood (but still best done in early, early spring when it's still cool).  Pretty much the same process, though.  Pick a good long stem from your best bush, strip it of leaves, cut it into 4 inch lengths, dust pot and tent.  

The only use for leaves in cloning, is cloning directly with a leaf cutting.  Not easy to pull off with fruit bearing trees and shrubs.  Heres a pro-tip.  Mark the "top" ends of your cuttings and keep them wrapped in a moist paper towel....in the fridge, until they get hormone and media.  They won't root upside down (geotropism).  The liquid hormone is worlds better than the powder, as well.  It can take up to three months for new clones or grafts to show adequate growth, so..be patient...and you might want to do them a dozen at a time (some will just fail, no way around it).  

The reason for doing this late winter or early spring is that, yes, the roots need all sorts of things to develop...and that -should- have been drawn into the stems at the onset of winter in preparation for spring.  Plus, the temperatures are cooler and that inhibits the kinds of fungus that routinely makes clones and grafts fail.  The cuttings -should- provide the requirements for roots, and the new roots -will- produce new leaves (or the stock roots, when the graft is complete and they come out of winter dormancy).

---

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.

You're musing over hidden fundamental forces when you lack a basic grasp of biology and have "issues" with it?  I don't think that's going to be very productive.  

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.  

Sure, beaver damns are artificial in precisely the same sense as artifical selection is.  The trees didn't grow that way nor do they form such structures left to their own devices.  Sure, intelligence is a product of the universe....and artifical things are, in an important sense, natural..but again, artificial is not somehow meant or taken to be the opposite of something natural.  Here, as with "law" you are attempting to find some way to re-enforce your misapprehension rather than correct it.  

There is a distinct difference between a beaver damn and a forest, or even a pile of logs in a river.  One set is an artifact of artifice, the other is not. 

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."  

That's an absurd claim.  Interdependance of organisms should not be taken to mean that disparate organisms are the same organism.  I can tell you where a flower ends and a bee begins, and I assume that you're similarly capable of recognizing the distinction between them. 

You asked me a question about cloning..notice, nowhere in my advice did I suggest that you grab a handful of root dirt from the parent tree?  Because it's not necessary, and would kill the clone/graft.   In that case, you actually do have to create an "unnatural" environment or the process of life will fail.  You will never, in your life..put a shovel to the ground and find a 1/1/2 mix of naturally occurring peat, perlite, and sand, nor will that shovel full of sand be covered with a rooting tent..nor will it be contaminated with liquid growth hormone.  In picking your best trees and bushes, you will be propagating traits which may or may not express themselves in the more mundane version of reproduction the plant would undergo.  You will be engaging in artificial selection on every conceivable level..which is distinctly different from natural selection, and you are a distinctly different organism than the apple tree.  

If you want to engage in a little natural selection..you could just grind all the fruits into the dirt and wait for something to seed.  

 
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.

As gratifying as it would be, I'm no god, lol.  

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?

What does free will have to do with replacing god with evolution or vv, or atheism and theism?  Freewill is yet another subject that stands or falls on it's own.  Do I believe in it?  Well, I can't help but believe in it...even if I understand both that and -why- those beliefs are wrong.  Free will is, at least, a compelling fiction.  There is no atheist position on free will.  You'll find just about every possible opinion on the subject represented here in our atheist members.  

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.

Ish, it's not a product of any specific organism or any specific representative of any specific organism.  Evolution occurs to all life that we know of and happens at the population level.  

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.

I'm limiting myself to describing evolutionary biology to you when we discuss evolution...to keep us from drifting into analogies to other things (like cars learning to drive) that may or may not be fruitful.  Evolutionary biology is not a description of how cars learn to drive.  

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

It's an interesting question...but are you sure that's really true?  It seems as if conscious animals are -highly- successful.  

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.

What's more important to you, understanding evolutionary biology or reasserting yourself?   In any case, neither natural or artificial selection is about "having control", so why is that a problem for natural or artificial selection?  A great deal will be out of your control when you artificially select your fruit bushes (much of which you probably aren't aware of to control in the first place, even if you could).

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.

.........................................................................?  Most of this isn't directly related to our discussion..but, I have to ask.  Why and how -could- you have "the point of view of a goose"?  You are not a goose.  I can't comment on how entertained geese (or gods) are, relative to yourself, so I'll leave that alone.  There are at least two reasons you're "in the skin you're in", and you know them as mommy and daddy.  

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

Evolution doesn't "grow".  You say alot of things about it..but thusfar those things have rarely been accurate.

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

Ish.  Evolution is certainly a product of life like ours, in a sense, combined with other factors, yes.  Conceivably, some other type of life could exist that did not evolve, or use genetic transmission of traits, or be subject to a competitive environment.  

I think you may be holding a misunderstanding of buddhism because it's not pantheistic.

Meh, like I said, I think it's pretentious horseshit. The bit about their pantheon was a joke.

[The Grand Nudger]

aaaaaand, heres another fun q, which might make sense to focus on since you've mentioned it twice.  

You don't understand how consciousness could have evolved.  You also indicate that your "theist lean" is in some palpable sense due to questions like these.  Is that correct?  If so, why have you defaulted to gods over a question of biology?  Is "god" more than a moniker for unanswered questions?

Here are some other options, assuming that evolutionary biology cannot and never will account for consciousness, in fact that no natural process ever will:

Consciousness does not exist as we perceive it. (The hypothesis that we are chasing a phantom)
There are non-natural processes. (The hypothesis that there are phantoms to be found)
The universe is fundamentally absurd and inexplicable.

I suspect that an exhaustive investigation of the first two, at least, would be more useful than a swift declaration of "therefore gods, maybe". In fact I'd categorize "gods" as representatives of the absurd and inexplicable universe camp, myself. A universe in which the silly stories we tell somehow find a way to make themselves retroactively true and effective, no-how. The third hypothesis would be eequal parts entertaining and infuriating. Maybe the sky is blue because tulips. Sure, sure, we have a more mundane explanation..but if fairy tales can go back and create the universe (or whatever a person tells themselves about gods).....just how certain can we be that it isn't tulips what make the sky blue, again?

That's the territory where all we can do is throw up our hands and laugh.

[Agnosty]

LOL, so, firstly, don't clone old fruit bushes you knob.  Get new ones.  They're more productive.   

Yeah, you're probably right, but I'm sentimental and these old ones are more productive than anyone can handle.  During peak season, it seems I can walk around the bush continuously picking berries almost as if the act of picking them causes others to ripen... and I don't stop picking because I run out of berries, but just get tired of it.

Perhaps I should have pm'd you with this, but it didn't occur to me  

 For apples, ideally no, you don't want green shoots.  You want to pick a dormant tip from last season now, in winter (closer to spring is better, above freezing but still dormant).

Right before bud break?  I'll be on the lookout for that as I'm collecting maple sap since bud break makes the syrup taste like crap.

At least two buds, but no sign of growth.  If you're going to grow on it's own roots obviously you want to hit the end with rooting hormone and shove it into a container full of peat, perlite, and sand.  1/1/2parts.  Tent it, keep it moist. 

 
Why not just peat?  Not arguing, just curious.

But.....if you have the opportunity, use the process above to create scions for grafting.  If you have the right rootstock for your area you can graft two or three varieties onto one tree.  You can even graft apples and pears onto the same tree. 

 
Good idea!  I'll have to try that one day.  I've seen videos on it.

If you select a dwarfing stock you can graft multiple scions in a ring and turn multiple tall habit trees into a single low shrub.

 
Well, these apples are going in the woods to be deer bait so they leave MY apples alone  Another project on the list is to make an espelliar fence since apples seem well-suited for that.

You mentioned that you've air rooted,

  
Yep, the first time (after being armed with youtube videos    ), I drove 600 miles to a friend's house to clone an old pear tree.  I wrapped 9 branches with peat and foil, then came back in fall and found 2 branches still alive.  They're out in the yard right now enduring their second winter independent from the parent.  No clue what variety they are, but everyone says they're the best pears they've had.

Blueberries otoh -are- best cloned with green wood (but still best done in early, early spring when it's still cool).  Pretty much the same process, though.  Pick a good long stem from your best bush, strip it of leaves, cut it into 4 inch lengths, dust pot and tent.

  
Ok, so, no leaves.  That's where I went wrong.  I have better luck with airrooting than cloning.  Cloning has never worked for me.

Heres a pro-tip.  Mark the "top" ends of your cuttings and keep them wrapped in a moist paper towel....in the fridge, until they get hormone and media.  They won't root upside down (geotropism).  It can take up to three months for new clones or grafts to show adequate growth, so..be patient...and you might want to do them a dozen at a time (some will just fail, no way around it). 

Genius!

The liquid hormone is worlds better than the powder, as well.

Really?  Someone else to told me the liquid sucks, so I've been using the powder.  Perhaps I should try the liquid.

The reason for doing this late winter or early spring is that, yes, the roots need all sorts of things to develop...and that -should- have been drawn into the stems at the onset of winter in preparation for spring.

 
Probably the same stuff that ruins the maple sap.

Plus, the temperatures are cooler and that inhibits the kinds of fungus that routinely makes clones and grafts fail.  The cuttings -should- provide the requirements for roots, and the new roots -will- produce new leaves (or the stock roots, when the graft is complete and they come out of winter dormancy).

Thanks a million!  I feel like I have a better understanding now.

Sure, beaver damns are artificial in precisely the same sense as artifical selection is.

 
If beaver dams are artificial, then so are birds nests and bee hives.  What's more natural than the birds and bees?

The trees didn't grow that way nor do they form such structures left to their own devices.  Sure, intelligence is a product of the universe....and artifical things are, in an important sense, natural..but again, artificial is not somehow meant or taken to be the opposite of something natural. 

Seems to me you're saying artificial is an arbitrary construct subjective to how you wish to define it.  If so, then why use the word at all?  Why use an illusion to dispel an illusion?

Here, as with "law" you are attempting to find some way to re-enforce your misapprehension rather than correct it.

  
I can see how you see that.

There is a distinct difference between a beaver damn and a forest, or even a pile of logs in a river.  One set is an artifact of artifice, the other is not. 

I don't see the distinction between a dam and a forest... or maybe even the pile of logs in the river (whether it happened by random chance or as part of the process that is the universe.  Is it part of what's going on or is it external to what's going on?)

That's an absurd claim.  Interdependance of organisms should not be taken to mean that disparate organisms are the same organism.  I can tell you where a flower ends and a bee begins, and I assume that you're similarly capable of recognizing the distinction between them. 

This is the meat of the matter.  Is my blood part of me or part of my environment?  For that matter, is my body me or my environment?  If I can't say for sure, then is the air in the room part of me or is it my environment?  There isn't much difference since I need the air from which to extract O2 and I need the blood to transport it, where the blood is a medium for transport that is little different than the air.  Any boundaries I put on ME in order to contain ME and define ME as distinct from the universe are completely arbitrary.  Why stop at my skin?  I am just as dependent on what we call "the environment" as I am on what we call "my body".

Furthermore, I am a process like a flame on a candle which isn't a thing, but a stream of gas and the flame is constantly being renewed.  In some number of years I will exchange all the cells in my body for new ones and perhaps I have some atoms floating around that were once in Socrates' body.  So the idea that I have something distinct from the universe that I possess that I can call mine that defines me is silly.

The distinction between flowers and bees is an illusion we create for ourselves because, in reality, they are necessary parts of the same process.  We can't have flowers without bees nor bees without flowers.  Everything in the outside world that we call reality is just a bunch of particles bumping into one another and the collection of particles that we call a bee is just an arbitrary distinction which gives the illusion that bees are separate from the universe.  How did you put it... reinforcing misapprehensions?

You like the sopranos?  I was reminded of this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QY_D_9WKSQ4

You will be engaging in artificial selection on every conceivable level..which is distinctly different from natural selection, and you are a distinctly different organism than the apple tree. 

 
You familiar with William Albrecht?  He noticed that plants grow in soils particularly suited for that specie of plant and the soil is a product of climate and weathering.  So if you leave a patch of ground unattended, the plants best-suited for that ground will begin to dominate.  What determines the ground is the type of rock and type/length of weathering that just happens to favor a specific type of plant.  So now, I come along with my chainsaw, tiller, bag of fertilizer, and information from the internet and then cut all the dominant plants down and force a plant from a far-corner of the world to grow in what could be considered "an unnatural location."  In my view, the dominant plants weren't so dominant after all because they found themselves ill-equipped to cope with the natural force that was me.  How am I any different than a weather pattern?  If I truck-in glacial till from Iowa, how am I different from the glacier?

Aren't the bees selective breeders? Don't they pick the most appealing flowers?  I mean, that's why we have flowers, right, to attract the bees?  So the best flowers get the most pollination (aka selection).  If i select one plant for breeding because I like it, then how am I different from the bee making a selection that it likes?  The only way I could be different is if I were from another universe.. or perhaps made by a god who is distinct from the universe.  The concept of artificial must be regarded as theistic because the only thing that could be artificial to this universe is a deity.

As gratifying as it would be, I'm no god, lol.  

If you were god, what would you do?  And after a million years of getting your way, knowing everything in the future... the end of every game, the end of every movie... you'd get bored and ultimately find yourself right where you are now.  And that's the point.

What does free will have to do with replacing god with evolution or vv, or atheism and theism?  Freewill is yet another subject that stands or falls on it's own.  Do I believe in it?  Well, I can't help but believe in it...even if I understand both that and -why- those beliefs are wrong.  Free will is, at least, a compelling fiction.  There is no atheist position on free will.  You'll find just about every possible opinion on the subject represented here in our atheist members. 

 
Freewill is of utmost importance because if it doesn't exist, then everything is determined and if everything is determined such that you have no choice whatsoever, then you don't exist.  How could you say you exist when your existence makes no difference?  Isn't that the argument put forth concerning god (what difference would it make)?

Suppose you have freewill, then how is a determined process going to engender that?  In order to have freewill, there would have to be a you that is independent from the universe such that it isn't determined by the universe and is yet able to influence the universe through its choices.

This is why it is said that when we tired of the monarchical model of the universe, where god created us, and instead we adopted the automatic model of the universe, which got rid of god, we also got rid of ourselves.  It would seem there is no way to win.  But there is a way and it comes about by realizing there are no things or events.  If there are no things, then how can one thing cause another thing?  So there is no causality and therefore no determinism.  There is just the one big indivisible continuum of a process and we ARE that process.  We aren't fatalists being pushed around because there is no one distinct from the universe to be pushed around... because we are the whole thing.  That's what I mean by "you are god (the universe) playing the part of the one who doesn't believe in god (deities)."

Ish, it's not a product of any specific organism or any specific representative of any specific organism.  Evolution occurs to all life that we know of and happens at the population level.  

How could evolution start if there is no life to start it?

I'm limiting myself to describing evolutionary biology to you when we discuss evolution...to keep us from drifting into analogies to other things (like cars learning to drive) that may or may not be fruitful.  Evolutionary biology is not a description of how cars learn to drive.  

Natural selection is.  You should watch this short but fascinating video about machine learning based on evolutionary biology https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qv6UVOQ0F44

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

It's an interesting question...but are you sure that's really true?  It seems as if conscious animals are -highly- successful. 

 
Well, like god, consciousness is unneeded, so what difference would it make?  If it makes no difference, then how could it have been selected for?  If it wasn't selected for, then why is it here?

What's more important to you, understanding evolutionary biology or reasserting yourself? 

  
I'm just testing my understanding like hardening clay pots in an oven.  You are the fire

In any case, neither natural or artificial selection is about "having control", so why is that a problem for natural or artificial selection?  A great deal will be out of your control when you artificially select your fruit bushes (much of which you probably aren't aware of to control in the first place, even if you could).  

I was just saying that intelligence isn't something that can be quantified as in "extracted from the universe" as a distinct process exclusive to humans.  You're saying that intelligence is the root of artificiality and I'm pointing out that intelligence isn't independent of the natural.  What you choose to define as intelligence is just arbitrary.  Ants can be intelligent and although a few may stray off course on the way to the food, that's the intelligence of the variety that's in the species.

That Mandalay Bay shooting... I saw some people running for their lives and some standing around and even one guy giving the shooter the finger and I realized that it's the variety that guarantees survival in the face of unknown dangers... and that's intelligent.  Is giving the shooter the finger stupid?  Is running stupid?  There is no way to know.  What survives, survives because variety is inherent to the system and that is intelligent.

Most of this isn't directly related to our discussion..but, I have to ask.  Why and how -could- you have "the point of view of a goose"?  You are not a goose.  I can't comment on how entertained geese (or gods) are, relative to yourself, so I'll leave that alone.  There are at least two reasons you're "in the skin you're in", and you know them as mommy and daddy.

  
Sure, this body would exist because of mommy and daddy, but why am I inside it?  Why am I not inside your body instead?  Why not a goose?

The thing about dumb animals is that they are easily entertained.  Why, after 400 million years of evolution, is a shark still stupid?  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8hL1qkEQYgI  FWD to 49:00.  Obviously, any animal that exists is of optimal intelligence because if it were any smarter, it wouldn't compete as well.  To speculate: maybe if a shark were smarter, it would be too curious and get into trouble.  Maybe it would become bored.  Maybe it would overthink a situation.  In the case of sauropods, their brain actually got smaller as evolution progressed because it takes less energy to feed a smaller brain and being smart isn't required to stand around swinging a long neck.  Pumping blood up a long neck is difficult and the long neck was more beneficial to the species than intelligence.  Intelligent humans often don't compete as well either (See Satoshi Kanazawa's abundance of research on the matter).  Tangential to the topic, but interesting.

Evolution doesn't "grow".  You say alot of things about it..but thusfar those things have rarely been accurate.

Define accurate

I suspect what you mean is that what I say isn't consistent with what you believe.  If it were, then what would we talk about?  We need each other because if you didn't disagree, I wouldn't know what I think lol.

[Agnosty]

You don't understand how consciousness could have evolved.  You also indicate that your "theist lean" is in some palpable sense due to questions like these.  Is that correct?  If so, why have you defaulted to gods over a question of biology?  Is "god" more than a moniker for unanswered questions?

I don't see how consciousness can result from the unconscious.  I don't see how either could exist without the other.  Therefore if they are codependent pairs, then they must have eternally existed in that way or have arisen together because one can't engender the other.

Consciousness does not exist as we perceive it. (The hypothesis that we are chasing a phantom)

Consciousness is an illusion?  Well, people were conscious before I was born and they will be conscious after I'm gone which means that I am not required to have this point of view for life to go on, so why do I have a sense of me?  We could say a robot is conscious, but I don't have its point of view and having that point of view is not required.

We could say that animals are conscious in the sense that a robot is conscious of how it handles packages, but who can say if any of them actually have a point of view and feeling of themselves as a point of conscious attention?  Obviously, that is not required, so why does it exist?

There are non-natural processes. (The hypothesis that there are phantoms to be found)

"Non-natural" doesn't exist, but yes there are phantoms to be found.

The universe is fundamentally absurd and inexplicable.

 
That's true.  That's the point of it all.  If it could be understood, there would be no point to it.

As I said before, if you were god, you'd be bored of it and would wish for a surprise.

We display that behavior all the time: "Don't tell me who won the game because I haven't seen it yet!"  When it's obvious who is going to win a chess game, they end the game and start another.  Knowing the future is hell.  Having a surprise around every corner is what this universe is about.

Nearly all of the world's physicists are gravitating around the theory of inflation regarding the beginning of the universe.  Inflation is the idea that the universe was once infinitesimally small and expanded much faster than the speed of light and they use that model to explain the uniformity of the universe that we observe.  (As opposed to an explosion implied by the name Big Bang).  The universe expanded much faster than light could travel and so it is that delaying of information (aka surprise) that gives us the illusion of spacetime.  It seems plain to me that the point of everything is for the sake of surprise.

Does randomness exist?  If not, then my theory is hogwash.  Fortunately, it does: http://www.askamathematician.com/2009/12...andomness/

It took a while, but hidden variable theory was eventually disproved by John Bell, who showed that there are lots of experiments that cannot have unmeasured results.  Thus the results cannot be determined ahead of time, so there are no hidden variables, and the results are truly random.  That is, if it is physically and mathematically impossible to predict the results, then the results are truly, fundamentally random.

It's not that we're not yet capable of predicting the results due to some technological limitation, but it's impossible for us to predict the results... regardless how awesome we become.

Surprise is ingrained in the universe.

I suspect that an exhaustive investigation of the first two, at least, would be more useful than a swift declaration of "therefore gods, maybe".  In fact I'd categorize "gods" as representatives of the absurd and inexplicable universe camp, myself.  A universe in which the silly stories we tell somehow find a way to make themselves retroactively true and effective, no-how.  The third hypothesis would be eequal parts entertaining and infuriating.  Maybe the sky is blue because tulips.  Sure, sure, we have a more mundane explanation..but if fairy tales can go back and create the universe (or whatever a person tells themselves about gods).....just how certain can we be that it isn't tulips what make the sky blue, again?

lol, well, the sky is blue only because there are eyes to see the blue.  Blue is just a specific frequency of electromagnetic radiation.  Slow the frequency down and you'd perceive it as heat.  Slow it more and you'd find radio waves.  Speed it up and it would be UV or xray or gamma rays or maybe even neutrinos or other "particles".  Blue only exists in our minds.  Do you see the same blue as I do?  Maybe your blue looks red to me.  Maybe we all have the same favorite color, but just label it different.

An atom is just a conglomeration of localized bits of energy and it has no real extents because the wave function extends to infinity.  https://physics.stackexchange.com/questi...o-infinity

All this stuff that we think is stuff is not stuff.

As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clearheaded science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about the atoms this much: There is no matter as such! All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particles of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. - Max Planck https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Max_Planck

The world is essentially what you make of it, except that you are in the world too.  The world is in my head and my head is in the world.  That sort of codependency is hard to conceptualize using words.

Luckily, Einstein was born missing part the part of his brain which made talking difficult for him to learn.  Through that handicap, he learn to think in terms of concepts instead of words.  Words are circular and can only be defined using other words (the Vish game https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vish_(game) )  Conceptual thinking allowed him to run thought experiments in his head that weren't possible in the real world.

“We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.” Albert Einstein.

What I'm struggling to convey is if the universe is fundamentally unknowable, then what the hell?!?  How does something exist that is impossible to figure out?  No matter which line of thinking I pursue, I always come back to god and surprise.