> It's just that examining evidence related to past events can only go so far in explaining their cause. If you assume natural causes all the way back, you will

> It's just that examining evidence related to past events can only go so far in explaining their cause. If you assume natural causes all the way back, you will inevitably reach the limit of a natural chain of events. If the origin of life isn't a big enough question, perhaps the origin of the big bang is -- how does anyone go there without stepping into the metaphysical? Why speculate in the absence of real knowledge? Maybe some questions simply cannot be answered? Maybe some answers are simply beyond our reach for now? Faced with these gaps, If I'm going to get metaphysical, I'd sooner reach inwards than outwards. > My point is that on the surface, philosophically speaking, there's no difference between the two explanations beyond their starting assumptions. Pretty vague, and I disagree in any case, I think—there seems to be a great difference between the two. One is based on phenomena we have directly observed (comets, life on Earth, etc.), and the other is not. > Not at all. Everything that exists constitutes evidence for him in one way or another. (It’s late. Can provide more details tomorrow if you’re interested.) If you presuppose that "He" exists and work backwards from there, sure. Otherwise no, I don't think so. Willing to read more, if you write it.