Prove me wrong: there is no God

[Immanuel Can]

Here's one you should watch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HbQ-t8GXYTA

Fair enough. I'll get back to you on it.

Tue Sep 08, 2026 6:23 pm

Here's one you should watch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HbQ-t8GXYTA

Now done.

Tue Sep 08, 2026 6:36 pm

Mr Can, you did not watch a video of 44 minutes and 46 seconds in 13 minutes.

Do you know what a "thesis" is? Do you know that you can locate everybody's main points relatively quickly by organizing them by their relevance to the thesis? It's good procedure. You'll find it works.

I've read Bonhoeffer. I understand his view of "stupidity." What I couldn't find...what wasn't at all evident...what what application this video had to the present situation. So I've invited you to clarify.

And if I'd wished to be dishonest about that, I could simply have waited for another half hour or so, then sent the same message. I didn't. I'm not being dishonest, or trying to conceal my method. I actually can't find your intended application. So I decided to ask.

Seems reasonable.

[Immanuel Can]

...traidic symbiosis is a signal problem for Evolutionism.

Why?

You'll find out. It involves organisms that can't survive without the completed "evolved" version of each other, even for a single generation. But if Evolution were true, then how did any of the interdependent organisms manage to survive for generation after generation, when the means for their nourishment and reproduction were simply too "unevolved" for their uses?

And this is not just one problem in nature: symbiosis happens in millions of cases. Every one of them a demands an evolutionary solution, for which no rational explanation currently exists.

For example, if, as is the case, a snail parasite requires two other things -- a snail and the digestive system of a mammal -- in order to produce even one generation of offspring, how can it do that when there are no snails and no mammals, or their "evolution" has not kept pace with that of snail parasites and the third creature in the triad, and cannot make use of what it needs in some "transitional" form? And why isn't the snail parasite extinct, since its reproductive cycle requires a completed snail, a completed mammal and a complex cycle of interrelated behaviour to be fully developed before it can survive?

This is but one example of irreducible complexity. There are millions more.

[Will Bouwman]

...traidic symbiosis is a signal problem for Evolutionism.

Why?

You'll find out. It involves organisms that can't survive without the completed "evolved" version of each other, even for a single generation.

Well, the claim of evolutionary science is that at some point, three ancestral species entered a triadic symbiosis that didn't kill any of them and benefitted at least one. Since that time they have evolved together so that now perhaps, one or more of the triad could not exist independently.

...a snail parasite requires two other things -- a snail and the digestive system of a mammal -- in order to produce even one generation of offspring, how can it do that when there are no snails and no mammals, or their "evolution" has not kept pace with that of snail parasites and the third creature in the triad, and cannot make use of what it needs in some "transitional" form? And why isn't the snail parasite extinct, since its reproductive cycle requires a completed snail, a completed mammal and a complex cycle of interrelated behaviour to be fully developed before it can survive?

Okay. So are snail parasites part of your God's design, or a product of the fall of man?

[Will Bouwman]

Do you know what a "thesis" is? Do you know that you can locate everybody's main points relatively quickly by organizing them by their relevance to the thesis? It's good procedure. You'll find it works.

As any reasonably adept undergraduate discovers. If you ever do post-graduate work, you will need to up your game.

[Immanuel Can]

Do you know what a "thesis" is? Do you know that you can locate everybody's main points relatively quickly by organizing them by their relevance to the thesis? It's good procedure. You'll find it works.

As any reasonably adept undergraduate discovers. If you ever do post-graduate work, you will need to up your game.

Well, then, you know how it works.

So what was the connection between the video and the present matter of debate?

[Immanuel Can]

Why?

You'll find out. It involves organisms that can't survive without the completed "evolved" version of each other, even for a single generation.

Well, the claim of evolutionary science is that at some point, three ancestral species entered a triadic symbiosis that didn't kill any of them and benefitted at least one.

All that's missing from that description is all the details. How does an undeveloped snail and an undeveloped bird get into a triadic relationship with an undeveloped snail parasite, so they can co-evolve, when the snail parasite needs a fully-functioning bird or cow with a complete digestive cycle, and a fully functioning snail with the habits and brain structures of a modern snail, or the process of snail parasite reproduction breaks down at multiple stages? And how does that relation -- assuming it could even be got -- manage to persist through all the subsequent stages of evolution, and never produce extinction in any of the participants?

There's a lot of 'splaining to do, Lucy. (as the old show used to say)

...a snail parasite requires two other things -- a snail and the digestive system of a mammal -- in order to produce even one generation of offspring, how can it do that when there are no snails and no mammals, or their "evolution" has not kept pace with that of snail parasites and the third creature in the triad, and cannot make use of what it needs in some "transitional" form? And why isn't the snail parasite extinct, since its reproductive cycle requires a completed snail, a completed mammal and a complex cycle of interrelated behaviour to be fully developed before it can survive?

Okay. So are snail parasites part of your God's design, or a product of the fall of man?

Good question...but not the present one. I have suppositions about that, but they won't salvage the question of how the snail parasite manages to achieve triadic symbiosis.

But if you want to see what we're referring to, here's National Geographic doing their little gloss on the life cycle of that parasite. See if you can figure out the evolutionary path that gets the parasite where it needs to end up.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Go_LIz7kTok

[Will Bouwman]

Well, the claim of evolutionary science is that at some point, three ancestral species entered a triadic symbiosis that didn't kill any of them and benefitted at least one.

All that's missing from that description is all the details. How does an undeveloped snail and an undeveloped bird get into a triadic relationship with an undeveloped snail parasite...

I don't know; I am not an evolutionary biologist with a particular interest in snail parasites. As for the video: "The uploader has not made this video available in your country", so I can't be sure, but I imagine you are talking about Leucochloridium paradoxum, which, when when asked 'how did Leucochloridium paradoxum evolve?' google came back with:

Leucochloridium paradoxum (the green-banded broodsac) evolved its complex life cycle through millions of years of adaptation, natural selection, and co-evolution with its specific intermediate hosts (land snails like Succinea putris) and definitive hosts (insectivorous birds).
Evolutionary Steps
Shift to Parasitism: Like other trematodes (flukes), the ancestors of Leucochloridium were free-living flatworms that gradually shifted to internal parasitism, exploiting aquatic or terrestrial organisms for nutrients and protection.
Dual-Host Requirement: To complete its reproductive cycle, the parasite needed a way to move from a small, slow-moving terrestrial snail—which cannot fly or travel far—to a wide-ranging bird that can disperse the parasite's eggs across vast distances.
Evolution of Visual Mimicry: Natural selection favored larvae that developed bright, pulsating green and brown bands inside the snail's eyestalks because these patterns closely resemble tasty caterpillars, tricking visual predators into striking the snail.
Behavioral Manipulation (Mind Control): The parasite evolved biochemical mechanisms to alter the infected snail's central nervous system, forcing the animal to abandon its natural preference for dark, moist crevices and instead crawl up into bright, exposed vegetation where birds are actively hunting.

That is as much research as I can be bothered to do. If that is not enough for you, and let's face it, it won't be, what is your alternative explanation? Why did your God condemn apparently innocent snails to such a horrible punishment?

[Immanuel Can]

Well, the claim of evolutionary science is that at some point, three ancestral species entered a triadic symbiosis that didn't kill any of them and benefitted at least one.

All that's missing from that description is all the details. How does an undeveloped snail and an undeveloped bird get into a triadic relationship with an undeveloped snail parasite...

I don't know; I am not an evolutionary biologist with a particular interest in snail parasites.

You don't have to be. I'm not. But the very first time I saw triadic symbiosis explained -- by entirely secular sources, of course -- I realized something that they weren't even thinking about: that it's a huge problem for Evolutionary Theory. There are no stages by which the coming into interdependence of three such organisms can possibly be described, so far as I can see. And I haven't heard that any Evolutionary biologist has ever attempted it.

The explanation you offer doesn't actually explain, as I'm sure you see. It just says, "Well, it happened this way," not how it happened, or what the intermediate relationships among the three organisms actually looked like. It's devoid of all the crucial detail that would justify the claims, therefore. And not surprisingly -- I can't think of how they would do that. Can you?

I've seen them try with things like the human eye or the flagellar motor. I don't think a fair observer will find their attempts to explain those things any more satisfying. For example, they say the eye was a "light-sensitive spot." That's already positing a functioning organ can just pop into existence, unaided by things like survival value. Or their claim that the flagellar motor could be anything less than a genetic injury until it was fully functioning seems utterly implausible. Their attempted explanations are nowhere near fine-grained enough to constitute any real account of how anything like that could ever take place, and they have no tests to see whether it ever did -- or could. A "just-so" story is all they can offer, it seems.

One doesn't need to be any snail or optical expert to see this. A basic grasp of the Evolutionists' proposal, coupled with the basic facts about such organisms is sufficient to throw up huge questions about the whole theory. The "complexity" such a process can apparently not be "reduced" to the sort of simplistic terms Evolutionary propagandists ask us to accept. It just doesn't work. And this is far from a unique case. Triadic symbiosis and irreducible complexity are widely manifest phenomena.

Now, to your other question, what's the problem you foresee?

P.S. -- I'm still curious about what you thought the video had to offer, and I'm very willing to discuss it. It just seems, at first, irrelevant completely. But I'll sit still for the explanation, if you've got one.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Thank you for that; it was heart warming to be reminded that some people find value in praying, and that some of those are even decent human beings. Here's one you should watch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HbQ-t8GXYTA

I watched the first chapter and liked it. Though I notice that his ideal of severe critical analysis is likely a mode of analysis he can only carry so far. Yes, yes, Nazism was very perverse, no doubt, but a true critical position would necessarily entertain the notion of a larger system surrounding Germany that shared many different levels of complicity, not necessarily with that régime, but with political and economic dynamics which operated through similar methods. And if this is true, a critical analysis would likely (?) lead one to critical positions that are understood to be part-and-parcel of (Chomsky’s term) “unthinkable thought”.

So what I take away from that first chapter is that this man is in some senses proposing a wonderful modality of approaching knowledge stances, but is it that some part is missing. In some sense and by virtue of the method proposed, he could never solidify within himself an “certainties” since all certainties except those of physics and math (and natural processes) are non-solid.

One of his apparent values is that “democracy” has some special, higher value and that certain trends will or do undermine it. Fine. But there are critical avenues by which democracy is rationally critiqued, and therefore his own argument apparently in favor of it, is undermined because democracy leads directly to undue influence by a sector of society “stupid” by his own definition. So, critical thinking could very well discover or uncover “positives” within, for example, a society controlled or directed by a military régime, or even a dictatorship. What is the upshot?

Oddly enough — this is my own position — a whole bevy of thinkers and ideas was introduced into the currents of discourse by those who identify themselves as dissident thinkers. Nietzschean thinkers often, or “dangerous thinkers” as Ronald Beiner maintains. Yet their critical ideas are not defeated through rational engagement, rather no conversation is allowed because the possible implications of conclusions contrary to accepted doctrines and conventions cannot be allowed.

This is why, Dearest Readers, Alexis Jacobi often feels that, here, he himself is “playing chess with pigeons”. Or watching pigeons attempting to debate important issues on chessboards of ideas but who are dominated by pigeon-like mental habits which Alexis Jacobi has fully transcended. Just imagine how frustrating, how painful, this is!

[Alexis Jacobi]

I would though greatly like to observe experimentation where IC is administered DMT and then — then! — asked to talk about God. Or what about Sonoran Toad venom?

[Immanuel Can]

...what about Sonoran Toad venom?

I might croak.

[Will Bouwman]

...the very first time I saw triadic symbiosis explained -- by entirely secular sources, of course -- I realized something that they weren't even thinking about: that it's a huge problem for Evolutionary Theory. There are no stages by which the coming into interdependence of three such organisms can possibly be described, so far as I can see. And I haven't heard that any Evolutionary biologist has ever attempted it.

The explanation you offer doesn't actually explain, as I'm sure you see. It just says, "Well, it happened this way," not how it happened, or what the intermediate relationships among the three organisms actually looked like. It's devoid of all the crucial detail that would justify the claims, therefore. And not surprisingly -- I can't think of how they would do that. Can you?

Well, again, I'm not an evolutionary biologist, so it's not for me to say how one might attempt to explain the evolution of the relationship between Leucochloridium paradoxum and its two hosts. However, with a workable understanding of the principles of evolutionary theory, and functional imagination, I can imagine how an ancestral flatworm hitched a ride on a snail. The snail took it further than it could manage by itself. Being hermaphrodites, the flatworm reproduced asexually, the clones being spread by the snail and meeting clones of other flatworms with which they reproduced sexually, thereby increasing the range of flatworms disposed to hitch hiking. Looking for something to eat, the flat worm might have started feeding on the same things as the snail, migrating to the mouth for better access and eventually inside, when the snail was sated, but the flatworm still hungry. Once inside, flatworms that cloned inside the eyestalk created what looked like something tasty to ground feeders. Mutation created more colourful sporocysts, which made them more visible and appealing. Chemicals released by the flatworm affected the snail's behaviour, and for the flatworm, the most favourable snail behaviour was for it to climb trees to where birds could see them, vastly increasing the flatworm's range.
My apologies to anyone eating their breakfast.

I've seen them try with things like the human eye or the flagellar motor. I don't think a fair observer will find their attempts to explain those things any more satisfying.

I do.

For example, they say the eye was a "light-sensitive spot." That's already positing a functioning organ can just pop into existence, unaided by things like survival value.

If you imagine that ancient blind worms and whatnot had a sense of touch, then it's not much of a stretch to suppose that a mutation resulted in skin cells that are sensitive to light. Any creature stimulated by the sensation to avoid it would find places where they are less exposed to predation and desiccation.

Now, to your other question, what's the problem you foresee?

You trying to make sense of it.

[Gary Childress]

All that's missing from that description is all the details. How does an undeveloped snail and an undeveloped bird get into a triadic relationship with an undeveloped snail parasite...

I don't know; I am not an evolutionary biologist with a particular interest in snail parasites.

You don't have to be. I'm not. But the very first time I saw triadic symbiosis explained -- by entirely secular sources, of course -- I realized something that they weren't even thinking about: that it's a huge problem for Evolutionary Theory. There are no stages by which the coming into interdependence of three such organisms can possibly be described, so far as I can see. And I haven't heard that any Evolutionary biologist has ever attempted it.

The explanation you offer doesn't actually explain, as I'm sure you see. It just says, "Well, it happened this way," not how it happened, or what the intermediate relationships among the three organisms actually looked like. It's devoid of all the crucial detail that would justify the claims, therefore. And not surprisingly -- I can't think of how they would do that. Can you?

I've seen them try with things like the human eye or the flagellar motor. I don't think a fair observer will find their attempts to explain those things any more satisfying. For example, they say the eye was a "light-sensitive spot." That's already positing a functioning organ can just pop into existence, unaided by things like survival value. Or their claim that the flagellar motor could be anything less than a genetic injury until it was fully functioning seems utterly implausible. Their attempted explanations are nowhere near fine-grained enough to constitute any real account of how anything like that could ever take place, and they have no tests to see whether it ever did -- or could. A "just-so" story is all they can offer, it seems.

One doesn't need to be any snail or optical expert to see this. A basic grasp of the Evolutionists' proposal, coupled with the basic facts about such organisms is sufficient to throw up huge questions about the whole theory. The "complexity" such a process can apparently not be "reduced" to the sort of simplistic terms Evolutionary propagandists ask us to accept. It just doesn't work. And this is far from a unique case. Triadic symbiosis and irreducible complexity are widely manifest phenomena.

Now, to your other question, what's the problem you foresee?

P.S. -- I'm still curious about what you thought the video had to offer, and I'm very willing to discuss it. It just seems, at first, irrelevant completely. But I'll sit still for the explanation, if you've got one.

What if we will never have an explanation for such things as how an eye or an appendage came into existence from not being an eye or an appendage? Where does that leave us? Does that leave us with any knowledge at all, other than the knowledge that we don't have that knowledge? What if all our knowledge is instrumental, such as how to make a better mousetrap so we can catch bigger mice to feed more of our children? Should we posit a "God" into that void of ignorance? Or should we say to ourselves, "I don't know"? And does "I don't know", mean that there are or can't be things that we "ought" to do or ways we "ought" to behave toward each other as living beings? As far as I'm aware, "I don't know" doesn't tell us anything at all. It leaves us at the crux of all understanding, lacking understanding. To me, knowing that we lack understanding is a better place to be than fearing that a God is going to flood the world and drown us all if we don't obey the "Sabbath."

[Alexis Jacobi]

What if all our knowledge is instrumental, such as how to make a better mousetrap so we can catch bigger mice to feed more of our children? Should we posit a "God" into that void of ignorance? Or should we say to ourselves, "I don't know"? And does "I don't know", mean that there are or can't be things that we "ought" to do or ways we "ought" to behave toward each other as living beings? As far as I'm aware, "I don't know" doesn't tell us anything at all. It leaves us at the crux of all understanding, lacking understanding. To me, knowing that we lack understanding is a better place to be than fearing that a God is going to flood the world and drown us all if we don't obey the "Sabbath."

Essentially, the entirety of IC’s argument, and naturally his adamancy in respect to the belief in a cosmic scheme with a cosmic schemer, revolves around the perception of and the need for an integrated existential philosophy in which Life and existence are part of a Whole. We live in the shadow, often fading, sometimes strengthening, of the recent historical understanding of a Great Chain of Being. This View, this Cosmology, was quite ‘beautiful’ if I can put it like that. It provided an understanding that everything that happened in the process of living made sense, fit into a larger, coherent structure.

Master philosopher Wilbur Boneman is an exponent of an intellectual rupture with that former, rather elegant and even artistic (diagrammable, poetizable) view that all Reality is integrated and coherent. The power and acidity of a Humean perspective etches away any “religious” (mythic, metaphysical) understanding that there is ‘sense’ to anything in the wider world. There is no sense. Nor can anyone prove or demonstrate that there is. He ‘knows’ this and no one can pull the wool over his eyes. Therefore, any view of Reality with the slightest trace of the former cohesive view (a Great Chain of Being) arouses Humean acidic irony. He can battle everyday those idea-vestiges that still exist in men and, with glorious undercutting intellect, defeat any thinking and any thinker still under the spell of Ancient Viewpoints.

It is all very curious because IC seeks out potential scientific explanations to propose and defend “God’s existence”, and therefore the validity of service to an overarching Divine Authority — thunderous Yahweh — but with the softened visage and posture of the avatar Jesus Christ. (And curiously that figure is comparable to mythical Vishnu who is the salvific agent from the mire of materialism when it edges away from the centrality of the Divine Energy and Source of Being).

Thus in this understanding Man must turn to the coherent Source (God, Jesus) on an internal plane, and live by way of and manifest a radical and imposing ethics.

Promethean bangs on his bongos and keeps his zipper locked. Gary munches the intricate chemical rebalancing agents of Big Pharma while the satanic powers, with Donald Trump at the head, keep driving the world toward a pre-determined Fate of a burnt up cinder … Lacewing sprinkles faery dust of lady-like uppity niceties and tries to tame the Evil Male … And Seeds! What to say about Seeds!

Alexis Jacobi? He just gets richer & richer and naturally celebrates his Ascent to those realms formerly conceived of as cocooning the very stars themselves! A crystalline awareness nearly musical and charming …

[Immanuel Can]

...the very first time I saw triadic symbiosis explained -- by entirely secular sources, of course -- I realized something that they weren't even thinking about: that it's a huge problem for Evolutionary Theory. There are no stages by which the coming into interdependence of three such organisms can possibly be described, so far as I can see. And I haven't heard that any Evolutionary biologist has ever attempted it.

The explanation you offer doesn't actually explain, as I'm sure you see. It just says, "Well, it happened this way," not how it happened, or what the intermediate relationships among the three organisms actually looked like. It's devoid of all the crucial detail that would justify the claims, therefore. And not surprisingly -- I can't think of how they would do that. Can you?

Well, again, I'm not an evolutionary biologist, so it's not for me to say how one might attempt to explain the evolution of the relationship between Leucochloridium paradoxum and its two hosts.

No, of course you aren't. Fair enough. But as a rational thinker, you should be able to see the problem it poses -- as I'm sure you can -- and marvel at the fact that there's no easy solution. Even the one you so thoughtfully offer contains multiple points that would need demonstration, and demonstration we definitely lack.

This is the pattern with Evolutionary explanations: they form a trove of "just so" stories, some of which seem plausible and some less so, but none of which science itself can confirm. And yet, we are told by advocates that we must regard it all as "science," and settled, and beyond question.

I've seen them try with things like the human eye or the flagellar motor. I don't think a fair observer will find their attempts to explain those things any more satisfying.

I do.

Well, with more thought, I think you'll find the holes.

Now, to your other question, what's the problem you foresee?

You trying to make sense of it.[/quote] Ah. I see.

Was it then intended to be merely vaguely insulting, and had no useful connection to the present topic? I didn't want to assume that, but if you confirm it...