From: 69jpil69@gmail.com   
      
   On Wed, 19 Nov 2025 16:22:20 -0600, 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,    
      
      
   That's ok; neither do you.  A difference is you refuse to admit it.   
      
      
   >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.   
      
   --    
   To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)