From: wolverine01@charter.net   
      
   On 11/6/2025 3:44 AM, Martin Harran wrote:   
   > 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?   
   >   
   > If you have thought about it, perhaps you can explain why you think   
   > that non-scientists understand science better than scientists.   
      
   Of course, I've said nothing of the kind.   
      
      
   >> 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.   
   >   
   > With respect, that is where your thinking starts to get confused.   
   > First of all, you treat "materialist" and "scientist" as   
   > interchangeable synonyms but they are not. A scientist does not have   
   > to be materialist and many aren't. Just to take one example; you're   
   > talking here about the Big Bang, are you aware that the original Big   
   > Bang theory was developed by a Catholic priest with a passionate   
   > interest in science but utterly faithful to his religious beliefs? Do   
   > you know that scientists, particularly Einstein, initially scorned his   
   > ideas but then realised that they actually stood up to scrutiny?   
      
   You have a penchant to somehow read into other people's words meaning   
   that is simply not there.  I have no idea how you came up with your   
   conclusion on this interchangeability.   
      
      
   > Moving on from that, you state that what you describe as   
   > "materialists" have detailed explanations for starting with the Big   
   > Bang   
      
   No I didn't, you just did.  To paraphrase myself, the materialist   
   believes the answer to origins started with the Big Bang with no help   
   from anything supernatural, and have succeeded in gaining consensus that   
   they are correct for a variety of reasons.   
      
   > but then reject their explanations on the basis that they have no   
   > explanation for what *preceded* the Big Bang. That is a non sequitur;   
   > the fact that science doesn't have an explanation and probably never   
   > will have an explanation for what happened before the Big Bang has no   
   > bearing on their explanation for what happened after it which is based   
   > on the scientific evidence that has accumulated about what happened..   
      
   Hogwash.  As above, I did not say I "reject their explanations"  In   
   fact, I specifically stated "I am not referring to either that (the Big   
   Bang) or inflation."   
      
   Of course it does have bearing in that if you accept the brute fact that   
   it has always existed, you will look at everything within a paradigm   
   that is different from someone who is not limited by that perspective.   
   I'm in that category.   
      
   The same thing can be said about most of the sciences.  If you can't   
   line up the dots at the start, the logical mind looks at ALL   
   possibilities.  A materialist simply will not and will proceed along the   
   lines of the Darwin of the Gaps thinking.  That's fine.   
      
      
   >> 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.   
   >   
   > As noted above, your classification of anyone who accepts science as a   
   > materialist is badly founded.,   
      
   I didn't do this, but I'm sure you will continue to accuse me of it.  I   
   consider that odd, and more importantly, dishonest on your part.   
      
   ---snip your answering of your own strawman---   
      
   >> Yes, the response from the naturalist would of   
   >> course be, "Then where did God come from?"   
   >   
   > The response of a scientist would be "OK, what evidence do you have to   
   > support your proposal?" because that is what science works on -   
   > evidence.   
      
   I already gave it in my OP.  It is also so well known it need not be   
   repeated.  Yes, that is the big dividing line.  People who believe that   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)