Replies

the whole of creation is a supernatural event and a miracle. It is a miracle that atoms exist. It is a miracle that they are held together. It is a miracle that they can be combined to make all the things that exist in the universe. It is a miracle that they can be combined to form living organisms. It is a miracle that these living organisms not only live, but that they recreate themselves. It is a miracle that plants exist, that we can see, that we can hear, that we can touch, that we can feel, that birds can fly, that fish can swim, that roses can smell and that the sky can be blue.

What's interesting is that those same chemicals which make up the world around us can come together in certain ways and result in such ethereal characteristics.

The fact that chemicals can see, smell, hear, feel, choose, think, reason, have morals, values, etc. really puts holes in the naturalism philosophy. It just cannot explain any of that.

The fact that chemicals can see, smell, hear, feel, choose, think, reason, have morals, values, etc. really puts holes in the naturalism philosophy.

Well I think it's isn't the chemicals themselves that are doing all these things, but I take your point, dear metmom!

Some biologists do speculate that even unicellular organisms have a sort-of form of primitive consciousness and are capable of learning and choosing. Some physicists attribute a certain degree of "freedom" to atoms....

But what you're talking about is the miracle of inert matter boot-strapping itself into Life. There is simply no naturalistic explanation of any "mechanism" that causes inert matter to boot-strap itself into Life. Because you want to find something, doesn't necessarily mean that it's there to be found in the first place.

Anyhoot, to the naturalists who resist any idea of extra-mundane, non-phenomenal, non-physical influences on the course of events in the world are, to me, observers of the superficial appearance only of the world. They never look at anything deeper than the "image of reality" that they can capture with their five senses (as technically aided), as perceived according to the criteria of man's habituated experiences/notions of (classical, or non-relativistic) space and time.

It's as if their motto is: "If you can't see it, not only is it not there, but it does not exist in the first place."

And that's the kind of thinking that's supposed to give us a "theory of Everything?"

I strongly doubt it. Looks more to me like some men trying to "cut the world down to their size."

Thanks ever so much, dear sister in Christ, for your excellent essay/post!