Replies

“… the fact that we've never seen a non-naturalistic answer …” [excerpt]
Seems rather presumptuous.
“I prefer "enlightened."” [excerpt]

Does being ‘enlightened’ make you an omnipresent, omnipotent, all knowing being that reads minds?

Didn't think so.

“Which has nothing to do with nothing in this case.” [excerpt]

Is that like an inside out mobius strip?

“There is proof for all naturalistic assertions and none for religious ones.” [excerpt]

You have committed the logical fallacy of asserting the non-existence of something.

Are you saying that philosophical naturalism is scientifically useless for drawing conclusions about the unobservable?
“Quite the opposite, in fact.

It is more than capable of drawing conclusions when there is evidence and intelligent, logical analysts.” [excerpt]

Excellent.

Why don't you give the naturalistic conclusion of the process by which the laws of physics must have come into existence.

I mean, the laws are right here and we can test them, so there is the evidence part.

And I'm assuming that you can give me an intelligent logical analysis.

Seems rather presumptuous.

And yet 100% correct!

Does being ‘enlightened’ make you an omnipresent, omnipotent, all knowing being that reads minds?

No, it literally means "seen the light." I.e. knows the truth.

Is that like an inside out mobius strip?

Pretty much exactly, which is also a great description of your position to date.

You have committed the logical fallacy of asserting the non-existence of something.

Sorry, but there is no such logical fallacy. While proving the non-existence of something might be an issue, knowing that some things don't exist is quite easy and, in most cases, very logical.

Why don't you give the naturalistic conclusion of the process by which the laws of physics must have come into existence.

Because no such conclusion has been drawn yet. But you knew that.

The part that you aren't getting (and never will) is that we will have an answer for that someday, assuming we don't make ourselves extinct, because the answer is actually out there waiting to be discovered.

We have theories for how this may have happened and various experiments and observations that we are or can conduct to validate aspects of those theories.

In short, as we learn more we get closer to answering those very questions.

Contrast that with the fact that as we learn more the concepts of religion become that much more ridiculous.

Hundreds of years ago you and your ilk insisted that the earth was the center of the universe.

Stupid questions and assertions, just like yours above, were put forth by the faithful to challenge the learned when they were able to prove otherwise.

In the end the faithful looked foolish for their unsubstantiated beliefs while the educated went forth to improve the world.

And they didn't fall off the edge as your type insisted they would.

That pattern appears to be one of the naturalistic laws of the universe. The stupid rely on faith while the intelligent seek proof.

Guess which ones advance the species?