Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

If macro evolution is true, you cannot know it is true.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • If macro evolution is true, you cannot know it is true.

    If macro evolution is true, you cannot know it is true.

    In my comment here, I am making a statement related to the atheistic type of evolutionary theory. In other words, I'm addressing purely naturalistic evolution which operates only according to naturalistic principles: chemical reactions, the laws of physics, etc.

    If naturalism is true, then the universe operates completely and solely under naturalistic principles as would evolution. Supernatural causes are not permitted by definition.

    This means that the human brain is limited to electro-chemical reactions and cannot violate them. Therefore, all "decisions" and "beliefs" the brain makes are the necessary result of neuro-chemical reactions to stimuli from the senses. But, how does one chemical state in the brain that leads to another chemical state in the brain produce proper logical inference or the assurance of knowledge? As far as I'm aware, there is no known answers to these questions. It makes sense to say that what the brain is producing is chemical necessity, not necessarily truth - though it may accidentally arrive at truth. But, even then, how would a person know? Therefore, if macro evolution is true according to the naturalistic perspective, then you cannot know if macroevolution is true because the brain is simply producing chemical reactions.

    Finally, any explanation that you would give on how you could know that evolution is true would fall under the purview of "The chemical reactions in your brain made you say that."

    Thoughts anyone? Er, Necessary electo-chemical thoughts anyone?








  • #2
    Originally posted by Matt Slick View Post
    If macro evolution is true, you cannot know it is true.
    Big "If".
    Alas, there is no "macro evolution". No "macro gestation", or "macro digestion" either

    In my comment here, I am making a statement related to the atheistic type of evolutionary theory.
    There is no "atheistic type of evolutionary theory".
    In other words, I'm addressing purely naturalistic evolution which operates only according to naturalistic principles: chemical reactions, the laws of physics, etc.
    Appearantly not, since you invoke atheism as a necessary part of it.
    If naturalism is true, then the universe operates completely and solely under naturalistic principles as would evolution.
    And since naturalism is not a statement, it cannot be true. It can only be.
    Naturalism is the study of nature as a whole. It is not a statement.
    Supernatural causes are not permitted by definition.
    So reality stands. Good.

    This means that the human brain is limited to electro-chemical reactions and cannot violate them.
    No. It does not mean any such thing.
    Therefore, all "decisions" and "beliefs" the brain makes are the necessary result of neuro-chemical reactions to stimuli from the senses.
    See above
    But, how does one chemical state in the brain that leads to another chemical state in the brain produce proper logical inference or the assurance of knowledge?
    By fantasy. Since in reality your chain does not exist.
    As far as I'm aware, there is no known answers to these questions.
    I just posted answers.
    It makes sense to say that what the brain is producing is chemical necessity, not necessarily truth - though it may accidentally arrive at truth.
    Not at all.
    But, even then, how would a person know?
    See above
    Therefore, if macro evolution is true according to the naturalistic perspective, then you cannot know if macroevolution is true because the brain is simply producing chemical reactions.
    See above

    Finally, any explanation that you would give on how you could know that evolution is true would fall under the purview of "The chemical reactions in your brain made you say that."
    Wow. Desperate grasping for the extreme argument from ignorance via willful making up of entities.

    Thoughts anyone? Er, Necessary electo-chemical thoughts anyone?
    Posted











    Comment


    • Matt Slick
      Matt Slick commented
      Editing a comment
      It is apparent to me you do not understand the argument and simply responded in knee-jerk style.

  • #3
    Bold emphases mine.

    Originally posted by Matt Slick View Post
    . . . . This means that the human brain is limited to electro-chemical reactions and cannot violate them. Therefore, all "decisions" and "beliefs" the brain makes are the necessary result of neuro-chemical reactions to stimuli from the senses. But, how does one chemical state in the brain that leads to another chemical state in the brain produce proper logical inference or the assurance of knowledge? As far as I'm aware, there is no known answers to these questions.
    You are failing to distinguish whether these questions can never be answered, in principle, or whether we currently do not know.

    So for now no answer is forthcoming. And, it would be really problematic to demonstrate how one chemical state that these without a chemical state produces logical inferences. But these logical inferences can only be validated by accessing the abstract universals known as the laws of logic. Of course, this is hugely problematic for a mere naturalistic worldview.... Whether you want to acknowledge it or not.

    Originally posted by Matt Slick View Post
    It makes sense to say that what the brain is producing is chemical necessity, not necessarily truth - though it may accidentally arrive at truth. But, even then, how would a person know?
    You are failing to distinguish whether this question can never be answered, in principle, or whether we currently do not know.

    Come on, you're just repeating yourself. And besides, the chemicals in your brain made you respond like that.

    Originally posted by Matt Slick View Post
    Therefore, if macro evolution is true according to the naturalistic perspective, then you cannot know if macroevolution is true because the brain is simply producing chemical reactions.
    Your conclusion does not follow because its premises are not distinguishing between whether the answers to your questions cannot ever be known, or merely because we currently do not know them.



    Comment


    • Matt Slick
      Matt Slick commented
      Editing a comment
      Can you explain how one chemical that leads to another chemical state through necessary chemical reactions, produces proper logical inference?

      If you cannot, my argument stands.

      If you can, please present the answer.

    • gus bovona
      gus bovona commented
      Editing a comment
      Your argument doesn't stand because all you did was to repeat the question that I've already mentioned is not sufficient for you to make your case. This is a burden of proof issue. You are claiming that logical inferences, etc., are impossible materialistically (if I may summarize your claim), and your question - and the lack of an answer to it - is not sufficient to support your claim. Your argument is an argument from ignorance; specically, the ignorance (= lack of an answer to your question) of how materialism can support logic, etc.

  • #4
    Originally posted by Matt Slick View Post
    If macro evolution is true, you cannot know it is true.
    If you mean macroevolution can't be proven then I agree. Science can't prove any naturalistic explanation in any field because some undetectable super-entity may be directing the apparently natural processes behind the scene.

    Science however can and has amassed a huge amount of supporting empirical positive evidence natural processes did produce the extant biological life over deep time we see. The scientific conclusion is macroevolution is a fact to the best of our current ability to investigate. That's what we go with, the same as all science works.
    Last edited by Tim H; 12-28-2019, 08:05 PM.

    Comment


    • #5
      Originally posted by Tim H View Post

      If you mean macroevolution can't be proven then I agree. Science can't prove any naturalistic explanation in any field because some undetectable super-entity may be directing the apparently natural processes behind the scene.

      Science however can and has amassed a huge amount of supporting empirical positive evidence natural processes did produce the extant biological life over deep time we see. The scientific conclusion is macroevolution is a fact to the best of our current ability to investigate. That's what we go with, the same as all science works.
      Now dont be throwing up facts.

      you scare them

      Comment


      • #6
        Originally posted by Matt Slick View Post
        If macro evolution is true, you cannot know it is true.
        Evolution is science. In science we do not know anything to be 100% true because there are always errors in the measurements, so everything in science has an amount of uncertainty. For example, the gravitational constant G = 6.67430 ± 0.00015. We do not know the true value of G, we have a level of uncertainty: that "±". We are 95% sure that it lies between 6.67415 and 6.67445. All values x 10-11 m3.kg-1.s-2.

        Science does not expect 100% accuracy, so it does not work with the philosophical ideal of 100% accurate truth. Currently evolution is accurate to about 12 decimal places, as shown by the level of correlation between the two independent nested hierarchies. That is enough for science, though perhaps not enough for philosophy.
        The Ultimate Truth is that there is no ultimate truth.

        Comment


        • #7
          Originally posted by rossum View Post

          Evolution is science. In science we do not know anything to be 100% true because there are always errors in the measurements, so everything in science has an amount of uncertainty.
          Are you saying we do not know 100% humans did go to the moon and back on more than one occasion?


          Science does not expect 100% accuracy,
          What does that even mean anyway since it presupposes science has a brain. Where is the brain of science? It is 100% accurate to claim humans went to the moon and back on more than one occasion via science?



          so it does not work with the philosophical ideal of 100% accurate truth.
          What is 95% truth? Is your statement 100% true or 95% true?

          http://actionablethought.com/science-is-not-truth/




          Currently evolution is accurate to about 12 decimal places, as shown by the level of correlation between the two independent nested hierarchies. That is enough for science, though perhaps not enough for philosophy.
          So you are saying that your belief in mystery ape/human ancestors is accurate by your stated level? What about your belief you are an ape? If humans are ape then are apes human? Is that 100% accurate? Fish ancestry of humans? What about old Earth and entropy? A 4.5 billion yr Earth (as opposed to 6 K yr earth) with life sustaining capacity for approx one bil years is the greater claim with the lower probability (0=impossible and 1=certain) and requires the higher burden of proof? Does not entropy work against old Earth and long life?

          ’The same laws of entropy working against physical matter being eternal works against deep time.’’ Moshe Emes
          Last edited by lightbeamrider; 12-28-2019, 10:18 PM.
          Inequality is therefore natural law. Nordau.

          ''Why is it that when it comes to the age of the earth, people reject the recorded history of the Bible in favor of "scientific" guesswork?

          Comment


          • #8
            Originally posted by Matt Slick View Post
            If macro evolution is true, you cannot know it is true.

            In my comment here, I am making a statement related to the atheistic type of evolutionary theory. In other words, I'm addressing purely naturalistic evolution which operates only according to naturalistic principles: chemical reactions, the laws of physics, etc.

            If naturalism is true, then the universe operates completely and solely under naturalistic principles as would evolution. Supernatural causes are not permitted by definition.

            This means that the human brain is limited to electro-chemical reactions and cannot violate them. Therefore, all "decisions" and "beliefs" the brain makes are the necessary result of neuro-chemical reactions to stimuli from the senses. But, how does one chemical state in the brain that leads to another chemical state in the brain produce proper logical inference or the assurance of knowledge? As far as I'm aware, there is no known answers to these questions. It makes sense to say that what the brain is producing is chemical necessity, not necessarily truth - though it may accidentally arrive at truth. But, even then, how would a person know? Therefore, if macro evolution is true according to the naturalistic perspective, then you cannot know if macroevolution is true because the brain is simply producing chemical reactions.

            Finally, any explanation that you would give on how you could know that evolution is true would fall under the purview of "The chemical reactions in your brain made you say that."

            Thoughts anyone? Er, Necessary electo-chemical thoughts anyone?
            How do you know that naturalism isn't true as described by you, and that as far as your post is concerned ..."The chemical reactions in your brain made you say that"... ?


            My own suspicion is that the universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we *can* suppose. JBS Haldane.

            Comment


            • #9


              Out of control neuro transmitters




              Originally posted by Mr Laurier View Post
              Big "If".
              Alas, there is no "macro evolution". No "macro gestation", or "macro digestion" either


              There is no "atheistic type of evolutionary theory".

              Appearantly not, since you invoke atheism as a necessary part of it.

              And since naturalism is not a statement, it cannot be true. It can only be.
              Naturalism is the study of nature as a whole. It is not a statement.

              So reality stands. Good.


              No. It does not mean any such thing.

              See above

              By fantasy. Since in reality your chain does not exist.

              I just posted answers.

              Not at all.

              See above

              See above


              Wow. Desperate grasping for the extreme argument from ignorance via willful making up of entities.


              Posted




              ^^^^^ insults neurons fired up.
              Last edited by nouveau; 12-28-2019, 10:57 PM.

              Comment


              • #10
                Originally posted by nouveau View Post

                Out of control neuro transmitters
                Where?
                Are you telling me what your problem is?

                Comment


                • #11
                  Originally posted by Matt Slick View Post
                  If macro evolution is true, you cannot know it is true.

                  In my comment here, I am making a statement related to the atheistic type of evolutionary theory. In other words, I'm addressing purely naturalistic evolution which operates only according to naturalistic principles: chemical reactions, the laws of physics, etc.

                  If naturalism is true, then the universe operates completely and solely under naturalistic principles as would evolution. Supernatural causes are not permitted by definition.

                  This means that the human brain is limited to electro-chemical reactions and cannot violate them. Therefore, all "decisions" and "beliefs" the brain makes are the necessary result of neuro-chemical reactions to stimuli from the senses. But, how does one chemical state in the brain that leads to another chemical state in the brain produce proper logical inference or the assurance of knowledge? As far as I'm aware, there is no known answers to these questions. It makes sense to say that what the brain is producing is chemical necessity, not necessarily truth - though it may accidentally arrive at truth. But, even then, how would a person know? Therefore, if macro evolution is true according to the naturalistic perspective, then you cannot know if macroevolution is true because the brain is simply producing chemical reactions.

                  Finally, any explanation that you would give on how you could know that evolution is true would fall under the purview of "The chemical reactions in your brain made you say that."

                  Thoughts anyone? Er, Necessary electo-chemical thoughts anyone?






                  Im replying respectfully, because it's a topic that interests me a lot, and I liked what you wrote.

                  A confusion was created between the natural mind and the soul, is my understanding...such that the mind is then assumed to follow natural law, which is a state of sin, this world. I say that because we know that the type of reality we have now, is flawed because of sin... and this includes all its processes.

                  I used to talk to students about this...

                  and told them (then), that the war of evolution and creation was a fake news war made by satan... such that creation would lose, since in fact the fallen world does seem to respond to evolving, circling etc...

                  Henoch describes a different earth and system, that does not circle, and in fact the war over evolution centuries ago, was a war between the biblical earth, apparently stationary (true!) to mix it up with the one that spins around this sun (also true, after the fall).

                  The truth has to do with context, in my understanding... In fact, we could never imagine New Jerusalem circling around some other sun! A sun with no love, which is but matter in chemical reactions.. New Jerusalem centers of He, Christ our Lord.

                  So, the problem is context, I think, do we refer to this world, which Christ tell us is to pass away, and that we are not to be OF, or do we refer to His realm when we speak of terms such as evolution or creation.

                  Creationism correctly describes God's cosmology, before the fall and soon, at the Change.
                  Evolution describes the fall from eden, which called cosmological changes, causing man to be banished from eden and live in the world of death, the sin realm.

                  Comment


                  • #12
                    About chemical reactions in the brain... cells cannot evolve, they are inert, dead bodies (Amos). As soon as a soul leaves the body, the cells have no life and die away. Cells cannot evolve, except by a spiritual cause. While satan does not have powers to create as God does, there is a sort of derivative type of context of creating, such as science does when it creates chimeras, an abomination to God.

                    the prince of the air has been allowed to rule, for a time, and as such, has a will and directs many souls astray...and this accounts for evolution.
                    Matter on its own is inert, and without a will exerted from the other world, would stay inert. The question then is, which realm directs evolution? I would say satan's...
                    but in the same manner of chimera, such that while this earth seems pretty, that being because of God's attributes here, at the same time, this world is a mixed thing...where there is death, destruction, where nature does not love or care, and where everything dies.

                    Comment


                    • #13
                      Originally posted by Tim H View Post

                      If you mean macroevolution can't be proven then I agree. Science can't prove any naturalistic explanation in any field because some undetectable super-entity may be directing the apparently natural processes behind the scene.

                      Science however can and has amassed a huge amount of supporting empirical positive evidence natural processes did produce the extant biological life over deep time we see. The scientific conclusion is macroevolution is a fact to the best of our current ability to investigate. That's what we go with, the same as all science works.
                      true. science itself is not atheist, since it knows it may be directed, even if often it does not want to admit that. to call something a fact however, which is merely axiomatic, is a bit much, even if a scientist gives the optimistic 'it worked this way for a while so it probably will forever.' (hume).

                      Comment


                      • #14
                        Originally posted by lightbeamrider View Post
                        Are you saying we do not know 100% humans did go to the moon and back on more than one occasion?
                        Correct. We have a huge amount of positive evidence it did happen so the probability of correctness is 99.99999....%. However there is always the minuscule (but greater than 0) chance we're all living in a computer simulation and the moon landings didn't actually happen. That's why science doesn't do "proof" = 100% certainty. Science does supporting positive evidence and inference based upon that evidence.

                        Comment


                        • #15
                          Originally posted by nouveau View Post

                          Out of control neuro transmitters

                          insults neurons fired up.
                          Insults and ridiculous over-the-top claims have always been your forte. Looks like that won't change with the new board.

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X