The Problem with Christians

[AJW333]

I've not seen an explanation for it. I imagine I would have if one existed.

In terms of speculating on explanations we haven't thought of, isn't that like saying, "what if there is a proof of God's existence that we haven't thought of?"

The point is that by declaring that there are no natural explanations, "in principle," you're claiming to rule out ALL possible explanations, including ones we may know nothing about at this time.  That's a claim you can't possibly support, as you don't know what remains to be discovered.  What if next year they discovered a process which could explain the beginning of life.  Would you at that time say, "Well it's not supernatural now, but it was supernatural last year"?  How does that make any sense that something can be declared supernatural, AND THEN a natural explanation for it could be found?  It doesn't make sense, and it points to the fact that you are making an argument from ignorance, that if we don't understand something today, then it cannot be understood EVER.

I had some difficulty explaining my position with Robvalue as he was insisting that I was making an argument from ignorance, which I don't believe I am. I accept that there are processes in nature and the cosmos that we don't understand now, and that explanations may yet arise. I think it's important to confine the definition of "supernatural" to those events that violate natural law, eg a man levitating with no assistance, thus violating the laws of gravity. This removes all "yet to be understood" natural processes from the conversation.

So using the above definition of "supernatural," abiogenesis qualifies because it violates the laws of nature which, without exception require all life to come from life. Abiogenesis violates this natural law.