The natural

Thinking about how people who discuss things like evolution are looking for a “natural cause” to life and everything about it. It is only through their definition of “natural” alone that matters, it doesn’t seem natural it needs to be rejected, not by evidence but definition.

This limitation removes all possibilities that doesn’t fit the narrative they want. Therefore the only possibilities that are acceptable must fit their narrative or it is simply dismissed out of hand. If what is acceptable to them only matters when their definition of natural is met, then they only care about that which confirms their biases.

@kellyjay said
Thinking about how people who discuss things like evolution are looking for a “natural cause” to life and everything about it. It is only through their definition of “natural” alone that matters, it doesn’t seem natural it needs to be rejected, not by evidence but definition.

This limitation removes all possibilities that doesn’t fit the narrative they want. Therefore t ...[text shortened]... when their definition of natural is met, then they only care about that which confirms their biases.

How on earth is describing something as “natural” a “biased” “narrative”?

@divegeester said
How on earth is describing something as “natural” a “biased” “narrative”?

Naturally biased?

@pettytalk said
Naturally biased?

What is?

@divegeester said
What is?

Naturally is.

@pettytalk said
Naturally is.

How so?

@kellyjay said
Thinking about how people who discuss things like evolution are looking for a “natural cause” to life and everything about it. It is only through their definition of “natural” alone that matters, it doesn’t seem natural it needs to be rejected, not by evidence but definition.

This limitation removes all possibilities that doesn’t fit the narrative they want. Therefore t ...[text shortened]... when their definition of natural is met, then they only care about that which confirms their biases.

You asked this question before in another thread. I’ll give you the same answer here as there: science and naturalistic explanations are best supported by:



Facts.

@divegeester said
How so?

Naturally so.

@moonbus said
You asked this question before in another thread. I’ll give you the same answer here as there: science and naturalistic explanations are best supported by:



Facts.

Well, that is what you are claiming, except you are defining both what is natural and what meets your explanation as a scientific natural explanation. You need to be able to define what a natural explanation is, otherwise all you are doing is circular.

Looking at the beginning of life you have no explanation for that or the universe's explanation either by what you characterize as natural or otherwise. When evolution is the topic and called the natural explanation, nothing that is talked about is what typically occurs in the universe we live in where entropy and degrading are the norm.

That means that what you are looking for as a mechanism that could account for the upgrading in life, has more to do with what could be called a miracle instead of a natural process. The trouble is what we see naturally is entropy polluting, breaking down not upgrading, spoiling not improving, and the methods you are looking for to explain this rationale should not be called natural, a miracle yes.

@pettytalk said
Naturally so.

Why don’t you find some performative waffle on the internet and copy paste it here. Then we will know you’re ok.

@kellyjay said
Looking at the beginning of life you have no explanation for that or the universe's explanation either by what you characterize as natural or otherwise.

Creationists have no “explanation” for the beginning of life either.

There is an ancient manuscript in Judaism and Christianity which says more or less “God did it”. Other religions have similar ancient manuscripts saying similar things.

These ancient manuscripts from various different religions are not “explanations” of how life began.
You do realise that don’t you?

@divegeester said
Creationists have no “explanation” for the beginning of life either.

God is life. God spoke into existence everything that exists.

Perhaps that "explanation" is too obvious for those that question logic.

There was nothing, then there was everything God created.

There is no other logical explanation.

Except for "those" that wish it weren't true. "They" need an alternate explanation, even one not supported by any "fact", as moonbeam seems to think there are.

@josephw said
God is life. God spoke into existence everything that exists.

Perhaps that "explanation" is too obvious for those that question logic.

There was nothing, then there was everything God created.

There is no other logical explanation.

Except for "those" that wish it weren't true. "They" need an alternate explanation, even one not supported by any "fact", as moonbeam seems to think there are.

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

@divegeester said
Creationists have no “explanation” for the beginning of life either.

There is an ancient manuscript in Judaism and Christianity which says more or less “God did it”. Other religions have similar ancient manuscripts saying similar things.

These ancient manuscripts from various different religions are not “explanations” of how life began.
You do realise that don’t you?

Do you have an explanation on how your own life began? We know and understand the biological process as to why you are among the living at this time, the meeting of sperm and egg. The old question of which came first, the chicken or the egg, is basically asking what came first, the sperm or the egg?

It's really a fundamental and natural question. Using the Biblical account of the creation of man, Adam and Eve, as a metaphor, one aspect would be that the sperm was created first, and the egg was provided later, through a male rib.

However, it can be looked at from another aspect, and we can safely propose the story of the Biblical creation of mankind is relating to us that mankind evolved from first being an hermaphrodite. It can very well be alluding to an evolutionary process, where the early stage of life formation came about through single-cell organisms.

The theory of evolution does not directly state that life began from a single-cell organism. Instead, it posits that life evolved from simpler, non-living matter through a process known as abiogenesis, which led to the formation of the first life forms. These early life forms were likely simple, single-celled organisms, but the exact nature of these first life forms and their evolutionary pathways are still subjects of ongoing research and debate.

We must not forget that in the story, God's creation of life, using non-living matter, the dust of the earth, is relating to us the abiogenesis process.

@josephw said
God is life. God spoke into existence everything that exists.

Perhaps that "explanation" is too obvious for those that question logic.

There was nothing, then there was everything God created.

There is no other logical explanation.

Except for "those" that wish it weren't true. "They" need an alternate explanation, even one not supported by any "fact", as moonbeam seems to think there are.

Telling non Christians that “god did it” is not an “explanation”.