From: wolverine01@charter.net   
      
   On 11/5/2025 8:12 AM, Martin Harran wrote:   
   > On Tue, 4 Nov 2025 10:44:39 -0600, sticks    
   > wrote:   
   > [...]   
   >   
   >> I'm sure you'll love my sig   
   >   
   > It's one of those soundbites that seems very clever until you think   
   > about what it is actually saying.   
      
   Nice backhand.  But, do you really think I haven't thought about the   
   meaning of what I wrote?  Many things are problematic with Darwin's   
   theory and materialism for me.  My comment to Mr. O about not ever   
   connecting the dots is something that is a reality and important for me   
   in my understanding of origins.  So, I'll give you one example of   
   something I have a problem with, and I assume the materialist doesn't.   
      
   This is really a metaphysical question, and nothing new.  Yet, I find if   
   I go back to the beginning it creates a huge problem for me in believing   
   in an origin scenario along naturalistic lines.  Somehow materialists   
   have convinced the world they have the answer in how all this started   
   with the Big Bang Theory.  Yes, there are problems with the theory   
   people are still trying to work out, but I am not referring to either   
   that or inflation.   
      
   I am talking about where the stuff came from the theory claims caused   
   the Big Bang.  You can speak about quantum theory and mostly that's   
   above my pay grade, and none of it ultimately matters.  For me it still   
   has to have had a cause for existence.  The laws of thermodynamics and   
   basic logic would tell you it had to come from somewhere, or else you   
   are left with only two alternatives.  Today, everything we can see   
   scientists can trace the origins of back to their theory of the Big   
   Bang.  Everything except where that stuff came from.   
      
   The first choice of an answer is totally unacceptable since it is "not   
   science" to the materialist since it involves something supernatural.   
   God must have caused it.  Yes, the response from the naturalist would of   
   course be, "Then where did God come from?"  I do have my personal answer   
   to that question, but it is irrelevant to the question at hand.   
      
   As far as I can gather, all the other explanations boil down to the   
   brute fact of, "It has always existed."  Mass or matter, energy, and   
   even the space.  The naturalist somehow is able to ignore the laws of   
   thermodynamics and even logic in this event and is comfortable with the   
   idea that the "stuff" has just been around for ever, that it has always   
   existed.  In effect, you are claiming that the universe has an uncaused   
   reality in this scenario, effectively giving it God like powers.   
      
   If you accept that fine.  I simply cannot.  It had to come from   
   somewhere for me.  Of course this gets into not only the how, but the   
   "why" question.  But not for the naturalist.  They don't ask why, and   
   evidently are not bothered by the how.  That shocks me to be honest.   
   The motivation for doing so is interesting, but that's another   
   discussion, as is why so many are uninterested in even asking the   
   question.   
      
   Starting at the beginning like this has led me to an increased interest   
   in origins, yet you would suggest I'm just a not so clever person   
   parroting some cool sounding soundbite I heard somewhere.  In reality   
   this is what I believe is the truth, and if discussion on things like   
   this topic on origins remain reasonable, I'm willing to expose myself   
   further.   
      
      
   --   
   Science doesn't support Darwin.  Scientists do.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)