Time To Grow Up. There Is No Greater Purpose.

[stiggy wiggy]

I suggest you look into the website Action For Happiness . Todays action was "Do something kind to help in your local community". I got one of those extension grabbers and some trash bags, and spent an hour and a half picking up trash on the side of the road.

Now remember. If you run across an empty Cheetos bag, don't throw it away. Remember your theory? Given enough time it'll turn into a Chevrolet and you can drive instead of walk home from your atheistically altruistic community service gig.

 

[JAG]

But before I came here I read some threads and the christians were complaining that none of the negative atheists would "support their worldview" and "take the burden of proof". They were even suggesting the atheists were cowards. (which I do not agree with)

So now you have someone who openly admits he is a positive atheist, willingly takes the burden of proof, and repeatedly posts arguments that god does not exist. I am happy doing so. One would imagine you christians would be overjoyed. Maybe I need to help you loosen up and feel the joy. Maybe all this hell talk and predestination is getting you down. Constantly focusing on sin and guilt, and all that violence in your book can really make it hard to have a positive outlook. Even I feel it sometimes. And I don't even believe it.

I suggest you look into the website Action For Happiness . Todays action was "Do something kind to help in your local community". I got one of those extension grabbers and some trash bags, and spent an hour and a half picking up trash on the side of the road. Some of the stuff was too large for the bag. (part of a bumper). The cops stopped by to see what I was doing since I technically wasn't supposed to be there, but left without bothering me. The fire department let me throw the garbage in their dumpster. Tomorrow is "Give away something to help those who don't have as much as you". What would you suggest? Maybe I will go to the supermarket, buy some groceries and drop them off at the local food pantry. I have some old winter coats I really don't wear. I could give them away. It is amazing what meaning and purpose you can find in life when you create it yourself.

Thanks for your input, amigo.

You seem sincere in many places so I will take a moment and
expand on what I said about Christians being wiser if they
deprived you of your joy in presenting what you claim to be
arguments against Christianity.

First lets establish our individuality. You want to be who and what
you are and I want to be who and what I am. Now there are different
approaches to this reality:
Here are some:
(1) Mockery and ridicule
(2) Disinterested tolerance
(3) Chatty discussion
(4) etc

Now let me characterize who and what I am in relation to what you like to do here in threads.
And I intend the following to be very polite - I am NOT trying to belittle you when I explain this.

Here we go:


I have bigger fish to fry that to spend my time jawing back and forth in threads with
so-called "atheists"
because I am part of Christendom that fully intends to help Christianize the entire world.
Remember now I, just like you, want to be who and what I am.
And being part of the over 2,000,000,000 Christians in the world who have been given the task, by
the Lord Jesus to go and Christianize the world is what I do, is who I am, and is what I am.
You can read Jesus' command to go and Christianize the entire world at the end of
Matthew chapter 28.

Here is what I am interested in pushing forward:

That up there is a Christian evangelistic crusade and such as what you see up there
is going on regularly here and there all over the world. We fully intend to Christianize
the world. The Lord Jesus came to save His elect and his elect will be in numbers like
the grains of sand on the seashores, says the Bible.

So?

So I simply don't have time to spend in threads endlessly jawing back and forth with
"atheists" who endlessly make the same anti-Christian points over and over and over.

So to me what are you worth? You are worth being told a few times how to become
a Christian and that's about it for me. And that's already happened. And so what did
you do? You added in a lot of mockery and ridicule with your "arguments" against
Christianity.

Best

JAG

[]

 

[positive atheist]

You seem sincere in many places so I will take a moment and
expand on what I said about Christians being wiser if they
deprived you of your joy in presenting what you claim to be
arguments against Christianity.

First lets establish our individuality. You want to be who and what
you are and I want to be who and what I am. Now there are different
approaches to this reality:
Here are some:
(1) Mockery and ridicule
(2) Disinterested tolerance
(3) Chatty discussion
(4) etc

Now let me characterize who and what I am in relation to what you like to do here in threads.
And I intend the following to be very polite - I am NOT trying to belittle you when I explain this.

Here we go:


I have bigger fish to fry that to spend my time jawing back and forth in threads with
so-called "atheists"
because I am part of Christendom that fully intends to help Christianize the entire world.
Remember now I, just like you, want to be who and what I am.
And being part of the over 2,000,000,000 Christians in the world who have been given the task, by
the Lord Jesus to go and Christianize the world is what I do, is who I am, and is what I am.
You can read Jesus' command to go and Christianize the entire world at the end of
Matthew chapter 28.

Here is what I am interested in pushing forward:

That up there is a Christian evangelistic crusade and such as what you see up there
is going on regularly here and there all over the world. We fully intend to Christianize
the world. The Lord Jesus came to save His elect and his elect will be in numbers like
the grains of sand on the seashores, says the Bible.

So?

So I simply don't have time to spend in threads endlessly jawing back and forth with
"atheists" who endlessly make the same anti-Christian points over and over and over.

So to me what are you worth? You are worth being told a few times how to become
a Christian and that's about it for me. And that's already happened. And so what did
you do? You added in a lot of mockery and ridicule with your "arguments" against
Christianity.

Best

JAG

[]

That doesn't bother me in the least. The question arises what are you even doing in this thread. Your post #458 about Dead Old Single One Cell seemed to me to be nonsense, it wasn't convincing, it wasn't entertaining, it certainly did not prove anything I said was false, so I really didn't see the point. On the other hand if you are going to come here and try to say atheism is false or disprove our arguments we are going to push back. If you actually believe the above why don't you just come to this thread say "God exists blah blah blah" and leave? Why not make some cogent argument and just get out, as you say you want to?

If your intent is to christianize the whole world, I hate to break the news to you but you are on a sinking ship. Christianity is dying. According to Pew Research In U.S., Decline of Christianity Continues at Rapid Pace

"The religious landscape of the United States continues to change at a rapid clip. In Pew Research Center telephone surveys conducted in 2018 and 2019, 65% of American adults describe themselves as Christians when asked about their religion, down 12 percentage points over the past decade. Meanwhile, the religiously unaffiliated share of the population, consisting of people who describe their religious identity as atheist, agnostic or “nothing in particular,” now stands at 26%, up from 17% in 2009.

Both Protestantism and Catholicism are experiencing losses of population share. Currently, 43% of U.S. adults identify with Protestantism, down from 51% in 2009. And one-in-five adults (20%) are Catholic, down from 23% in 2009. Meanwhile, all subsets of the religiously unaffiliated population – a group also known as religious “nones” – have seen their numbers swell. Self-described atheists now account for 4% of U.S. adults, up modestly but significantly from 2% in 2009; agnostics make up 5% of U.S. adults, up from 3% a decade ago; and 17% of Americans now describe their religion as “nothing in particular,” up from 12% in 2009. Members of non-Christian religions also have grown modestly as a share of the adult population."

While you claim that you "fully intend to Christianize the world.", you are actually on a ship that is sinking quickly. Let me make it clear that there are many christians who are decent sane people, I think that christianity is dying worldwide because of people like you and I fervently hope you keep doing what you are doing. People are just not buying your product anymore and I can't blame them. Who wants to sit there listening to all this garbage about hell, and being saved, guilt, sin, hatred of this and that group, anti this, anti that. It is such a burden trying to force yourself to believe these utterly ridiculous stories about resurrections and invisible beings in the sky, and spirits and satan. People are just sick of it. In the marketplace of ideas you are losing big time. I also think as science continues to advance and people see the real life benefits of rationalism and reason, the whole idea of faith looks more and more ridiculous. Science and technology are squeezing religion into a smaller and smaller place. People who are having a good life don't need nor want your senseless stories. Many christians seem like bitter angry people who are hypersensitive about their belief system. It is not very attractive.

 

[stiggy wiggy]

According to Pew Research In U.S., Decline of Christianity Continues at Rapid Pace

What would you do without Pewee Research to bolster your feeble self esteem with nebulous statistics about how your precious group who proudly label themselves atheists score high on Pewee Research tests? What stats does Pewee Research give about the percentage of idiots who use Argumentum ad Populum to determine to which label they'd like to attach themselves?

 

[positive atheist]

The question is if humans are here by chance. Run a simulation of whatever process produced humans X number times, where X is some very large number, and record number of times humans emerged. Then repeat the run Y number of times, where Y is some reasonably large number, to average out lucky high counts. Take the average of all those Y runs. If humans are here by chance there will be a very low percentage of human emergence. Exactly how low is low will have to be determined by statistics.

I'm explicitly stating now this test is only to check if the humans are here by chance claim is true. It's not a test for the existence of a creator, design, intervention, etc. and adding those concepts into the test is just moving the goalpost. If the percentage is higher than expected further research can begin to find out why.

Why would anyone do this when numerous researchers are doing research into how life actually originated on earth. The probability will be irrelevant when they find out exactly what happened. Even if they come up with one way in which life originated all the other ideas are toast. Nobody will believe in "other possibilities" when we have actual proof. You have already admitted there is no test to see if god created life on earth, which I agree with, so we can toss that overboard to begin with.


The idea that "life on earth originated by chance is highly unlikely" is a falsehood theists have been spreading for decades because they know there will never be any proof that god did it. Unfortunately for them the possibility that life on earth began by chance is very highly likely. Given enough trials the highly unlikely becomes likely and even certain.

 

[positive atheist]

Done. There are 100 billion stars in the galaxy. On average there's one planet per star, though they tend to come in groups around certain types of star. Human civilizations in the galaxy equals one. The moment further data shows that to be wrong, I'll let you know, but from current data, humans arose by chance.

Don't forget there are other factors. Many planets have many different environments so on each planet there could be many many different places where life could have began.

Furthermore, what is life? We assume it is like us. We assume it needs an environment like ours to live. All of this is false. "Life" in many many different forms could have formed in many many different places. The possibilities seem endless. The idea that life finally happened by chance somewhere in the gigantic universe at some time in multi billions of years in uncountable trillions and trillions and trillions of possible places and scenarios, is extremely likely and not at all surprising.

 

[vbj]

Done. There are 100 billion stars in the galaxy. On average there's one planet per star, though they tend to come in groups around certain types of star. Human civilizations in the galaxy equals one. The moment further data shows that to be wrong, I'll let you know, but from current data, humans arose by chance.

The test is a simulation not theory. It has to actually run and produce output.

 

[vbj]

I believe you are playing games. You are not serious. You refuse to answer simple questions.


I am not pretending to be a scientists proving a hypothesis so why would I publish papers and articles, give TED talks, give interviews, do podcasts,? What would I publish papers about?

No. I have all the credibility of just another random internet poster, who pointed out that your "evidence" is false. It doesn't say what you claim it says. You left out many important facts that disprove your beliefs. Verney is a psychiatrist and some kind if spiritualist, not a biologist, he has never done any research about what he is being offered up as an expert on; he is basically a science writer. Gagliano is ripping off previously done work, lost her funding, was fired from her university, and is now complaining she cannot get funding because the people with the money say her ideas are ridiculous and without any proof. Hoffman is saying lunatic things, has the support of none of his peers, peers are saying he is pushing pseudoscience, and ridiculing his "mathematical simulations" as absurd. I'd say it is you who has lost all credibility.

Do you believe god exists or not? Since you refuse to answer a simple question I asked if you agreed with 2 simple statements. You refuse to answer that also. I literally have no idea what you believe other than you continually imply that god exists. This is a board where atheists and theists debate. Why are you here? Is that another simple question you cannot answer?

Gagliano et al. show their work for all to see, criticize, and learn from even if you don't agree. For example, I find Gagliano's comment about electricity possibly playing a key role in intelligence interesting. But she's a kook and fraud so you can move on. I've learned very little if anything from your posts, and don't have much reason and incentive to take armchair scientists seriously. 80% of your rebuttals are ad hominems and character assassinations that are not worth reading. And you keep repeating the same ignorant mistakes like asking for evidence or saying the evidence is false after I've told you there is no evidence in science.

 

[positive atheist]

Gagliano et al. show their work for all to see, criticize, and learn from even if you don't agree. For example, I find Gagliano's comment about electricity playing a key role in intelligence interesting. But she's a kook and fraud so you can move on. I've learned very little if anything from your posts, and don't have much reason and incentive to take armchair scientists seriously. 80% of your rebuttals are ad hominems and character assassinations that are not worth reading. And you keep repeating the same ignorant mistakes like asking for evidence or saying the evidence is false after I've told you there is no evidence in science.

I posted what others were saying about the people you offered as evidence. If other people are calling your experts, frauds that is not my fault. I am simply pointing it out. Me pointing out that what you offer as evidence doesn't say what you claim it says is not ad hominem and character assassination. If you come here and attack people's assertions expect them to push back. On this board my arguments and assertions get attacked constantly. I am not complaining about it. Your claim that "80% of your rebuttals are ad hominems and character assassinations that are not worth reading." is flat out false.

 

[Temujin]

The test is a simulation not theory. It has to actually run and produce output.

Look at the night sky. How much output do you want?

 

[vbj]

Look at the night sky. How much output do you want?

That is not reproducible.

 

[vbj]

Why would anyone do this when numerous researchers are doing research into how life actually originated on earth. The probability will be irrelevant when they find out exactly what happened. Even if they come up with one way in which life originated all the other ideas are toast. Nobody will believe in "other possibilities" when we have actual proof. You have already admitted there is no test to see if god created life on earth, which I agree with, so we can toss that overboard to begin with.


The idea that "life on earth originated by chance is highly unlikely" is a falsehood theists have been spreading for decades because they know there will never be any proof that god did it. Unfortunately for them the possibility that life on earth began by chance is very highly likely. Given enough trials the highly unlikely becomes likely and even certain.

Then reproducing what you wrote there should be a piece of cake.

 

[vbj]

I posted what others were saying about the people you offered as evidence. If other people are calling your experts, frauds that is not my fault. I am simply pointing it out. Me pointing out that what you offer as evidence doesn't say what you claim it says is not ad hominem and character assassination. If you come here and attack people's assertions expect them to push back. On this board my arguments and assertions get attacked constantly. I am not complaining about it. Your claim that "80% of your rebuttals are ad hominems and character assassinations that are not worth reading." is flat out false.

Indirect ad hominem is still ad hominem. Why should I care what other people say, their opinions are like buttocks everyone's got one. Why should I care if so and so lost her job, got evicted, ran a red light, etc. that kind of trash "evidence" is for the tabloids. I only care about their work on the mind. If you have good reasons why they are wrong on that subject then maybe we can have a serious discussion.

 

[positive atheist]

Then reproducing what you wrote there should be a piece of cake.

I don't know what you are talking about. What did I write where.? This is a board where we debate about god. You refuse to admit you believe in god (although you continually imply it?.) You agree that no evidence can prove god caused the origin of the universe, so as far as this thread goes my job is done. All this other stuff you are talking about is irrelevant.

VBJ said:

Indirect ad hominem is still ad hominem. Why should I care what other people say, their opinions are like buttocks everyone's got one. Why should I care if so and so lost her job, got evicted, ran a red light, etc. that kind of trash "evidence" is for the tabloids. I only care about their work on the mind. If you have good reasons why they are wrong on that subject then maybe we can have a serious discussion.

No. Me pointing out what you are offering as evidence of your statements, is invalid or highly suspect is a perfectly normal part of a debate. It is not an ad hominem attack, direct or indirect. You don't get to offer false evidence for your claims and then claim you are being unfairly attacked. Why don't you just openly admit you don't care how unreliable your evidence is, as long as you like it, it's evidence?

You linked to a Donald Hoffman video and said (post#445) "Even evolutionists like Donald Hoffman have made arguments about cognition outside the brain" I watched the video it says no such thing. The Youtube description states "Cognitive scientist Donald Hoffman is trying to answer a big question: Do we experience the world as it really is ... or as we need it to be?"

Why should I care if so and so lost her job, got evicted, ran a red light, etc. that kind of trash "evidence" is for the tabloids.

Why should you care? Because you should respect the people on this board enough to provide valid evidence for your claims. The fact is Gagliano was fired from the university she worked at and cannot get any funding for further research because the people with the money say there is absolutely no evidence to support her harebrained theories. Furthermore this research done at the NIH by actual biologists Lack of evidence for associative learning in pea plants refutes her poorly done work. It states:

Gagliano et al. (Learning by association in plants, 2016) reported associative learning in pea plants. Associative learning has long been considered a behavior performed only by animals, making this claim particularly newsworthy and interesting. In the experiment, plants were trained in Y-shaped mazes for 3 days with fans and lights attached at the top of the maze. Training consisted of wind consistently preceding light from either the same or the opposite arm of the maze. When plant growth forced a decision between the two arms of the maze, fans alone were able to influence growth direction, whereas the growth direction of untrained plants was not affected by fans. However, a replication of their protocol failed to demonstrate the same result, calling for further verification and study before mainstream acceptance of this paradigm-shifting phenomenon. This replication attempt used a larger sample size and fully blinded analysis.

That says it all.

If you have good reasons why they are wrong on that subject then maybe we can have a serious discussion.

No. That isn't the way it works. You don't put up some fake evidence and then we discuss it. Prove anything you are saying is true with actual mainstream-accepted research and then we can discuss. I don't discuss pseudoscientific claims.

Furthermore, if you are not claiming any of this proves god exists I really don't have any interest in discussing it further as this is an atheism/theism discussion board. You refuse to assert god exists. Nothing you provided, even if it were true, proves god exists. So what are we left with? A futile discussion of fringe scientific ideas that prove nothing?

 

[Temujin]

That is not reproducible.

So what? Every dot of light is a star. Ten percent of them have planets. Ten percent of those have earth like planets. That's a billion planets, give or take a few million, where life like ours could evolve, where human like life is possible. As far as we know there are no other intelligent species in the galaxy. We have been looking, and we have got to the point technologically speaking, where we could expect to see positive results. Nothing so far.

We are also looking for life in our own solar system. Life may have existed a long while ago on Mars. It may exist now on some of Jupiter's moons. If we find it, and to my mind the chances are good, then we will know that life is plentiful, relatively easy to develop, and widespread throughout the galaxy. Intelligent life however, indeed multicellular life, is another thing altogether.

The work is being done. The science is in train. But no finding, whatever it may be, will prove conclusively that there's been no external interference in evolution. We could easily prove the opposite, had it happened.

 

[vbj]

So what? Every dot of light is a star. Ten percent of them have planets. Ten percent of those have earth like planets. That's a billion planets, give or take a few million, where life like ours could evolve, where human like life is possible. As far as we know there are no other intelligent species in the galaxy. We have been looking, and we have got to the point technologically speaking, where we could expect to see positive results. Nothing so far.

We are also looking for life in our own solar system. Life may have existed a long while ago on Mars. It may exist now on some of Jupiter's moons. If we find it, and to my mind the chances are good, then we will know that life is plentiful, relatively easy to develop, and widespread throughout the galaxy. Intelligent life however, indeed multicellular life, is another thing altogether.

The work is being done. The science is in train. But no finding, whatever it may be, will prove conclusively that there's been no external interference in evolution. We could easily prove the opposite, had it happened.

So the goal of the test is to closely reproduce whatever caused human life here.

 

[vbj]

I don't know what you are talking about. What did I write where.? This is a board where we debate about god. You refuse to admit you believe in god (although you continually imply it?.) You agree that no evidence can prove god caused the origin of the universe, so as far as this thread goes my job is done. All this other stuff you are talking about is irrelevant.

VBJ said:

No. Me pointing out what you are offering as evidence of your statements, is invalid or highly suspect is a perfectly normal part of a debate. It is not an ad hominem attack, direct or indirect. You don't get to offer false evidence for your claims and then claim you are being unfairly attacked. Why don't you just openly admit you don't care how unreliable your evidence is, as long as you like it, it's evidence?

You linked to a Donald Hoffman video and said (post#445) "Even evolutionists like Donald Hoffman have made arguments about cognition outside the brain" I watched the video it says no such thing. The Youtube description states "Cognitive scientist Donald Hoffman is trying to answer a big question: Do we experience the world as it really is ... or as we need it to be?"


Why should you care? Because you should respect the people on this board enough to provide valid evidence for your claims. The fact is Gagliano was fired from the university she worked at and cannot get any funding for further research because the people with the money say there is absolutely no evidence to support her harebrained theories. Furthermore this research done at the NIH by actual biologists Lack of evidence for associative learning in pea plants refutes her poorly done work. It states:

That says it all.

No. That isn't the way it works. You don't put up some fake evidence and then we discuss it. Prove anything you are saying is true with actual mainstream-accepted research and then we can discuss. I don't discuss pseudoscientific claims.

Furthermore, if you are not claiming any of this proves god exists I really don't have any interest in discussing it further as this is an atheism/theism discussion board. You refuse to assert god exists. Nothing you provided, even if it were true, proves god exists. So what are we left with? A futile discussion of fringe scientific ideas that prove nothing?

Nope, respect must be earned not given, especially on an anon forum like this where anyone can say almost anything without repercussions. I'm not the one being attacked because the work is not mine, nor am I defending Gagliano et al. But any kind of "evidence" like "so and so said so and so is a kook and fraud" or "she was fired, got no funding, wears her underwear inside out, blah blah blah" automatically goes in the trash for me. I have no time or interest with that kind of childish bickering.

I will address your associative learning argument because that one is somewhat substantial unlike the above. The reason I posted Gagliano et al. is to show that mental phenomena like learning and memory are not localized in the brain. The NIH quote said "calling for further verification and study before mainstream acceptance of this paradigm-shifting phenomenon", which can be interpreted to mean more work is needed before making definite conclusions either way. Now maybe she is wrong there. But did you know computers, which clearly lack organic brains, have been doing associative learning for years? Computer AIs demonstrate many mental phenomena like learning and memory, often faster and better than human counterparts. Newer AIs can even generate art and other original content, although they lack human traits like creativity and emotion.

I have answered your questions about Hoffman here where he said brains and neurons don't cause conscious experiences, and even linked an interview where he was asked about life after death. You asking the same questions again indicate you didn't watch, or the TED talk is way over your head. I have not received an objection to his work other than "he's a kook and fraud" which goes in the trash.

I have not made any claims about science proving God. You want someone to prove God using science then knock yourself out. No one I know has ever converted to a religion because of lab experiments.

 

[Temujin]

So the goal of the test is to closely reproduce whatever caused human life here.

Easier to test nuclear fusion by creating a new sun. Does failure to do that mean that nuclear fusion doesn't happen on the sun? Be practical.

 

[positive atheist]

Nope, respect must be earned not given, especially on an anon forum like this where anyone can say almost anything without repercussions. I'm not the one being attacked because the work is not mine, nor am I defending Gagliano et al. But any kind of "evidence" like "so and so said so and so is a kook and fraud" or "she was fired, got no funding, wears her underwear inside out, blah blah blah" automatically goes in the trash for me. I have no time or interest with that kind of childish bickering.

I will address your associative learning argument because that one is somewhat substantial unlike the above. The reason I posted Gagliano et al. is to show that mental phenomena like learning and memory are not localized in the brain. The NIH quote said "calling for further verification and study before mainstream acceptance of this paradigm-shifting phenomenon", which can be interpreted to mean more work is needed before making definite conclusions either way. Now maybe she is wrong there. But did you know computers, which clearly lack organic brains, have been doing associative learning for years? Computer AIs demonstrate many mental phenomena like learning and memory, often faster and better than human counterparts. Newer AIs can even generate art and other original content, although they lack human traits like creativity and emotion.

I have answered your questions about Hoffman here where he said brains and neurons don't cause conscious experiences, and even linked an interview where he was asked about life after death. You asking the same questions again indicate you didn't watch, or the TED talk is way over your head. I have not received an objection to his work other than "he's a kook and fraud" which goes in the trash.

I have not made any claims about science proving God. You want someone to prove God using science then knock yourself out. No one I know has ever converted to a religion because of lab experiments.

Nope, respect must be earned not given, especially on an anon forum like this where anyone can say almost anything without repercussions.

"without repercussion"?? If I ever tried to use false evidence to support something I said on this board the christians would be all over me gleefully pointing out that I was "lying".

I'm not the one being attacked because the work is not mine,

I am not attacking you. I'm attacking your "evidence" which is unreliable.

But any kind of "evidence" like "so and so said so and so is a kook and fraud" or "she was fired, got no funding, wears her underwear inside out, blah blah blah" automatically goes in the trash for me.

Which only proves you have no respect for the truth and every thing you say should be suspect.

I have no time or interest with that kind of childish bickering.

Once again, if you provide "evidence" that is done by unqualified people, doesn't say what you claim it says, is not widely accepted as true, is unsupported or even proven false by other evidence; and people pointing this out is "bickering" then every thing you say should be suspect.

I will address your associative learning argument because that one is somewhat substantial unlike the above. The reason I posted Gagliano et al. is to show that mental phenomena like learning and memory are not localized in the brain. The NIH quote said "calling for further verification and study before mainstream acceptance of this paradigm-shifting phenomenon", which can be interpreted to mean more work is needed before making definite conclusions either way. Now maybe she is wrong there. But did you know computers, which clearly lack organic brains, have been doing associative learning for years? Computer AIs demonstrate many mental phenomena like learning and memory, often faster and better than human counterparts. Newer AIs can even generate art and other original content, although they lack human traits like creativity and emotion.

I have answered your questions about Hoffman here where he said brains and neurons don't cause conscious experiences, and even linked an interview where he was asked about life after death. You asking the same questions again indicate you didn't watch, or the TED talk is way over your head. I have not received an objection to his work other than "he's a kook and fraud" which goes in the trash.

I have not made any claims about science proving God. You want someone to prove God using science then knock yourself out. No one I know has ever converted to a religion because of lab experiments.

You refuse to say god exists. You admit no test proves god exists. That is good enough for me. I am not interested in discussing wether plants are making conscious decisions about how to live their lives. Thanks.

 

[Furion]

Easier to test nuclear fusion by creating a new sun.

Silliness. Mass estimations are enough to identify a nuclear core.

To be "practical" in abiogenesis requires recreation of the environment.

If you don't know or cannot recreate the environment to even do your experiments, why do you place faith in a bio genesis event?