[continued from previous message]   
      
   the science would tell them you can't get something from nothing have   
   concluded something else must have happened, and yes some will think   
   there must be a supernatural intervention.  That is why after debating   
   the possible options of where the stuff came from, they are often asked   
   to defend where their supernatural friend came from.   
      
   > This is the problem that IDers come up against every time. Claiming   
   > that it *must* be God simply because science hasn't got alternative   
   > answer is simply not good enough I don't want to go back over old   
   > ground yet again. I did quite a lengthy piece about this in my review   
   > of Stephen Meyer's book 'Return of the God Hypothesis: Three   
   > Scientific Discoveries That Reveal the Mind Behind the Universe';   
   > Meyer is a leading proponent of ID and in that book he covers much of   
   > the ground that you are now covering, particularly his 'last man   
   > standing' argument which is essentially what you're saying above..   
   >   
   > At the end of that review I note that " Overall, I came away from the   
   > book very disappointed; as someone already believing in the same God   
   > as he does, I should be an easy target for Meyer but he fails to   
   > convince me of his particular arguments."   
   >   
   > That review is still available on Google Groups; I'd really  love you   
   > to read it and tell me what in it you disagree with,   
   >   
   > https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/z8Yq7lvkAfU/m/um8mt8MDAgAJ   
      
   You appear to have the same idea of Intelligent Design and people who   
   might think it is evident in creation as Mr. O.  I am not one of those   
   people.  But, I will try and make time to read what you've asked.   
      
   >> 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.   
   >   
   > No, I'm not making any judgement at all about how clever you are; on   
   > the contrary, I highly respect anyone who has prepared to question and   
   > challenge rather than just accepting what they are told. I do however   
   > think you're coming to conclusions on very limited understanding and   
   > need to broaden your thinking, possibly by broadening your reading.   
      
   You were doing ok, right up to the end.  I will give you the benefit of   
   the doubt and accept your explanation, though.   
      
      
   >> 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)