Why do you think

[Calilasseia]

You can add to that list of organisms that pair and mate for life, something like 200 species of Central and South American Cichlid fishes, whose behaviour in this regard was described in detail way back in 1936 by Dr William T. Innes. They also exhibit an advanced level of parental care for their eggs and fry.

The first species to be observed in this regard is the Chanchito, Heros facetos, which was the first Cichlid species domesticated and bred in the aquarium way back in 1884. Since then, similar behaviour has been observed in a multitude of Neotropical Cichlid species.

Among the better known are the Jack Dempsey, Rocio octofasciatus, the Convict Cichlid, Archocentrus nigrofasciatus, the Rainbow Cichlid, Herotilapia multispinosa, the various Guapotes of the Genus Parachromis (of which the Jaguar Cichlid, Parachromis managuensis, is simply the best known), and such well known aquarium terrorists as Nandopsis tetracanthus, the Cuban Cichlid, this latter species being best described as “hyper-territorial” in the aquarium.

There’s also the aptly named Green Terror and Red Terror, both of which are feisty species with lots of personality (most of it being strongly pugnacious), the Oscar, the various freshwater Angel Fishes (Genus Pterophyllum, and the Discus Fishes (Genus Symphysodon), this latter clade even providing nourishment for their fry from the adults’ bodies.

The phylogenetic tree for this lot is still something of a work in progress, but the major branches are mostly on a solid footing as a result of multiple genetic analyses. If memory serves, it’s oddities like Neetroplus nematopus that are still awaiting definitive resolution, but again, they exhibit lifelong monogamous pairing and advanced offspring care.

Aquarists have been keeping and breeding these Cichlids for 130 years, and there’s a VAST body of data on their behaviour. YouTube is littered with video footage of these fishes in action, they’re fun to watch.

As a teenager, I kept Angel Fishes and watched them spawn. An eye opener was seeing two females pair off when they didn’t like any of the males available … yes, I once had a pair of lesbian fish

Quite simply, if fish can exhibit this level of sophistication, while knowing nothing of the existence of a goat herder mythology and its merely asserted cartoon magic man, we certainly don’t need such superfluous dross to explain human behaviour.

[Cognostic]

@Calilasseia

You can add to that list of organisms

Aww shit! (Sad monkey face.) I thought I had covered it all. LOL

[Sheldon]

@Calilasseia

There’s an evolutionary explanation for this, in case you never learned it.

Basically, children that obeyed their parents in our distant past, had a habit of not being eaten by predators, while the ones that didn’t, and wandered off on their own whim, ended up as lunch. Oh wait, we have a demonstrable selection pressure for childhood acceptance of whatever adults tell them.

Well looky looky here, an evolutionary explanation for the strong emotional attachments between humans, it has demonstrable survival benefit.

Meanwhile @Sid’s reticence on how love evidences any deity is as relentless as the guff he’s espousing about science.

@Calilasseia

You can add to that list of organisms that pair and mate for life, something like 200 species of Central and South American Cichlid fishes, whose behaviour in this regard was described in detail way back in 1936 by Dr William T. Innes. They also exhibit an advanced level of parental care for their eggs and fry.

…and the evidence for strong emotional bonding being an evolved survival mechanism just keeps on coming. Whereas the unevidenced god done it, has no explanatory powers whatsoever. Which no doubt is why @Sid has failed miserably to offer any explanation or evidence for how human emotions evidence a deity.

[rat_spit]

@Sheldon

#7 How as you claimed does the existence of love remotely evidence any deity?

What type of love are you concerned with? If you’re taking about “transcendental love”, then the existence of higher beings who constantly abide in such a kind of love is implicit by the very nature of that transcendental love. This does not, of course, answer for a Creator Being; an omnipotent being - but it does allow for higher, inter dimensional beings. You simply have to acknowledge the obvious existence of transcendental love. The existence of said type of love is as easily evidence as the existence of physical pain. Whereas you, Sheldon, wouldn’t think of asking for a demonstration that “physical pain” exists, because you have never experienced transcendental love, you think a “scientific” demonstration of it is in order (when it is not).

[Sheldon]

@rat_spit

@Sheldon

#7 How as you claimed does the existence of love remotely evidence any deity?

What type of love are you concerned with?

@Sid didn’t specify, if it is significant he can do so, explaining and evidencing whichever emotion he is basing his claim on, but as far as I am concerned the absence of any rational explanation or any objective evidence. means the claim holds no merit whatsoever.

@rat_spit

If you’re taking about “transcendental love”, then the existence of higher beings who constantly abide in such a kind of love is implicit by the very nature of that transcendental love.

Oh dear dear me ratty, did you intend to open with yet another circular reasoning fallacy? You can’t simply assert your conclusion that a magical realm exists to insert a magic deity into in your premise. Start by accurately defining transcendental love, then demonstrate sufficient objective evidence for this. If you’re talking about evolved human emotions, then yes I accept there is objective evidence for these since that is the case, but any woo woo will need to be properly evidenced, as will any conclusions claiming anything supernatural, since no one has been able to demonstrate any objective evidence anything supernatural is even possible.

@rat_spit

it does allow for higher, inter dimensional beings.

No it doesn’t, that is simply unevidenced word salad, and this is before we note you have neither accurately defined it, or objectively evidence it, and yet are basing unevidenced claims on it. Transcendental is defined as relating to a “spiritual” realm, can you demonstrate any objective evidence such a thing exists, or is even possible?

@rat_spit

You simply have to acknowledge the obvious existence of transcendental love.

I disagree, see above, what is it, and what objective evidence supports it, then explain how this evidences anything supernatural, or any deity.

@rat_spit

The existence of said type of love is as easily evidence as the existence of physical pain.

I have magic beans, and these are as easy to evidence as ordinary beans. You see how the claim is not in itself evidence?

@rat_spit

Whereas you, Sheldon, wouldn’t think of asking for a demonstration that “physical pain” exists, because you have never experienced transcendental love,

Why don’t you for once offer the best evidence you think you have, and leave the false equivalence fallacies alone?

@rat_spit

you think a “scientific” demonstration of it is in order (when it is not).

So a straw man fallacy to round of your hat trick of fallacies. I have demanded nothing, just as you have evidenced nothing.

[rat_spit]

@Sheldon

@Sid didn’t specify,

Nor can he; nor will he - I suspect

@Sheldon

You can’t simply assert your conclusion that a magical realm exists to insert a magic deity into in your premise.

It’s implicitly true by nature of the feeling

@Sheldon

Start by accurately defining transcendental love

I think the definition is fairly obvious.

Take “transcendental” and “love” and put them together.

@Sheldon

No it doesn’t, that is simply unevidenced word salad,

I have plenty of evidence. I’ve experienced the emotion and can derive the existence of higher inter dimensional beings based on that experience.

If you had experienced transcendental love you would a) know that inter dimensional beings exist and b) not ask for external evidence of a purely personal experience.

@Sheldon

I disagree, see above, what is it, and what objective evidence supports it, then explain how this evidences anything supernatural, or any deity.

First things first. I no more have to provide “objective” evidence for transcendental love than I do to convince you that “pain” exists.

@Sheldon

I have magic beans, and these are as easy to evidence as ordinary beans. You see how the claim is not in itself evidence?

Of course, you’re being dishonest … I am not.

@Sheldon

Why don’t you for once offer the best evidence you think you have, and leave the false equivalence fallacies alone?

“Pain exists”
“Transcendental Love exists”

There is essentially no phenomenological difference between these two assertions.

@Sheldon

So a straw man fallacy to round of your hat trick of fallacies. I have demanded nothing, just as you have evidenced nothing.

I’d rather let some other people carry the torch for a while. Time to lurk

[WhoAreYou]

@Calilasseia

Quite simply, if fish can exhibit this level of sophistication, while knowing nothing of the existence of a goat herder mythology and its merely asserted cartoon magic man, we certainly don’t need such superfluous dross to explain human behaviour.

Explaining fish behavior and understanding the origins of fish are two different things. You can look at a Lamborghini and explain how it works to the most minute aspect using a field of science but you can’t say it came together without Ferruccio Lamborghini just because you explained the car’s internal combustion engine. If you would say that anyone would think you are joking and you know wouldn’t be serious to say it came to be without Ferruccio Lamborghini. But that same line of reasoning is used with creatures and humans just because you can explain it using a field of science doesn’t mean science was it’s creator.

[Sheldon]

@rat_spit

@Sheldon

You can’t simply assert your conclusion that a magical realm exists to insert a magic deity into in your premise.

It’s implicitly true by nature of the feeling

Nothing is implicitly true based solely on an unevidenced and subjective feelings, least of all magic and woo woo.

@rat_spit

I think the definition is fairly obvious.

Based on our previous discourse that doesn’t help, so for the sake of clarity can you please explain exactly what it is you’re claiming exists, and exactly what evidence you think there is for it, beyond unevidenced claims for vague “feelings” about it.

@rat_spit

I have plenty of evidence.

Then please demonstrate some, instead of unevidenced anecdotal claims like these:

@rat_spit

#1 I’ve experienced the emotion, and #2 can derive the existence of higher inter dimensional beings based on that experience.

These are unevidenced claims, not evidence. We have been here enough times now for you to understand that much.

@rat_spit

If you had experienced transcendental love you would a) know that inter dimensional beings exist and b) not ask for external evidence of a purely personal experience.

If you had seen a mermaid you’d know they are real, do you believe they are real? Not sure why this has to be explained in every discourse to be honest. You may set any standard for belief you wish, but if you make claims and assertions in debate with me, then you must by now know that unevidenced anecdotes for personal experience won’t pass muster. You might as well be claiming you were once rescued from drowning at sea by a mermaid.

@rat_spit

First things first. I no more have to provide “objective” evidence for transcendental love than I do to convince you that “pain” exists.

Yes you do, if you want to assert it is remotely supernatural or spiritual, and are refusing to offer an accurate explanation of exactly what this emotion is, or how it objectively differs from evolved natural emptions. If you can’t do this then I don’t believe it exists, and if you can, well then you move on to explaining how this remotely evidences any deity.

@rat_spit

@Sheldon

I have magic beans, and these are as easy to evidence as ordinary beans. You see how the claim is not in itself evidence?

Of course, you’re being dishonest … I am not.

Nope, you are just failing to grasp irony. I’ll make it simpler, I have no magic beans, but I feel they exist, convinced?

@rat_spit

“Transcendental Love exists”

So you keep claiming, no evidence as yet however… quelle surprise. I am done with the false equivalence fallacy, I suggest you move on to something approaching an accurate explanation of exactly what your claiming exists, and then objective evidence for it, and assuming you ever manage that, how this evidence any deity?

[Cognostic]

@WhoAreYou

Explaining fish behavior and understanding the origins of fish are two different things. You can look at a Lamborghini and explain how it works to the most minute aspect using a field of science but you can’t say it came together without Ferruccio Lamborghini just because you explained the car’s internal combustion engine.

The fact that you can explain the car’s internal combustion engine is exactly why you can call it designed. We know of no instance of engines coming together naturally. The way design is recognized is by comparing it with things that occur naturally. Not by an appearance of design. Not by how complicated it seems. But, by whether or not it occurs naturally. Trees, Universes, and Fanboys all occur naturally. Lamborghini’s do not.

The fact that you think a Lamborghini can be compared to something that occurs naturally gives you no point of comparison. You live in a Lamborghini world with Lamborghinit trees, Lamborghini animals, Lamborghini fish, Lamborghini beaches, a Lamborghini sky, and all of this in a Lamborghini universe. In your universe, there is nothing occurring naturally. This naturally leads you to the question, 'How did all this stuff come about." You do not get to posit ‘Who’ without a demonstration of why ‘who’ should even be entertained. You have done nothing to move you towards a god. Most specifically, you have not ruled out natural causes but simply, ignorantly, and blindly ignored them. You have also not ruled out aliens, blue universe creating bunnies, Eric the rainbow farting unicorn, or turtles all the way down. In the end, all you have done is asserted ‘Everything is caused.’ and ‘God done it.’ No evidence at all. And no reason at all to posit any specific God thing at all, natural or not. In every instance we know of, Lamborghini’s appear because someone creates them. Not because the forces of the universe come together in a magic storm and ‘poof’ them into existence. Not because magical God beings waggle their fingers and magically manifest them onto the streets.

Finally, If all things are created in the Lamborghini world of yours, God does not get a pass. That would be special pleading. Who or what created the Lamborghini God? Your only option is to Special Plead your way out of the mess you have created. Just like a good little theist…

[Sheldon]

@WhoAreYou

You can look at a Lamborghini and explain how it works to the most minute aspect using a field of science but you can’t say it came together without Ferruccio Lamborghini just because you explained the car’s internal combustion engine.

We don’t need to make this straw man claim, since we have sufficient objective evidence for every stage of design and manufacture of cars.

Designed things have one other thing in common, they do not occur naturally.

@WhoAreYou

If you would say that anyone would think you are joking and you know wouldn’t be serious to say it came to be without Ferruccio Lamborghini. But that same line of reasoning is used with creatures and humans just because you can explain it using a field of science doesn’t mean science was it’s creator.

They would think you were joking because we have sufficient objective evidence for design of cars, there is no evidence of design in nature, none. So the claims are not remotely the same, making this is a textbook example of a false equivalence fallacy. There is also overwhelming scientific evidence for species evolution, whereas the claim goddidit is completely unevidenced, and what’s more explains nothing, as it has no explanatory powers whatsoever, it is an appeal to mystery and superstition.

[Nyarlathotep]

@WhoAreYou

But that same line of reasoning is used with creatures and humans just because you can explain it using a field of science doesn’t mean science was it’s creator.

fucking troll

[Sheldon]

@Cognostic

We know of no instance of engines coming together naturally.

Exactly, and this is true in every single instance where we can evidence design, as we can with cars. He is using a variation of Paley’s watchmaker fallacy, and just as with cars, we know watches are designed because we have evidence that supports this conclusion. The reason the watch looks out of place on the beach, in Paley’s analogy, is precisely because he is imagining something we know to be designed, and placing it in natural setting, where paradoxically there is no evidence of design.

All these types of apologetics try to infer design from complexity, but it is not complexity that infers design, but evidence, and of course since they are claiming everything is designed, this would mean the simplest things, like a grain of sand in Paley’s watchmaker fallacy, would also be designed. To hammer home the irony here, no life could exist without water, and a water molecule is not at all complex.

[rat_spit]

@Sheldon

Nothing is implicitly true based solely on an unevidenced and subjective feelings, least of all magic and woo woo.

They’re not subjective. That’s the point. This type of love is not covered in the dictionary. It evolved in humans (as with other animals) because the substrate for the emotion exists externally to the body. In the same way that the eye, the ear, the tongue, the nose, and the body evolved in the presence of “that which is” visible; auditory; gustatory; olfactory; and tactile - the emotion of transcendental love has evolved in the presence of an exterior substrate.

You naively place emotions like love in a sort of “inter species” evolutionary kind of “dance” between members of the same kind (and you do this in a very “hand-waving” kind of way as well).

Your lack of intuition (likely caused by living in the city too long) has blinded you to the deterministic factor in the evolution of transcendental love, which is the existence of a suitable exterior substrate that would allow a being to be conscious of it.

@Sheldon

please explain exactly what it is you’re claiming exists,

There is something like a substrate which motivates the evolution of the feeling. For example, darkness can be intuited by the mind. And when one consciously grasps the nature of darkness, one is able to investigate the phenomenological human relationship with that “dimension”.

If it’s objective evidence you’re after; Feel free to get out of the city into the woods on a camping trip and soak up the infinite expanse of darkness. I guarantee you will find transcendental love in the abyss.

@Sheldon

If you had seen a mermaid you’d know they are real, do you believe they are real?

Well. The cats out of the bag now.

“Let me take you down,
Cuz I’m going to:
Strawberry Fields;
Nothing is real -
And nothing to get hung about!”

What is your understanding of nothingness, my friend? Not just the absence of reality, but also the characteristic of a pitch black infinite expanse.

@Sheldon

So you keep claiming, no evidence as yet however…

Balls in your court. I’ve provided you the with substrate upon which I claim the emotion has evolved. Ie. darkness. Ie. pitch black nothingness of any and every shadow. Ie. the opposite of light.

I claim A) that this external quality exists B) that not only can it be apprehended by the mind; but that C) when it is apprehended by the mind, one exists in relation to said external quality with the emotion of transcendental love.

I assume the belief of A) and B) will be somewhat more readily accepted than your current understanding of C).

[Cognostic]

@rat_spit

This type of love is not covered in the dictionary. I

Special Pleading - Sheldon, he has you. This is a special type of love that you can not understand. Woo-woo wwhat an argument.

[Sheldon]

@rat_spit

@Sheldon

@rat_spit

It’s implicitly true by nature of the feeling

Nothing is implicitly true based solely on an unevidenced and subjective feelings,

They’re not subjective.

Sigh…

@rat_spit

the emotion exists externally to the body.

I don’t believe you, evidence please.

@rat_spit

You naively place emotions like love in a sort of “inter species” evolutionary …(and you do this in a very “hand-waving” kind of way as well).

Not me, science, and I gave a citation to research in this very thread from the university of Texas, here’s one from the university of Southampton for you. “EVOLUTIONARY ASPECTS OF LOVE AND EMPATHY” Take your objections up with science. In the mean time they have evidence and you do not.

@rat_spit

Your lack of intuition (likely caused by living in the city too long)

I don’t live in a city, never have, well done ratty you’re on fire.

@rat_spit

@Sheldon

please explain exactly what it is you’re claiming exists,

There is something like a substrate which motivates the evolution of the feeling.

Oh dear, that word salad explains nothing, and even if it did, how does an evolved emotion evidence a deity or anything supernatural?

@rat_spit

If it’s objective evidence you’re after; Feel free to get out of the city into the woods on a camping trip and soak up the infinite expanse of darkness. I guarantee you will find transcendental love in the abyss.

It seems you still don’t know what objective means.

@rat_spit

@Sheldon

So you keep claiming, no evidence as yet however…

Balls in your court. I’ve provided you the with substrate upon which I claim the emotion has evolved.

Sigh, I don’t base belief on subjective anecdotal claims, again why this merits endless repetition is baffling?

@rat_spit

I claim

Sigh…

@rat_spit

I assume the belief of A) and B) will be somewhat more readily accepted

You assume wrong, one more time then, I do not base belief on unevidenced subjective claims, and even if this woo woo made any sense, or you could offer any objective evidenced that this emotion was not an entirely natural phenomena, which we know are possible, we would be right back to your original unevidenced claim, and asking how this emotion would evidence any deity?

So far all we have is you’ve CLAIM to have experienced something, the word transcendental implying it is supernatural, and this has been accompanied by a raft of unevidenced claims about what you subjectively believe this experience to be, including it mysteriously evidencing a deity, no explanation or evidence for that yet.

[rat_spit]

@Cognostic

Special Pleading - Sheldon, he has you. This is a special type of love that you can not understand. Woo-woo wwhat an argument.

I’ve explained all the necessary requisites for apprehending this type of love in the rest of the post. It does not take a genius.

[Sheldon]

@rat_spit

I’ve explained all the necessary requisites for apprehending this type of love in the rest of the post.

You’ve made a string of unevidenced and subjective claims more like. I see no explanation as yet of how love evidences any deity, and I strongly suspect I never will. Just the claim that some sort of magic love exists, and the equally absurd conclusion that a magic deity must therefore as well, not a very compelling argument I must say.

[rat_spit]

@Sheldon

Oh dear, that word salad explains nothing, and even if it did, how does an evolved emotion evidence a deity or anything supernatural?

The fact that love exists in the darkness of the void might be your first clue. But, who am I to say

@Sheldon

It seems you still don’t know what objective means.

You can literally see it with your eyes! You can literally apprehend it with your mind!

If seeing and knowing aren’t examples of objective evidence, I don’t know what else to tell you

@Sheldon

Sigh, I don’t base belief on subjective anecdotal claims, again why this merits endless repetition is baffling?

This is the very first time I’ve implicated nothingness into the argument. It’s all around you. All you need to do is perceive it with your mind.

That is why this “claim” is open to verification. Have fun. Enjoy the darkness of the void. You’ll have plenty of time to “appreciate” it after you go to “meet your maker”.

@Sheldon

we would be right back to your original unevidenced claim, and asking how this emotion would evidence any deity?

I’ve already explained the phenomenological relationship humans share with darkness. If you happen to have a deeper insight than, say, Sartre; feel free to offer it.

You’re being encouraged to observe your world. How is that anecdotal?

@Sheldon

the word transcendental implying it is supernatural,

No. Quite simply, “transcendental” means it has exterior reality beyond the body. Or to simplify even further, humans have evolved to perceive darkness as an extension of their emotional capacity.

Here’s a quote from the Atheist Existential Philosopher Jean Paul Satre, in his essay “Being and Nothingness”:

Nothingness carries being in its heart.

[rat_spit]

@Sheldon

You’ve made a string of unevidenced and subjective claims more like. I see no explanation as yet of how love evidences any deity, and I strongly suspect I never will. Just the claim that some sort of magic love exists, and the equally absurd conclusion that a magic deity must therefore as well, not a very compelling argument I must say.

Oh dear. Spend a night under the stars, my friend. Use your brain. Use your survival skills.

[WhoAreYou]

@Cognostic

The fact that you can explain the car’s internal combustion engine is exactly why you can call it designed. We know of no instance of engines coming together naturally. The way design is recognized is by comparing it with things that occur naturally. Not by an appearance of design. Not by how complicated it seems. But, by whether or not it occurs naturally. Trees, Universes, and Fanboys all occur naturally. Lamborghini’s do not.

The fact that you think a Lamborghini can be compared to something that occurs naturally gives you no point of comparison. You live in a Lamborghini world with Lamborghinit trees, Lamborghini animals, Lamborghini fish, Lamborghini beaches, a Lamborghini sky, and all of this in a Lamborghini universe. In your universe, there is nothing occurring naturally. This naturally leads you to the question, 'How did all this stuff come about." You do not get to posit ‘Who’ without a demonstration of why ‘who’ should even be entertained. You have done nothing to move you towards a god. Most specifically, you have not ruled out natural causes but simply, ignorantly, and blindly ignored them. You have also not ruled out aliens, blue universe creating bunnies, Eric the rainbow farting unicorn, or turtles all the way down. In the end, all you have done is asserted ‘Everything is caused.’ and ‘God done it.’ No evidence at all. And no reason at all to posit any specific God thing at all, natural or not. In every instance we know of, Lamborghini’s appear because someone creates them. Not because the forces of the universe come together in a magic storm and ‘poof’ them into existence. Not because magical God beings waggle their fingers and magically manifest them onto the streets.

Finally, If all things are created in the Lamborghini world of yours, God does not get a pass. That would be special pleading. Who or what created the Lamborghini God? Your only option is to Special Plead your way out of the mess you have created. Just like a good little theist…

See systems biology for a good understanding of how engineers and biologists are working together. I would read MIT’s book: System Modeling in Cellular Biology: From Convepts to Nuts and Bolts

I would take time to read papers on origin of life syntheses and see for yourself how much control, intelligence and design there are in these syntheses. And also ask yourself how early earth relevant are these syntheses? Are they relay syntheses?