Replies

I answered your question @32 but I’ll do it again. I mentioned Aristotle because he puts forth (in Physics) the logical reasoning that leads to the conclusion that the initial cause of motion must be something that is not, itself, in motion—an unmoved mover – the Prime Mover (see also St Thomas Aquinas). If every cause is the result of a previous cause, or, if everything is caused by something else, then we have an "infinite regress" of causes which is logically incoherent (who designed the designer). Furthermore, natural processes cannot create natural processes (circulus in probando). So we are logically left with ‘creation’ from outside of nature.

… the naturalist believes that beneath every natural phenomenon there exists yet another natural phenomenon. If explanation by reference to an endless stack of large turtles is silly, then an explanation by reference to an endless stack of natural phenomena would be equally so. The naturalist's answer for the origin of life, therefore, is some natural phenomenon. (Which one is not particularly relevant.) When you ask them how that natural phenomenon came to be, their response boils down to: "It's natural phenomena all the way down!"
-Pete Chadwell

…And beyond the design in DNA, we have a fine-tuned universe, a rare Earth, human consciousness, etc… Yet you believe your brain ultimately comes from mindlessness.

“If you do not assume the law of non-contradiction, you have nothing to argue about. If you do not assume the principles of sound reason, you have nothing to argue with. If you do not assume libertarian free will, you have no one to argue against. If you do not assume morality to be an objective commodity, you have no reason to argue in the first place. If you do not assume mind is primary, there is no “you” to make any argument at all.”
- William J Murray