The Problem with Christians

[Jenny A]

ut latitudinis excremento

[robvalue]

Natural explanations cannot account for them yet.

That doesn't mean they never will; and even if they don't, it doesn't mean there aren't still natural causes that we aren't able to model.

If "supernatural" just means "outside current scientific knowledge" then something can be supernatural today and natural tomorrow. That's a pretty pointless and loaded way of describing something that is simply as yet unexplained.

Jumping to an unsupported conclusion like this in absence of definitive evidence is called the argument from ignorance fallacy, which I explain on my website here.

[pocaracas]

An example of this is that we generally accept that 4.5 billion years ago there was nothing living on earth, just dirt rocks and water. Since we know of no natural process that creates life from non-life, there must be some process at work above and beyond the natural, ie the supernatural. 

AJ.

Aww... So cute! God of the gaps.
It's been a while since last I saw that.

There are several proposed mechanisms for abiogenesis, the trouble is putting them to the test, mostly because they require carefully controlled atmospheres and environments fully devoid of other life.
The time scales required also make it a bit impractical...

And then, even if one such mechanism manages to produce rudimentary life forms, it is no guarantee that life on earth began with that particular mechanism.

[AJW333]

Not sure where the logic fails. Can you elaborate?

The logic fails in your presumption that an answer not readily available must automatically equate to god.

The entire purpose of science is to discover the answer, no matter how long it takes, rather than to jump to a conclusion due to an inability to understand or accept that answers take time.

I chose my words carefully here. I never mentioned God. I simply pointed out that supernatural activity must exist otherwise life would not be possible. Given that all life is derived from sophisticated DNA code, it follows that the initial cause of DNA code would also be sophisticated and intelligent. 

There is no such thing as a random code.

[robvalue]

Please define "supernatural activity".

[Joods]

The logic fails in your presumption that an answer not readily available must automatically equate to god.

The entire purpose of science is to discover the answer, no matter how long it takes, rather than to jump to a conclusion due to an inability to understand or accept that answers take time.

I chose my words carefully here. I never mentioned God. I simply pointed out that supernatural activity must exist otherwise life would not be possible. Given that all life is derived from sophisticated DNA code, it follows that the initial cause of DNA code would also be sophisticated and intelligent. 

There is no such thing as a random code.

No, you didn't mention god. However, being a Christian, I'm sure it'll come up sooner or later in this forum. It always does.

[abaris]

I chose my words carefully here. I never mentioned God. I simply pointed out that supernatural activity must exist otherwise life would not be possible.

Oh yes, supernatural. Such as looking at the sun and the moon and not being able to explain them in the distant past.

I don't know what's so difficult about we have no explanation - yet. Doesn't make it supernatural. If we called everything supernatural what we didn't understand in our past, John Snow would have been content to go with the miasma theory in 1854, when the cholera ravaged London. Louis Pasteur and Robert Koch wouldn't have looked through their microscopes and Alexander Fleming wouldn't have gotten curious about what that mould in his lab actually does.

[robvalue]

Right. Giving up and declaring magic is the way to guarantee there is no progress in the discovery of knowledge. It's always premature; the argument from ignorance, as I explained earlier. If you repeat the same logical fallacies over and over you're not going to convince anyone of anything.

"Unexplained" is just fine, and isn't a word heavily loaded so as to imply it might be "my personal God" after a few more non-sequiturs.

[AJW333]

If "supernatural" just means "outside current scientific knowledge" then something can be supernatural today and natural tomorrow. That's a pretty pointless and loaded way of describing something that is simply as yet unexplained.
 

The way I used "supernatural" was not as an occurrence that was simply outside current understanding, but more likely something that is above and beyond what we see as possible, given the laws that govern nature.

[robvalue]

What we see as possible, now? Based on our understanding?

So when our understanding improves, it's no longer supernatural? Is "currently unexplained" so objectionable to you?

By the way, we describe the laws of nature as best we can; we don't prescribe them. If something is breaking the law, we don't have the law right.

Also, if we observe something, it's clearly not impossible. So saying that it is "seems impossible" is just admitting you don't yet have the knowledge to understand it.