[CarolinaGuitarman]

" Hate to disagree but it most certainly does, ie that life is self generating."

That's not supra natural. You can't just rewrite what words mean.

" Only if matter is the sole criteria. What you have here is a circular argument."

No, it's a fact. There is no evidence of reality other then matter. Please provide such evidence if you feel there is. Feelings and wishes won't count.

[Pietro]

Sorry to get back to you so late

"That's not supra natural."

Of course it is. You have no physical evidence of life self generating, therefore by your own definition it's supra natural.

Per your second argument concerning mattter: where to begin?

Let's try birth, childhood, a rose, a sunset my daughter, my father, synchronisity, God, pain, suffering, salvation.

None of these are matter, but somehow they matter. That's more than a pun. Much more.

It defines the limits of science. Fair enough.

Science cannot dictate the debate on life; it's simply not equipped to do so.

Thanks for your patience,

[Diamond]

There is no evidence of reality other then matter

Epistemologically speaking, have you searched everywhere?

The 'evidence' is in your proposition itself, which is self-refuting if only matter exists. (Is the meaning of the proposition the electrons and photons?) And what is this 'evidence' thing that you are talking about? Is it matter, too?

You can't prove empiricism empirically.

Cordially