3 Assumptions Evolutionists Make

[David777]

Still not satisfied neuroscience.

You said,

"My definition would be, 'A personal feeling and/or cognitive appraisal about a thing or concept with or without the presence of evidence supporting the feeling.' "

What do you mean by feeling?

 

[Neuroscience101]

You said,

"My definition would be, 'A personal feeling and/or cognitive appraisal about a thing or concept with or without the presence of evidence supporting the feeling.' "

What do you mean by feeling?

I would say the latter usage of feeling would be the "Personal feeling", and then define feeling as an "emotional or arousing sensation that may either be somatic of mental in nature" though I would also allow for traditional definitions of feeling to be used as well.

 

[David777]

Further.

Believe, to have a state of arousal concerning a thing or idea. Is this correct neuroscience?

 

[Neuroscience101]

Believe, to have a state of arousal concerning a thing or idea. Is this correct neuroscience?

My definition would be a full conjunction of the two or the original definition I gave you. In truth, I kind of like the defintion I gave you more than the dictionary definition, but I suppose that's just egoism

 

[David777]

Thankyou neuroscience.

We now have a definition for believe. If you do not mind i would like to continue to examine your previous posts.

You said,

"You're also assuming that the atheist does not consider the existence of the supernatural; it is entirely possible that the atheist does consider the supernatural, yet does not believe in it because he has no evidence for it."

Believe, to have a state of arousal concerning a thing or idea. Then the supernatural does not evoke the arousal due to lack of evidence.

Thus, a further definition is now necessary, what is evidence?

 

[Neuroscience101]

Believe, to have a state of arousal concerning a thing or idea. Then the supernatural does not evoke the arousal due to lack of evidence.

Thus, a further definition is now necessary, what is evidence?

David,

Earlier I gave you a definition of belief which was, "A personal feeling and/or cognitive appraisal about a thing or concept with or without the presence of evidence supporting the feeling."

You then asked me for a definition of feeling which was, "emotional or arousing sensation that may either be somatic of mental in nature."

The definition you're now using for belief is not a conjunction of the two, but a stitching together. If actually combined, it would read as follows:

Belief: An emotional or arousing sensation that may either be somatic or mental in nature, and/or a cognitive appraisal about a thing or concept with or without the presence of evidence supporting the feeling.

The reason I use this definition is because I don't - personally - think that a belief needs to always be arousing (hence the cognitive appraisal part). For instance, I believe that the Flying Spaghetti Monster does not exist. I don't have an emotional or arousing sensation from that, yet I can still believe it.

I wanted to make this clear, and then issue a quick caution: it feels like we're moving towards an equivocation between "considering" something and "believing" something. I want to make sure that does not happen.

For a definition of evidence, I would use the Collins English Dictionary definition of "data on which to base proof or to establish truth or falsehood."

 

[David777]

Thankyou neuroscience.

The warning lights were indeed flashing. A clever revision indeed, shall we continue neuroscience.

You defined,

Belief: An emotional or arousing sensation that may either be somatic or mental in nature, and/or a cognitive appraisal about a thing or concept with or without the presence of evidence supporting the feeling.

Since you are satisfied with the definition of belief we will proceed.

"For a definition of evidence, I would use the Collins English Dictionary definition of 'data on which to base proof or to establish truth or falsehood.' "

You claimed in an earlier post, "It's not that the supernatural does not exist for the atheist, it's simply that they do not believe in its existence"

Thus i would now ask you to descibe what this lack of evidence is.
I think the burden of proof rests with neuroscience. What is this lack of evidence.

 

[Neuroscience101]

Thus i would now ask you to descibe what this lack of evidence is.
I think the burden of proof rests with neuroscience. What is this lack of evidence.

I'll gladly describe what the lack of evidence is to the Atheist, but for the record I'm not claiming the supernatural does not exist therefore the burden to support that isn't actually on me. The burden of proof rests on whomever makes the claim about the existence on something; if we follow this back to it's origin, we'll see that Atheists don't believe and are not responsible for providing evidence for their position as non-belief is the default. The burden of proof about somethings existence lies on the person making the claim, in this case - concerning the supernatural - it would be "...Muslim, the Christian or the Witch-doctor..."

You may recall that either here or in another thread, I alluded to the now famous quote that "the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence" and why it's important to the supernatural argument; simply because we don't have evidence of the supernatural does not mean it does not exist. However, it's important to understand that the "evidence of absence is the evidence of absence." As an example, if we're sitting at home and someone tells us that a bear is sitting in the front seat of our car, we cannot not - with any certainty - judge the claim to be true or not; there is an absence of evidence available to us. However, if we go to our car and do not see a bear in the front seat, then we can judge the claim to be false as we have evidence for its absence.

Likewise, if the supernatural does exist - and it does interact with our universe, we should be able to detect it. In an earlier post, I said to you:

it's when the two "natures" interact that both should be detectable. Consider when Jesus turned water into wine. We probably couldn't explain the supernatural essence when it was water, but the moment Jesus changed the water, he broke powerful hydrogen bonds, materialized carbon bonded to the oxygen and a host of other wonderful chemical reactions. That's the part that should be detectable. And, if someone were to determine that there was no other possible way for water to be turned into wine so quickly, an explanation of an outside force would be necessary which may in time point to a supernatural.

The reason the interaction should be detectable is (and I may have said this earlier) because, in order for it to work in our universe, it must obey our stable physical laws (F=ma, m1v1=m2v2, E=mc^2, etc) otherwise it could not interact with our universe.

Following that and the quoted section above, I must reiterate that, when the two "natures" interact, we should be able to detect it and come up with no explanation other than the supernatural. For instance, when we look at a "miracle," we should be able to describe the physical process and offer no other explanation than the possibility of the supernatural. As one example, many people point to the "miracle of life" as evidence of supernatural intervention; however, when we look at all of the evidence for life and its building blocks (Carbon, Oxygen, Hydrogen and Nitrogen primarily with a bit of phosphate as well...sometimes sulfur) and we run tests, we see that there are other explanations opposed to the supernatural, such as the case for aebiogenesis - the theory that life came from non-life.

(And before anyone says anything, yes, aebiogenesis has been shown to occur in certain conditions:

Synthesis of activated pyrimidine ribonucleotides in prebiotically plausible conditions; Matthew W. Powner, Beatrice Gerland & John D. Sutherland. Nature, Vol. 460, May 13, 2009.).

The fact that we can demonstrate that such a thing can occur without a supernatural explanation is evidence of absence.

Furthermore, if we look at medical paradigms, we can see this evidence further. For many years people believed that the cause of disease was a supernatural phenomena by demons who invaded the host. However, as modern medicine progressed, we found that disease was actually called by microorganisms. This again is evidence of absence as we have another completely plausible explanation. Some may argue that "demons" are not altogether untrue as they appear in sources, however the fact remains that microorganisms are not "drawn out" of the body in the natural sense and more degraded within the body.

Some argue that if you place the supernatural in the bounds that it must obey by physical laws, then of course it will look like a natural process. The problem with this is that, although it must obey by our physical laws such as the law of conservation of energy, there is a difference between description and explanation. We should be able to describe it in terms of physical laws - like in the water to wine quote above - however we should not be able to find any explanation other than supernatural intervention.

The Atheist then has no justification for a belief in the supernatural as there is a lack of evidence that point towards the existence of an intervening supernatural; the "data on which to base proof or to establish truth or falsehood" is favoring explanations other than the intervening supernatural.

I have a feeling that we're going to back to this idea that, "athiesm may in fact be a refusal to believe rather than non belief" which I disagreed with earlier on the basis that the atheist may not have evidence to justify that belief. Hopefully I've shown why - at least to the atheist - there is not a satisfactory amount of evidence for the supernatural.

However, as I said before, non-belief is the default position to a claim; the claim that the supernatural does exist must meet its burden of proof before the atheist decides to believe it; it is not that the atheist "believes there is not" or "refuses the belief" but that he simply doesn't believe because he has no evidence for that claim.

EDIT: Originally misquoted the absence of evidence quotation. My apologies for the confusion.

 

[David777]

At long last neuroscience.

You left the safety of the agnostic athiest position (no burden of proof required) and committed. Thankyou, i appreciate your courage. I now have the precise information i was after. My reply will be delayed some what, as i have other pressing matters to attend to.

You could have simply stood your ground, i am glad you did not.

Please be patient.

 

[David777]

Dear neuroscience.

Within your last post, you made this remarkable claim:

"The reason the interaction should be detectable is (and I may have said this earlier) because, in order for it to work in our universe, it must obey our stable physical laws (F=ma, m1v1=m2v2, E=mc^2, etc) otherwise it could not interact with our universe.

Following that and the quoted section above, I must reiterate that, when the two "natures" interact, we should be able to detect it and come up with no explanation other than the supernatural."

You sprinkled your argument with three premises. Are you aware of these premises neuroscience?

1) A distinction between the supernatural (nature) and the physical (nature)? Where did you derive this idea of seperation neuroscience?
I demand evidence to support this idea!

2) Interaction of the "supernatural" with "reality" must be detectable?
This second idea is more remarkable than the first. Once again I demand evidence?

3) Then you stated that reason would after detection conclude the supernatural? Why is reason the foundation of your argument?
You presented the ideas, these premises, now provide the evidence to support this.

Please note my friend, i have studied a Batchelor of Science. No more high school equations, please.

 

[Neuroscience101]

You sprinkled your argument with three premises. Are you aware of these premises neuroscience?

David, I'm always aware of the arguments I make and premises I make. However, I'm unsure that you are and you'll have to forgive me for painfully retreading these steps so that you can see that you're confusing my premises with my conclusion:

First of all - and this is the last time I say this - I am not arguing for the non-existence of the supernatural. You may recall this when I said:

...but for the record I'm not claiming the supernatural does not exist...

.

The way you decided to phrase my premises demonstrate that you're not making this distinction. If we go to the originally discussion we were having, you'll see that what we're dealing this is this issue:

...athiesm may in fact be a refusal to believe rather than non belief...

By putting forth that claim, I responded that I did not see that distinction as the Atheist sees no justification for belief in the supernatural in the lack of evidence. I demonstrated the fallacies you made regarding the equivocation of words and realities and I explained to you what the lack of evidence is for the Atheist.

I've also explained, numerous times such as above, that I'm not the one making a claim about the existence of the supernatural and as such am not restrained by the burden of proof. When you claim that atheism may be the refusal of belief, the responsibility is then on you to show that 1) There is evidence to support the supernatural and that 2) Atheists are systematically dismissing that evidence. When you asked:

What is this lack of evidence.

I am of course obliged to answer. However, and I apparently can't say this enough - I'm not making a claim about 1) The existence of the supernatural, 2) The nature of the supernatural, or 3) The separation of the supernatural from the natural. I have only given you the lack of evidence that an Atheist sees when asked to consider the supernatural.

David, you're treading down this path of picking apart my non-stance instead of actually supporting your original claim...

...athiesm may in fact be a refusal to believe rather than non belief...

...and I have to remind you that even on the good chance that you pick apart my arguments and demand evidence for my claims (and by the way, you're basically asking evidence for the explained lack of evidence which is incredibly paradoxical to me), it does not give support to your original claim concerning the Atheist and refusal to belief because you haven't: 1) Demonstrated that there is a reason to believe in the supernatural or shown that 2) Atheists have the proof for the supernatural but are simply ignoring it.

1) A distinction between the supernatural (nature) and the physical (nature)? Where did you derive this idea of seperation neuroscience?
I demand evidence to support this idea!

Well, this isn't actually one of my premises. In fact, it has nothing to do with the idea of an interaction between the supernatural and the natural. It makes no difference as to whether or not there is a separation between the natural and the supernatural, because we're dealing whether or not they interact, and if they are one in the same then - while the semantics are different - then they do interact in some basic sense.

However, I would argue that if there is no separation, then there is no point in calling one 'A' and one 'B' as they're both the same thing.

Lest I forget, I'm also not the one who purported a distinction between the Supernatural and the Natural. In fact, that was you:

"Supernatural" has a definition...It is defined as beyond the natural, beyond science.

Do note: I explained the equivocation fallacy earlier and why it doesn't matter if the definition was senseless; you failed to retract that definition.

2) Interaction of the "supernatural" with "reality" must be detectable?
This second idea is more remarkable than the first. Once again I demand evidence?

David, the detectability of the interaction between the natural and the supernatural was the conclusion; simply because I led with it does not make it a premise. I also explained to you and the others - on more than one occasion - why this is so. Allow me to quote myself with the relevant information:

... in order for it to work in our universe, it must obey our stable physical laws (F=ma, m1v1=m2v2, E=mc^2, etc) otherwise it could not interact with our universe...

I'm going to question your ethos in a few paragraphs but I'll allude to it with this:

Our universe follows stable, rational laws - some of which I've laid out for you. The reason you - in your human experience - can detect the reality you perceive is because of those stable rational laws; this gets into the very precise ways in which the light-sensitive cells in our eyes pick up different wavelengths of light, how voltage and concentration gradients due to postassium, sodium and chloride ions between phospholipid bilayers send electrical currents through your body, and the "brain hierarchal structure". If you want to know the evidence behind all of that, then you'd be reading about Physics, Biochemistry, and Biology; I can't educate you in five minutes on all of that. A good place to start if you really need to know all of it is a textbook known as "Fundamentals of Human Neuropsychology" by Kolb & Wishaw.

Nevertheless, we as humans detect things based on the natural world around us. That's how our bodies are.

Thus, for the supernatural to be detectable, it must also interact with the natural, and it must also abide by our physical laws of nature or else it would be - by our universes very existence - undetectable. If you're going to argue, "Well what if it transcends our physical laws" then you're making a special plead for this one possibility, and even so you still could not be able to detect it because your body relies on natural laws to interact with the world.

Secondly, please refrain from immaturely misquoting me; I did not ever use the word "reality" and I did not imply that there is a difference between the two.

3) Then you stated that reason would after detection conclude the supernatural? Why is reason the foundation of your argument?
You presented the ideas, these premises, now provide the evidence to support this.

Ah, you're moving toward the idea of a "post hoc ergo proctor hoc" fallacy for my stipulation, but you're ignoring the very important tidbit:

...The problem with this is that, although it must obey by our physical laws such as the law of conservation of energy, there is a difference between description and explanation. We should be able to describe it in terms of physical laws - like in the water to wine quote above - however we should not be able to find any explanation other than supernatural intervention.

...

(From previous post to David777) --- Consider when Jesus turned water into wine. We probably couldn't explain the supernatural essence when it was water, but the moment Jesus changed the water, he broke powerful hydrogen bonds, materialized carbon bonded to the oxygen and a host of other wonderful chemical reactions. That's the part that should be detectable. And, if someone were to determine that there was no other possible way for water to be turned into wine so quickly, an explanation of an outside force would be necessary which may in time point to a supernatural.

I am not claiming that one event would lead to the conclusion of the supernatural. I'm saying that lack of explanatory power on the part of the natural is an important crux for the argument for a supernatural. That's not saying, "If we have something we can't explain, then it's the supernatural." I would disagree with that, however I would say that lack of a natural explanation would then not rule our a supernatural.

As for your question, "Why is reason the foundation of your argument?", that is a special plead if I ever saw one; essentially you're questioning the basis of the use of reason in an argument and then asking me to follow reason by providing evidence for premises (which the above are not the premises and I'm suspicious that you might know that). It's like you're saying, "What is the basis for eating cake, now eat that cake."

Please note my friend, i have studied a Batchelor of Science. No more high school equations, please.

David, three quick things on this:

1) That appeal to ethos works when someone doesn't understand what a Bachelor of Science is. A B.S. degree is a particular type of degree which generally emphasizes specialization in a particular field as opposed to a liberal arts degree (B.A.) which is often a more diverse program. Simply because you have a B.S. does not mean that you have a degree in a relevant science (or what's commonly referred to as science). Having or knowing about the Bachelor of Science degree does not mean you studied a relevant (or what's commonly referred to as) science, namely fields such as Physics, Biology, or Chemistry. I know plenty of people who have a Bachelor of Science degree...they just have it in Business.

2) You have "studied" a bachelor of science? Do you mean you have a Bachelor of Science Degree or that you've studied what one is or something else?

3) Since when is theoretical quantum mechanics being taught in High School? I've only been out of High School a few years and learning quantum mechanics was relegated to the college-level physics courses. While it may be true that e=mc^2 is a common theory that people know about, I don't believe that the actual theory behind Einstein's General Relativity is being taught. I feel very bad for those children if it is.

 

[strawberry]

Do you see neuroscience, that athiesm may in fact be a refusal to believe rather than non belief. This refusal to believe is not based on any hard evidence, rather it is fashionable in this day and age. It may appear a fair position, but is rather narrow and submissive of that which it does not understand.

You are correct and that is supported by scripture. According to the Bible, all men will clearly see and know the truth that God exists, which is understood through his creation (from what has been made); we are without excuse:

(Romans 1:18-21) 18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.
​

C.S. Lewis, a former atheist, said that at the time, he was full of contradictions because though he didn't believe in God, he was angry with God for not existing and for creating the world. So in essence he believed in God, but was rebelling by his testimony of disbelief.

Though Neuroscience101 appears to be trying very hard to form a logical argument, it is not logical when also taking into consideration what God says in the Bible.

 

[strawberry]

David777, There's no point in arguing with those that lack wisdom because they despise it, as they are right in their own eyes of understanding, (Proverbs 1:7), (Proverbs 10:21-22), (Proverbs 12:15), (Proverbs 14:8-9), (Proverbs 23:9).

The wise are given instruction on how to deal with fools in Proverbs. Instructing a fool is pointless (Proverbs 15:2) (Proverbs 15:14), as he does not want wisdom and understanding (Proverbs 18:2).

 

[Neuroscience101]

Though Neuroscience101 appears to be trying very hard to form a logical argument, it is not logical when also taking into consideration what God says in the Bible.

Strawberry, a few quick things:

We're not talking about Christianity as I understand it. We're talking quite blankly about the supernatural. I was unaware that we were using the two interchangeably.

Second, I thought the Bible said, "Answer a fool according to his folly, or he will be wise in his own eyes" (Proverbs 26:5)? The reason I refrain from quoting scripture is because, in any argument, it's required to demonstrate that the Bible is God's word in a logical sense and that almost always leads to an episode of circular reasoning which I would like to avoid. Hopefully, that clarifies why I didn't talk with David about Christianity and instead about the supernatural.

Finally, what does C.S. Lewis' personal testimony have to do with anything?

 

[strawberry]

^ The facts: this is a Christian website.

It's clear sir, that you are not here to gain understanding. You are here to be heard.

 

[Neuroscience101]

^ The facts: this is a Christian website.

It's clear sir, that you are not here to gain understanding. You are here to be heard.

What am I saying that is to be heard? That I do not know? That I question? Do you really believe that, because I question or recognize a problem, that I simply want to be heard?

No, strawberry, I am here to understand, to learn and to reconcile. I cannot understand without interacting, I cannot learn without questioning, and I cannot reconcile when those whom I am seeking their unstanding or knowledge do not understand what they are speaking against (such as the OP).

 

[David777]

Thanks Strawberry.

I appreciate your help. It is a pleasure to hear from you.

 

[Christ4Ever]

None of us can convince anyone to accept or believe anything. That goes both ways. We might get them to question the positions they hold, and hope that they will delve deeper in looking for what put the question in their heart in the first place, but that’s about it. The most valid proof of any of these conversations must be the thing that none can ever take away no matter what they do or say and that is our testimony of why we believe as we believe! Communicate with the Love our Lord showed to those who came to Him looking for answers. God will move his heart or not, which is not a decision for us to make. Just be the vessel by which He can communicate the love He has, which was evidenced by the death of our Lord on the Cross.

1 Peter 3:15 But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and [be] ready always to [give] an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:

 

[David777]

Dear neuroscience.

Science (Chemistry, Computer Science ) with a major in Maths.

I was referring to your first two equations of course.
High School Physics covers, F=ma and conservation of momentum.

Now can we return to what we were discussing.

You said,

"David, the detectability of the interaction between the natural and the supernatural was the conclusion; simply because I led with it does not make it a premise. I also explained to you and the others - on more than one occasion - why this is so. Allow me to quote myself with the relevant information:"

It does not matter whether or not a there is evidence the supernatural exists. I do not disagree with this statement.
But you did mention "detectability", this was my point neuroscience.
I never said there was evidence, nor did I say that anything was detectable.

You said the interaction would be detectable with physical examination. This is where I required from you the explanation for the premise. In the statement "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".

Let's look at your statement "I have only given you the lack of evidence that an Atheist sees when asked to consider the supernatural."

I repeat my question, what is this "evidence"? Does not this lack of "evidence" infer some knowledge of an interaction. Are you not assuming a premise by the very statement itself.

Your claiming there is a lack of evidence! I am not claiming a lack of evidence.

My view is not a distinction between the two! They are just different wavelengths of light itself. Your the one that claimed a seperation of the two. Your the one that stood on grounds of rationality. Your the one that is borrowing from Ancient Greece and seperating reality.

 

[strawberry]

Strawberry, a few quick things:

We're not talking about Christianity as I understand it. We're talking quite blankly about the supernatural. I was unaware that we were using the two interchangeably.

Second, I thought the Bible said, "Answer a fool according to his folly, or he will be wise in his own eyes" (Proverbs 26:5)? The reason I refrain from quoting scripture is because, in any argument, it's required to demonstrate that the Bible is God's word in a logical sense and that almost always leads to an episode of circular reasoning which I would like to avoid. Hopefully, that clarifies why I didn't talk with David about Christianity and instead about the supernatural.

Finally, what does C.S. Lewis' personal testimony have to do with anything?

Respectfully sir, I believe I understand where you're coming from; however, there's a breakdown in communication where you and other folks aren't making it clear that your conclusions are based on the scriptures or the Holy Spirit. That's very important for credibility sake because your primary audience here is Christian. Furthermore, I saw in another thread where you were asked if you were a Christian and you did not simply state the fact of "yes" or "no," (Matthew 5:37). Instead, you rambled on about the irrelevance of having to divulge such information. The Bible talks about test all things, prove all things, (1 Thessalonians 5:21 ). If you're not going to cite scriptures, then it would be wise to take a public stand on your faith whenever asked. I'm sure I speak for most folks here, when I say that a simple "yes" or "no" would be greatly appreciated. Not all folks/personalities enjoy arguing for sport.

I hope this adds clarification for why folks are asking you questions about your faith or defaulting to a Christian argument

I'm a Christian (ENTP personality), which means I'm looking at the bigger picture and taking all things into consideration with the Holy Spirit's direction. I'm also very prone to intuitively filling in the blanks when necessary. I don't need concrete evidence to draw a logical conclusion. I logically look at the bigger picture and collect as many of the facts as I can, which are revealed to me through the Bible, the Holy Spirit, listening to the testimony of others that support what the Bible says (i.e., C.S. Lewis's testimony, a former atheist, now a born again Christian) and with that I gain understanding.

Keeping that in mind, my first thought when you asked me how C.S. Lewis's testimony fits in, was, "surely Neuro is not that simple-minded that he can't logically tie in the relevance of a simple fact-based example from a former atheist; it supports what David777 said and supports what the bible says". Not long after that thought, I considered that your cognitive abilities or dominant brain function may require concrete-explicitly stated facts, where you don't have to intuitively fill in the blanks of how things tie together to form a whole/model. Your logical thinking seems to be based on your current understanding of how things tie together, where the area of your brain that's functioning at optimum levels is 'resistant to change' and resistant to "filling-in the blanks" (in other words, you're naturally thinking "inside of the box").

I hope that helps you understand where I'm coming from in citing C.S. Lewis. I apologize that I wasn't clear.