(June 20, 2015 at 4:22 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:It is far more logical to instead consider that nature creates nature. With the intelligent creator hypothesis you just get a healthy dose of infinite regress, requiring special pleading like "Oh it's not natural, it's SUPERnatural!"(June 20, 2015 at 5:08 am)Iroscato Wrote: I understand you're not trying to preach, worry not. That wasn't my point, which is more fundamental - do you at least understand our reaction when you say "The cosmos couldn't have come from nothing, so it must have been made by something...that came from nothing."
The Blind Watchmaker argument has been used many times, and each time it requires special pleading for "god", the most complex and unlikely watch of them all.
As far as I know, your reaction is you disagree. I don't see why I should be thought of as anything less than you.
The fact that anything in nature could came from nothing seems like it should be about on par with the fact that there is a supernatural element that does not *need* to come from something. (hence the "supernatural"... it defies the laws of nature)
Of course, the latter seems more logical to me, but as far as we're objectively concerned there is no proof of either and we cannot explain either given what science has provided for us thus far.
They are on equal grounds on that respect, so I don't think I should be considered ignorant or stupid for believing in one over the other.
Tell me CL, how much research have you done into alternate theories for the origin of the universe?
If you have any serious concerns, are being harassed, or just need someone to talk to, feel free to contact me via PM