(July 24, 2022 at 8:49 am)Angrboda Wrote:(July 24, 2022 at 7:55 am)Billy Bob Wrote: YOU chose to pick the naturalistic way. YOU DID! We have NO science to show in the natural realm the laws could not have existed.
Sure. I agree. But your ask was that the laws do not apply, not that they could not apply. Those are two very different standards, and the moving of the goalposts from one to the other makes your prior argument into Swiss cheese. You challenged us to show that they do not apply, thus necessitating a cause that was not natural. The fact that the laws could have applied means nothing because that means they didn't necessarily apply, and since they didn't necessarily apply, a supernatural cause is no longer necessarily required, and your conclusion no longer follows from the premises. And even your changed argument is moot because the laws as we have them are knowably incorrect, so those laws specifically can only show that an incorrect understanding of the origin leads to what is at the end of the day, nothing more than a potentially incorrect conclusion. Possibly wrong is not necessarily correct, and never the twain shall meet.
Don't worry, even if you lose here, you and your family can always play the home game.
Where in your convoluted mess of a reply did you get around the laws I gave? You people are such jokes.
