[Filo]

What a total COP-OUT of an answer!!!!

My point exactly. Whenever you invoke some imaginary creator you aren't really answering anything.

That is not a *stupid origins* question.

Yes, it very much is.

Evos like to pretend that they have all the answers, but when someone asks them something they can't answer, they resort to this, the usual disparagement and mockery and subject changing strawman.

You are, as usual, confused.

Nobody is saying they have all of the answers except for the 'thumpers.

Of course, they only really have one answer, but that's besides the point.

As usual, however, they twist logic and suppress intelligence to infer that the inability to answer one question invalidates the entirety of science.

That's stupid beyond belief.

Science depends on those laws.

So?

Without them science would not exist. Evos claim that everything has naturalistic explanations. So explain.

As has been explained - there is a naturalistic explanation, but we don't know it yet.

For that matter, thank you for admitting that the *Who created God* comeback is stupid. We always thought so. You've confirmed it.

Actually it's not a stupid question at all. It's the same as your stupid question, really. It's asked because there isn't an answer and without an answer obviously your whole argument falls apart, right?

[metmom]

My point exactly. Whenever you invoke some imaginary creator you aren't really answering anything.

How have you disproved God? On what basis have you determined that He is imaginary? What are your proofs?

[metmom]

Nobody is saying they have all of the answers except for the 'thumpers.

Sure the evos do. They claim that they have the truth and that the rest of us are wrong. If they can say that we are wrong, that must mean that they have the truth and know it. But they don't. Science changes constantly. By default that means that everything they've told us before is wrong cause if it wasn't they wouldn't need to change it.

[betty boop]

As has been explained - there is a naturalistic explanation, but we don't know it yet.

LOLOL!!!!!

Let's analyze this statement. We just know "there is a naturalistic explanation," even though we have not a shred of objective evidence for believing this. (Filo has provided none so far.) People have been saying "there is a naturalistic explanation" for well over two centuries by now. Two-hundred-plus years to work on the problem, and science still has no answer, let alone any practical idea about how to advance this question. But don't worry: The proof WILL COME some day! This eschaton WILL be immanentized!

Man, if that is not a faith statement, I don't know what is.

The odd thing is this faith statement is being undermined by science itself these days. Advances in information theory and complexity theory have demonstrated the extreme statistical unlikelihood of matter generating natural systems having greater algorithmic complexity than itself. Matter alone cannot account for the astonishing algorithmic and morphological complexity that we see in the biosphere.

Aware of these developments, even such a rock-ribbed Darwinian fundamentalist as Richard Dawkins has apparently reluctantly concluded that not only does the universe give every appearance of being intelligently designed, but it may in fact have actually been intelligently designed. Possibly the intelligent designer was a space alien, who came to our planet and "seeded it." But he rules out the Creator of Judeo-Christianity on principle. He'll go with the panspermia theory and space aliens instead. Is this rational?

Richard Lewontin wrote, "we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door...."

To which I would reply: It is not for you to "allow" God to put His foot in the door or not; The Lord of Life does not need the permission of finite mortals to do anything He wills. Further, a spiritually-closed person is not in any position to annul the spiritual order of the universe that God created in the Beginning.... Nor can he really opt out of it, though he may imaginatively try to do so.

Filo, may I dare to suggest that your "faith" appears to be on extremely shaky epistemological footing? Whereas the Christian faith in the Creator God is eminently reasonable, and gives a rational account of what we perceive in nature, in the hearts of men, and in history and society? It's explanatory coverage and power is truly universal.

God has a name: I AM.