Is there finally an argument for the existence of God?

[Sheldon]

@Lucifer

@Sheldon

Liar…

Ooops… there goes that lack of comprehension again. Stupid?

@Lucifer

No I didn’t say consciouness doesn’t exits so I have no requirement to prove anything.

@Lucifer

I believe the logical progression of evolution proves it doesn’t exist i.e. you can’t suddenly turn on consiousness following a random mutation.

@Sheldon

@Lucifer

No I didn’t claim gods don’t exist

@Lucifer

There are no gods

@Lucifer

I claim my right, as a member of the human species and based on their observed rules, to claim gods are false.

Flinging ad hominem around is not going to fool anyone, you lied and there they are for all to see.

@Lucifer

Try to find the difference between “I DON’T BELEIVE” and and a blanket claim: “Consciousness doesn’t exist”. Maybe it’s fifth time lucky for you.

Right here you claimed evolution "proved it (consciousness) doesn’t exist. I have emboldened it for you, so this response is risible, as it must be you who can’t see the difference between a lack of belief that something exists, and a claim that an accepted scientific theory has proved it doesn’t. Just how deep are you prepared to dig this pit one wonders?

@Lucifer

I believe the logical progression of evolution proves it doesn’t exist i.e. you can’t suddenly turn on consiousness following a random mutation.

No pants left at this point, they’ve burned away…

@Lucifer

Simple challenge: Print my actual comments in context and prove me a liar

Done, and done…

@Lucifer

The thing about using words you don’t understand is you make mistakes. You see, claiming “hubris” (and as I know you’ve repeatedly used it incorrectly) is that you must prove it.

You mean like the numerous posts where you keep congratulating yourself on your contributions here, suggesting you’re winning something and describing others as losers, that kind of hubris? Or this comment from you that I was responding in that instance, where your misplaced hubris is manifest for anyone to see, since I actually quoted your posts making your lie about unreliable memory redundant hubris on your part.

@Lucifer

If your memory was functioning you’d know that.

@Lucifer

You must prove the pesron is wrong in order to establish hubris.

I have done, but no you absolutely don’t need to demonstrate errancy in order to illustrate that someone’s posts are hubristic. One can be correct and still be indulging hubris.

@Lucifer

Try proving me wrong and then you can attempt to use hubris.

More misplaced hubris from you. Surely at some point you will simply Google the definition of hubris and learn what it means. Or maybe this simple task is genuinely beyond you?

@Lucifer

Yes, well done, if you are too stupid to remember the context was after establishing “There are no gods” in the context of “it is a claim you can make if the chances are infinitessimally small”. So now we establish both lack of comprehension and lack of memory (unless you’d prefer deceit?).

Adding a second unevidenced piece of hubris doesn’t alter the fact you claimed no deities exist, twice, and then denied it, now also twice. Here’s a clue for you, if you’re going to lie and pretend you were taken out of context, don’t use absolutes.

@Lucifer

@Sheldon

That is precisely the kind of ludicrous hyperbole you have also been warned against as well, you cannot possibly know what evidence may or may not be uncovered in the future.

“For a god” obviously refers to current gods claimed to exist

That’s irrelevant, you claimed to know the future, I even emboldened it for you, here it is again then:

@Lucifer

There is no sustainable evidence for a god, never has been, never will be.

This response was therefore apropos: “That is precisely the kind of ludicrous hyperbole you have also been warned against as well, you cannot possibly know what evidence may or may not be uncovered in the future.”

@Lucifer

As for hyperbole, repeat: Don’t use it until you know how.

You claimed to know the future, by asserting that there would no evidence for any deity ever, so not only is that demonstrably hyperbolic, it is you who has failed to comprehend both why your comment is hyperbolic, and it appears the meaning of the word itself.

@Lucifer

@Sheldon

There is nothing in the definition that mentions or implies a brain is required, outside of a human context of course, and we are not discussing humans, so in this context the word seems apropos for a plant detecting light, and moving towards it, though no one is claiming a plant is has consciousness of course, well almost no one, and certainly not in the sense a human is. However you used a sweeping piece of hyperbole, and claimed “evolution **proves it doesn’t exist”, it’s quoted above. The link from @Cognostic was compelling evidence that plants subjectively experience light, through photoreceptors, which are capable of transmitting those signals into a light-signaling response cascade.

Dumb and dumber. This is why I am no longer going to answer your deranged ramblings.

Is it because all you have in response is this sort of infantile ad hominem?

@Lucifer

The definition of “subjective” doesn’t need to state it applies to a brain, the definition itself implies its requirement.

Not in this context it doesn’t, as in the research demonstrates that plants subjectively experience light, both @Cognostic and I linked the evidence. Again I am left wondering how deep you will dig this pit.

@Lucifer

Another failure of your comprehension coupled with obfuscation. My comment about evolution proves it doesn’t exist was in the context with “I” don’t believe consciousness exists.

One is a claim to lack belief, and the second an absolute claim that consciousness does not exist, they are not mutually exclusive nor has anyone claimed they are, then when @cognostic asked you to evidence your claim you lied and denied you had claimed consciousness doe not exist. Given you had stated the theory of evolution disproved it’s existence one wonders why you didn’t simple quote the part of that theory you imagine does so, but let’s stick a pin in that and come back to it, and focus on your being a liar liar pants on fire…

@Lucifer

My comment about evolution proves it doesn’t exist was in the context with “I” don’t believe consciousness exists. So once again a stupid misuse of hyperbole.

I agree, your claim was indeed both stupid and hyperbolic, unless you can demonstrate objective evidence that the theory of evolution “proves consciousness does not exist” as you claimed, pin removed…told you we’d come back to it.

@Lucifer

I excuse you for having zero comprehension ability as you have demonstrated so many times. Or to summarise: Always without fail.

There’s that hubris and hyperbole again, keep going champ it is actually getting funny again now.

@Lucifer

Yes that was great evidence from someone who appeared to claim to only speculate it and didn’t seek to claim it fact. I view the “evidence” as not only not compelling but as proving nothing beyond a bacteria moving towards food to “eat” before replicating is subjective. I see nothing to make subjective plants a SUSTAINABLE concept.

You could have stopped at the emboldened part. However let’s focus on you using hand waving to dismiss evidence, while lying that you had not made a conrary claim that evolution proved consciousness couldn’t exists, for which you provided zero evidence.

@Lucifer

The truth is you have the exact same stupid failing as all theists: They decide to follow a particular god and are soon delusional enough to believe it. It goes from that to any new evidence being just evidence to new evidence is undeniable. And every comment they manage to scrounge up which even remotely agrees with their delusion moves from speculation to fact.

Have I claimed the existence of subjective experience in plants to be a fact? Or are you indulging in idiotic hyperbole through a lack of basic comprehension again, I can help you out if you’re struggling to find the answer?

@Lucifer

This is what is happening here. Speculation is called “proof”, it’s not proof other than proof of delusion.

Iw as you and not me who claimed to have proof champ, where you claimed the evolution proved consciousness doesn’t exist, then lied about the claim, twice. So this is another new lie, pants fire pants fire!!!

FYI I don’t use the word proof in this context, as I know better, and the posters will have known for a long time that think the word proof rather then than (objective) evidence, is something of a misnomer, since proofs are for mathematics and formal logic.

@Lucifer

If you wanty me to conclude even reading about subjective behavior in plants is remotely worth while investigating, don’t tell me they follow the sun, send me a video of one that decides to not follow the sun otherwise I’ll call it a simple act demonstrating evolution.

That’s gibberish, and a straw man at the end since no one claimed Phototropism wasn’t evidenced in evolution? Here is a time lapse video demonstrating plants subjectively experiencing light anyway, since you asked.

Positive Phototropism | Demonstration

@Lucifer

the irony of “utterly charmless”

@Lucifer

enough time spent with the nut-job brigade. Bye, bye.

Irony you say.

@Lucifer

Actually what this site needs is the ability to block loosers and hurt fools from responding to your posts.

Oh if you keep hurling out the ad hominem I think your wish may come true, and it’s losers, not loosers champ, so another irony overload. Again since you keep asking that last claim is as good an example of your misplaced hubris as anyone could wish for.