Replies

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.

Let's analyze this statement.

From past experience you're already in way over your head.

We just know "there is a naturalistic explanation," even though we have not a shred of objective evidence for believing this.

Actually we have millions of pages of evidence supporting just that assertion.

It's called science. You should look into it.

(Filo has provided none so far.)

I am not conducting a class here. If you want to learn go and do it. Don't blame me for not spoon-feeding you hundreds of years of scientific discovery on a political forum.

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!

Which question are you talking about now? The origins of the universe? You expect that to be figured out in 200 years?

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

It is, but it's a different type of faith. I have faith that Mankind will find the answers. Not all of us, obviously (some are too brainwashed by silly notions) but we, as a species, will discover these answers.

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. [...]

ROFL.

Using big words to make stupid statements won't make you appear any smarter.

Filo, may I dare to suggest that your "faith" appears to be on extremely shaky epistemological footing?

You can say it, but you'll be wrong. That, it seems, is turning into a really bad habit.

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.

None of the above.