What Science can't do (according to DasAmericanAtheist)

-Sylvan · #1 by **-Sylvan** » Dec 19, 2011 9:56 am

I came across this video while browsing rather aimlessly on Youtube today. Obviously being as I am not learned in philosophy I'm unable to critique his reasoning, so I will refrain from comment.

I am curious to hear your opinions on the video.

http://youtu.be/7U2W069yemE

Grace · #2 by **Grace** » Dec 19, 2011 5:10 pm

Opinion of the individual in the video: A perfect example of a pseudo- intellectual.

Delvo · #3 by **Delvo** » Dec 19, 2011 7:52 pm

That's a very long wordy way to say "the existence or nonexistence of God isn't a scientific question because there can't be any evidence one way or the other so all we can do about it is philosophize instead".

-Sylvan · #4 by **-Sylvan** » Dec 19, 2011 9:55 pm

Grace wrote:Opinion of the individual in the video: A perfect example of a pseudo- intellectual.

Interesting. What are your reasons for considering him a pseudo-intellectual? That seems a little harsh; I mean he does appear to know his stuff particularly well.

Delvo wrote:That's a very long wordy way to say "the existence or nonexistence of God isn't a scientific question because there can't be any evidence one way or the other so all we can do about it is philosophize instead".

Yeah, I have heard this assertion before, but never actually taken it seriously.
Do you agree with him? If so, why?

Oldskeptic · #5 by **Oldskeptic** » Dec 19, 2011 11:28 pm

Science is incapable of even addressing the existence of "God". So, philosophy is necessary. Well philosophy can't prove or disprove the existence for "God" either.

But science can ignore theological philosophy until such time that a good philosophical reason/argument is presented as to why science should ever consider "God" in any hypothesis.

It's just non-overlapping magisterium all over again.

He doesn't understand inductive reasoning either.
Socrates was a man.
Socrates was mortal.
Therefore all men are mortal. Is not inductive reasoning, it's just stupid.

The correct way to state this inductive argument is:

All men are mortal.
Socrates was a man.
Therefore Socrates is mortal.

If "God" has not been falsified then it would be reasonable to believe that "God" does exist. What the fuck is this? A bit of shifting the burden of proof here I think.

I think that this guy has read a bit to much philosophy and not enough about science.

I really enjoy when some dickhead like this identifies himself with "fellow" atheists and then goes on to spout philosophical theological arguments and think that they are being original.

I understand intellectual integrity, but some with a philosophical bent go far beyond any rational edge. Science can't do this, and science can't do that. Who fucking cares except philosophers and theologians? No one that I know of has claimed that "God" has been disproved. Some people are just a bit angry that "God" has not been included in the hypothesis, theory, or math.

Laplace said it years ago, "I have no need of that [God] in my hypothesis."

This is the problem with the God hypothesis. It is not needed by science, and some people resent this. Apparently this extends to some that would call themselves atheist.

MacIver · #6 by **MacIver** » Dec 20, 2011 12:56 am

-Sylvan wrote:
Delvo wrote:That's a very long wordy way to say "the existence or nonexistence of God isn't a scientific question because there can't be any evidence one way or the other so all we can do about it is philosophize instead".

Yeah, I have heard this assertion before, but never actually taken it seriously.
Do you agree with him? If so, why?

I do.

Sort of.

Is it possible that there is a creator being that completely outside nature (because they created it) and therefore is immune to any testing we could ever preform? Yes, that's possible.

Would this creator being be called a god? Not by my definition. I define God as an eternal, magical and supernatural being. Whilst I believe it is possible for existence to be eternal (actually it's impossible for it to be anything but), I do not believe it is possible for an intelligence to be so. Also, supernatural is a meaningless word. Nothing is supernatural or paranormal. Anything that exists anywhere in any time must follow the laws of nature in the universe, cosmos, existence that birthed it.

God cannot exist because he/she/it is logically impossible.

Hugin · #7 by **Hugin** » Dec 20, 2011 1:04 am

Oldskeptic wrote:Science is incapable of even addressing the existence of "God".

Wrong.

Mr.Samsa · #8 by **Mr.Samsa** » Dec 20, 2011 1:08 am

-Sylvan wrote:
Delvo wrote:That's a very long wordy way to say "the existence or nonexistence of God isn't a scientific question because there can't be any evidence one way or the other so all we can do about it is philosophize instead".

Yeah, I have heard this assertion before, but never actually taken it seriously.
Do you agree with him? If so, why?

I haven't had a chance to watch the video, but if Delvo's summary is accurate, then the video is correct as far as the standard definition of god goes. This is because science assumes naturalism (the idea that the world is orderly, measurable, observable) and so it can only ever find evidence of these type of phenomena, but most concepts of god are defined to fall outside the natural world.

We reject the god hypothesis in science because it's not useful to us - we have more parsimonious theories which explain the same data without him. But, importantly, this is not evidence against god and not (in itself) a reason for rejecting him. This is because such an argument would be circular. Science is a tool designed to study the natural world, so the fact that it finds no evidence for the supernatural is trivially true. That is, even if god existed, science still would not include him in our theories.

This doesn't mean we can't reject god though, as I'm sure the guy in the video explains, it just means we have to demonstrate why we reject the concept on philosophical grounds - for example, OldSkeptic seems to accept the philosophical position of W.K.Clifford who argued that we should not accept things that we don't have evidence for. This is a reasonable position.

We can also reject god on logical grounds - for example, we can suggest that most gods are unlikely given the problem of evil, or we can suggest that the entire notion of the "supernatural" is incoherent and reject it on that basis.

Oldskeptic wrote:Science is incapable of even addressing the existence of "God". So, philosophy is necessary. Well philosophy can't prove or disprove the existence for "God" either.

Philosophy can't "prove" or "disprove" the existence of god, no, but it can present us with reasons as to why we should or should not accept the god claim. As mentioned above, we can present logical arguments that demonstrate why we should be skeptical of claims that lack an evidential basis, and this would include god.

Oldskeptic wrote:He doesn't understand inductive reasoning either.
Socrates was a man.
Socrates was mortal.
Therefore all men are mortal. Is not inductive reasoning, it's just stupid.

The correct way to state this inductive argument is:

All men are mortal.
Socrates was a man.
Therefore Socrates is mortal.

I think you've misunderstood inductive logic. I haven't seen the video, but his original inductive argument should have been something like:

Socrates was a man,
Most men are mortal,
Therefore, Socrates was probably mortal.

The argument you've presented is a deductive argument, which don't typically occur in science as we deal with probabilities, not certainties. The "induction" is the inference, or logical leap, made between the premises and the conclusion.

Oldskeptic wrote:If "God" has not been falsified then it would be reasonable to believe that "God" does exist. What the fuck is this? A bit of shifting the burden of proof here I think.

Is that what he actually said? If so, then yes that is a stupid thing of him to say. It would have been better to say: "If "God" has not been falsified then it could be reasonable to believe that "God" does exist".

Oldskeptic wrote:I think that this guy has read a bit to much philosophy and not enough about science.

Not that I necessarily think you're wrong, but why do you say that?

Oldskeptic wrote:I understand intellectual integrity, but some with a philosophical bent go far beyond any rational edge. Science can't do this, and science can't do that. Who fucking cares except philosophers and theologians?

Most scientists I know care deeply about the intentions and limitations of science. Part of being able to use a tool successfully is to understand what it's for, and what it can't do. They tend to be less concerned with the limitations of science when it comes to discussing religious issues, but there's nothing invalid about using those arguments in regards to a religious issue.

Oldskeptic wrote:No one that I know of has claimed that "God" has been disproved. Some people are just a bit angry that "God" has not been included in the hypothesis, theory, or math.

Laplace said it years ago, "I have no need of that [God] in my hypothesis."

This is the problem with the God hypothesis. It is not needed by science, and some people resent this. Apparently this extends to some that would call themselves atheist.

From what I've read here, this doesn't seem to be his argument (although I might be wrong as I haven't seen it yet). He seems to be pointing out the flaw a lot of atheists make by suggesting that because science hasn't found evidence for god, then it's reasonable to assume he doesn't exist on that basis. The problem is that it's a circular argument by itself, and it requires the extra philosophical justification of when it is, and is not, reasonable to hold a position on a particular claim.

Delvo · #9 by **Delvo** » Dec 20, 2011 2:57 am

-Sylvan wrote:
Grace wrote:A perfect example of a pseudo- intellectual.
Interesting. What are your reasons for considering him a pseudo-intellectual? That seems a little harsh; I mean he does appear to know his stuff particularly well.

A pseudointellectual doesn't necessarily need to be someone who doesn't know his stuff. It can also be someone who pretends there's more intellectual content to the stuff that he knows than there really is... or someone whose stuff that he knows is simply the art of explaining simple unremarkable ideas extremely inefficiently in the hope of getting his audience to mistake inefficiency for intellectuality...

-Sylvan wrote:
Delvo wrote:That's a very long wordy way to say "the existence or nonexistence of God isn't a scientific question because there can't be any evidence one way or the other so all we can do about it is philosophize instead".
Yeah, I have heard this assertion before, but never actually taken it seriously.
Do you agree with him? If so, why?

I agree that it isn't a scientific question. I disagree that there's any point in pondering the question in a non-scientific (philosophical) way. Anything that's not science is just stuff that somebody made up.

Tero · **#10** by **Tero** » Dec 20, 2011 3:09 am

I understood dickhead.

Most youtubes are by dickheds. Well, not Thunderfoot. My hero.

Mr.Samsa · **#11** by **Mr.Samsa** » Dec 20, 2011 3:52 am

Delvo wrote:I agree that it isn't a scientific question. I disagree that there's any point in pondering the question in a non-scientific (philosophical) way. Anything that's not science is just stuff that somebody made up.

Really? What about fields like mathematics or ethics?

Oldskeptic · **#12** by **Oldskeptic** » Dec 20, 2011 4:14 am

I find it dismaying that you can take the time to comment on my response to the video without having even watched it.

Oldskeptic wrote:
He doesn't understand inductive reasoning either.
Socrates was a man.
Socrates was mortal.
Therefore all men are mortal. Is not inductive reasoning, it's just stupid.

The correct way to state this inductive argument is:

All men are mortal.
Socrates was a man.
Therefore Socrates is mortal.

Mr. Samsa wrote:

I think you've misunderstood inductive logic. I haven't seen the video, but his original inductive argument should have been something like:

Socrates was a man,
Most men are mortal,
Therefore, Socrates was probably mortal.

Nope mine was induction, yours is probabilistic reasoning.

Mr.Samsa · **#13** by **Mr.Samsa** » Dec 20, 2011 4:44 am

Oldskeptic wrote:I find it dismaying that you can take the time to comment on my response to the video without having even watched it.

Why is it dismaying? I don't need to watch the video to read your comment. I could understand you being dismayed if I hadn't watched the video and then tried to correct you on facts that you observed in the video, but I obviously didn't do that.

Oldskeptic wrote:
Oldskeptic wrote:
He doesn't understand inductive reasoning either.
Socrates was a man.
Socrates was mortal.
Therefore all men are mortal. Is not inductive reasoning, it's just stupid.

The correct way to state this inductive argument is:

All men are mortal.
Socrates was a man.
Therefore Socrates is mortal.

Mr. Samsa wrote:

I think you've misunderstood inductive logic. I haven't seen the video, but his original inductive argument should have been something like:

Socrates was a man,
Most men are mortal,
Therefore, Socrates was probably mortal.

Nope mine was induction, yours is probabilistic reasoning.

Seriously OldSkeptic, you are very wrong here. The example you gave of "inductive reasoning" is literally the textbook example of deduction. And yes, my example was an example of probabilistic reasoning, as that's what induction is.

I can link to actual textbooks if you like, but here's the Wiki page on deductive reasoning:

Deductive reasoning, also called deductive logic, is reasoning which constructs or evaluates deductive arguments. Deductive arguments are attempts to show that a conclusion necessarily follows from a set of premises or hypotheses. A deductive argument is valid if the conclusion does follow necessarily from the premises, i.e., the conclusion must be true provided that the premises are true. A deductive argument is sound if it is valid and its premises are true. Deductive arguments are valid or invalid, sound or unsound. Deductive reasoning is a method of gaining knowledge. An example of a deductive argument:

All men are mortal
Socrates is a man
Therefore, Socrates is mortal

The defining feature of deductive arguments is that the conclusion must necessarily follow from the premises.

And inductive reasoning:

Inductive reasoning, also known as induction or inductive logic, is a kind of reasoning that constructs or evaluates propositions that are abstractions of observations of individual instances of members of the same class. It is commonly construed as a form of reasoning that makes generalizations based on individual instances. In this sense it is often contrasted with deductive reasoning.
However, philosophically the definition is much more nuanced than simple progression from particular / individual instances to wider generalizations. Rather, the premises of an inductive logical argument indicate some degree of support (inductive probability) for the conclusion but do not entail it; that is, they suggest truth but do not ensure it. In this manner, there is the possibility of moving from generalizations to individual instances.
This is an example of inductive reasoning:

90% of humans are right-handed.
Joe is a human.
Therefore, the probability that Joe is right-handed is 90%. (See section on Statistical syllogism.)

It's a common mistake to confuse induction and deduction though. Even Arthur Conan Doyle did, where his character Sherlock describes his method as "deductive reasoning", when in reality he uses a primitive form of the scientific method - i.e. inductive reasoning.

Darwinsbulldog · **#14** by **Darwinsbulldog** » Dec 20, 2011 5:52 am

Most, if not all the objections made about science can apply to other disciplines. If science can't find truth, then neither can anything else. Induction has problems, deductions has problems, evidence has problems, and there can even be problems in logic. None of this matters if you totally abandon naive reality and science just become a system for examining natural phenomena, making descriptive and predictive models, and testing those models. There is no need to worry about science being real, rather does the science work. It does.

Maths is OK, because it does not pretend to be any form of truth outside of itself, and indeed can be used as a tool to contruct null hypotheses.
Although gods or anything else can't be absolutely proven or disproved, the posited interaction of a non-material entity with phenomenal nature makes god nature, and yet undetectable. Thus, there is no symmetry to the agnostic postion unless some evidence for god, and a viable mechanism to enable spirit to interact with matter/energy and yet be still undetectable is certainly possible, but a very shaky inference indeed.
Neutrinos, for example, are weakly interactive with nature, but nevertheless detectable. It seems no coincidence that posited interactions of god with nature are either before the big bang, or at the quantum level where of course, they can't be detected. All very convienent. The smart money is therefore on the non-existence of god.

It seems every time a scientist has tried to paint god into the picture [eg Newton's clockwork universe], the output goes to shit. Infinity in any equation makes the output shit.

So while science can be greatful for the insights and sensible inputs from philosophy, there gets a point where some philsophy is just bum custard. Science works, and so some feel that it should be the whipping boy, and far less brutal criticism of other systems [such as theology] therefore get almost a free ride.

Delvo · **#15** by **Delvo** » Dec 20, 2011 4:05 pm

Mr.Samsa wrote:
Delvo wrote:I agree that it isn't a scientific question. I disagree that there's any point in pondering the question in a non-scientific (philosophical) way. Anything that's not science is just stuff that somebody made up.
Really? What about fields like mathematics or ethics?

They're out of the context I was speaking in, which is how to answer questions about the world (such as whether a creator created it): any statement addressing questions about the world is either scientific, or just made up. Either you can check your ideas about reality against reality, or you can't.

Tero · **#16** by **Tero** » Dec 20, 2011 4:50 pm

If science can't find truth, then neither can anything else. Induction has problems, deductions has problems, evidence has problems, and there can even be problems in logic.

That depends on how you define truth.

Actual events seen by people could lead to truths. But even in court cases witmess memories are faulty.

Grace · **#17** by **Grace** » Dec 20, 2011 6:25 pm

"A pseudointellectual doesn't necessarily need to be someone who doesn't know his stuff. It can also be someone who pretends there's more intellectual content to the stuff that he knows than there really is... or someone whose stuff that he knows is simply the art of explaining simple unremarkable ideas extremely inefficiently in the hope of getting his audience to mistake inefficiency for intellectuality..."

Yes, indeed! Very good Delvo. I have no difficulty understanding the English language, so when someone goes off on filler words, I just get turned off and pissed off.

-Sylvan · **#18** by **-Sylvan** » Dec 22, 2011 11:03 am

Mr.Samsa wrote:
-Sylvan wrote:
Delvo wrote:That's a very long wordy way to say "the existence or nonexistence of God isn't a scientific question because there can't be any evidence one way or the other so all we can do about it is philosophize instead".

Yeah, I have heard this assertion before, but never actually taken it seriously.
Do you agree with him? If so, why?

I haven't had a chance to watch the video, but if Delvo's summary is accurate, then the video is correct as far as the standard definition of god goes. This is because science assumes naturalism (the idea that the world is orderly, measurable, observable) and so it can only ever find evidence of these type of phenomena, but most concepts of god are defined to fall outside the natural world.

We reject the god hypothesis in science because it's not useful to us - we have more parsimonious theories which explain the same data without him. But, importantly, this is not evidence against god and not (in itself) a reason for rejecting him. This is because such an argument would be circular. Science is a tool designed to study the natural world, so the fact that it finds no evidence for the supernatural is trivially true. That is, even if god existed, science still would not include him in our theories.

This doesn't mean we can't reject god though, as I'm sure the guy in the video explains, it just means we have to demonstrate why we reject the concept on philosophical grounds - for example, OldSkeptic seems to accept the philosophical position of W.K.Clifford who argued that we should not accept things that we don't have evidence for. This is a reasonable position.

We can also reject god on logical grounds - for example, we can suggest that most gods are unlikely given the problem of evil, or we can suggest that the entire notion of the "supernatural" is incoherent and reject it on that basis.

Oldskeptic wrote:Science is incapable of even addressing the existence of "God". So, philosophy is necessary. Well philosophy can't prove or disprove the existence for "God" either.

Philosophy can't "prove" or "disprove" the existence of god, no, but it can present us with reasons as to why we should or should not accept the god claim. As mentioned above, we can present logical arguments that demonstrate why we should be skeptical of claims that lack an evidential basis, and this would include god.

Oldskeptic wrote:He doesn't understand inductive reasoning either.
Socrates was a man.
Socrates was mortal.
Therefore all men are mortal. Is not inductive reasoning, it's just stupid.

The correct way to state this inductive argument is:

All men are mortal.
Socrates was a man.
Therefore Socrates is mortal.

I think you've misunderstood inductive logic. I haven't seen the video, but his original inductive argument should have been something like:

Socrates was a man,
Most men are mortal,
Therefore, Socrates was probably mortal.

The argument you've presented is a deductive argument, which don't typically occur in science as we deal with probabilities, not certainties. The "induction" is the inference, or logical leap, made between the premises and the conclusion.

Oldskeptic wrote:If "God" has not been falsified then it would be reasonable to believe that "God" does exist. What the fuck is this? A bit of shifting the burden of proof here I think.

Is that what he actually said? If so, then yes that is a stupid thing of him to say. It would have been better to say: "If "God" has not been falsified then it could be reasonable to believe that "God" does exist".

Oldskeptic wrote:I think that this guy has read a bit to much philosophy and not enough about science.

Not that I necessarily think you're wrong, but why do you say that?

Oldskeptic wrote:I understand intellectual integrity, but some with a philosophical bent go far beyond any rational edge. Science can't do this, and science can't do that. Who fucking cares except philosophers and theologians?

Most scientists I know care deeply about the intentions and limitations of science. Part of being able to use a tool successfully is to understand what it's for, and what it can't do. They tend to be less concerned with the limitations of science when it comes to discussing religious issues, but there's nothing invalid about using those arguments in regards to a religious issue.

Oldskeptic wrote:No one that I know of has claimed that "God" has been disproved. Some people are just a bit angry that "God" has not been included in the hypothesis, theory, or math.

Laplace said it years ago, "I have no need of that [God] in my hypothesis."

This is the problem with the God hypothesis. It is not needed by science, and some people resent this. Apparently this extends to some that would call themselves atheist.

From what I've read here, this doesn't seem to be his argument (although I might be wrong as I haven't seen it yet). He seems to be pointing out the flaw a lot of atheists make by suggesting that because science hasn't found evidence for god, then it's reasonable to assume he doesn't exist on that basis. The problem is that it's a circular argument by itself, and it requires the extra philosophical justification of when it is, and is not, reasonable to hold a position on a particular claim.

You are correct in your deductions, although you would have made it easier on yourself if you had seen the video

I've actually seen instances where non-theists have presented evolution as evidence as to why supernaturalism is false, instead of limiting their assertion to theism. It's an all too common misunderstanding.

-Sylvan · **#19** by **-Sylvan** » Dec 22, 2011 11:07 am

-Sylvan wrote:
Mr.Samsa wrote:
-Sylvan wrote:

Yeah, I have heard this assertion before, but never actually taken it seriously.
Do you agree with him? If so, why?

I haven't had a chance to watch the video, but if Delvo's summary is accurate, then the video is correct as far as the standard definition of god goes. This is because science assumes naturalism (the idea that the world is orderly, measurable, observable) and so it can only ever find evidence of these type of phenomena, but most concepts of god are defined to fall outside the natural world.

We reject the god hypothesis in science because it's not useful to us - we have more parsimonious theories which explain the same data without him. But, importantly, this is not evidence against god and not (in itself) a reason for rejecting him. This is because such an argument would be circular. Science is a tool designed to study the natural world, so the fact that it finds no evidence for the supernatural is trivially true. That is, even if god existed, science still would not include him in our theories.

This doesn't mean we can't reject god though, as I'm sure the guy in the video explains, it just means we have to demonstrate why we reject the concept on philosophical grounds - for example, OldSkeptic seems to accept the philosophical position of W.K.Clifford who argued that we should not accept things that we don't have evidence for. This is a reasonable position.

We can also reject god on logical grounds - for example, we can suggest that most gods are unlikely given the problem of evil, or we can suggest that the entire notion of the "supernatural" is incoherent and reject it on that basis.

Oldskeptic wrote:Science is incapable of even addressing the existence of "God". So, philosophy is necessary. Well philosophy can't prove or disprove the existence for "God" either.

Philosophy can't "prove" or "disprove" the existence of god, no, but it can present us with reasons as to why we should or should not accept the god claim. As mentioned above, we can present logical arguments that demonstrate why we should be skeptical of claims that lack an evidential basis, and this would include god.

Oldskeptic wrote:He doesn't understand inductive reasoning either.
Socrates was a man.
Socrates was mortal.
Therefore all men are mortal. Is not inductive reasoning, it's just stupid.

The correct way to state this inductive argument is:

All men are mortal.
Socrates was a man.
Therefore Socrates is mortal.

I think you've misunderstood inductive logic. I haven't seen the video, but his original inductive argument should have been something like:

Socrates was a man,
Most men are mortal,
Therefore, Socrates was probably mortal.

The argument you've presented is a deductive argument, which don't typically occur in science as we deal with probabilities, not certainties. The "induction" is the inference, or logical leap, made between the premises and the conclusion.

Oldskeptic wrote:If "God" has not been falsified then it would be reasonable to believe that "God" does exist. What the fuck is this? A bit of shifting the burden of proof here I think.

Is that what he actually said? If so, then yes that is a stupid thing of him to say. It would have been better to say: "If "God" has not been falsified then it could be reasonable to believe that "God" does exist".

Oldskeptic wrote:I think that this guy has read a bit to much philosophy and not enough about science.

Not that I necessarily think you're wrong, but why do you say that?

Oldskeptic wrote:I understand intellectual integrity, but some with a philosophical bent go far beyond any rational edge. Science can't do this, and science can't do that. Who fucking cares except philosophers and theologians?

Most scientists I know care deeply about the intentions and limitations of science. Part of being able to use a tool successfully is to understand what it's for, and what it can't do. They tend to be less concerned with the limitations of science when it comes to discussing religious issues, but there's nothing invalid about using those arguments in regards to a religious issue.

Oldskeptic wrote:No one that I know of has claimed that "God" has been disproved. Some people are just a bit angry that "God" has not been included in the hypothesis, theory, or math.

Laplace said it years ago, "I have no need of that [God] in my hypothesis."

This is the problem with the God hypothesis. It is not needed by science, and some people resent this. Apparently this extends to some that would call themselves atheist.

From what I've read here, this doesn't seem to be his argument (although I might be wrong as I haven't seen it yet). He seems to be pointing out the flaw a lot of atheists make by suggesting that because science hasn't found evidence for god, then it's reasonable to assume he doesn't exist on that basis. The problem is that it's a circular argument by itself, and it requires the extra philosophical justification of when it is, and is not, reasonable to hold a position on a particular claim.

You are correct in your deductions, although you would have made it easier on yourself if you had watched the video

I've actually seen instances where non-theists have presented evolution as evidence as to why supernaturalism is false, instead of limiting their assertion to theism. It's an all too common misunderstanding.

Mr.Samsa · **#20** by **Mr.Samsa** » Dec 22, 2011 11:27 am

-Sylvan wrote:You are correct in your deductions, although you would have made it easier on yourself if you had seen the video

Yeah I still plan on watching it at some point, but I haven't had a chance to get on a computer where/when I could play audio.

-Sylvan wrote:I've actually seen instances where non-theists have presented evolution as evidence as to why supernaturalism is false, instead of limiting their assertion to theism. It's an all too common misunderstanding.

That seems like an odd assertion from them, I'm not sure how evolution could disprove supernatural or theism (as a whole at least).