How do the non-spiritual explain it?

[Inevitable]

I can see it, apparently the people that took the picture can as well. So it seems there is perception of it. We use microscopes to enhance our perception.

And before you enhanced your perception, you had none with this. The organisms still existed before we were able to perceive them. They were still just as important. Your statement was; If we can't perceive it, it's not important. You're wrong. I am right. Get used to that.

If the virus makes people sick than we have perception of it. Sickness is perceivable. We did have perception of it. Fever, body aches, symptoms and so forth. That is perception.

Perception is the effect it has on us. If we have no perception it has no effect. You are conflating perception with seeing. We can't see viruses, but we do get sick. We feel them. Just like heat. We can't see it yet we can still perceive it

You are saying because we can't see things they aren't perceivable. We can't see heat yet we perceive it.

per·cep·tion
pərˈsepSH(ə)n/
noun
1. the ability to see, hear, or become aware of something through the senses.

Our perception is limited. We have five physical senses and we're not the BEST at any of them. Some organisms have better sight, hearing, smell, touch and taste. And it's not just that they are better, in some cases they are extraordinarily better. So... We have these five totally inferior senses as humans, and you believe that is the "end all-be all" to the entire universe? Only the things that our feeble human senses can detect are worthwhile?

You may like to know that you have now officially dismissed 96% of the universe as inconsequential and unimportant. Dark energy and dark matter.... called that because they contradict our laws of physics with regard to matter and energy. All the things that make up physical material existence in our universe only represents about 4% of the total volume. 75% of that (3%) is the helium and hydrogen which make up the stars. The remaining 1% is everything else... you and I, all the other elements in the table of elements, the compounds, minerals, enzymes, proteins, organisms, water, carbon, ice... all the "stuff" we see, feel, hear, touch and taste... 1% of the universe.

We had perception of the virus before we could see it. People get sick, they perceive it that way. People were aware that the flu existed before microscopes that could see it existed. They experienced the effects of it.

Our perception isn't limited to the five senses. When I come down with the flu, I know it. I don't smell, touch, taste, see, or hear it. You clearly don't understand what perception is.

I can perceive vast complexity in just one percent of all matter, must mean we are excellent at perceiving things that exist.

 

[Boss]

I can see it, apparently the people that took the picture can as well. So it seems there is perception of it. We use microscopes to enhance our perception.

And before you enhanced your perception, you had none with this. The organisms still existed before we were able to perceive them. They were still just as important. Your statement was; If we can't perceive it, it's not important. You're wrong. I am right. Get used to that.

If the virus makes people sick than we have perception of it. Sickness is perceivable. We did have perception of it. Fever, body aches, symptoms and so forth. That is perception.

Perception is the effect it has on us. If we have no perception it has no effect. You are conflating perception with seeing. We can't see viruses, but we do get sick. We feel them. Just like heat. We can't see it yet we can still perceive it

You are saying because we can't see things they aren't perceivable. We can't see heat yet we perceive it.

per·cep·tion
pərˈsepSH(ə)n/
noun
1. the ability to see, hear, or become aware of something through the senses.

Our perception is limited. We have five physical senses and we're not the BEST at any of them. Some organisms have better sight, hearing, smell, touch and taste. And it's not just that they are better, in some cases they are extraordinarily better. So... We have these five totally inferior senses as humans, and you believe that is the "end all-be all" to the entire universe? Only the things that our feeble human senses can detect are worthwhile?

You may like to know that you have now officially dismissed 96% of the universe as inconsequential and unimportant. Dark energy and dark matter.... called that because they contradict our laws of physics with regard to matter and energy. All the things that make up physical material existence in our universe only represents about 4% of the total volume. 75% of that (3%) is the helium and hydrogen which make up the stars. The remaining 1% is everything else... you and I, all the other elements in the table of elements, the compounds, minerals, enzymes, proteins, organisms, water, carbon, ice... all the "stuff" we see, feel, hear, touch and taste... 1% of the universe.

We had perception of the virus before we could see it. People get sick, they perceive it that way. People were aware that the flu existed before microscopes that could see it existed. They experienced the effects of it.

Our perception isn't limited to the five senses. When I come down with the flu, I know it. I don't smell, touch, taste, see, or hear it. You clearly don't understand what perception is.

I can perceive vast complexity in just one percent of all matter, must mean we are excellent at perceiving things that exist.

Stop being a myopic twit hung up on your ignorant understanding of "perception." I gave you the definition. The ability to see, hear, or become aware of something through the senses. Perception doesn't mean "suspicion" or "intuition."

 

[Inevitable]

I can see it, apparently the people that took the picture can as well. So it seems there is perception of it. We use microscopes to enhance our perception.

And before you enhanced your perception, you had none with this. The organisms still existed before we were able to perceive them. They were still just as important. Your statement was; If we can't perceive it, it's not important. You're wrong. I am right. Get used to that.

If the virus makes people sick than we have perception of it. Sickness is perceivable. We did have perception of it. Fever, body aches, symptoms and so forth. That is perception.

Perception is the effect it has on us. If we have no perception it has no effect. You are conflating perception with seeing. We can't see viruses, but we do get sick. We feel them. Just like heat. We can't see it yet we can still perceive it

You are saying because we can't see things they aren't perceivable. We can't see heat yet we perceive it.

per·cep·tion
pərˈsepSH(ə)n/
noun
1. the ability to see, hear, or become aware of something through the senses.

Our perception is limited. We have five physical senses and we're not the BEST at any of them. Some organisms have better sight, hearing, smell, touch and taste. And it's not just that they are better, in some cases they are extraordinarily better. So... We have these five totally inferior senses as humans, and you believe that is the "end all-be all" to the entire universe? Only the things that our feeble human senses can detect are worthwhile?

You may like to know that you have now officially dismissed 96% of the universe as inconsequential and unimportant. Dark energy and dark matter.... called that because they contradict our laws of physics with regard to matter and energy. All the things that make up physical material existence in our universe only represents about 4% of the total volume. 75% of that (3%) is the helium and hydrogen which make up the stars. The remaining 1% is everything else... you and I, all the other elements in the table of elements, the compounds, minerals, enzymes, proteins, organisms, water, carbon, ice... all the "stuff" we see, feel, hear, touch and taste... 1% of the universe.

We had perception of the virus before we could see it. People get sick, they perceive it that way. People were aware that the flu existed before microscopes that could see it existed. They experienced the effects of it.

Our perception isn't limited to the five senses. When I come down with the flu, I know it. I don't smell, touch, taste, see, or hear it. You clearly don't understand what perception is.

I can perceive vast complexity in just one percent of all matter, must mean we are excellent at perceiving things that exist.

Stop being a myopic twit hung up on your ignorant understanding of "perception." I gave you the definition. The ability to see, hear, or become aware of something through the senses. Perception doesn't mean "suspicion" or "intuition."

Stop falsely accusing me of things because you can't see your own bias.

It isn't intuition that tells me that I'm ill, it's the actual effects on my body

 

[Boss]

must mean we are excellent at perceiving things that exist.

Because of our cerebral cortex, we are pretty good at enhancing our senses to enable better perception of things that physically exist. It does not mean that we are any good at enhancing perceptions we don't have or of things outside our perception. Physical reality of existence basically boils down to frequencies. Some you can detect and some you can't.

Here is the paradox to end all paradoxes... You can't prove anything exists in present reality. Whatever you see is a reflection of light frequency bouncing off an object. It takes time for that light to travel from the object to your eye, so what you are seeing is actually something that was there in the past.

 

[Boss]

Stop falsely accusing me of things because you can't see your own bias.
It isn't intuition that tells me that I'm ill, it's the actual effects on my body

It has nothing to do with "perception" retard.

You can certainly GUESS you have the flu by deducing the symptoms. However, you lack the ability to perceive the influenza virus with your limited five senses. For that, you need to see a doctor and have a test done. The test enhances our human perceptions and let's us know that you have the flu.

I really don't understand why you remain hung up on this because it just keeps reinforcing the point I made all along. If science had been approached with your line of thinking... that we cannot explore things which seem outside our abilities of sensory perception... we would still be stuck in the Dark Ages.

 

[Inevitable]

must mean we are excellent at perceiving things that exist.

Because of our cerebral cortex, we are pretty good at enhancing our senses to enable better perception of things that physically exist. It does not mean that we are any good at enhancing perceptions we don't have or of things outside our perception. Physical reality of existence basically boils down to frequencies. Some you can detect and some you can't.

Here is the paradox to end all paradoxes... You can't prove anything exists in present reality. Whatever you see is a reflection of light frequency bouncing off an object. It takes time for that light to travel from the object to your eye, so what you are seeing is actually something that was there in the past.

effects on us is perception if something doesn't have any effect on us, we don't perceive it. And it doesn't matter.

You think seeing is the only form of perception.

 

[Inevitable]

Stop falsely accusing me of things because you can't see your own bias.
It isn't intuition that tells me that I'm ill, it's the actual effects on my body

It has nothing to do with "perception" retard.

It has everything to do with perception. Calling me names only means that you know you are wrong and you are quickly losing ground. Like a cornered animal lashing out in a desperate attempt to defend itself.

"When the debate is lost slander becomes the weapon of the loser" -Socrates-

You can certainly GUESS you have the flu by deducing the symptoms. However, you lack the ability to perceive the influenza virus with your limited five senses. For that, you need to see a doctor and have a test done. The test enhances our human perceptions and let's us know that you have the flu.

No, I can tell I have the flu, it has some tell tell signs that, hepatitis, or HIV doesn't have.

I really don't understand why you remain hung up on this because it just keeps reinforcing the point I made all along. If science had been approached with your line of thinking... that we cannot explore things which seem outside our abilities of sensory perception... we would still be stuck in the Dark Ages.

Nobody can study things outside perception. You have to be able to perceive something in order to observe it.

 

[HUGGY]

Setting aside the various criticisms of religious beliefs for a moment, and pretending the whimsical dismissal of God is perfectly 'natural' for man and all... how do the non-spiritualists explain the following....

Astral projection experiences.
Near-death experiences.
Transcendental meditation.
ESP and telepathy.
Ghost stories and paranormal experiences.
Other unexplained supernatural phenomenon.
Spells, curses and black magic.
Edgar Cayce.
Nostradamus.
Prophecy in general.

Is every single bit of it a bunch of hooey caused by our fears and imagination?

To me, it just seems as if there might be something more here. Especially in the case of people like Edgar Cayce. If you've never studied up on him, it's worth a search and read... fascinating man. His uncanny ability to predict the future was beyond anything we've ever known. He gave over 14k readings but that includes a brief period where he didn't do them because he was getting headaches. People were exploiting his power to win horse races and trade stock and he believed this was why he was getting the headaches. After some time, he did more readings but only his trusted wife was allowed to ask him questions.

Can our physical sciences understand this?

Yes.

 

[Boss]

It has everything to do with perception. Calling me names only means that you know you are wrong and you are quickly losing ground. Like a cornered animal lashing out in a desperate attempt to defend itself.

"When the debate is lost slander becomes the weapon of the loser" -Socrates-

But I'm not slandering you. I'm calling you a retard because you are acting retarded. It doesn't mean I know I'm wrong or think I am losing, it means I think you are acting like a retard. There is nothing for me to lash out at or defend.... just you behaving like a retard and me pointing it out.

Guessing that you might have the flu, is not perception.

No, I can tell I have the flu, it has some tell tell signs that, hepatitis, or HIV doesn't have.

I'm sorry, I don't believe you have the capability of this perception. You can speculate you may have the flu, based on symptoms or whatever... you are not capable of recognizing the influenza virus without assistance to your senses. You have to visit the doctor and they will take a sample of your mucus and test it for presence of the influenza virus. That is the only way to confirm you have the flu.

Nobody can study things outside perception. You have to be able to perceive something in order to observe it.

Again, the word "perception" has been defined. We should have absolutely zero disagreement at this point about what the word means. The ability to see, hear, or become aware of something through the senses.

Now people often study things beyond our perception. You may have to perceive before you observe but you don't have to observe to study. Observation is just one form of perception, and wasn't this what you were accusing me of saying? That only what we see is perception? I didn't need help refuting your retarded argument, but thanks for it anyway.

The profound discovery of microbes is evidence that man can and does study things he can't perceive. We had to invent a microscope to enhance our perception. Before we invented microscopes and confirmed their existence, the microbes still existed. We had no perception of them. Same thing applies to atoms, electrons, neutrinos, quarks, subatomic particles... not to mention dark matter and energy or black holes again. We have perception of them now because we've discovered they exist, in spite of our inabilities to detect them with our five limited human senses.

The point here is simple, there are a lot of things happening in the universe which we have absolutely no perception of because it's beyond our ability to perceive. Just as microbes were beyond our ability to perceive before the microscope or black holes were beyond out perception until we invented powerful telescopes or the subatomic makeup of atoms before the large hadron collider. Because we lack the ability to perceive something, doesn't mean it isn't there or it's not important.

That was your argument but it fails miserably.

 

[cnm]

The origin of the universe and the beginning of life are by definition part of the natural world we live in. That we do not precisely understand them does not make them part of supernature. Everything we do not understand is not part of supernature. If you think it is I can see where you're coming from.

 

[Hollie]

Actually, you will need supernatural telescopes and microscopes to tell you how your supernatural gawds did it.

Now you sound just as stupid as Inevitable. Maybe more stupid.

I see you're angry and frustrated because your arguments are indefensible.

How does anyone investigate the supernatural with natural mechanisms as our only frame of reference? Why don't you identify a single supernatural phenomenon or occurrence that would prevent our current, natural means and methods of investigation? Identify just one.

Can't do that? No, I didn't think so. All your whining and crying about the invention of spirit realms and magical gawds you have concocted is just so much bluster.

You are just TOO funny sometimes. You're wanting me to explain to you why physical sciences designed and intended to deal with physical nature and physical phenomenon, are inadequate to evaluate that which is beyond physical nature. This should be obviously self-evident. Are you blond?

This is like trying to say that certain sound frequencies do not exist because we can't reproduce them with a musical instrument. I can tell you that frequencies exist that we can't even hear and you claim I am a denier of music and believer of magic.

How do people investigate spiritual nature? Well, they open their minds first. That's the biggest step. Until you can get beyond that barrier here, you will always be lost in these conversations. You simply don't have a context... you can't relate.... does not compute. Regardless of your incapabilities, others have found many different kinds of ways to interact with spiritual nature. We call it Spirituality.

Why don't you start by identifying what is "beyond physical nature". You lead your argument with baseless assumptions that there are spirit realms and magical existence beyond physical nature yet you're unable to make a case for such.

You then proceed to assert that you "interact" with some invention of yours that you call "spiritual nature". You're unable yo define this realm you have invented except to identify that it does indeed exist. Apparently, the sitting manager / director of your asserted spirit realm is so gawd or gawds you claim to communicate with on a daily basis. How nice!

You suffer from "because I say so" syndrome.

 

[Boss]

The origin of the universe and the beginning of life are by definition part of the natural world we live in. That we do not precisely understand them does not make them part of supernature. Everything we do not understand is not part of supernature. If you think it is I can see where you're coming from.

We do understand them, that's the thing. We understand physics to the point of being able to intricately measure every aspect of physical nature through mathematics and it never fails. With the exception of four places... The instant of origin for the universe, inside a black hole, at the subatomic level and the origin of life.

"Supernature" is a word you've conveniently defined as "all things which are not physical nature" ...and that's fine, but let's not then expect physical nature to prove them. That's sort of ridiculous. If supernature is that which is not nature, then nature can't verify or confirm it. If it ever does, it ceases to be "supernature" doesn't it?

So we have to first understand that what we actually have here is "physical nature" and "non-physical nature" ...everything has to be one or the other. There is not a third option. Having established that, we examine what physical nature says....

In the case of the origin of the universe, physics and science says the universe must defy physics in order to exist. It's not that there is no physical explanation, it's that the only physical explanation is non-physical, or not supportable by physics.

The same can be said for life. Biogenesis says life comes from life. All of human biological science for every living thing we know or have ever known to exist, conforms to this law and principle of science. So again, it's not a matter of what we don't know, it's what we know is certain. Origin of life has no physical explanation which does not contradict physical nature itself.

 

[Inevitable]

It has everything to do with perception. Calling me names only means that you know you are wrong and you are quickly losing ground. Like a cornered animal lashing out in a desperate attempt to defend itself.

"When the debate is lost slander becomes the weapon of the loser" -Socrates-

But I'm not slandering you. I'm calling you a retard because you are acting retarded. It doesn't mean I know I'm wrong or think I am losing, it means I think you are acting like a retard. There is nothing for me to lash out at or defend.... just you behaving like a retard and me pointing it out.

Guessing that you might have the flu, is not perception.

No, I can tell I have the flu, it has some tell tell signs that, hepatitis, or HIV doesn't have.

I'm sorry, I don't believe you have the capability of this perception. You can speculate you may have the flu, based on symptoms or whatever... you are not capable of recognizing the influenza virus without assistance to your senses. You have to visit the doctor and they will take a sample of your mucus and test it for presence of the influenza virus. That is the only way to confirm you have the flu.

Nobody can study things outside perception. You have to be able to perceive something in order to observe it.

Again, the word "perception" has been defined. We should have absolutely zero disagreement at this point about what the word means. The ability to see, hear, or become aware of something through the senses.

Now people often study things beyond our perception. You may have to perceive before you observe but you don't have to observe to study. Observation is just one form of perception, and wasn't this what you were accusing me of saying? That only what we see is perception? I didn't need help refuting your retarded argument, but thanks for it anyway.

The profound discovery of microbes is evidence that man can and does study things he can't perceive. We had to invent a microscope to enhance our perception. Before we invented microscopes and confirmed their existence, the microbes still existed. We had no perception of them. Same thing applies to atoms, electrons, neutrinos, quarks, subatomic particles... not to mention dark matter and energy or black holes again. We have perception of them now because we've discovered they exist, in spite of our inabilities to detect them with our five limited human senses.

The point here is simple, there are a lot of things happening in the universe which we have absolutely no perception of because it's beyond our ability to perceive. Just as microbes were beyond our ability to perceive before the microscope or black holes were beyond out perception until we invented powerful telescopes or the subatomic makeup of atoms before the large hadron collider. Because we lack the ability to perceive something, doesn't mean it isn't there or it's not important.

That was your argument but it fails miserably.

You are calling names because you are a child. Your argument is flawed I pointed it out. I don't really care what more you have to say about it. It isn't relevant.

Now when you can grow up and act like a big boy then we can have a discussion.

Watching t throw a temper tantrum was funny at first but it's run it's course.

If you had a point to make you could make it without being do childish. Clearly you don't.

This shit isn't real and it seems to really bug you when people don't agree. Perhaps you suffer from some existential angst.

 

[Inevitable]

Actually, you will need supernatural telescopes and microscopes to tell you how your supernatural gawds did it.

Now you sound just as stupid as Inevitable. Maybe more stupid.

I see you're angry and frustrated because your arguments are indefensible.

How does anyone investigate the supernatural with natural mechanisms as our only frame of reference? Why don't you identify a single supernatural phenomenon or occurrence that would prevent our current, natural means and methods of investigation? Identify just one.

Can't do that? No, I didn't think so. All your whining and crying about the invention of spirit realms and magical gawds you have concocted is just so much bluster.

You are just TOO funny sometimes. You're wanting me to explain to you why physical sciences designed and intended to deal with physical nature and physical phenomenon, are inadequate to evaluate that which is beyond physical nature. This should be obviously self-evident. Are you blond?

This is like trying to say that certain sound frequencies do not exist because we can't reproduce them with a musical instrument. I can tell you that frequencies exist that we can't even hear and you claim I am a denier of music and believer of magic.

How do people investigate spiritual nature? Well, they open their minds first. That's the biggest step. Until you can get beyond that barrier here, you will always be lost in these conversations. You simply don't have a context... you can't relate.... does not compute. Regardless of your incapabilities, others have found many different kinds of ways to interact with spiritual nature. We call it Spirituality.

Why don't you start by identifying what is "beyond physical nature". You lead your argument with baseless assumptions that there are spirit realms and magical existence beyond physical nature yet you're unable to make a case for such.

You then proceed to assert that you "interact" with some invention of yours that you call "spiritual nature". You're unable yo define this realm you have invented except to identify that it does indeed exist. Apparently, the sitting manager / director of your asserted spirit realm is so gawd or gawds you claim to communicate with on a daily basis. How nice!

You suffer from "because I say so" syndrome.

It's like trying to teach a pig physics. It's pointless and it only frustrates the pig.

He believes in magical crap because the world is too boring for him.

 

[Boss]

You are calling names because you are a child.

I already corrected you on this, I am not calling you names. If I were calling you names, I'd start with "faggoty-ass gay bait" and I'd make fun of you being a degenerate pervert who gets off sucking men's dicks before you let them fuck you in the ass. But I didn't go there.

I called you a retard and idiot because you're acting retarded and being idiotic. I pointed out why and you've not been able to respond without making yourself appear even more idiotic and retarded. Now you're trying to get in one last shot and run away like the sissy-pants you are.

...Buh-Bye!

 

[Hollie]

The origin of the universe and the beginning of life are by definition part of the natural world we live in. That we do not precisely understand them does not make them part of supernature. Everything we do not understand is not part of supernature. If you think it is I can see where you're coming from.

We do understand them, that's the thing. We understand physics to the point of being able to intricately measure every aspect of physical nature through mathematics and it never fails. With the exception of four places... The instant of origin for the universe, inside a black hole, at the subatomic level and the origin of life.

"Supernature" is a word you've conveniently defined as "all things which are not physical nature" ...and that's fine, but let's not then expect physical nature to prove them. That's sort of ridiculous. If supernature is that which is not nature, then nature can't verify or confirm it. If it ever does, it ceases to be "supernature" doesn't it?

So we have to first understand that what we actually have here is "physical nature" and "non-physical nature" ...everything has to be one or the other. There is not a third option. Having established that, we examine what physical nature says....

In the case of the origin of the universe, physics and science says the universe must defy physics in order to exist. It's not that there is no physical explanation, it's that the only physical explanation is non-physical, or not supportable by physics.

The same can be said for life. Biogenesis says life comes from life. All of human biological science for every living thing we know or have ever known to exist, conforms to this law and principle of science. So again, it's not a matter of what we don't know, it's what we know is certain. Origin of life has no physical explanation which does not contradict physical nature itself.

That was even more confused and convoluted than your earlier confusions and convolutions. Your invention of "non-physical nature" is a hoot. I suppose your invented supernatural spirit realms reside your invented realm of "non-physical nature" which apparently exists only in your rather vivid imagination.

Lastly, I would avoid the silly "biogenesis" references. You tip your hand at being just another Jehovah's Witness hack.

 

[Boss]

The origin of the universe and the beginning of life are by definition part of the natural world we live in. That we do not precisely understand them does not make them part of supernature. Everything we do not understand is not part of supernature. If you think it is I can see where you're coming from.

We do understand them, that's the thing. We understand physics to the point of being able to intricately measure every aspect of physical nature through mathematics and it never fails. With the exception of four places... The instant of origin for the universe, inside a black hole, at the subatomic level and the origin of life.

"Supernature" is a word you've conveniently defined as "all things which are not physical nature" ...and that's fine, but let's not then expect physical nature to prove them. That's sort of ridiculous. If supernature is that which is not nature, then nature can't verify or confirm it. If it ever does, it ceases to be "supernature" doesn't it?

So we have to first understand that what we actually have here is "physical nature" and "non-physical nature" ...everything has to be one or the other. There is not a third option. Having established that, we examine what physical nature says....

In the case of the origin of the universe, physics and science says the universe must defy physics in order to exist. It's not that there is no physical explanation, it's that the only physical explanation is non-physical, or not supportable by physics.

The same can be said for life. Biogenesis says life comes from life. All of human biological science for every living thing we know or have ever known to exist, conforms to this law and principle of science. So again, it's not a matter of what we don't know, it's what we know is certain. Origin of life has no physical explanation which does not contradict physical nature itself.

That was even more confused and convoluted than your earlier confusions and convolutions. Your invention of "non-physical nature" is a hoot. I suppose your invented supernatural spirit realms reside your invented realm of "non-physical nature" which apparently exists only in your rather vivid imagination.

Lastly, I would avoid the silly "biogenesis" references. You tip your hand at being just another Jehovah's Witness hack.

You know, I've noticed something about your posts. They never contain any substantive argument of any kind. No links or references, not even so much as a coherent opinion. It's always the same whiny-ass gum flapping, which you seem to be rather proud of. And for some odd reason, you believe that I am compelled to respond to you seriously.

If I didn't know any better, it's almost as if you believe what you have to say is important and people are somehow moved by your gum flapping. I actuality, it is your talent of attracting stray cats by spreading your legs which impresses me more. That's truly a lost skill.

 

[Inevitable]

You are calling names because you are a child.

I already corrected you on this, I am not calling you names. If I were calling you names, I'd start with "faggoty-ass gay bait" and I'd make fun of you being a degenerate pervert who gets off sucking men's dicks before you let them fuck you in the ass. But I didn't go there.

I called you a retard and idiot because you're acting retarded and being idiotic. I pointed out why and you've not been able to respond without making yourself appear even more idiotic and retarded. Now you're trying to get in one last shot and run away like the sissy-pants you are.

...Buh-Bye!

You are posturing. It means you know your argument is weak.

Any way, my argument was sound and logical. A posturing child can't really debate it.

Bye bye indeed, you are free to go. Run away wherever you go, make sure you can learn how to logically debate.

It feels like I was just talking to a second grader tell me why Spiderman is better than Batman.

 

[Inevitable]

The origin of the universe and the beginning of life are by definition part of the natural world we live in. That we do not precisely understand them does not make them part of supernature. Everything we do not understand is not part of supernature. If you think it is I can see where you're coming from.

We do understand them, that's the thing. We understand physics to the point of being able to intricately measure every aspect of physical nature through mathematics and it never fails. With the exception of four places... The instant of origin for the universe, inside a black hole, at the subatomic level and the origin of life.

"Supernature" is a word you've conveniently defined as "all things which are not physical nature" ...and that's fine, but let's not then expect physical nature to prove them. That's sort of ridiculous. If supernature is that which is not nature, then nature can't verify or confirm it. If it ever does, it ceases to be "supernature" doesn't it?

So we have to first understand that what we actually have here is "physical nature" and "non-physical nature" ...everything has to be one or the other. There is not a third option. Having established that, we examine what physical nature says....

In the case of the origin of the universe, physics and science says the universe must defy physics in order to exist. It's not that there is no physical explanation, it's that the only physical explanation is non-physical, or not supportable by physics.

The same can be said for life. Biogenesis says life comes from life. All of human biological science for every living thing we know or have ever known to exist, conforms to this law and principle of science. So again, it's not a matter of what we don't know, it's what we know is certain. Origin of life has no physical explanation which does not contradict physical nature itself.

That was even more confused and convoluted than your earlier confusions and convolutions. Your invention of "non-physical nature" is a hoot. I suppose your invented supernatural spirit realms reside your invented realm of "non-physical nature" which apparently exists only in your rather vivid imagination.

Lastly, I would avoid the silly "biogenesis" references. You tip your hand at being just another Jehovah's Witness hack.

My that would explain a lot if he was a jw. A brainwashed cult member doesn't really make for interesting debate.

 

[Hollie]

The origin of the universe and the beginning of life are by definition part of the natural world we live in. That we do not precisely understand them does not make them part of supernature. Everything we do not understand is not part of supernature. If you think it is I can see where you're coming from.

We do understand them, that's the thing. We understand physics to the point of being able to intricately measure every aspect of physical nature through mathematics and it never fails. With the exception of four places... The instant of origin for the universe, inside a black hole, at the subatomic level and the origin of life.

"Supernature" is a word you've conveniently defined as "all things which are not physical nature" ...and that's fine, but let's not then expect physical nature to prove them. That's sort of ridiculous. If supernature is that which is not nature, then nature can't verify or confirm it. If it ever does, it ceases to be "supernature" doesn't it?

So we have to first understand that what we actually have here is "physical nature" and "non-physical nature" ...everything has to be one or the other. There is not a third option. Having established that, we examine what physical nature says....

In the case of the origin of the universe, physics and science says the universe must defy physics in order to exist. It's not that there is no physical explanation, it's that the only physical explanation is non-physical, or not supportable by physics.

The same can be said for life. Biogenesis says life comes from life. All of human biological science for every living thing we know or have ever known to exist, conforms to this law and principle of science. So again, it's not a matter of what we don't know, it's what we know is certain. Origin of life has no physical explanation which does not contradict physical nature itself.

That was even more confused and convoluted than your earlier confusions and convolutions. Your invention of "non-physical nature" is a hoot. I suppose your invented supernatural spirit realms reside your invented realm of "non-physical nature" which apparently exists only in your rather vivid imagination.

Lastly, I would avoid the silly "biogenesis" references. You tip your hand at being just another Jehovah's Witness hack.

You know, I've noticed something about your posts. They never contain any substantive argument of any kind. No links or references, not even so much as a coherent opinion. It's always the same whiny-ass gum flapping, which you seem to be rather proud of. And for some odd reason, you believe that I am compelled to respond to you seriously.

If I didn't know any better, it's almost as if you believe what you have to say is important and people are somehow moved by your gum flapping. I actuality, it is your talent of attracting stray cats by spreading your legs which impresses me more. That's truly a lost skill.

Yep. Your failed arguments for the alleged supernatural realms you carry on about have all failed so you're left to hurl vulgarities.