This reminds me of the argument that is presented against ID/creation. If IDers/creationists can't tell where the Intelligent designer/God came from, then they have nothing valid to say. Yet a naturalist cannot even tell where the universe came from, so ends up being in a similar postiion, yet expects to have others accept what he says as valid and needing no other support but the evidence of the world itself that we see.
If the same standard were applied to both sides of the issue, then there would be the situation where niether point of veiw is valid, or the naturalist would be forced to concede that the IDers/creationists have something after all.
If the same standard were applied to both sides of the issue, then there would be the situation where niether point of veiw is valid, or the naturalist would be forced to concede that the IDers/creationists have something after all.
What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander! Great insight, metmom!