The origin of biology

[Esquilax]

I completely disagree.
Here's a very simple thought experiment:
**Before** all human beings made the statement that says: "1 + 1 = 2".
Wasn't it actually true? Ofcourse it was!
The question to you: where did it exist? there was no human mind in which it was contained

It didn't exist: statements require minds to apprehend and evaluate them. Just because a statement might be true of a time before humans existed, does not mean the statement is independent of humans. Human beings defined what 1 was, and they defined what 2 is: it's nothing more than a label to be applied to quantities for ease of communication. It's only "true" in the sense that the way we have defined it means that one quantity added to one more quantity equals two quantities; if we were to define the terms differently, it might not be true. If 1 were defined as "any three distinct quantities," and the definition for 2 remained the same, then 1+1 would not equal 2 at all.

The statement is dependent on human-derived definitions to be true, and therefore could not be true before humans established the definitions of those numbers. Now, the statement is applicable to the past, and it is true in retrospect, once the definitions are in place and minds can consider the question coherently, but that's not the same thing as the statement existing independent of human minds.

Oh, and also? Even if you were right, it's still an argument from ignorance to assert that because I can't offer an answer to your problem, your claim is therefore correct, so, hey...

if something was "in fact indicated to be impossible", then we wouldn't be having this entire discussion of including both possibilities A and (not A).

You people are committed to finding some wiggle room in which to insert your god, fallaciously or not. We'll continue having the discussion so long as you continue your fallacy-ridden presupposition, and in fact, I find it particularly ridiculous that you're suggesting that the existence of the conversation is evidence that you're correct, as though nobody has ever had a discussion in which one participant was wrong. The fact that you hold an incorrect view does not mean the view is a valid, possible position. It just means you're wrong.

My entire argument (check the OP) was exactly that because of the absence of fact, we do need to allow for the two possibilities (with varying likelihoods).

The factual evidence we have thus far suggests that the supernatural is not possible. You want to contend with that, find a single scientific, peer reviewed source that suggests that magic has ever been the solution for any problem, ever. You need evidence for a proposition before it can be considered possible, not just an absence of evidence proving it to be wrong. All you're doing is shifting the burden of proof.

Factual evidence absent = two possibilities  (A)  and  (not A) with varying likelihood
Factual evidence present = one known outcome (A)
Its really very simple, I'm not sure why are you making a counter-argument.

Because you can only say the factual evidence is absent by... ignoring the factual evidence. I don't know why you think that's okay.

[Ravenshire]

Can you please show a peer reviewed replicated experiment that shows the supernatural to be the explanation for fucking anything?

Exactly my point. There is no peer review experiment supporting the supernatural. Therefore, it stays within the two possibilities (A and not A) as explained above. Exactly my point.

No. What it shows is that the supernatural has never been evidenced. Never. No one outside of religious thinking accepts that something with no evidence whatsoever could ever be the explanation for anything.