atheism, philosophy and emotional immaturity

[The Grand Nudger]

Maybe they are but you need perspective. For example, if a giant spoon appeared in the sky and fell down, we can assume there needs to be a cause.

I think the perspective I have right now is fine for the spoon example. In fact, I don't think you'll be able to present a single example of anything in which someone would "just need perspective".

But what if particles are constantly being streamed into existence by the creator or don't follow a pattern at all, and hence constantly randomly controlled.


You would not know that if ontologically you didn't know, "from nothing, nothing follows".

Streamed into existence by the what now? Assuming what must be demonstrated.

Therefore when people say empirical evidence suggests things are uncaused or come to exist with no cause, I say that means ontological reasoning suggests there is a supernatural cause.

But you'll have trouble explaining why this suggests a supernatural cause to you, except insomuch as you desperately need to find a cubbyhole to fit the supernatural.

But science right now is allergic to the supernatural. So even if the evidence was right there sitting in front of you, it would not be admitted.

C'mon now. Science isn't allergic to supernatural claims, investigates them all the time. That's pretty much how we figured out they were bullshit in the first place. This is just borderline conspiracy stuff, to be honest. If there were any evidence for the supernatural it would be accepted by someone, someone would make it their career to study, and if it could be shown to exist -you'd best believe- we'd never hear the end of it (whatever supernatural "it" you care to invoke). At some point, the folks that want this stuff to be flitting around in the air above their noses need to stop making excuses.

Also the very knowledge of praise, the soul, perpetual identity, morality, can be a proof of the supernatural creator.

Could also be a proof of waffles.

Moreover, if you look how much things we lucked out with, in nature, physical things horses, donkeys, dogs, like different type of foods, etc, all this was not necessary. It's all taken for granted. The metals we have that came from comets, etc...

It's another thing to demand that everyone be convinced of the Creator or else he doesn't exist or there is no evidence of his existence.

We didn't luck out so much - que starvation and flesh eating bacteria.
We didn't luck out with horses, donkeys, or dogs...wtf? We actually had to domesticate and breed each of those (same with our food crops - they didn't come pre-packaged with the planet either). No, it wasn't necessary. Not only was it not necessary, it was not present in our environment. We had to make all the things you just mentioned happen ourselves.........in fact, that sounds like terribly bad luck to me - like if bad luck were the only kind of luck we could call ourselves the luckiest creatures alive. If you want to talk about taking something for granted, realize that the things you just mentioned are precisely an example of this - except that it is you that have taken them (and the cost in lives and effort and time spent by your own ancestors) for granted as though it has always been this way.

Even metals from comets couldn;t help us (and one very common "metal" in it's most common form was killing us for thousands of years when we stepped on acorns......). We had to find a way to make them useful (and less lethal) to us.

Some creation, some creator.