Gerald said:
That's a mighty big "if" you're waving around there, considering that no supernatural event, entity or ability has ever been verified.
My point was not to verify anything. I was only illustrating the fact that supernatural events are not ruled out
if God exists. Where-as, on-the-other-hand,
if we assume God does not exist we must rule out ALL supernatural events.
So when confronted with the universe we must conclude that either:
1. At some point in the past it was created or otherwise came into existence OR
2. It has always been here (in one form or another) OR
3. It does not really exist
Number 1 did not happen by natural means. There is
no natural process than can create or destroy matter. If stuff was created it was crested by supernatural means. Number 2 is physically and philosophically untenable. If the universe was infinity years old it would have cooled off by now (all energy would be evenly distributed and it would be absolute zero everywhere) or put another way you’d be dead already. As for number 3 that’s a post for another thread.
If we exist, and I tend to think we do, no natural explanation that abides by natural law can account for us. That leaves the supernatural. Now I admit it’s implausible from a scientific standpoint but who said the supernatural had to be scientific or had to conform to any natural law. Only a naturalistic theory of creation needs to comport to the laws of thermodynamics.
That’s why theism enjoys an intellectual advantage over naturalism, because a single variable can be introduced to make it possible; the existence of a creator God.
No variable can be introduced to make a natural theory possible because there are no exceptions to the first law of thermodynamics.
When a believer is asked “from whence came hydrogen”? he can say: “God created it” and be intellectually honest. (I did not say scientific or proven true I said intellectually honest)
When a skeptic is asked the same question he can not say “nature created it” and still claim to be in line with natural law. Nor can he claim it was not created unless or until he has a reasonable competing natural explanation for its obvious existence.
The skeptic is left without an answer. He may claim he has one. He may even believe he has one but in reality the only truthful answer is “I don’t know where hydrogen came from” and then with the next breath he will say “but I know God didn’t create it”
The skeptic is busy attempting to appear superior to ignorant theists but can’t defend an inferior argument and in-fact when you get right down to it offers no argument at all.
