4 ms·
In fact I myself have been convinced by argument. You state that a naturalistic, materialistic framework is the only one consistent with all the observed evide
by jononomo 4y ago
In fact I myself have been convinced by argument. You state that a naturalistic, materialistic framework is the only one consistent with all the observed evidence, but of course it is not consistent with the observed evidence regarding the existence/origin of life, which is what we’re discussing (and which is the only interesting question). I have referenced a book in my original post that spells the whole argument out.
- webmaven 4y ago> In fact I myself have been convinced by argument. If you don't mind me asking, at what age?
- jononomo 4y ago2019 is when it clicked for me -- I was 45 -- that was when I discovered the work of James Tour -- he comes off as a Jesus freak, so I don't like to recommend him, but his scientific credentials are world class and his argument regarding the origin of life is air tight. Prior to discovering James Tour I had basically bought the naturalistic story, mostly on the basis of arguments from authorities like Sam Harris, Lawrence Kraus, etc. I will admit that I was raised in a Christian household, although my parents are both scientists -- a biochemist and a hematologist. It was interesting to me to observe the upswell of awe I experienced in my own life when I became intellectually convinced that there really is a God who really did create life. Now it seems so obvious to me that I get annoyed by people who view things the way I did just a few years ago -- just blindly accepting a naive story, IMHO!