Replies

So give us an example in the history of science in which the assumption of supernatural causation has led to useful scientific discoveries of principals.

1. Origin of the Universe-tell us how, from a naturalistic point of view, the universe sprung from nothing. To do this you must contradict Einstein, Wilson, Penzias, Hubble, Jastrow, the findings of COBE, the findings of WMAP, law of cause and effect, David Hume's assertions of first cause, Kalam's Cosmological Arguement. Even Fred Hoyle, avowed atheist to the bitter end said there seemed to be a superintelligence tinkering with the laws of physics. Science can take you back only as far as a few millionths of a microsecond prior to Big Bang. But what of the moment prior to that singularity. Please clear this up for all of us.

The second example in the history of science in which the assumption of supernatural causation has led to useful scientific discoveries is first life. Tell us how the first cell came to be.

If living organisms are nothing more than chemicals and their sofisticated reactions, and nothing else, please explain consiousness...what is its chemical makeup? What does conciousness weigh? What is the molecular structure of love, hate, beauty, justice? You do agree that there is something called conciousness? No?

If at any point you deny the universe beginning, then you deny all of the findings of the theory of general relativity, Hubbles red shift, the predicted background ratiation from the big bang found by Wilson and Penzias, as well as the findings of COBE and WMAP. You have denied what science has shoved into your face. Yours is a volitional application of selective science and is dishonest in refusing to consider all of the above findings and allow those findings to take you whereever they will take you.

So your charge is simple. Just tell us the natural materialistic explaination for origin of the universe, first life, and consiousness.

Origin of the Universe-tell us how, from a naturalistic point of view, the universe sprung from nothing.

An interesting problem, but the net energy (and therefore mass) of the universe is zero, so it is an error to assert that physics says something came from nothing. Physics allows temporary somethings from nothing. And we are, by all accounts, both scientific and religious, temporary.

Although that is an interesting pursuit that may yield significan fruit, it is not a precursor to any modern scientific study -- physics works the way it works no matter how the Universe sprang into being. The same is true for chemistry, the mechanisms of TToE, astronomy, geology, et. seq.

The idea that any given branch of science (save, of course cosmology) is dependent on the answers to how it All Started is to eschew science and the Scientific Method.