Quote:
|
Why think this is true? I have yet to see any viable argument for the belief that there cannot be evidence for the supernatural.
|
I thought it was rather apparent. Let's look up supernatural:
not existing in nature or subject to explanation according to natural laws; not physical or material
By definition you cannot provide any evidence for it. Scientific method has its rules for a reason; to keep out nonscientific nonsense like creationism and other things that plagued mankind from advancing for centuries. Your 'evidences' are horrible evidences. They cannot be falsified and are as far from scientific as you can get; everything you brought up about God is arbitrary opinion and thus not evidence.
Science works for a reason;
it's as right as it needs to be. Anyone can argue we can't prove anything, but that doesn't get us anywhere now does it?
Quote:
|
Because space-time itself began to exist, the agency that created the universe must transcend space and time
|
Irony.
You're telling myself and guido and others we're making too many assumptions, but look at that! Read that paragraph XD! (objectively ;p)
Personally, I'm looking at the argument from a purely objective, scientific standpoint. You can't make any ground for creationism because it isn't science. 'Evidences' cannot be supported because scientific method does not support supernatural ground.
Maybe evolution is off a bit. I'm willing to admit that. Maybe your point is true, maybe there is something else that is responsible for macroevolutionary changes or that interferes with microevolution. Some other unknown mechanism.
However, right now there really isn't anything to suggest otherwise, aside from pseudo-evidence. And there is lots of purely objective, real scientific evidence to support it.