To: Junior
Before one can acknowledge the supernatural, one must have evidence for it. Any evidence, by its nature, would be natural, obviating the need for the supernatural.
You're on your own here. I would argue that nature does not create or possess intelligence. Therefore any evidence of intelligence we come across in nature would have originated from a supernatural intelligence.
In other words "Life was created".
72 posted on
07/20/2006 8:56:31 AM PDT by
bondserv
(God governs our universe and has seen fit to offer us a pardon. †)
To: bondserv
I would argue that nature does not create or possess intelligence. Therefore any evidence of intelligence we come across in nature would have originated from a supernatural intelligence. This is an unsupported assertion. As I said, you are going to have to supply evidence that would corroborate your claims.
77 posted on
07/20/2006 9:07:42 AM PDT by
Junior
(Identical fecal matter, alternate diurnal period)
To: bondserv
I would argue that nature does not create or possess intelligence. Therefore any evidence of intelligence we come across in nature would have originated from a supernatural intelligence.At which point it's turtles all the way down.
84 posted on
07/20/2006 9:31:34 AM PDT by
Condorman
(Prefer infinitely the company of those seeking the truth to those who believe they have found it.)
To: bondserv
"I would argue that nature does not create or possess intelligence."
And it seems to have done just fine without it, too, doncha think?
88 posted on
07/20/2006 9:38:53 AM PDT by
MineralMan
(non-evangelical atheist)
To: bondserv
"I would argue that nature does not create or possess intelligence. Therefore any evidence of intelligence we come across in nature would have originated from a supernatural intelligence."
Unfounded assumption. You are concluding your premise.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson