From: eastside.erik@gmail.com   
      
   On 11/19/25 2:22 PM, sticks wrote:   
   > On 11/15/2025 3:01 AM, jillery wrote:   
   >   
   >> A philosophical problem arguments like Sticks presents here is, they   
   >> *assume* their initial uncaused cause is supernatural, but refuse to   
   >> consider an initial natural uncaused cause.  IOW they change the rules   
   >> depending on whose cause they're talking about; a juvenile word game.   
   >   
   > Nah, I didn't assume, I followed the science.  You just don't like my   
   > conclusions.  You're blind to it and repeat the usual in an effort to   
   > diminish me, even saying it is just a "juvenile word game".   
   >   
   >> OTOH scientists recognize that an uncaused cause logically doesn't   
   >> explain anything.  They recognize that*all* origin narratives   
   >> *necessarily* begin with an*unknown* cause.  Unknown does not mean   
   >> supernatural or natural.  It just means it's not known at this time.   
   >   
   > There, you finally get to the point.  You do not have an answer, and   
   > cannot believe anything but materialism, so the search goes on and   
   > anyone suggesting different is being unscientific.  It's not an unknown,   
   > it's an impossibility if you follows the laws of science.  Which of   
   > course, you will deny.  At least here, you've come close to actually   
   > answering the topic under discussion.  Usually you just ignore it and go   
   > off on these silly tangents.  By at least saying it is "not known at   
   > this time," I can put you in the camp that believes is has always   
   > existed somehow.  That sounds kind of supernatural to me.   
   >   
   >   
     I think you understand neither what science is nor what scientists do.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)