From: wolverine01@charter.net   
      
   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.   
      
      
   --   
   Science doesn't support Darwin.  Scientists do.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)