This is a problem whether you posit a supernatural being or purely natural existence. Either the supernatural being had to be created (it is something and therefore couldn't have come from nothing, following your argument) or it always existed. If your god had to be created, what created it? And if you claim your god always existed without having been caused, then there is no need for a god.<quoted text>
How does the natural even come to exist without the supernatural, given what we know about cause & effect?.
Not if the natural simply exists because the nature of existence is for it to exist. Again, this argument also falsifies a god.<
(1) A thing can't cause itself to exist without existing 1st. This rules out the natural as the cause of the natural.
Now you are just making s**t up.<l.
(2) An effect can't be greater than its effect. This virtually rules out the natural as cause of the natural. It's insufficient so we we neeed a cause than the natural i.e. super-natural..
YOUr premises failed so your conclusion is invalid. Science assumes only the natural.<.
So science pre-supposes the supernatural otherwise there'd be no natural on which to do science.
Those are empty words. Describe the existence of something that does not exist in nature. Don't just claim it is; show your reasoning.<.. And supernatural does not refer to as yet unexplained. It means transcending nature..
As for theist evolution, this is complete nonsense due to lack of nerves. It's supporters are afraid of being called unscientific so they compromise. They also want to have both ways.
Sorry, should have read this first. There is nothing to discuss with you as YEC is lunatic to the point of calling for institutionalization.<..
I am a YEC & on this point have more respect for atheist evolutionism.
Correct. Evolution is an observed fact.<..Finally, whether evolution is true or false has nothing to do with how many believe ir disbelieve it. It's either true or it isn't.