(June 5, 2016 at 1:38 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:  
I'm not making a case for religion specifically. Merely comparing the belief that there was a supernatural element at play (not being specific on who or what), with believing this was all nature on its own from the very beginning.   

 

Would you not then be left asking if a supernatural element required a super-dupernatural element to create it?

I'm not sure why "we don't know" needs to equal "supernatural". I comfortable with we don't know, YET.

Re-did the Miller in college organic. Think it has been superseded but still a good point.

(June 5, 2016 at 2:08 pm)mh.brewer Wrote: I'm not sure why "we don't know" needs to equal "supernatural". I comfortable with we don't know, YET.

Re-did the Miller in college organic. Think it has been superseded but still a good point.

I agree, and dislike the term "supernatural", but there are some that think there is an explanation for the yet unknown, one of which is "God" or "supernatural". Some of us  just call that the "God of the gaps" . Can't explain lightening, must be "God" ... and marches on to we can't explain before a minuscule fraction after the big bang ... yep, again along comes "God" .... 

I await in anticipation for where "god" will be next, because that will be the frontier of our latest understanding

(June 4, 2016 at 10:23 pm)ChadWooters Wrote:

(June 4, 2016 at 6:56 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: Only a theist could take a paradoxically absurd mystery and propose an even greater absurdity is the obvious answer....In the final analysis you have an imaginary puzzle piece that supposedly fits a poorly understood puzzle.  These 'arguments' you bandy about are only convincing to the desperate and weak-minded.

Very clever rhetoric. I sure some will find it persuasive. Please remember that I have not yet presented any specific demonstration although I have, admittedly, alluded to it.

The issue at hand concerns whether a specific observation (that only actual objects can cause change) could be considered evidence for something. It is certainly evident to the senses. I’ve always thought that evidence meant just that: something, well, evident. I’ve never been bit by the dog my neighbor doesn’t have. Now maybe you have had different experiences of things that do and don’t exist. Maybe you can relate how one time you quenched your thirst with the contents of an empty cup. No?

This is nothing but twaddle. We know where you're going Chad, we've been there before. Have you seen a universe created? No? Then how do you know these 'observations' of yours are at all representative of what happens when a universe is created? You don't. You're extrapolating from one to the other without justification. That makes your argument a big non sequitur.

But if you're so big on evidence, why don't you provide some. Show me some evidence that God is uncaused. I know it says it in your books about him, but someone simply saying so isn't evidence. Show me some evidence that anything is uncaused. Can you?

(June 5, 2016 at 2:08 pm)mh.brewer Wrote: I'm not sure why "we don't know" needs to equal "supernatural". I comfortable with we don't know, YET.

Re-did the Miller in college organic. Think it has been superseded but still a good point.

I'm not saying "we don't know" needs to equal supernatural. I think you guys are missing my point.

(June 5, 2016 at 2:34 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(June 5, 2016 at 2:08 pm)mh.brewer Wrote: I'm not sure why "we don't know" needs to equal "supernatural". I comfortable with we don't know, YET.

Re-did the Miller in college organic. Think it has been superseded but still a good point.

I'm not saying "we don't know" needs to equal supernatural. I think you guys are missing my point.

What is your point?

(June 5, 2016 at 1:51 pm)dyresand Wrote:

(June 5, 2016 at 1:14 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Yes, but something was still needed to make that first life happen. 

Life didn't just spontaneously start to exist. It evolved from something else that was already there. And that thing came from another thing. And so on and so forth. In nature, as we know it, everything comes from something. As far as we know, things don't begin to exist out of nowhere and from nothing at all. So if you believe there wasn't any sort of supernatural element to the beginning of the first particle of the first natural thing to ever have existed, that is totally fine, but you are still putting your faith on something we have no understanding of and no explanation for.

You don't really need something CL you really don't. 





to put it like so under the right conditions you can get life from non life this experiment is proof of that.
you can even google it and look up the results for yourself. Considering this is pretty embarrassing this is the year 2016 we
should have moved on from religious beliefs and moved on into a much more modern science based society by now.

As I explained, I know you can get life from non life. I accept evolution. But it still came from something, even though that something was non living. It didn't spontaneously appear from no force or no matter at all.

(June 5, 2016 at 2:35 pm)madog Wrote:

(June 5, 2016 at 2:34 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: I'm not saying "we don't know" needs to equal supernatural. I think you guys are missing my point.

What is your point?

Not sure how else to explain it without repeating myself.

(June 5, 2016 at 2:36 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: As I explained, I know you can get life from non life. I accept evolution. But it still came from something, even though that something was non living. It didn't spontaneously appear from no force or no matter at all.

We don't know that, but even accepting that how does that lead to supernatural or a "God"? its a theory like many others lacking empirical evidence ...

(June 5, 2016 at 1:14 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: ... but you are still putting your faith on something we have no understanding of and no explanation for.

You mean like god?