Why would you think it is my job to trust you?
Why would you even talk to me in some sense of finding out things about me unless you trusted me?
Yup
Abiogenesis believes all life came from a rock.
How many times have we ever seen life come from non-living matter - 0 times.
How many times have we observed life come from life? - countless...
As I said, naturalism is self defeating.
I honestly think you're misunderstanding abiogenesis as it exists in the contending hypotheses. I don't believe there is a single physicist or chemist or biologist who genuinely believes all live came from a rock, especially not a rock as we know it. Carbon elements, perhaps, but we're composed of carbon as well, so it's a failed equivocation.
About as much as a Buddhist could speak for Christianity...
Buddhis paradigm is radically different in many respects, even with some shared ethical impulses and teachings. But a Roman Catholic differs from a Protestant primarily in the authority of scripture versus the authority of tradition and the magisterium, as well as how those authorities determine proper doctrine. It's not as if they don't agree on soteriology in the most explicit sense, they just disagree on more minutiae than anything.
In dealing with God, any approach will be limited to what we are, so there will always be problems. You asked, I answered.
Problems that can be solved in part by simply admitting the speculative nature of one's approach to God and not any conclusive understanding.
Did I say it is always a observation we can see with the naked eye?
Thank you for providing empirical evidence for a brain neurons firing, but I asked for empirical evidence for 'thought'.
Thought is resultant from those brain neurons firing. Like I said, it's still in a beginning stage, it's not as if we can analyze the neuron firings on that detailed level, but we may eventually be able to reduce at least part of our understanding of thought to particular series of neurons firing.
What color is a thought?
How much does a thought weigh?
What form does a thought take?
Empiricism doesn't always concern itself with such explicit physical notions, since the first step is finding a physical cause for it as opposed to discerning the physical properties. Not to mention you seem to be confusing the epiphenomenon of thought we experience as we think it with the phenomenon of thought as it occurs within the brain whether we are conscious of it or not.
Here is an example. If I asked for empirical evidence for your your arm to exist, if you said brain neurons firing that causes the arm to move would not be providing evidence for the arm. By simply showing the arm, you would accomplish this.
With that in mind, showing brain neurons firing does not show a thought, so please, give empirical evidence for a thought.
[I told you the answer, I am amazed you still fell into it.]
You didn't tell me the answer, you just gave non sequitur questions to distract from your misunderstanding of empiricism to begin with and the naturalistic perspective that undergirds it in this context. Just because we don't understand thought in any significant manner as to the exact neurons firing doesn't mean that we won't in the future. You seem to think that because we don't know something now in terms of a physical and natural explanation that we never will, which is contradicted by the very existence of cell theory and germ theory among other scientific models that explain what was originally thought to be immaterial in some sense, but in actuality was a physical phenomenon, just simply beyond that era's capacity for investigation.
...
That is like saying, "Not necessarily a simile so much as a metaphor..."
You are trying to draw a distinction that is not there.
You can't deny the distinction, even if it's more subtle and nuanced. But honestly, me trusting in my senses being reliable is not the same as you having faith that God's covenant has real results if you believe in it. We both trust our senses, we don't have faith in them, since faith is a bit more concerned with ultimacy and the absolute of some sort. Trust is incidental to what necessity compels us to do.
I certainly appreciate your ability to get 'pantheism' out of a Bill Hicks joke...
That pretty much is what pantheism tends towards in a nutshell, an impersonal force that is what the universe is in essence. Immanence in contrast to transcendence.
That is your choice, and I choose to believe.
It is really that simple, you choose to believe or you choose not to.
I choose to beleive in some things, just as you choose not to believe in other things. The standard works both ways. For every belief we choose we also assert our disbelief in other things. Just as an atheist expresses disbelief in theism, a theist expresses disbelief in atheism if we're gonna be especially analytical.
I find the rationalizations of naturalism to be most absurd. The fact that Abiogenesis is called a 'theory' and not a 'hypothesis' as it should be, shows the glaring bias and double standard of naturalism.
You're confusing the scientific understanding of the term theory with the common parlance that conflates theory with the scientific understanding of hypothesis. A theory in science is a model of explanation that we can test in experimental context and circumstances and observe in varied senses. A hypothesis still requires experimentation and observation to confirm the validity of the theory under controlled circumstances.
In evolution, equivocation is the call of the day. With a cry of Christianity applying a 'God of the Gaps', naturalists then apply a 'Time of the Gaps', which is equally fallacious.
It's not a time of the gaps when we can present evidence that demonstrates the amount of time we're talking about. You think that just because one posits the notion that with enough time things happen naturally that it is a fallacy, but honestly, we can hardly conceive either the amount of time that has passed since this universe came into being or the sheer amount of possibility that exists even in tiny almost elemental particles in that immense space of time.
And finally, naturalists never offer a counter point of view, often run down the opposing point of view, and then never claim a view of their own.
So you think evolution isn't a counter point of view to both intelligent design and creationism? Then what is it, if not the contrast to the claim that there is some consciousness behind the adaptation, mutation, genetic drift and speciation of the various creatures on earth?
Protestant Christianity comes out of the gate understanding that to accept it, it is to accept it by faith in Jesus Christ. You know where you stand.
Except in that sense, it's nothing scientific or even demonstrative, it's purely subjective and has no objectivity to it except what you assert within your tradition.
It appears there is some sort of personal grudge in why you are posting like this, and I am not a mind reader, I do not know what you are going through, but I pray you find what you are seeking.
If I find what I seek, it will not be solely because of my efforts but also because of my willingness to accept the possibility I may be mistaken or did not know certain considerations in philosophy that affect my perspective.
