The fact that every single phenomenon that has ever been subjected to scientific scrutiny has either been found to be of either natural or unknown causes,
We label anything that we observe to occur as natural. There is no other condition. If all people were able to briefly levitate off the floor for a few feet and land again even if there was no explanation for the ability it would of course be labeled natural. What would be deemed supernatural event years ago is just technology today.
What? No. You just contradicted yourself. If it were deemed supernatural years ago, as it was observed, you just said that would make it natural by being observed.
You are not in agreement.gives us no reason to suspect that a debate over of natural vs. unnatural or supernatural causes of the origin of the universe, can yield any useful insights, observations or means of determining the actual origin of the universe.
I agree it should be delineated as intentional designed cause of the universe over a unguided, unintentional cause of the universe and subsequently life.
No. The thread started with an INVITATION for a theist to offer any insight into how they explain how things work.The only reason I can imagine for a theist to try to force the fact that we do not fully understand the origin of the universe into their theology, is to convince him/herself that there could be - no matter how unlikely - an entity resembling their concept of their religion's god, that might be responsible for "creating" (by means that remain just as unknown as they were before the debate) the universe. This is oft referred to as mental masturbation.
This thread started with someone trying to force theists to explain how God can make things happen or cause a universe to exist.
You have stated that you have no interest in examining that, you are satisfied with “goddidit,” and disdain the discussion.
”trying to force” ??
You demonstrated that non-theists were willing to explore it and you were not.What is the actual mechanism by which God can affect the natural world? How did he create the universe?
I pointed out that neither side of the naturalism vs intentional design debate knows how the universe came to be.
You have not once engaged in any way with the invitaion in the OP.
You have, however, mischaracterized what scientists say and ignored the answers you have been given only to repeat your obviously false claim that rationaists, “don’t know either.”
The OP did not ask you to ”know,” it asked you to describe your thoughts. It said,
And you came in and said, “Because he’s god.“. “Because he’s god“ doesn’t count.
But the is a lot of interesting in examining it, and pplying what we *do* know to this moment. By non-theists, that is.If it morphed into a universe from a singularity we don't know what caused that event or what caused the singularity. We don't know how things operate outside of the laws of physics we are familiar with.
It is not a draw.I call this issue a draw.
The non-god crowd had proposed many mechanisms and answers to both the singularity issue and also any other interactions with nature. You have refused to interact in any way about how your god might TODAY interact with the universe, and you have similarly been achingly incurious about how your god could have interacted in the past.
Does it send out a special kind of boson from it’s mind to interact with the atoms? An energy wave? Electromagnetism? Unicorns? You’ve offered nothing to the central question of the discussion. Only a repeated pretense that others have not provided answers.
Indeed. What a great question to ask yourself. How could a mere mortal inside this universe be privy enough to the transcendant agent to have named it, described it, worshipped it and expected promises and gifts from it?Its also a dumb argument. How would a mere mortal created inside this universe be privy to how a transcendent agent caused the universe to exist?
It’s almost laughable that a person could make such an outlandish claim, isn’t it?
Is religion “dumb,” then? Your argument suggests that it is.
Aaah, but an inquisitive person 300 years ago, or 600 years ago like, say Leonardo DaVinci, would ask questions, would assign what he does know and see if it applies or violates what he knows, he would speculate and then test his speculations. He would not stick his thumb up his ass and say, “goddidit.” He would compare what he sees with what he knows and see if it works as an extension. Don’t you realize this is how humanity advances?That would be like asking someone 300 years ago how does a cell phone work? Of course they wouldn't know. Does that mean there belief it was created intentionally is false? Does that mean cell phones are created by chance?
Don’t you realize that Every. Single. Thing. We know. Is a result of people applying what we do know, seeing if the principles decribe it well, and disarding things that are refuted by the evidence?
Whereas religion - has been stagnant. Utterly, pathetically, stagnant. Religion knows nothing.