Same Sex Marriage Legal in all US States

[magisme]

What tells you Christianity is the right one? That's the faith part?

[Dazey]

An Atheist, the type of atheist that just refuses to believe in any supreme power can babble backwards from here explaining away question after question with scientifcally based big bang, molecule evolution of matter, life, the planets, whatever,

but he always runs into a dead end and can not explain the "beginning"... the very beginning.

And that's where logic, if you have a brain in your head tells you that there has to be some supreme power out there that represents this beginning.

For arguments sake let's say you're right. So how can you be so sure of his opinions on homosexuals?

[Lithium]

I believe on faith alone, I've seen too much to not believe

but if you want to try and place some sort of logic other than there is a God, that there is some supreme power, or being to explain how "this" all happened, some beginning you're only fooling yourself.

An Atheist, the type of atheist that just refuses to believe in any supreme power can babble backwards from here explaining away question after question with scientifcally based big bang, molecule evolution of matter, life, the planets, whatever,

but he always runs into a dead end and can not explain the "beginning"... the very beginning.

And that's where logic, if you have a brain in your head tells you that there has to be some supreme power out there that represents this beginning.

Man, or religions describing it as a God, for the sake of definition can be debated and even quite rationally, mainly due to the fact that there are so many different "god's" if you will.

But you, nor I can explain the beginning, and I choose to put that "faith" that that beginning has given me life, all of this that goes with life, and imho will hold me accountable someday if I don't believe.

And that's where my "religion" comes in, Christianity, which I have no more right to tell you is THE right way than anyone else has the right to tell you theirs is,

But, and for the sake of definition alone, there has to be a "God". meaning some supreme force behind the beginning.

Why is it so difficult to accept that we just haven't come to a conclusion regarding "the beginning"? Science can't be sure how it all started yet, but that doesn't mean we should resort to stories about an invisible deity just to fill a temporary gap in the history of the universe. Science is constantly evolving and improving - what we didn't know yesterday, we know today, and someday we might also know for sure how the universe came into existence. As for what you said about being held accountable - how do you explain tribes in South America that live in complete isolation from the rest of the earth? These people have never heard about the Christian God. Should they be held accountable for not following Christian principles and believing in "god"?

Edited July 2, 2015 by Lithium

[netcat]

It is Occham's razor, basically:

- Why search for needles in a haystack? Let's just burn the hay and collect needles with magnet!

- And then the owner of the hay will show up and shoot your ass off

Edited July 2, 2015 by netcat

[shades]

What tells you Christianity is the right one? That's the faith part?

that's a good question, and one that I increasingly struggle with as I get older, but I'm hanging in there.

I suppose there is a train of thought that says it was simply the one I was born into. happenstance.

And I really hate to leave it at that, because if I leave it at this indoctrination so to speak then what separates me from a jihadist for example.

It's what he knows, from birth he was told his way is the right way.

So i don't preach my way, I just happen to find comfort in it.

That there is a God, and he laid out pretty basic humane rules, Love thy neighbor, don't covet his wife, don't kill, don't steal,.

But along with this "code" if you will comes some faith based sacrifice., believe unconditionally, try not to sin, repent and ask for forgiveness when I do.

But the real kicker is the penalty for not believing, eternal damnation and the rath of hell.

From a human standpoint with all the man made temptations, etc. I wish he wouldn't have thrown that part in, but it keeps me in line I suppose.

But the reward is really cool, I like that part.

I'll find out I guess.

[SoulMonster]

I believe on faith alone, I've seen too much to not believe

but if you want to try and place some sort of logic other than there is a God, that there is some supreme power, or being to explain how "this" all happened, some beginning you're only fooling yourself.

An Atheist, the type of atheist that just refuses to believe in any supreme power can babble backwards from here explaining away question after question with scientifcally based big bang, molecule evolution of matter, life, the planets, whatever,

but he always runs into a dead end and can not explain the "beginning"... the very beginning.

And that's where logic, if you have a brain in your head tells you that there has to be some supreme power out there that represents this beginning.

I don't get that. Just because science is not in a position currently (and may never be) to give us a strong model for how everything began, doesn't mean there must be a god Some things are just beyond the reach of science, not because they are supernatural, but because science can only work on things for which we can accumulate data and some things are simply too far in history to be subject to science's prodding. So there is no reason to reach for supernatural explanations just because we haven't been able to deduce a naturalistic one, yet. There is no sense in filling in any gaps in what science can explain, with anything supernatural. It's like saying "I don't know exactly what is making that sound I am hearing right now, so it must be the sound of dancing angels!". The word for what you are doing is not logic, but close to its opposite.

Edited July 2, 2015 by SoulMonster

[Len Cnut]

I believe on faith alone, I've seen too much to not believe

but if you want to try and place some sort of logic other than there is a God, that there is some supreme power, or being to explain how "this" all happened, some beginning you're only fooling yourself.

An Atheist, the type of atheist that just refuses to believe in any supreme power can babble backwards from here explaining away question after question with scientifcally based big bang, molecule evolution of matter, life, the planets, whatever,

but he always runs into a dead end and can not explain the "beginning"... the very beginning.

And that's where logic, if you have a brain in your head tells you that there has to be some supreme power out there that represents this beginning.

I don't get that. Just because science is not in a position currently (and may never be) to give us a strong model for how everything began, doesn't mean there must be a god Some things are just beyond the reach of science, not because they are supernatural, but because science can only work on things for which we can accumulate data and some things are simply too far in history to be subject to science's prodding. So there is no reason to reach for supernatural explanations just because we haven't been able to deduce a naturalistic one, yet. There is no sense in filling in any gaps in what science can explain, with anything supernatural. It's like saying "I don't know exactly what is making that sound I am hearing right now, so it must be the sound of dancing angels!". The word for what you are doing is not logic, but close to its opposite.

What if it works better than anything else for you?

[SoulMonster]

I believe on faith alone, I've seen too much to not believe

but if you want to try and place some sort of logic other than there is a God, that there is some supreme power, or being to explain how "this" all happened, some beginning you're only fooling yourself.

An Atheist, the type of atheist that just refuses to believe in any supreme power can babble backwards from here explaining away question after question with scientifcally based big bang, molecule evolution of matter, life, the planets, whatever,

but he always runs into a dead end and can not explain the "beginning"... the very beginning.

And that's where logic, if you have a brain in your head tells you that there has to be some supreme power out there that represents this beginning.

I don't get that. Just because science is not in a position currently (and may never be) to give us a strong model for how everything began, doesn't mean there must be a god Some things are just beyond the reach of science, not because they are supernatural, but because science can only work on things for which we can accumulate data and some things are simply too far in history to be subject to science's prodding. So there is no reason to reach for supernatural explanations just because we haven't been able to deduce a naturalistic one, yet. There is no sense in filling in any gaps in what science can explain, with anything supernatural. It's like saying "I don't know exactly what is making that sound I am hearing right now, so it must be the sound of dancing angels!". The word for what you are doing is not logic, but close to its opposite.

What if it works better than anything else for you?

What "works for me" is irrelevant. Just because religion may work for someone doesn't mean gods must exist. Just because it may feel more comfortable to have an explanation on the question on what started it all, and that that explanation works for you, doesn't mean it is true. We have to discern between what is comfortable, and what is correct. I would LOVE to believe in a happy afterlife, but just because I would want it to be true, doesn't make it so.

[Len Cnut]

I believe on faith alone, I've seen too much to not believe

but if you want to try and place some sort of logic other than there is a God, that there is some supreme power, or being to explain how "this" all happened, some beginning you're only fooling yourself.

An Atheist, the type of atheist that just refuses to believe in any supreme power can babble backwards from here explaining away question after question with scientifcally based big bang, molecule evolution of matter, life, the planets, whatever,

but he always runs into a dead end and can not explain the "beginning"... the very beginning.

And that's where logic, if you have a brain in your head tells you that there has to be some supreme power out there that represents this beginning.

I don't get that. Just because science is not in a position currently (and may never be) to give us a strong model for how everything began, doesn't mean there must be a god Some things are just beyond the reach of science, not because they are supernatural, but because science can only work on things for which we can accumulate data and some things are simply too far in history to be subject to science's prodding. So there is no reason to reach for supernatural explanations just because we haven't been able to deduce a naturalistic one, yet. There is no sense in filling in any gaps in what science can explain, with anything supernatural. It's like saying "I don't know exactly what is making that sound I am hearing right now, so it must be the sound of dancing angels!". The word for what you are doing is not logic, but close to its opposite.

What if it works better than anything else for you?

What "works for me" is irrelevant. Just because religion may work for someone doesn't mean gods must exist. Just because it may feel more comfortable to have an explanation on the question on what started it all, and that that explanation works for you, doesn't mean it is true. We have to discern between what is comfortable, and what is correct. I would LOVE to believe in a happy afterlife, but just because I would want it to be true, doesn't make it so.

If you dont know and i dont know and Shades dont know and the likelihood is that in our lives we never will then it sort of does become about what works for each though, no?

I mean above and beyond everything else we've got to live right, we've got to be alive for there to be anything, so if thats Shadeses thing and thats what works for him to get through the night and what works for you is the quest for the correct doesnt it just come down to accepting each other for what we are and who we are?

Ugh, i just sounded like a hippie, you have permission to kick me to death.

And as a tangent, i find the idea of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic afterlife to be terrifying. I don't like listening to people go on about that shit for too long cuz it starts to do my head in, in fact i was having a conversation with a friend whoose a christian about this just yesterday, i was pointing out how it starts to do my head in and she said like, how can you sit there and watch documentaries about the holocaust (that sounds odd but please try and understand me)...or Pablo Escobar and stuff like that, where hundreds of thousands, millions of people die and swallow that but entertaining a religious afterlife you find to be horrific, to which my only response was...there's hope in the holocaust...there's hope in Pablo Escobar killing hundreds and hundreds of people...because for as long as there is life there is hope...things can go one way or the other or a third or a fourth way...with the religious afterlife it's like...a life sentence where you never die. And i don't even like the harp

Edited July 2, 2015 by Len B'stard

[Amir]

Ugh, i just sounded like a hippie

[SoulMonster]

I believe on faith alone, I've seen too much to not believe

but if you want to try and place some sort of logic other than there is a God, that there is some supreme power, or being to explain how "this" all happened, some beginning you're only fooling yourself.

An Atheist, the type of atheist that just refuses to believe in any supreme power can babble backwards from here explaining away question after question with scientifcally based big bang, molecule evolution of matter, life, the planets, whatever,

but he always runs into a dead end and can not explain the "beginning"... the very beginning.

And that's where logic, if you have a brain in your head tells you that there has to be some supreme power out there that represents this beginning.

I don't get that. Just because science is not in a position currently (and may never be) to give us a strong model for how everything began, doesn't mean there must be a god Some things are just beyond the reach of science, not because they are supernatural, but because science can only work on things for which we can accumulate data and some things are simply too far in history to be subject to science's prodding. So there is no reason to reach for supernatural explanations just because we haven't been able to deduce a naturalistic one, yet. There is no sense in filling in any gaps in what science can explain, with anything supernatural. It's like saying "I don't know exactly what is making that sound I am hearing right now, so it must be the sound of dancing angels!". The word for what you are doing is not logic, but close to its opposite.

What if it works better than anything else for you?

What "works for me" is irrelevant. Just because religion may work for someone doesn't mean gods must exist. Just because it may feel more comfortable to have an explanation on the question on what started it all, and that that explanation works for you, doesn't mean it is true. We have to discern between what is comfortable, and what is correct. I would LOVE to believe in a happy afterlife, but just because I would want it to be true, doesn't make it so.

If you dont know and i dont know and Shades dont know then it sort of does become about what works for each though, no?

But just because we don't know the mechanics of what happened in the beginning, doesn't mean we can't be confident it must have been something completely naturalistic. I see no reason to jump to an improbable explanation, like supernatural entities.

[Len Cnut]

I believe on faith alone, I've seen too much to not believe

but if you want to try and place some sort of logic other than there is a God, that there is some supreme power, or being to explain how "this" all happened, some beginning you're only fooling yourself.

An Atheist, the type of atheist that just refuses to believe in any supreme power can babble backwards from here explaining away question after question with scientifcally based big bang, molecule evolution of matter, life, the planets, whatever,

but he always runs into a dead end and can not explain the "beginning"... the very beginning.

And that's where logic, if you have a brain in your head tells you that there has to be some supreme power out there that represents this beginning.

I don't get that. Just because science is not in a position currently (and may never be) to give us a strong model for how everything began, doesn't mean there must be a god Some things are just beyond the reach of science, not because they are supernatural, but because science can only work on things for which we can accumulate data and some things are simply too far in history to be subject to science's prodding. So there is no reason to reach for supernatural explanations just because we haven't been able to deduce a naturalistic one, yet. There is no sense in filling in any gaps in what science can explain, with anything supernatural. It's like saying "I don't know exactly what is making that sound I am hearing right now, so it must be the sound of dancing angels!". The word for what you are doing is not logic, but close to its opposite.

What if it works better than anything else for you?

What "works for me" is irrelevant. Just because religion may work for someone doesn't mean gods must exist. Just because it may feel more comfortable to have an explanation on the question on what started it all, and that that explanation works for you, doesn't mean it is true. We have to discern between what is comfortable, and what is correct. I would LOVE to believe in a happy afterlife, but just because I would want it to be true, doesn't make it so.

If you dont know and i dont know and Shades dont know then it sort of does become about what works for each though, no?

But just because we don't know the mechanics of what happened in the beginning, doesn't mean we can't be confident it must have been something completely naturalistic. I see no reason to jump to an improbable explanation, like supernatural entities.

Define natural and supernatural for me?

[netcat]

I believe on faith alone, I've seen too much to not believe

but if you want to try and place some sort of logic other than there is a God, that there is some supreme power, or being to explain how "this" all happened, some beginning you're only fooling yourself.

An Atheist, the type of atheist that just refuses to believe in any supreme power can babble backwards from here explaining away question after question with scientifcally based big bang, molecule evolution of matter, life, the planets, whatever,

but he always runs into a dead end and can not explain the "beginning"... the very beginning.

And that's where logic, if you have a brain in your head tells you that there has to be some supreme power out there that represents this beginning.

I don't get that. Just because science is not in a position currently (and may never be) to give us a strong model for how everything began, doesn't mean there must be a god Some things are just beyond the reach of science, not because they are supernatural, but because science can only work on things for which we can accumulate data and some things are simply too far in history to be subject to science's prodding. So there is no reason to reach for supernatural explanations just because we haven't been able to deduce a naturalistic one, yet. There is no sense in filling in any gaps in what science can explain, with anything supernatural. It's like saying "I don't know exactly what is making that sound I am hearing right now, so it must be the sound of dancing angels!". The word for what you are doing is not logic, but close to its opposite.

What if it works better than anything else for you?

What "works for me" is irrelevant. Just because religion may work for someone doesn't mean gods must exist. Just because it may feel more comfortable to have an explanation on the question on what started it all, and that that explanation works for you, doesn't mean it is true. We have to discern between what is comfortable, and what is correct. I would LOVE to believe in a happy afterlife, but just because I would want it to be true, doesn't make it so.

If you dont know and i dont know and Shades dont know then it sort of does become about what works for each though, no?

But just because we don't know the mechanics of what happened in the beginning, doesn't mean we can't be confident it must have been something completely naturalistic. I see no reason to jump to an improbable explanation, like supernatural entities.

So Shades believes in creation, and you believe in science, what's the difference?

Edited July 2, 2015 by netcat

[Lithium]

What if it works better than anything else for you?

The part where "what works for me" turns into "what works for my children" is what scares me.

[SoulMonster]

I believe on faith alone, I've seen too much to not believe

but if you want to try and place some sort of logic other than there is a God, that there is some supreme power, or being to explain how "this" all happened, some beginning you're only fooling yourself.

An Atheist, the type of atheist that just refuses to believe in any supreme power can babble backwards from here explaining away question after question with scientifcally based big bang, molecule evolution of matter, life, the planets, whatever,

but he always runs into a dead end and can not explain the "beginning"... the very beginning.

And that's where logic, if you have a brain in your head tells you that there has to be some supreme power out there that represents this beginning.

I don't get that. Just because science is not in a position currently (and may never be) to give us a strong model for how everything began, doesn't mean there must be a god Some things are just beyond the reach of science, not because they are supernatural, but because science can only work on things for which we can accumulate data and some things are simply too far in history to be subject to science's prodding. So there is no reason to reach for supernatural explanations just because we haven't been able to deduce a naturalistic one, yet. There is no sense in filling in any gaps in what science can explain, with anything supernatural. It's like saying "I don't know exactly what is making that sound I am hearing right now, so it must be the sound of dancing angels!". The word for what you are doing is not logic, but close to its opposite.

What if it works better than anything else for you?

What "works for me" is irrelevant. Just because religion may work for someone doesn't mean gods must exist. Just because it may feel more comfortable to have an explanation on the question on what started it all, and that that explanation works for you, doesn't mean it is true. We have to discern between what is comfortable, and what is correct. I would LOVE to believe in a happy afterlife, but just because I would want it to be true, doesn't make it so.

If you dont know and i dont know and Shades dont know then it sort of does become about what works for each though, no?

But just because we don't know the mechanics of what happened in the beginning, doesn't mean we can't be confident it must have been something completely naturalistic. I see no reason to jump to an improbable explanation, like supernatural entities.

Define natural and supernatural for me?

'Natural' is anything that follows the laws of nature, 'supernatural' would be anything that is left.

[Len Cnut]

What I'm trying to get at is nature is defined, to us, by our sphere of understanding right? So why this belief that all the unknown out there, all the galaxys and milkways etc etc, why the presumption that those things are going to be within our eventual understanding? I mean thats a sort of leap of faith too, no?

Aren't you in a sense presuming that all the unknown shit out there is going to follow the laws of what we call nature? I mean we (as in our planent, even our galaxy) literally are like...less than a drop in the ocean of whats out there right? Thats a pretty big presumption about a fuckload of unknown. The idea that this planet is like a microcosm of the inifinite shit out there.

Edited July 2, 2015 by Len B'stard

[SoulMonster]

What I'm trying to get at is nature is defined, to us, by our sphere of understanding right? So why this belief that all the unknown out there, all the galaxys and milkways etc etc, why the presumption that those things are going to be within our eventual understanding? I mean thats a sort of leap of faith too, no?

I have never stated that everything will eventually be within our eventual understanding. In fact, I think there are things that are way too complex to fathom for human brains, brains that were never evolved to tackle everything. But just because we can't understand it, doesn't mean it has to be supernatural. It's ike the specific theory of relativity, only a few humans are able to get it, it doesn't mean it is supernatural.

[Len Cnut]

What I'm trying to get at is nature is defined, to us, by our sphere of understanding right? So why this belief that all the unknown out there, all the galaxys and milkways etc etc, why the presumption that those things are going to be within our eventual understanding? I mean thats a sort of leap of faith too, no?

I have never stated that everything will eventually be within our eventual understanding. In fact, I think there are things that are way too complex to fathom for human brains, brains that were never evolved to tackle everything. But just because we can't understand it, doesn't mean it has to be supernatural. It's ike the specific theory of relativity, only a few humans are able to get it, it doesn't mean it is supernatural.

But if nature is defined by our understanding and you agree that there is shit outside of our understanding way too complex for human brains...well then how can it be natural, as per our definition. Saying something is too complex for us doesn't seem to be too far from calling it supernatural.

[SoulMonster]

I believe on faith alone, I've seen too much to not believe

but if you want to try and place some sort of logic other than there is a God, that there is some supreme power, or being to explain how "this" all happened, some beginning you're only fooling yourself.

An Atheist, the type of atheist that just refuses to believe in any supreme power can babble backwards from here explaining away question after question with scientifcally based big bang, molecule evolution of matter, life, the planets, whatever,

but he always runs into a dead end and can not explain the "beginning"... the very beginning.

And that's where logic, if you have a brain in your head tells you that there has to be some supreme power out there that represents this beginning.

I don't get that. Just because science is not in a position currently (and may never be) to give us a strong model for how everything began, doesn't mean there must be a god Some things are just beyond the reach of science, not because they are supernatural, but because science can only work on things for which we can accumulate data and some things are simply too far in history to be subject to science's prodding. So there is no reason to reach for supernatural explanations just because we haven't been able to deduce a naturalistic one, yet. There is no sense in filling in any gaps in what science can explain, with anything supernatural. It's like saying "I don't know exactly what is making that sound I am hearing right now, so it must be the sound of dancing angels!". The word for what you are doing is not logic, but close to its opposite.

What if it works better than anything else for you?

What "works for me" is irrelevant. Just because religion may work for someone doesn't mean gods must exist. Just because it may feel more comfortable to have an explanation on the question on what started it all, and that that explanation works for you, doesn't mean it is true. We have to discern between what is comfortable, and what is correct. I would LOVE to believe in a happy afterlife, but just because I would want it to be true, doesn't make it so.

If you dont know and i dont know and Shades dont know then it sort of does become about what works for each though, no?

But just because we don't know the mechanics of what happened in the beginning, doesn't mean we can't be confident it must have been something completely naturalistic. I see no reason to jump to an improbable explanation, like supernatural entities.

So Shades believes in creation, and you believe in science, what's the difference?

I don't "believe in science", I know that the scientific method is the best approach we have to figuring things out. And I dare suggest you, as well as most other people, do, too.

[SoulMonster]

What I'm trying to get at is nature is defined, to us, by our sphere of understanding right? So why this belief that all the unknown out there, all the galaxys and milkways etc etc, why the presumption that those things are going to be within our eventual understanding? I mean thats a sort of leap of faith too, no?

I have never stated that everything will eventually be within our eventual understanding. In fact, I think there are things that are way too complex to fathom for human brains, brains that were never evolved to tackle everything. But just because we can't understand it, doesn't mean it has to be supernatural. It's ike the specific theory of relativity, only a few humans are able to get it, it doesn't mean it is supernatural.

But if nature is defined by our understanding and you agree that there is shit outside of our understanding way too complex for human brains...well then how can it be natural, as per our definition. Saying something is too complex for us doesn't seem to be too far from calling it supernatural.

Nature isn't defined by our understanding. I don't know where that comes from.

Just because something is too complex or hard for us to understand, doesn't mean it has to be supernatural (aka breaking the laws of nature). We KNOW that the square root of 2 is an irrational number, because that can be mathematically proven. But I don't think anyone of us understands it. The same with the specific theory of relativity. We know it is real, but very few of us are able to understand it, even if we try. So there is a big difference between saying that something is too complex to understand, and calling it supernatural.

[Len Cnut]

What I'm trying to get at is nature is defined, to us, by our sphere of understanding right? So why this belief that all the unknown out there, all the galaxys and milkways etc etc, why the presumption that those things are going to be within our eventual understanding? I mean thats a sort of leap of faith too, no?

I have never stated that everything will eventually be within our eventual understanding. In fact, I think there are things that are way too complex to fathom for human brains, brains that were never evolved to tackle everything. But just because we can't understand it, doesn't mean it has to be supernatural. It's ike the specific theory of relativity, only a few humans are able to get it, it doesn't mean it is supernatural.

But if nature is defined by our understanding and you agree that there is shit outside of our understanding way too complex for human brains...well then how can it be natural, as per our definition. Saying something is too complex for us doesn't seem to be too far from calling it supernatural.

Nature isn't defined by our understanding. I don't know where that comes from.

Just because something is too complex or hard for us to understand, doesn't mean it has to be supernatural (aka breaking the laws of nature). We KNOW that the square root of 2 is an irrational number, because that can be mathematically proven. But I don't think anyone of us understands it. The same with the specific theory of relativity. We know it is real, but very few of us are able to understand it, even if we try. So there is a big difference between saying that something is too complex to understand, and calling it supernatural.

Yeah but when you get to a point where something is far too complex for us to understand...and we dont yet and, for some things will never grasp that shit, to some people thats about as supernatural as you can get something thats completely inexplicable.

Btw, i actually agree with you in so far as i would give reason prescedence over anything else generally speaking, its handy having a clever fucker close at hand to run this shit by I guess I'm talking about stuff thats kinda beyond me.

Edited July 2, 2015 by Len B'stard

[Amir]

All of this will be irrelevant in 50 years time when the superintelligent A.I.s take over and determine that human beings are unneeded.

[DieselDaisy]

Soul Monster arrives back after a sojourn and you immediately get another gigantic smugfest haha

[SoulMonster]

What I'm trying to get at is nature is defined, to us, by our sphere of understanding right? So why this belief that all the unknown out there, all the galaxys and milkways etc etc, why the presumption that those things are going to be within our eventual understanding? I mean thats a sort of leap of faith too, no?

I have never stated that everything will eventually be within our eventual understanding. In fact, I think there are things that are way too complex to fathom for human brains, brains that were never evolved to tackle everything. But just because we can't understand it, doesn't mean it has to be supernatural. It's ike the specific theory of relativity, only a few humans are able to get it, it doesn't mean it is supernatural.

But if nature is defined by our understanding and you agree that there is shit outside of our understanding way too complex for human brains...well then how can it be natural, as per our definition. Saying something is too complex for us doesn't seem to be too far from calling it supernatural.

Nature isn't defined by our understanding. I don't know where that comes from.

Just because something is too complex or hard for us to understand, doesn't mean it has to be supernatural (aka breaking the laws of nature). We KNOW that the square root of 2 is an irrational number, because that can be mathematically proven. But I don't think anyone of us understands it. The same with the specific theory of relativity. We know it is real, but very few of us are able to understand it, even if we try. So there is a big difference between saying that something is too complex to understand, and calling it supernatural.

Yeah but when you get to a point where something is far too complex for us to understand...and we dont yet and, for some things will never grasp that shit, to some people thats about as supernatural as you can get something thats completely inexplicable.

Yeah, I suppose that to some people anything sufficiently complicated will be indistinguishable from magic. But I think it is an important distinction whether something unexplainable is natural or supernatural. As soon as we believe one thing is supernatural, it increases the probability of other unexplained phenomena having supernatural explanations, too, because then we already have a world inwhich the supernatural exists and it is just a matter of applying it to yet another phenomenon. So when you first believe in a supernatural entity like a god, it is not such a big leap to also believe in other supernatural entities, because, after all, you have already accepted that things that flaunt the laws of nature exist in this world.

As for the beginning of everything: We don't know how it happened, but as far as I see it, we have no reason to believe it mist have a supernatural explanation. Humans have struggled to explain things for all our existsnce and "because of god" has been our intellectual cop-out. Now we know why the sun moves across the sky, we know why kids aren't exact replicas of their parents, we know what rainbows are, we know how the diversity of life came to be, and there simply isn't a reason to fill the remaining gaps with supernatural explanations. I am not saying we will ever be able to create a strong model for how everything began, I am just saying we are probably right in supposing that whatever happened, it was all naturalistic.

[Len Cnut]

Arent you in a sense negating the concept of the idea of the supernatural by saying that its either natural and logical or too complex for our understanding? I mean it just deads the entire idea or possibility of the supernatural as a concept.