From: 69jpil69@gmail.com
On Wed, 5 Nov 2025 18:01:20 -0600, sticks
wrote:
>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.
Your arguments above are variations of the Cosmological Argument;
there must be an uncaused cause. A fatal flaw with that line of
reasoning is its illogical conclusion, that said uncaused cause
excludes any of the scientific theories you itemized. In fact, these
theories are understood, by scientists anyway, to be partial answers
contingent on new evidence. For you to *assume* that your uncaused
cause didn't cause the Big Bang, or abiogenesis, or the Laws of
Thermodynamics is the height of hubris; who are you to say how your
god created everything?
--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
