You place the natural source on on the table first.

And the whole point of my argument is that you cannot. You only believe (blindly) that it does. And I defer to my references for support.

You do know alot about palming peas don't you? Well, No one is fooled.

_________________
Bambi grew up to have horns

No, sorry but that is simply false and yet again, just misrepresentation of my position.

I simply say that you cannot insert your imaginary friend until you place your imaginary friend on the table to be examined.

Until then unanswered questions simply go into the unanswered questions folder.

_________________
How pierceful grows the hazy yon! How myrtle petaled thou! For spring hath sprung the cyclotron - How high browse thou, brown cow? -- Churchy LaFemme, 1950

Place your multiverse, self replicating cycle, or any other material explanation on the table.

Show me the material explanation you believe in.

You can't, because they are not empirical or falsifiable material realities, they are philosophical constructs positing potential 'viable' explanations.

They are cheap magic tricks that are crushed under the weight of your own demands. They are pictures drawn by artists to feed the minds of those seeking shelter from reality. Take me to the actual place and quit showing me your cave drawings and I will follow you.

Show me...

Better yet, show yourself. Put your own blind faith under the same scrutiny and magnifying lens you examine others with. And be appalled...

_________________
Bambi grew up to have horns

I'm sorry but that is simply bullshit.

There is the "Unanswered questions folder."

Once there are answers they get moved from the "Unanswered questions folder" to the "Answered questions folder."

Perhaps I have mention this before but "There is NEVER a reason to suggest super natural causation until and unless you can also place the super natural source on the lab table for examination."

_________________
How pierceful grows the hazy yon! How myrtle petaled thou! For spring hath sprung the cyclotron - How high browse thou, brown cow? -- Churchy LaFemme, 1950

You have just refuted your own argument.

_________________
Jesus was a liberal hippie

No... because I already know that my position on origins is a philosophical position. It is you who cannot see that your own belief is in the same boat.

I do not demand empirical and material certainty, only philosophical coherene that compliments what empirical evidence we do have.

You are the one demanding empirical evidence. So show it...

Put your natural cause on the table for examination.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qPHzzkZ-XPE

_________________
Bambi grew up to have horns

How do you know you are framing the questions properly? You are assuming material explanations before the answers are given. Your are not seeking certain answers, only certain others.



Oh yes... I am all too aware of your mindless and eliist assertions. And as I have mentioned before..., 'There is never a reason to assume natural causation until and unless you can also place the natural source on the lab table for examination"

Your knife cuts both ways jar...

Show me 'the answers' so that I can verify that your 'questions were right'.

_________________
Bambi grew up to have horns

Which belief?

_________________
Jesus was a liberal hippie

Dear sirs, I think this may be part of what you guys are missing... (particularly you nwr with your view on the physical laws) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4emDa9x_ ... re=related

I know that it is offensive for me to suggest that there is something you do not know... so you'll have to forgive, permit, and extend enormous latitude and grace to me for implying such a thing so explicitly.

Humbly at your service and disposal,

Rob

_________________
Bambi grew up to have horns

Your belief in the material origins of the cosmos and life.

_________________
Bambi grew up to have horns

Scientists are doing that every day. New evidence is put on the table every day. New explanations are found every day. Until we run out of evidence and explanations, you can't say "can't".

_________________
What we really need to do is fix the public.
-- Jon

I believe I have explained this at least once before in this thread but I will try again.

There is the "Unanswered questions folder."

Once there are answers they get moved from the "Unanswered questions folder" to the "Answered questions folder."

Oh wait, you even quoted me saying that.

There are unanswered questions.

Until there is evidence to provide the answer they go into the unanswered folder.

Also I believe I may have said:



Oh wait, you even quoted that.

The rules are the same for all questions, and that includes your imaginary friend.

_________________
How pierceful grows the hazy yon! How myrtle petaled thou! For spring hath sprung the cyclotron - How high browse thou, brown cow? -- Churchy LaFemme, 1950

Sorry, but that video is just crap. The idea of a privileged planet is just circular reasoning.

_________________
Jesus was a liberal hippie

I have no belief as to the origin of the cosmos. As for the origin of life, my best guess is that it arose naturally. But that's only a guess, not a belief.

_________________
Jesus was a liberal hippie

How do you know beforehand, that the question has an answer?



We are all waiting for the answers. And we are all longing for and waiting for the day of judgement and the culmination (or consumation) of glory and vindication they will bring.

If you can show me the answers to the question of origins empirically, I will bend my knee.

So if in turn, my currently imaginary friend shows up before your currently imaginary friend, would you then bend your knee and realize that you were assuming answers to the wrong questions?

Or will you demand He explain how He did it?

I ask you to consider again that if[/u ]the question of origin resides in a 'who' instead of 'what' and the subsequent 'how'... [u]then the most important question is actually, 'why'.

So tell me... which is the proper way to frame the question of origins? Who created all of this, or How was all of this created?

If you ask 'how', you've skipped the first question which is 'what'. That is where the material bias comes in. If you say 'who', then then next question is not 'how', but 'why'.

Personality always has a 'why'. It is the motive that drives us. And I am not so much interested in knowing 'why' you do and think as you do, as I want to invoke the birth of you becoming very conscious of why you do and believe as you do. From what I can gather, nwr doesn't know the answer to'why' he does not believe or believe unless he lied to me. I think he is genuinely confused at times. I am less optimistic that you are so naive (ditto for Ringo).

But you have proven one thing... no one is going to make you do or confess anything. You'll do what you want when your good and ready. The funny thing is that no one is trying to make you do anything. We are only asking that you choose freely to be reasonable.

I don't make fun of your imaginary friend other than to show you how ridiculous you sound calling names like a child. I believe in the empirical world. it is a great source of knowledge. But it has it's limits. In fact, it had a beginning! And it has constants and laws that limit what it can do. It simply cannot provide all of the answers, because it only pertains to some of the questions. That is unless you posit that the only thing that exists is the physical universe. And you cannot do that without taking a philosophical leap of faith, or by invoking a multiverse which cannot be observed or falsified which is also [currently] a philosophical leap we affectionately call metaphysics.

Is that reasonable? Am I asking for the kind of food and water that you are unwilling to give? Will you only visit me in the prison you intend to keep me in for your own entertainment?

Will you not extend some measure of grace and reconciliation?

_________________
Bambi grew up to have horns