*Forgive me... tl;dr ahead. If you like, and I do not mind, the last sentence captures everything in this long entry...

Again, you have shared a thought which is at the foundation, at the core of the conversations between those with beliefs in the supernatural and those who lack such beliefs.

Let me just preface this that I have zero beef (or zero honey-glazed tofu for the vegetarians who may be reading this) with those who are religious and/or spiritual. So long as a non-religious as well as a religious human being is not the catalyst of another's suffering, I am good with that.

As for the quote above "science has yet to explain/prove", I do not contest nor argue against that. I share in that notion.

Where we may differ is what comes after the claim of not knowing. I can only speak for myself when sharing that I do not know the underlying causal agency(ies) which led to the emergence of the very first forms of life. So, my knowledge and anythng which requires knowing ends at not knowing. I do not know the why surrounding life's emergence either. As in the why life and not just a universe or two or three filled with non-living things/obects. A universe of just non-living things/objects to my little mind makes a heck of a lot of sense as I do not attribute any anthropomorphic qualities to the universe nor to the physical laws which are needed for matter to come into being as a universe cools from its initial conditions.

So, in closing, the initial conditions which lead to the very first life forms emerging is, to me, the very definition of what I do not know.

science doenst know either. much of it seems mundane if you dont take a moment once in a while to become aware of it.
i suggest looking at this thread
Atheist/antitheist Chit Science
https://forums.d2jsp.org/topic.php?t=92846851&f=90

You and I have a few important elements which overlap.

I do agree in that the knowledge gleaned by the tools of science does not contain all of the answers, e.g., everything about how the universe works or answers around the very beginnings of life are yet to be resolved. So, in a meaningful way, people who lean on science as well as people who lean on religion or who lean on any form of spirituality may not come to know a great deal of things. My little angle on all of this is for me not to make claims where I lack in the knowledge as well as to not make claims where I lack in the evidence needed to support that claim. A claim that I hear some religious folk as well as some non-religious folk make is that they know what led to the universe emerging as well as another claim by both sides is that they know how the first forms of life first came into being. From what I can best understand these two groups of people would lose in a legitimate court where their claims would be scrutinized. Only the lawyers representing the two sides would win a ton of money.

And, yet, we are but human. Strong headed. Too quick to claim what I call the illusion of some form of victory over one another. Some folk may not be willing to acknowledge that there are reasonable to huge gaps in our knowledge. So, do we continue to butt heads? Or, do we say "Hey! I do not know. Let's explore." We may never know something and we ought to be okay with that.




This post was edited by jalapenos on Jan 30 2023 07:20am

they havent the foggiest idea.

i have had a open challenge since I been on youtube. "show me any science that troubles scripture."

yes, lets explore
have you looked at the thread i mentioned? have you ever seen such a bold claim?
Atheist/antitheist Chit Science
https://forums.d2jsp.org/topic.php?t=92846851&f=90