The natural

@bigdogg said
The most reasonable course is not to assume anyone did anything. Follow the evidence and try to figure out the process that occurred.

Even if it turns out that there WAS a creator, the question that most interests me and many other scientifically minded people is HOW the process went, and how it works.

Why is that the most reasonable course, because it fits your worldview narrative alone? Can you explain while you can see the design in life you refuse it because you think it is reasonable like Dawkins, because what you see you deny? How the process goes, and what is called natural gets to be colored by our worldviews, even to the point of making us deny what is right in front of us.

@moonbus said
God speaking everything into existence from sheer nothingness is not an explanation. It is Harry Potter.

The prime reality from which everything comes is not Harry Potter, it is Jesus Christ.

@kellyjay said
But pushing a theory that is not a naturally occurring phenomenon but one that goes against what naturally occurs, how is it then called a natural solution? You can dismiss gods of the gaps to dismiss the gods that people made up to explain natural occurrences as if that must be true of God as well. So now what is being pushed is not only Abiogenisis of the gaps, but also ...[text shortened]... and forms.

So you are inserting miracles with evolutionary change to avoid God who does miracles.

Tell us about it: people rising from the dead is not a naturally occurring phenomenon.


😆

@kellyjay said
The prime reality from which everything comes is not Harry Potter, it is Jesus Christ.

Tell us about it: people rising from the dead is not a naturally occurring phenomenon.


😆

@moonbus said
Tell us about it: people rising from the dead is not a naturally occurring phenomenon.


😆

God doing things that doesn’t occur normally shows more is taking place than what is called normal/natural.

@bigdogg said
The most reasonable course is not to assume anyone did anything. Follow the evidence and try to figure out the process that occurred.

Even if it turns out that there WAS a creator, the question that most interests me and many other scientifically minded people is HOW the process went, and how it works.

When we do not know, assuming is the natural way to go. Absolute evidence is not within human grasp.

This may be a simulated world, and I was schooled to assume that only God knows absolute reality.

@moonbus said
Tell us about it: people rising from the dead is not a naturally occurring phenomenon.


😆

Tell me how the genetic code runs contrary to universal norms?

@pettytalk said
When we do not know, assuming is the natural way to go. Absolute evidence is not within human grasp.

This may be a simulated world, and I was schooled to assume that only God knows absolute reality.

So you changed it from 'reasonable' to 'natural', perhaps hoping no one would notice?

@kellyjay said
Tell me how the genetic code runs contrary to universal norms?

It doesn’t, does it?

@bigdogg said
So you changed it from 'reasonable' to 'natural', perhaps hoping no one would notice?

Hoping? To be reasonable is a natural trait for all beings who are endowed with the ability to reason. However, it's a natural option and not a mandate. And it goes without saying that there are exceptions to the rule of nature where reason is concerned.

You are barking up the wrong tree. There is a thing which is related to us as 'thinking outside the box.' Science comes in a box full of assumed facts.

@kellyjay said
The prime reality from which everything comes is not Harry Potter, it is Jesus Christ.

Based on your statement using Harry Potter and Jesus Christ, this may be an interesting book to read.

Jesus Potter Harry Christ: The Fascinating Parallels Between Two Of The World's Most Popular Literary Characters.

About the book.

A controversy over the historical Jesus has been raging for 2,000 years.
A century ago, biblical criticism had revealed Jesus Christ to be almost entirely based on pre-existing mythology. Since then, conservative biblical scholars have regained the discipline and convinced the world that - whatever else Jesus Christ was, he was undoubtedly historical.

Jesus Potter Harry Christ identifies the similarities between Jesus and Harry, to demonstrate that both J.K. Rowling's magical series and the biblical gospels are literary fiction based ancient mythology and astrological symbolism.

Discover the secrets that biblical scholars don't want you to know


What the experts are saying

"For those whose minds can ask questions freely without the enforcement of dogma, Derek Murphy raises a genuine argument which Christian apologists have no answers to besides merely repeating their dogmatic convictions in the hope that re-asserting the dogma will confirm it as truth." --John Thomas Didymus, Goddiscussion.com

"Whether or not one agrees with Murphy's ultimate position, and whether or not one agrees with his arguments that Jesus was entirely (rather than mostly) mythic, Jesus Potter Harry Christ is well worth wading through, and wade through it one must, simply because of the sheer mass and volume of evidence the author provides. Make this a book whose pages you dog-ear for further reference and second readings." --Tim Callahan, Skeptic magazine's religion editor and author of the books "Bible Prophecy" and "The Secret Origins of the Bible"

"Murphy sifts through various mystery religions and myths of a dying and resurrecting god, and their possible influence upon the Gospel story. For once, it's done tastefully and without sensationalism. Maybe you've read works by Freke, Doherty, and Harpur. Without trying to foist a Gnostic version of Christianity on me, and without succumbing to overzealous scholarship, Murphy gently yet forcefully introduces the strong similarities between Christianity and other first-century religious philosophies and mystery cults, concluding in the strong likelihood that Jesus was a mythical savior." --Lee Harmon, author of "Revelation: The Way it Happened"

"In the newly-released (and blasphemously-titled) Jesus Potter Harry Christ, Derek Murphy makes the case that J. K. Rowling -- the author of the Harry Potter series -- achieved her success by tapping into some of the deepest and most ancient longings of the human heart. These same longings, Murphy argues, compelled first-century pagans to construct what he calls "the Jesus myth." Murphy points to similarities between the Gospel accounts of Jesus' virgin birth, His passion and His return from the grave with the myths of pagan idols like Isis, Sarapis, Horus and Apollo, Murphy hopes to convince his readers that Jesus -- just like the gods of mythology -- is fiction. In fact, he believes that Jesus is just an amalgam of history's best myths." --Chuck Colson, Christian leader and cultural commentator.

@pettytalk said
Hoping? To be reasonable is a natural trait for all beings who are endowed with the ability to reason. However, it's a natural option and not a mandate. And it goes without saying that there are exceptions to the rule of nature where reason is concerned.

You are barking up the wrong tree. There is a thing which is related to us as 'thinking outside the box.' Science comes in a box full of assumed facts.

Your first paragraph is mainly obfuscation and a poor attempt to conflate "reasonable" and "natural" when they're not the same concepts.

Pick a word for your original argument, please. Would you like "reasonable", or shall it be "natural"?

The last paragraph is disingenuous. I never said a scientist should not assume. I simply rejected the one poor assumption you wished to make.

@pettytalk said
Based on your statement using Harry Potter and Jesus Christ, this may be an interesting book to read.

Jesus Potter Harry Christ: The Fascinating Parallels Between Two Of The World's Most Popular Literary Characters.

About the book.

A controversy over the historical Jesus has been raging for 2,000 years.
A century ago, biblical criticism had revealed Jesus Christ ...[text shortened]... just an amalgam of history's best myths." --Chuck Colson, Christian leader and cultural commentator.

We are talking about epistemology; some here want to equate the Word of God to a literary figure. It is easier to push a theory that they claim removes the need for God while using their imagination to produce things that they may explain away the unexplainable even in their worldview.

Looking for the first cause of all things is either one or two different things, an endless regress of this came from that, or something that did not require to be created because it always was. Do you think either of these is truly comprehensible in anyone's worldview, both require faith, and if there are only two choices can we know simply by looking around at what we see, or would the uncaused, cause have to appear in our world so that we could know?

Jesus Christ, the Word of God made flesh and became a man to redeem us to our creator, His coming was foretold and the stories surrounding His coming were sprinkled with both unnatural events and miracles, His birth was of divine action, He did and said things that pointed us to God, He died and rose from the dead, none of those things many consider natural, except considering He created the universe it would be a normal thing that God was acting in our universe, the natural thing.

People only look at what they are used to defining as natural, thus making them the lone autonomous voice of what is natural. However, nothing about God rules out what they classify as supernatural outside of their unbelief. Even while denying what are unnatural events and miracles they cannot avoid them, even in their materialistic worldviews, they still accept miracles due to what we see in the universe, our natural materialistic views of the world are inadequate to explain the universe.

@bigdogg said
Your first paragraph is mainly obfuscation and a poor attempt to conflate "reasonable" and "natural" when they're not the same concepts.

Pick a word for your original argument, please. Would you like "reasonable", or shall it be "natural"?

The last paragraph is disingenuous. I never said a scientist should not assume. I simply rejected the one poor assumption you wished to make.

The initial segment of your composition primarily engages in obfuscation, a technique that, while seemingly sophisticated, ultimately serves as a feeble endeavor to conflate the concepts of "reasonable" and "natural," which, in reality, are fundamentally distinct from one another. However, in view of the argument and the relationship in which these distinct terms were put forth makes them interchangeable as well as supportive of one another.

Indeed, the capacity for human reasoning is inherently natural, as it is a fundamental aspect of our endowment as rational beings. This innate ability to reason is a testament to our natural endowment, which encompasses a broad spectrum of innate capacities that we possess from birth. These capacities, including the ability to reason, are not merely the product of social conditioning or cultural influence but are deeply rooted in our biological makeup. This natural inclination towards rationality is a cornerstone of our human nature, allowing us to navigate the complexities of the world around us and make decisions that are not only logical but also essential for our survival and well-being.

In essence, the ability to reason is not only a natural capacity but also a fundamental aspect of our human nature, reflecting our endowment as rational beings. This innate ability to reason is a testament to our natural endowment, which encompasses a wide range of innate capacities that we possess from birth.