Natural Selection Seems Insufficient

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

A straight line is only the shortest distance between two points on a plane. The shortest distance between two points on the surface of a sphere, for example, is a curved line.

If you have a problem with that, take it up with Euclid.

Boru

The shortest distance between two points is a straight line.  Period. 
Conceptually, any alternative conclusion is impossible to conceive. 

You didn't accept curved space on account of intuition/ comprehension. It doesn't "really" make sense to your mind. 
You bought it because one particular model of physics demands that mumbo jumbo.

Boru

[Angrboda]

Except that isn't the belief you were referring to.  You said, "Posted by a person who can't seem to comprehend that, for many of us, our belief is a tautology."  The belief is Christianity, not this proposition which you've just posted.  You might believe this in addition to Christianity, but only a complete moron would think that is the belief at issue.  So you've simply replaced something non-tautological with something tautological and thinking that I wouldn't notice.

Yes in that context, that's exactly the belief I was referring to. It's not my fault you lack sensitivity to context.

I pointed out in post #265 that your tautology is vacuously true. Because it is never the case that it is impossible to disbelieve, you can put anything on the tail of that and it's still a tautology. "If it's impossible for me to disbelieve religion X, then God does not exist" is a true tautology. This stems from the fact that you believe things that are contradictory, that it is impossible to choose to disbelieve, and that it is always possible to choose. This is what's known as logical explosion, wherein believing contradictory things furnishes the fuel to believe anything no matter how absurd. Perhaps you should have listened when I pointed it out the first time. But you didn't, because you're not actually listening, you're just spewing a bunch of bullshit and lies while pretending to be listening and having an open mind. That is what is known as arguing in bad faith.

[Angrboda]

[Angrboda]

[Angrboda]

Nobody or no thing made you do it.

But the pain receptors in my body tell me it hurts. So who told me it hurts?

You seem to be confusing conscious acts [like throwing a punch] and stuff like thirst [which is a bodily function that tells you to drink water] - those are different types of actions

Not sure if you were reluctant to answer my last question. 
So in the meantime, I'll try another explanation.

You seem to think that a deterministic domino effect will suffice. Let's understand what that means. It means that, if the species is to survive,  blind causality must move the mammal towards food and drink, and force it to ingest this sustenance, on a regular, timely basis. And not too little, and not too much, e.g. drinking too much water at one meal can kill you, it happened a while back to a mother of two. 

Fine. Let's speculate that such occurs deterministically/ randomly, often enough to preserve the species.  (This coincidence is beyond my wildest imagination, but let's humor the idea for a moment). Did you notice something? No  hunger or thirst is needed in this domino effect. There is no apriori correlation between hunger and food-consumption. The chips just fall where they may.

Which contradicts mammalian experience. In real life, there IS a clear correlation between the two. Therefore determinism falls shorts of providing a complete picture of the world.

I'll add 'a priori' to the list of terms you don't understand. There is no reason determinism would require there to be an a priori correlation. This is you committing the fallacy of ignoratio elenchi.

[The Grand Nudger]

In a panpsychic world the dominoes have this soul shit too..and yet they still fall in a way that we're using as an example to the contrary...just like our new friends belief state is, according to him, a fallen super domino.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

This is what's known as an ad hoc assumption and points to a weakness in the theory.  If you can show that the alternative thermodynamic explanation also relies on ad hos assumptions, then you would have a point.  Instead you've just made your explanation worse instead of better, as now you have increased the complexity without increasing the explanatory power.

But no matter, I can create similar conditions at sea level, thus illustrating that your theory about demons liking elevations doesn't explain the phenomenon, and your theory is once again falsified.  What is your next ad hoc assumption going to be, where you, like an idiot, make the case for your theory worse instead of better?

I could continue with counter-scenarios and counter-theories but it's probably a good idea, for the sake of expediency. to dismiss those that seem gibberish:

1. Intangible forces pushing tangible matter - gibberish.
2. Shortest distance is not a straight line - gibberish.
3. The tangible hand of God pushing tangible matter. Clear.

Since you clearly have no use for mathematics, physics, or biology, I wonder how you feel about chemistry.

Any thoughts on resubliminated thiotimoline?

Boru

[Angrboda]