3 Assumptions Evolutionists Make

[Neuroscience101]

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.

No, there is no breakdown in communication. If there is, it exists because things are treated as synonyms when they may or may not be depending on what is being put forth. There is absolutely no need to go back to scripture, because - as I said before - it's circular and I cannot reason with David when he's asking for a discussion.

Furthermore, I don't give you an absolute Yes or No because - again - it's completely irrelevant. Whether or not I believe a certain thing is not evidence for or against whether or not I enjoy "arguing for sport" and if the insinuation is that I am, then that's a completely baseless implication. I can't answer a question by remaining silent and I can't correct a misunderstanding by remaining silent.

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.

Ah, the Keirsey. If I remember correctly, I'm an INTJ.

I'm not going to argue the bold (well, that's technically a lie) except to say two things:

1) As I previously stated, I'm not discussing the Holy Spirit. As far as I knew, I was originally talking about evolutionary theory and then moved onto beliefs, Atheism and the supernatural. Essentially, you're saying what I should refer to purple while talking about orange, green and blue. Had someone brought up purple, I would have acted accordingly. We're not talking about purple.

2) When you say that you "logically collect as many facts as you can" through the Bible and anecdotes, I would have to ask you, "Are you getting your sources from anywhere else?" If we're speaking logically, then you have to understand that you need outside verification from numerous convergent sources, which hits at that idea of convergent validity.

Also, if we could refrain from referring to Lewis as if he was still living, that would be helpful. Forgive me but it's always so confusing.

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, your naturally thinking "inside of the box").

Well, ignoring the incognito ad hominem, I have to comment on the fact that you're taking localization of function to a whole new level, and simultaneously implying that I lack abstract understanding...which is still kind of an ad hominem and I'm not sure how you got there. You also seem to be implying that I can't intuitively fill in the blanks? I disagree with this and have to say that my intuition - and yours for that matter - can be wrong. There's nothing wrong with following intuition - it's often anyone's first step - but when you imply that your intuition is then correct is just a step I'm missing.

No, I don't think I'm thinking inside the box, at least not in terms to the issue at hand. Though, it still seems like you're talking about Christianity. Again, this is neither here nor there in terms of my conversation with David.

It does not matter whether or not a there is evidence the supernatural exists. I do not disagree with this statement.

That's fine but I don't believe I ever said that it does not matter whether the evidence exists. It is incredibly important if the evidence exists. I could quote what I said but I don't think you got it the first time. It is up there if you need it though.

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".

No. David, I'm suspicious that you're not reading my post. I'm suspicious because you're cherry-picking things I use and put them as premises when they're not and you're incorrectly paraphrasing things that I say. I enjoy conversing with you David, but it's a tad disheartening that I need to consistently go back and quote myself:

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.

The conclusion is - and I kind of haughtily refer to it as one because it's still just skirting around the issue and I explained this to you - is that the there is evidence of absence of 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.

David, you originally asked me what the lack of evidence was; I provided it. You then asked me to justify the conclusion that "if the supernatural does exist - and it does interact with our universe, we should be able to detect it"; I provided it.

No, we're back to you asking me what the lack of evidence is. Not to cling to old internet-memes that should probably go extinct...but wtf mate? I enjoy these conversations - I truly do - but now were just rotating in a circle.

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

That's right, I did say - for the Atheists - that the lack of evidence for a supernatural is the reason why they have no justification for their belief in the supernatural. The reason I had to state this was because you claimed:

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

You then told me that the burden of proof for the lack of evidence (which is a humorous oxymoron out of context) is on me; I explained to you why I would do this, despite my telling you - in several earlier posts - that I do not find your claim to be true.

Now, you're driving at false-dichotomy which is to say: "Either you can show me the lack of evidence for the supernatural and the atheists just don't believe, or you can't and the atheists are refusing to believe." That's a false-dichotomy because there still isn't justification for belief; simply because I can't demonstrate - although I did and defended it - the lack of evidence does not show that there is evidence to justify the belief in the supernatural.

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.

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

David, when you fail to provide an alternative definition than the ones you used previously, we're stuck using the one we have whether or not you feel it's "inadequate".

"Stood on the grounds of rationality." Not sure what you mean. Is it incorrect to think 'rationally'?

Your the one that is borrowing from Ancient Greece and seperating reality

Please, show me where I referenced the Greeks.

 

[David777]

My friend neuroscience.

I am now providing your earlier post,

"So, yes, the supernatural in its essence would - by definition - be undetectable by anyone. However, 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."

You stated "when the two 'natures' interact that both should be detectable." This is what I did not understand neuroscience. That is why i asked you about "detectable". You provided me with an explanation of water into wine " 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. "

I assumed of course that your explanation involved empiricism.
I was not cherry-picking at all, I have illustrated what you previously said.

It followed that you explained a "lack of evidence" as a lack of empirical evidence of this interaction. This empiricist approach was connected to the two "natures".

I need to know why you have this belief that these two "natures" are seperated. Hence, why there was a lack of evidence. I never agreed to a seperation. You offered this idealogy. Is this clearer now neuroscience. You have this belief, you offered this seperation, not me.

I am ignoring your Chemistry lesson in the above post for obvious reasons.

 

[Neuroscience101]

This is what I did not understand neuroscience. That is why i asked you about "detectable".

David, you're cherry-picking again. I explained to you a couple posts ago (when you demanded evidence) the justification for that assertion. I did so in more than just restating the water-to-wine idea (which, again, has little to do with the detectability aspect and much to do with the explanation aspect of that interaction). It's called cherry-picking when you take certain things I said, to certain statements or questions, and then use them in reference to different statements and questions.

I don't see the implication, as to whether or not lack of evidence is based in empiricism or not, as important.

I need to know why you have this belief that these two "natures" are seperated. Hence, why there was a lack of evidence. I never agreed to a seperation. You offered this idealogy. Is this clearer now neuroscience. You have this belief, you offered this seperation, not me.

David...

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

I won't keep reinventing the wheel with you. I've previously explained this issue:

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.

Telling me that I offered a distinction between the two is - at this point - dishonest. You offered that there is a distinction. You've made the distinction several times before we went down this road.

In any case, you're still backpedaling from the original issue, which is this claim you made that atheists may in fact be refusing to believe; I explained to you why I don't find this claim to be true, and now you're lashing out at my points instead of adding to your own.

Please, I welcome you to demonstrate your claim; however, you cannot demonstrate your claim by circling around issues that I've already explained, expanded on, and generally wore out. If you don't want to accept my reasoning for not finding your claim true, that's fine, but we still disagree on the premises of your claim and you still need to find premises that work. Essentially, we're getting to the infamous "ShockOfGod" question which works at "proof and evidence that atheism is accurate and correct" however that question is nonsensical and I really don't want to travel down this slippery slope to it if it can be avoided.

I'd rather stick with your original claim and work with that.

I am ignoring your Chemistry lesson in the above post for obvious reasons.

I must, respectfully, say that it's not really a lesson and I'm not sure why you're ignoring it.

 

[David777]

Again neuroscience.

The information below should answer you question about your assumption cincerning the "two natures".

"In fact, the ancient Greeks were among the first to suggest that there is a “true” reality (noumenon) under the “apparent” reality (phenomenon), an “unseen real” beneath the “unreal seen.” The question is, what is this true reality? Is it matter and energy, i.e. something physical? This is called materialism. Or something more spiritual or mental, such as ideas or ideals? This is called idealism. Materialism and idealism constitute the two extreme answers. Later, we will explore some other possibilities.

A second aspect of philosophy is epistemology. Epistemology is the philosophy of knowledge: How do we know what is true or false, what is real or not? Can we know anything for certain, or is it ultimately hopeless?

Again, the Greeks outlined two opposing approaches to the problem of knowledge. One is called empiricism, which says that all knowledge comes through the senses. The other is called rationalism, which says that knowledge is a matter of reason, thought. There are other answers in epistemology as well. In fact, empiricism and rationalism have never been entirely exclusive."

This where you seem to derive this seperation of natures. Also, empiricism and rationalism. From the Greeks, this is the apparent source.

No wonder I take exception when you do not reference your sources.
I also struggle to decipher which philosophical position you allude to.

An Athiest can be a very difficult person to deal with. Now you understand why I had so many questions. You do in fact have a doctrinal position, it is just a matter of locating what it is.

 

[David777]

Dear neuroscience.

You asked me, "I don't see the implication, as to whether or not lack of evidence is based in empiricism or not, as important."

Neuroscience you are an empiricist. This you must be aware of.

If I asked you to offer me evidence that empiricism was a valid structure to use in your argument. You would be surprised. This is not my argument this is your belief. You have introduced empiricism as the benchmark.

 

[Neuroscience101]

An Athiest can be a very difficult person to deal with. Now you understand why I had so many questions. You do in fact have a doctrinal position, it is just a matter of locating what it is.

David, now you're implying that I both believe in a separation and that I am an Atheist. Do you see the conflict there?

I did trim your quote, however, No: I am not citing the ideas of Dualism to justify a separation of the supernatural or the natural. This is because I've yet to claim that there is a separation. I've only worked with the definition that you provided.

If I asked you to offer me evidence that empiricism was a valid structure to use in your argument. You would be surprised.

No, David, I would not be surprised. This would be for a couple of reasons:

1) You've already referred to my challenge to your original claim as an argument when it's simply just a refutation of your claim. I'm not arguing for anything in particular, only trying to explain to you why I don't find your claim to be true. I use "empiricism" because it's the only I thought to use, and it's the only one I could use after you previously define the word supernatural and the supernatural as beyond human reasoning.

If I allowed that definition (and I'm not sure I do) it would be non sequitur to use strictly rational explanations.

2) I have no reason to assume that you wouldn't ask me.

But again, all of this is beside the point.

EDIT: For clarification, I don't believe the statement I gave was a question; that would be a severe conflict.

 

[David777]

Dear neuroscience.

You follow the rational line of thought. You are a rationalist neuroscience. Did you tell me this in the beginning, no. You sailed straight into correction mode. Anything that did not align with your assumptions must be rejected through logic.

You are a product of your education, neuroscience.

Do not take this in a personal way, it is not intended that way.

You must understand that you are on a Christian website. Not everyone on this site subscribes to your assumptions or beliefs.
You have an opinion, yes, but that is all it is an opinion. Your education has its roots in Greek idealogy.

You asked for my view, my view you would not understand neuroscience. Rationality and empiricism have their limitations. You have a strong background in rationality. This was evident in your entire argument.

 

[David777]

At last, I see.

I see where our paths diverged neuroscience.

I offered, "supernatural as beyond the natural, beyond science."

I should have clarified this statement.

Beyond the natural, meaning the natural world does not understand it.
Not the seperation that you may have thought I implied. I thought the addition of "beyond science" meaning beyond empirical study or comprehension, would be adequate.

Why? Did you not ask for further definition.

Definitely not two seperate worlds. That is why I jumped on your explanation of the empirical approach to the detection of this seperation.

 

[David777]

Oh yes.

You never said there was a distinction, because you do not believe there is a distinction.

As for the Chemistry, water(h2o) is a polar covalent bond, not hydrogen bonds. Each hydrogen atom has one electron but space for two, hence it can bond with an oxygen atom.

 

[Neuroscience101]

You follow the rational line of thought. You are a rationalist neuroscience. Did you tell me this in the beginning, no. You sailed straight into correction mode. Anything that did not align with your assumptions must be rejected through logic.

You are a product of your education, neuroscience.

Do not take this in a personal way, it is not intended that way.

You must understand that you are on a Christian website. Not everyone on this site subscribes to your assumptions or beliefs.
You have an opinion, yes, but that is all it is an opinion. Your education has its roots in Greek idealogy.

You asked for my view, my view you would not understand neuroscience. Rationality and empiricism have their limitations. You have a strong background in rationality. This was evident in your entire argument.

David, I enjoy talking to you, but I don't know where you materialized most of that. In fact, if only to be humorous, I think you might indeed be interacting with the supernatural.

First you said I'm an empiricist. Then you said I'm a rationalist. Which one am I? If you said both, I may even agree with you. I never corrected anything that didn't line up with my assumptions; you claimed one thing, I told you why I don't agree and why. Instead of working on your claim, you asked me to explain my rejection and I did. Now that I have, you're telling me that I'm claiming something when I've told you numerous times that I simply don't think your claim is true and offered a reason why. I'm not trying to reject anything, I'm simply asking you to provide a better reason to justify your claim.

I don't take it in a personal way...but when you say I'm a product of education...the implication I pick up is that this is a bad thing. Aren't most people a product of education; do they not behave or cognitive appraise in a way consistent with their education? I don't see why claiming something is necessary.

I'm not sure where you made the jump to my education is based on Greek ideology. The only formal education I've had is the public school system and a couple years in college. If you wanted to say that the schooling I've had is based on Greek principles and that makes me a product of Greek ideology then I probably wouldn't argue with that (much), but by the same token any question or conversation that can be made would inevitably get back to ancient Greek philosophy. Even the ideas concerning belief can be made back to the greeks.

I'm not sure how to respond to the "opinion" quip. I mean by what basis do you simply say - when someone disagrees with you - "Well, that's just - like - your opinion, man" (obviously not from you) and differentiate between when the position is substantiated and when it's not?

I don't think I ever asked for your view, David. I'm always delighted to hear others opinions, but I don't believe it was me who originally asked anything of you. If I recall, you originally asked for a definition of Atheism.

Also, I would love to try and understand your view.

I don't have a strong background in rationality. If Psychology is a substitute for rationality, then my generation is going to have some problems :wink:

You never said there was a distinction, because you do not believe there is a distinction.

I don't believe I ever told you what I believe.

As for the Chemistry, water(h2o) is a polar covalent bond, not hydrogen bonds. Each hydrogen atom has one electron but space for two, hence it can bond with an oxygen atom.

Water has hydrogen bonds; hydrogen bonds occur between hydrogen and nitrogen, oxygen, or fluoride. This is caused by the extreme difference in electronegativity between these particular elements. Water is still a polar covalent compound, but this is because of the structure (Bent) of the molecule itself. The polarity is caused by the relative difference in electronegativity of the oxygen and the hydrogen, giving the former a partial negative and the latter a partial positive. The bent shape is caused by the natural interaction of geometry and the charge of an electron and proton that dictate how far each pair is from each other.

Likewise, Oxy-diflouride is a polar covalent molecule, but it doesn't have hydrogen bonding.

(To be accurate, while I was reasonably certain I was right, I double-checked, see: "General, Organic, and Biological Chemistry: Structures of Life" by Karen C. Timberlake).

 

[David777]

Hello again.

Neuroscience, I have quoted from your last post.

"If I allowed that definition (and I'm not sure I do) it would be non sequitur to use strictly rational explanations.

2) I have no reason to assume that you wouldn't ask me.

But again, all of this is beside the point."

Is this not the original problem neuroscience. What you would allow?
You are convinced that if you define what is and is not allowed. Then you can dictate whether it follows your assumption of what is rational and what is not. This rationality is an ideaology, but one that you adhere to.

Very limiting, but it does of course allow you to hold a non belief.

Is this the real point of this exercise, neuroscience holding a non belief. What is your opinion on the Bible neuroscience?

 

[David777]

We can continue.

But, I must depart, until later.

"Valence electrons", look it up if you want to understand covalent bonds. Till next time, farewell neuroscience.

 

[Neuroscience101]

Is this not the original problem neuroscience. What you would allow?
You are convinced that if you define what is and is not allowed. Then you can dictate whether it follows your assumption of what is rational and what is not. This rationality is an ideaology, but one that you adhere to.

No, it's not and I've told you what the original point is several times.

I've also never been the one to put forth that I must define everything. You're the one who came to me - each time - looking for a definition. When I gave you those and explained why I don't think your claim is true, then what happened in several other posts happened and I can't bring myself to retype.

If we had to come to agree on a definition for the supernatural? I'm not sure, but I don't think it would be the one you put forth if only because it makes any discussion on it lead to the "empiricism" and...I typed all of this out already.

Is this the real point of this exercise, neuroscience holding a non belief. What is your opinion on the Bible neuroscience?

No, David, it's not an exercise. You asked me what Atheists believe; I explained that it is a non-belief. You made a claim about atheism and refusal to believe; I told you I don't think that's true and explained why. You asked me to elaborate; I did and reminded you - many times - that I'm not claiming anything. I'm not asserting a belief, I'm not telling you I do not believe in something, and I'm not trying to drag you through an exercise. I'm simply asking you to explain to me why you think Atheism is a refusal of belief. If I disagree, I'll tell you why. Ultimately, if you can show me why you believe this and can offer a good justification for it, I may join you in this belief; instead, you started rolling onto my paradoxical "belief" and "non-belief" which I never asserted.

As for the Bible, I won't answer that and I'll tell you why:

I understand that this is a Christian website, just as you understand that there are 1,000 denominations of Christianity. I don't feel it is ethically responsible for me to - publicly - state my beliefs, when A) It's completely irrelevant (like it is right now) and/or B) I don't want to offend those who may have a difference in belief than me. I will happily answer any questions you have about my faith in PMs but I choose not to publicly, just as I refrain from asking other members about their personal and specific beliefs.

"Valence electrons", look it up if you want to understand covalent bonds.

David, you accuse me of being "very limiting", and then inform me of information that I already understand and have been examined on despite the fact that I elaborated on why water has hydrogen bonds and gave you a source to go back on. If it's easier for you, you can go to wikipedia or wikianswers (or even to online University lectures), look for the exact same thing and you'll find that water has hydrogen bonds.

Water has hydrogen bonds, David. If I could post links, I would post a dozen for you.

I'm honestly flabbergasted that you've said that you have studied chemistry and computer science, but you're really denying this. I don't...I don't know how to reconcile that.

 

[strawberry]

@David777: I'm with you. Well said.

@Neuroscience101: I didn't know C.S. Lewis was dead, thanks for the heads up!

How are you going to fit the rest of the supernatural along with the atheists in that little shoebox? Kudos for giving it the old college try, but at this point you're going to need a bigger box or duck tape to hold the box together. The more you talk, the more it falls apart. As for being tail tucked about your faith, my advice is to be bold and keep your tail up. There's no need to be ashamed about it around here. Would still love to hear your answer, are you a Christian? What do you think about the Bible?

Supernatural is beyond science and our complete understanding. Many of the supernatural manifestations that we see in the physical would require a great deal of energy to reproduce and often times we stand in awe because we cannot reproduce the same effects. In part, there is an element that defies physical laws. For instance, one common question scientists have when trying to explain the unexplainable is where is the energy coming from? (From almighty God himself.)

There's a supernatural that is realized in the natural. Without God, neither the supernatural, nor the natural would exist. God does not fit in a box in regards to a clear distinction between the two where there is no overlap. I can see why man has limitations (i.e., laws of physics), but why should there be limitations on God's supernatural power? After all, isn't God the all powerful creator of the universe? Aren't both the natural and supernatural all technically part of God's creation?

In regards to the atheists, they know the truth, but refuse to believe. I mentioned that in my previous post because it's what the Bible indicates.

 

[Neuroscience101]

@Neuroscience101: I didn't know C.S. Lewis was dead, thanks for the heads up!

How are you going to fit the rest of the supernatural along with the atheists in that little shoebox? Kudos for giving it the old college try, but at this point you're going to need a bigger box or duck tape to hold the box together. The more you talk, the more it falls apart. As for being tail tucked about your faith, my advice is to be bold and keep your tail up. There's no need to be ashamed about it around here. Would still love to hear your answer, are you a Christian? What do you think about the Bible?

...So, in all honesty - and I'm not going to judge you - are you actually reading my posts to David or are you just looking at this quotations of me? If it's the former, then I'm in awe; if it's the latter then I think I may understand this breakdown.

I'm not sure how many times I can state that I am not making a claim about the supernatural - or Chrisitnaity for that matter - but rather opposing Davids assertion from a different perspective. If giving a reason why an atheist does not believe in the supernatural is putting myself in a shoebox, then I'll remember that the next time I give a reason I don't drink scorpion poison -- that assertion simply doesn't make any sense.

As for your opinion concerning my faith - not to offend - but I don't believe I asked for your advice on the issue. That is - truthfully - not up for discussion. Again, if you want to send me a message, feel free.

Supernatural is beyond science and our complete understanding. Many of the supernatural manifestations that we see in the physical would require a great deal of energy to reproduce and often times we stand in awe because we cannot reproduce the same effects. In part, there is an element that defies physical laws. For instance, one common question scientists have when trying to explain the unexplainable is where is the energy coming from? (From almighty God himself.)

If that were true, then how can you even justify saying that Atheists refuse to believe? If they can't understand it - at all - how can they possibly believe in its existence?

Not only that, but you're saying that supernatural manifestations are occurring; you're saying that we're seeing them and cannot understand or explain them...

Strawberry...are you sure you've read my posts? Are you sure you've ready my several paragraphs on detectability and unexplanability? Are you sure you saw the rational for evidence of absence in the form of supplanted explanations?

In the very first sentence, you argue that it's all beyond our understanding...and then you say that the supernatural is detectable and we can't naturally explain it...I...

There's a supernatural that is realized in the natural. Without God, neither the supernatural, nor the natural would exist. God does not fit in a box in regards to a clear distinction between the two where there is no overlap. I can see why man has limitations (i.e., laws of physics), but why should there be limitations on God's supernatural power? After all, isn't God the all powerful creator of the universe? Aren't both the natural and supernatural all technically part of God's creation?

...You're really turning this into a argument about God, aren't you?

In any case, you're still getting around this idea of lack of evidence of the supernatural by simply asserting that it exists. I'm not sure how you've shown that it exists - and I've explained why you definitely couldn't use the Bible and why any atheist in their right mind would demonstrate the circular reasoning of that argument - but if you're going to talk about God, then I can't be part of it.

In regards to the atheists, they know the truth, but refuse to believe. I mentioned that in my previous post because it's what the Bible indicates.

I really hope you're not trying to bolster David's claim by doing that. I've told you why using the Bible as justification wouldn't work and I encourage you to ask that question to an atheist and see what he says. In fact, I encourage you to call into TheAtheistExperience tonight and ask them if they refuse to believe or if they simply just don't believe. If you don't believe them, tell them what the Bible says. I personally get the feeling that you haven't met many atheists with the gall to actually have a discussion, but if you're simply going to assert that "atheists refuse to believe because the Bible tells me so" and you're going to ignore the circular reasoning that insists, then I'm not sure what else I can say to you short of a one-on-one chat.

Fortunately, you can have a one on one chat with the show if you so choose and maybe you'll understand their point of view a bit better.

 

[james g]

Spiegel notes that atheists most often appeal to science and the problem of evil in accounting for their refusal to believe in God. ...In recent years, atheists have become more bold and aggressive in declaring their unbelief and even ridiculing people of faith.
Atheism is merely the rejection of the theist claim.There is no doctrine, no belief, no dogma, and there are no preconceived notions.There is only a lack of belief.They have yet to be convinced by the theist claim.All that is required to be an atheist is to lack positive belief.The importance of this definition is to establish in whose court the burden of proof lies.Is it in the theists corner? The people making the claim?Or in the atheists corner, the people who are responding to that claim?Clearly the people making a claim are the ones who are beholden to provide reason and evidence for their claim otherwise we can just make up anything that sounds nice to us and expect it to be taken seriously.So in order to avoid this problem, They send a message out to everyone who is involved in the discussion.We atheists are not making a claim. definition, are only lacking in belief and conviction for YOUR claim.If you espouse a positive belief in a god, then you are a theist.

 

[David777]

Exactly JamesG

I could not agree more with you. This is the exact problem we face when dealing with atheists.

What troubles me most is that the subject of God is treated in such a simplistic fashion. Reducing concepts beyond our understanding to simple laws of logic, rational arguments. God is defined in a dictionary, is the definition correct. No, God is beyond definition, there is no acceptable method of defining God. Eternal, immortal, invisible to empiricism. Is this a definition of God, no, merely characteristics He has.

God is love, what is love, love is what God displays. So the burden of proof lies with me. No, the burden of proof lies with God. Has God proven His existence, yes, by what He created. Can I not believe in God, not possible, why? Because creation is the witness. But, I do not believe that the Universe was created. Well you are decieved, sad but true. How do I know that I am decieved, because you deny the Christ. Is the burden of proof mine, once again no, this is God's burden.

He has proven whom He is through His son Jesus Christ.

 

[David777]

Dear Strawberry.

Your arguments are all true, do not be discouraged by neuroscience.

This is a Christian website, and you are entitled to answer any way you wish. Everyones opinion is valuable, and important.

"...You're really turning this into a argument about God, aren't you?"

Hello, hello, neuroscience, this is a Christian website. Strawberry may post according to what she thinks is best.

 

[David777]

Dear neuroscience.

You said,

"David, you accuse me of being "very limiting", and then inform me of information that I already understand and have been examined on despite the fact that I elaborated on why water has hydrogen bonds and gave you a source to go back on. If it's easier for you, you can go to wikipedia or wikianswers (or even to online University lectures), look for the exact same thing and you'll find that water has hydrogen bonds.

Water has hydrogen bonds, David. If I could post links, I would post a dozen for you.

I'm honestly flabbergasted that you've said that you have studied chemistry and computer science, but you're really denying this. I don't...I don't know how to reconcile that."

Incorrect neuroscience, one molecule of h2o has covalent bonds.
I told you to look up valence electrons. This you did not do, how can I be of more assistance. I am troubled by you neuroscience, you do not seem to listen. Please look it up and get back to me soon. I will disregard your post questioning what I previously said (bold).

 

[Neuroscience101]

Incorrect neuroscience, one molecule of h2o has covalent bonds.
I told you to look up valence electrons. This you did not do, how can I be of more assistance. I am troubled by you neuroscience, you do not seem to listen. Please look it up and get back to me soon. I will disregard your post questioning what I previously said (bold).

David! Enough!

visionlearning com/library/module_viewer.php?mid=57

wiki/hydrogen_bond

Telling me to Google "valence electrons" means nothing. I could find things on electron spin, the Pauli exclusion principle, or even on quantum numbers. What else can I possibly to to show you that water has "hydrogen bonds." It doesn't matter if hydrogen bonds are a subset of covalent bonds or vice-versa (though you originally said polar-covalent); they're still called hydrogen bonds and you're not even bothering to look at what's in front of you. For knowledge sake, David, look at it.

At what point are you just going to admit they are called hydrogen bonds?

It doesn't matter if it's a Christian website. You asked me for a definition of Atheism. You made a claim about Atheism. I explained why I don't believe it to be true, and now you're telling me that I don't believe in something (yet simultaneously believe) and that you ultimately meant that God and the Supernatural are the exact same thing so that you can simply call me someone who relies too much on my own knowledge and won't think "outside the box" as Strawberry said it.

If I tried to to say "God doesn't exist!" then yes, I would be close-minded and foolish. However - aside from that example - I've never said that, and I'm not sure how any reasonable person could claim that I did or that I refuse to believe something that is unknown to me; I'm not sure how yo, Chad, or Strawberry can tell me that "the supernatural is outside our understanding, but you just refuse to understand it." Again...wtf mate?