Evolution and Theory of Evolution

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Prove it.

One cannot prove the existence of the soul, but one can prove that the question what the agency of a decision is, what it is that makes a decision turn out the way it does, is a matter of opinion.

Facts are obtained by evidence forcing to a conclusion, resulting in a model of what is evidenced. For example a book with an accurate description of the moon.

Because facts are obtained by force, they cannot apply to ageny of a decision, because the agency of a decision is free, because it chooses. If we would say it is fact what the agency of a decision is, then we would be saying that "choosing is forced", which is a contradiction of terms, a logical error.

Opinions don't have this problem, because opinions are not obtained through being forced, they are obtained by choosing. The painting is beautiful or ugly, either conclusion is logically valid.

Therefore it is proven that the question what the agency of a decision is, is categorically a matter of opinion. So we can say that the concept of the soul is logically valid, because the existence of the soul is correctly proposed as a matter of opinion, and the soul chooses.

 

[shawn001]

One cannot prove the existence of the soul, but one can prove that the question what the agency of a decision is, what it is that makes a decision turn out the way it does, is a matter of opinion.

Facts are obtained by evidence forcing to a conclusion, resulting in a model of what is evidenced. For example a book with an accurate description of the moon.

Because facts are obtained by force, they cannot apply to ageny of a decision, because the agency of a decision is free, because it chooses. If we would say it is fact what the agency of a decision is, then we would be saying that "choosing is forced", which is a contradiction of terms, a logical error.

Opinions don't have this problem, because opinions are not obtained through being forced, they are obtained by choosing. The painting is beautiful or ugly, either conclusion is logically valid.

Therefore it is proven that the question what the agency of a decision is, is categorically a matter of opinion. So we can say that the concept of the soul is logically valid, because the existence of the soul is correctly proposed as a matter of opinion, and the soul chooses.

Souls do not Exist
Evidence from Science & Philosophy Against Mind-Body Dualism

Emotions Without Souls: How Biochemistry and Neurology Account for FeelingsThe Limbic System: The Source of Emotions in the Human BrainSouls do not Exist: Evidence from Science & Philosophy Against Mind-Body DualismQuantum Physics Pseudo-scientific Theory of SoulSplit Brain Studies: One Mind per Hemisphere

Our 'minds', 'souls', 'spirit' and consciousness are all physical in nature. Thousands of years of investigation has shown us that our brainscomprise and produce our true selves, although because that for most of human history we have had no understanding of how our brains work most Humans have falsely believed inferred that we have souls1. Souls and spirits do not exist. Our bodies run themselves. We know from cases of brain damage and the effects of psychoactive drugs, that our experiences are caused by physical chemistry acting on our physical neurones in our brains. Our innermost self is our biochemical self.

“Human and animal mental processes look just as they can be expected to look if there is no soul or other immaterial component.”

Prof. Victor J. Stenger (2007)2

1. The Physical Brain is the Source of Emotions and Personality, Not the Soul
2. The Physics of the Soul
   1. Evolution and Development of the Self
   2. Consciousness and Complexity
3. Voltaire Verses Descartes
4. Particular Phenomenon
   1. Ghosts
   2. The Appearance of the Recently Dead
   3. Out of Body Experiences
   4. Night Terrors: Demonic Attacks
5. Religion
   1. A Life Force: The Creation of a Pre-Scientific Age
   2. Judaism and the Old Testament
   3. Buddhism
   4. Christianity: No Souls, Only Physical Resurrection
   5. Islam
   6. God Does Not Need Souls
   7. Souls are a Pagan Concept
6. The Religion of Spiritualism
   1. Institutionalized Spiritual Populism
   2. Issues and Problems: Its Original Proponents Admit Making It Up
      
      
      Souls do not Exist: Evidence from Science & Philosophy Against Mind-Body Dualism
      
      
      
      

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Souls do not Exist
Evidence from Science & Philosophy Against Mind-Body Dualism

Emotions Without Souls: How Biochemistry and Neurology Account for FeelingsThe Limbic System: The Source of Emotions in the Human BrainSouls do not Exist: Evidence from Science & Philosophy Against Mind-Body DualismQuantum Physics Pseudo-scientific Theory of SoulSplit Brain Studies: One Mind per Hemisphere

Our 'minds', 'souls', 'spirit' and consciousness are all physical in nature. Thousands of years of investigation has shown us that our brainscomprise and produce our true selves, although because that for most of human history we have had no understanding of how our brains work most Humans have falsely believed inferred that we have souls1. Souls and spirits do not exist. Our bodies run themselves. We know from cases of brain damage and the effects of psychoactive drugs, that our experiences are caused by physical chemistry acting on our physical neurones in our brains. Our innermost self is our biochemical self.

“Human and animal mental processes look just as they can be expected to look if there is no soul or other immaterial component.”

Prof. Victor J. Stenger (2007)2

1. The Physical Brain is the Source of Emotions and Personality, Not the Soul
2. The Physics of the Soul
   1. Evolution and Development of the Self
   2. Consciousness and Complexity
3. Voltaire Verses Descartes
4. Particular Phenomenon
   1. Ghosts
   2. The Appearance of the Recently Dead
   3. Out of Body Experiences
   4. Night Terrors: Demonic Attacks
5. Religion
   1. A Life Force: The Creation of a Pre-Scientific Age
   2. Judaism and the Old Testament
   3. Buddhism
   4. Christianity: No Souls, Only Physical Resurrection
   5. Islam
   6. God Does Not Need Souls
   7. Souls are a Pagan Concept
6. The Religion of Spiritualism
   1. Institutionalized Spiritual Populism
   2. Issues and Problems: Its Original Proponents Admit Making It Up
      
      
      Souls do not Exist: Evidence from Science & Philosophy Against Mind-Body Dualism
      
      
      

See, eventually the evolutionist shows his true face.

What this article is saying is that emotions are an issue of fact, not opinion.

It means you are wrong to choose in expression of emotion, which means science has proven common discourse about what is liked and disliked is wrong.

Evolution theory says people are wrong to say i love you or i hate you, by choosing. Love is fact, you must be forced to the conclusion by evidence whether or not you love someone. Forced and not free.

Evolution theory becomes the name of a mental disease, with pathological denial of freedom, and pathological destruction of all opinion by replacing it with fact.

Subjectivity cannot work without things, the existence of which, is a matter of opinion. The existence of love and hate must be a matter of opinion, otherwise subjectivity does not function.

 

[Yerda]

What this article is saying is that emotions are an issue of fact, not opinion.

If you feel an emotion it is a fact that you feel an emotion. You don't choose to feel happy or angry or disgusted. Though you can exhibit some control of your emotional response, it just happens that you respond a certain way. You don't even choose your next thought. Yet the thought still infact occurs.

Why do you think the internal and subjective cannot be factual?

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

If you feel an emotion it is a fact that you feel an emotion. You don't choose to feel happy or angry or disgusted. Though you can exhibit some control of your emotional response, it just happens that you respond a certain way. You don't even choose your next thought. Yet the thought still infact occurs.

Why do you think the internal and subjective cannot be factual?

Because it is a logical error, it is replacing opinion with fact, or saying opinion=fact. You argue that "I like icecream" is not stating an opinion, but stating a fact about brainchemistry.

You ofcourse choose the words angry and happy.

 

[Yerda]

Because it is a logical error, it is replacing opinion with fact, or saying opinion=fact. You argue that "I like icecream" is not stating an opinion, but stating a fact about brainchemistry.

No. I like ice cream. This is a fact.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

No. I like ice cream. This is a fact.

See, you have no opinions.

 

[Yerda]

See, you have no opinions.

I have many opinions.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

I have many opinions.

No, you have many facts about what is in your brain.

Really this is as stupid as saying that the word love is love. That the expression of emotion in the brain, is the emotion being expressed itself. And it is pretty damn likely that some of that electrobrainchemistry is motor for the vocal cords saying the words "I love icecream". So again, it basically means you are equating the word love with love.

That is really the first and last of your argument.

 

[Yerda]

Really this is as stupid as saying that the word love is love. That the expression of emotion in the brain, is the emotion being expressed itself. And it is pretty damn likely that some of that electrobrainchemistry is motor for the vocal cords saying the words "I love icecream". So again, it basically means you are equating the word love with love.

I can't see where I've mistaken a thing for the word used to denote it.

When I feel love, it is a fact that I feel love. I don't need to say the word, or think of the word, or have ever thought the word. The experience and the fact that I am the subject of the experience remain.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

I can't see where I've mistaken a thing for the word used to denote it.

When I feel love, it is a fact that I feel love. I don't need to say the word, or think of the word, or have ever thought the word. The experience and the fact that I am the subject of the experience remain.

Which means saying what you like and dislike is stating facts, and you do not express any opinion, ever.

 

[Yerda]

Which means saying what you like and dislike is stating facts, and you do not express any opinion, ever.

It is my opinion that the second part of your sentence does not follow from the first.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

It is my opinion that the second part of your sentence does not follow from the first.

You mean to say you have electrochemistry in your head that is "disagreement ".

Or whatever. You are of course systematically cheating on your own philosophical position, which position does not function.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

One cannot prove the existence of the soul.

Then your claim is baseless, and your argument is base on a fallacy. Stick to the facts or stop debating science.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Then your claim is baseless, and your argument is base on a fallacy. Stick to the facts or stop debating science.

Subjectivity can obviously never work without things the existence of which is a matter of opinion. When the existence of everything is a matter of fact, then obviously there will only be room for objectivity.

Creationism is the only philosophy which validates both. Opinion in regards to the existence of the creator, and fact in regards to the existence of the creation.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Subjectivity can obviously never work without things the existence of which is a matter of opinion. When the existence of everything is a matter of fact, then obviously there will only be room for objectivity.

Creationism is the only philosophy which validates both. Opinion in regards to the existence of the creator, and fact in regards to the existence of the creation.

Total nonsense. Creationism is pseudoscience masquerading as fact. There are no piece of evidence, no testable hypothesis, not even a model that shows any kind of predictive of explanatory power.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Total nonsense. Creationism is pseudoscience masquerading as fact. There are no piece of evidence, no testable hypothesis, not even a model that shows any kind of predictive of explanatory power.

Prediction is not the main test in creation science, otherwise freedom, and subjectivity, would be done away with as choosing has an inherently unpredictable element. A choice can turn out several ways.

So in creationist science the test is that the model is an exact copy of creation, 1 to 1, to include all the possibilities as well. Include all what can be chosen.

Creationist science is actually just science about how things are chosen.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Prediction is not the main test in creation science,

Then it is not a science.

otherwise freedom, and subjectivity, would be done away with as choosing has an inherently unpredictable element. A choice can turn out several ways.

In other words, creation "science" cannot make testable predictions because any outcome can still be described as confirming the hypothesis, because creationism is an a priori
assumption that fails the scientific requirement for falsification.

So in creationist science the test is that the model is an exact copy of creation, 1 to 1, to include all the possibilities as well. Include all what can be chosen.

Creationist science is actually just science about how things are chosen.

Provide me with one piece of evidence, on testable hypothesis, and one testable prediction made by utilising creation "science".

 

[Yerda]

You mean to say you have electrochemistry in your head that is "disagreement ".

No. I mean to say that it is my view that what you posted is nonsense. As is the expression "electrochemistry in your head that is ""disagreement"". It is literally meaningless.

Or whatever. You are of course systematically cheating on your own philosophical position, which position does not function.

I don't have a philosophical position.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

No. I mean to say that it is my view that what you posted is nonsense. As is the expression "electrochemistry in your head that is ""disagreement"". It is literally meaningless.

I don't have a philosophical position.

....you require the existence of love and hate to be a fact, then what you like and dislike is a statement of fact about what is in your brain, not an opinion.