From: wolverine01@charter.net   
      
   On 11/7/2025 4:47 AM, jillery 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?  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.   
      
   Strawman arguments are common here today.  Nowhere did I exclude   
   anything, and actually specifically stated I was NOT speaking about   
   anything else.   
      
      
   > In fact, these   
   > theories are understood, by scientists anyway, to be partial answers   
   > contingent on new evidence.   
      
   Yeah, I know...the Darwin of the Gaps.   
      
      
   > 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?   
      
   Of course I've done no such thing.  But to keep it simple, I'll just put   
   you in the camp that thinks it has always existed.   
      
      
      
   --   
   Science doesn't support Darwin.  Scientists do.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)