From: 69jpil69@gmail.com   
      
   On Sun, 9 Nov 2025 19:25:07 -0600, sticks    
   wrote:   
      
   >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.   
      
      
   Your comment from above:   
      
   " If you accept that fine.  I simply cannot. "   
      
   and your .sig are *explicitly* exclusive.   
      
      
   >> 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.   
      
      
   Non-sequitur.  Knowledge is *necessarily* contingent.  OTOH True   
   Believers just *assume* they know the answer.   
      
      
   >> 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.    
      
      
   Your entire thesis as expressed above is that lack of knowledge of   
   *origins* justifies handwaving away scientific knowledge.  So unless   
   you're claiming you *intend* to be incoherent, it's silly to deny you   
   have done exactly that.     
      
      
   >But to keep it simple, I'll just put    
   >you in the camp that thinks it has always existed.   
      
      
   This from the poster who *assumes* he knows what "materialists" and   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)