AB,
To say "don't know" would appear to be clutching at straws to maintain your irrational belief that such a feat of rational thinking could be performed by subconscious brain activity alone before you become consciously aware of it.
I am not in denial of any of the jigsaw pieces currently discovered by human endeavours. And I am not in a position to presume to know what is missing. I put my faith in the revelations given to us by the one who knows the complete picture.
First I set out in plain terms four mistakes in reasoning you’d made, all of which you’ve just ignored. What do you get from this dishonesty?
Second, just throwing in the adjective “irrational” does not thereby make something irrational. You would know this though if you’d bothered answering the same rebuttal I gave you in my previous reply. If you actually want to demonstrate something to be irrational though rather than just assert it, then you need to try at least to construct an argument to justify that claim without collapsing into one or several fallacies.
Third, yes you do deny the findings of science when you arbitrarily discount them so as to fill the gap with whatever faith claim has the strongest emotional hold on you. If it helps you think of science as a bridge that takes us from ignorance to knowledge. Sometimes the bridge goes all the way, and science calls these bridges “theories” – they could still be wrong, but all the available reasoning and evidence we have suggests that they’re reliable enough to be useable.
Sometimes though exactly the same knowledge and experience will allow us to build a bridgehead on one bank and perhaps part of the span across, but won’t take us all the way across because there’s insufficient data. These bridges are called hypotheses – they’re well-aligned with an established body of knowledge, but not so much that they satisfy the more rigorous criteria needed to be called a theory.
What you do though is to bring in the bulldozers of incredulity, assertion and false reasoning to tear down the second type of bridges – the foundations, the bridgehead, the span so far as it goes – and instead you replace them with faith claims that have no foundations, no cement, no steel, no
anything by way of a bridge (“only god knows”, “revelations” etc) and then claim to have got to the other bank called knowledge.
It's lousy thinking, but no matter how many times it’s explained to you perfectly clearly you will never, ever confront the overwhelming problems it gives you.
So, yet again: there are rational explanations and partial explanations for the various phenomena your personal incredulity stops you from accepting as naturalistic. Your choice is either to address these part/explanations with counter arguments if you can, or to continue to hide behind empty assertions, evasions and repeated false reasoning.
You choose.
