bennychico11

TGHusker,

You are all over the place. I really can't respond to all of that without some sort of road map. You seem to be responding to several weeks worth of posts without quoting anyone, so I have no clue where to start. I will say, that I don't agree with you in saying that C.S. Lewis was an Atheist. I don't know why Christians insist on saying certain people were an atheist before conversion...as if that gives them credibility....but Lewis was an admitted "atheist" when he was 15 years old. And most of what is refuted as his reason for being atheist doesn't really make sense to me. At least, if a random person today said some of the similar statements he did....it wouldn't make me assume he was atheist (disbelieving in a god).

Well, imagine a world without the influence of Christ's teaching as lived out through his church and individual followers. Part of Christ's teaching was the resurrection. If he had that much good influence on people, perhaps he's worthy of enough respect for others to consider the rest of his teachings.

Is the number of people a person influences worthy enough of respect of that person? Hitler? Jim Jones? Just saying. There is "truth"...and there is truth. There has to be a way to determine between the two. And the number of good deeds a person does, does NOT determine whether or not what they say has TRUTH behind it.

500+ people saw the resurrected Jesus as eyewitnesses, as well.

The number of people witnessing an event doesn't equal evidence of truth. 500+ people see a tiger vanish on a stage in Las Vegas every night and then reappear elsewhere, but that doesn't mean the tiger literally teleported. At the most you could say those people saw something that would defy what we know to be natural. Then you investigate it. You don't jump to the conclusion "god did it!"

All the Jews and the Roman authorities had to do to stop this revolutionary (not in terms of other-throw of the government, but you get the idea if you understand the context of Israel at the time) movement was to produce a body. A body that was under guard by several soldiers around the clock.

 

 

Now it's a conspiracy theory?

All the US government needs to do is show us the body of Bin Laden!

All the US government needs to do is show us the documents of 9/11!

All Obama needs to do is show us his birth certificate...otherwise I'm just going to believe what I believe to be true!

That's not how you arrive at truth.

In a time of severe Roman persecution, why were a group of men and women so convinced of the resurrection that they were willing to look the Roman government and, in turn, their death in the faces to defend what some would like to call a lie?

The same reason why so many weaker people stand up to the mighty all the time. We have examples all throughout history of people risking their lives for what they believe in. America was founded on that principal. A group of people have a belief they hold so strongly that they are willing to die for it. But those beliefs aren't always true just because someone fights to the death for them. Every religion has had people who believe things strongly and would in turn die for those beliefs. But we can't just assume that because a person strongly holds a belief, that that belief is in fact true. ESPECIALLY when we're talking about extraordinary claims. Should we also assume Scientology, Islamic, Hindu, etc. claims are all true just as well? We have to have a way to determine what is true and what isn't. Otherwise, you just go on believing everything you're told.

We are dealing with a group primarily composed of uneducated fishermen.

More of a reason for me NOT to believe their claims. We have groups of uneducated farmers who swear they were abducted by aliens...but I don't tend to believe them either.

The possibility of these men creating the greatest lie in all of human history is zero. However, some argue that it was a joke.

I'm not calling it a lie or a joke. Mythological stories evolve over time. These uneducated men probably did believe in this stuff. Just as much as the Romans believed in their own gods at the time too. I just think over the many years people wanted it to be true so much and loved the stories, fables, myths that they slowly grew into what Christianity is today. ALL religions have had a similar path. It's how my 6" blue gill I caught last spring became a 55lb Northern pike by the time winter rolled around.

And what about Matthew 27:52-53? Why is there no extra-biblical mention of the thousands of resurrected saints who also rose from the dead and walked right into town.

Now that you have my view, I know that people hold very different, very opposite views. Why? I'm not here to condemn or to judge right from wrong. I just want to see why someone would argue the opposite.

To me, it's just that I don't believe in magic. I've never had ANY reason to EVER believe people could rise from the dead, perform supernatural miracles, etc. I can't just accept something because it was written down thousands of years ago in a book. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Period. You believe it on faith...and I don't know why faith would ever be a good thing to believe something on.

Instead of someone explaining why they believe it to be fake, how about some explain why they believe it's real?

 

 

Believe what is real?

 

I think that's what we're trying to get at. The OP never really clarified "what" the topic is.

On a more tangible level....

Funny you should use that term when trying to compare the natural world with a supernatural belief

Yeah, season finale kind of disappointed me. Although I "wowed" at Carl basically cold-killing that kid.

I wish society would just take the "you believe what you believe and I'll believe what I believe" approach. But I guess that would require too much common sense and minding of each's own business.

 

I have never ridiculed someone for what they believe in, or even asked them to defend their reasoning-except when I was on my hothead right wing streak and blindly hated everything left politically for about a 6 month stretch a few years back, but that's something different.

 

I am a christian. I believe in jesus christ and a god and yada yada yada. I celebrate Christmas and Easter and such. We do the Easter bunny thing. Yes, an Easter bunny-not a Spring Bunny. This is the way we are, and it's not gonna change. But all I really ask to just let me be.

 

Sorry if this comes off as angry, because after re-reading it, it really seems that way. It's not supposed to though. I really dont know of any other way of wording it.

Most people would agree with you. Christians, non-christians...atheists, theists...etc. Honestly, I'll disagree with you all day long on your beliefs if we talk about them one on one...but really, I'm not going to make a judgement on you as a person because of them. I have tons and tons of friends/families who believe the exact same thing you do. I think they're just as crazy I still love them just the same. But you are welcome to believe what you want.

But when it comes to legislating your belief on to those of us who don't hold the same...that's where I tend to have the problem. And I think most in my position would agree to the same (although I don't claim to speak for them). Many MANY people in the same boat as you say "just let me believe what I want to!"...but then push for Christian inclusion into our laws. They advocate against planned parenthood, equal marriage rights, teaching classroom evolutionary theory, against removing prayer from school, etc...and claim the United States is a Christian nation and is god's chosen country. These are the peoples I have issues with...just as you and many of your own Christians should as well.

Back to Atbone-

What exactly was brought up about Easter in your church? What is it that you think we believe as fake?

Likewise, what do you believe about it...and why do you believe it?

Edit-

If we need to continue this discussion, it should probably be moved to the shed. Sorry, but if somebody is going to pop in out of left field and groundlessly accuse me of being a bad parent or claim I should not even have children, it could get interesting.

To start off, I'm sorry if you felt it was a personal attack on you. That was never my intention. I was not calling you personally a bad parent and I apologize if I made you think that. It was just a response to you using the parent analogy to explain god's actions and why I think that would be a terrible example of a parent.

I had a whole response typed out to your other points...but I think I'll just end it here so things don't escalate further.

Walks- I guess my point is, the dbags that got your grandfather beat and father slapped were not following the message of Christianity or the Bible. Really the message of the religion is not bad.

Says you? How do we know you have the true interpretation of the message of Christianity or the Bible? I would assume the grandfather or father of Walks' family thought they had the true interpretation...right? I bet the people who told them that message thought they had the true message too? Why is your understanding of the message more true than someone from the Westboro Baptist Church? There must be some way of determining how true this message from the Bible is, correct? I mean, this is from an all knowing god. Why would he create a message that he wants his children to fully know and believe, and then go about and make a cryptic book by anonymous authors that is written in languages that die off so that we must rely on translations of copies of copies? Then rely on priest or other human beings (who you say are fallible...so why would I believe them in first place?)

If I teach my children to do the right things but later in life they go astray due to peer pressure, society, etc., that doesn't make the message I tried to convey to them bad. People have been a$$hole$ since the beginning of time. I think it is a little misplaced to blame the religion that had the right message. It is simply human weakness, error, or purposeful manipulation that lead people to act wrongly in the name of that religion. I don't doubt that back in the day the white man didn't commit these actions in the name of Christ. Hell, people still do it today and most likely always will. But when these people act counter to the tenets of the religion, it isn't well placed to blame anything other than the people who did wrong. Their religion may have given them a cover but people like that will always find a vehicle for their wrongs.

Again, referring to my questions above...that makes you a terrible parent for not trying to reassert what you meant. If your child took your message, then went astray because he didn't understand what you meant fully...or because he's a fallible human. And you did nothing to correct or reaffirm what you meant. What did you expect? That you tell him once and say "welp, it's on you now! I told you once in a book written hundreds of years ago. Now it's torture in hell for eternity for you!"

I pray (pun intended) then that you don't have children...or at least you aren't that cruel.

So take away religion. Tomorrow everyone decides there are no gods and we just stop with the faiths and we're just people.

 

Do wars still happen? Yep.

 

Do wars like the Crusades still happen? Yep. (like, over oil, or culture, or politics, or whatever. Demagogues exist without religion)

 

Do pogroms like the Inquisition still happen? Yep. Think Hitler, think Stalin, think Pol Pot, think Marx. Religion was not a component - in fact, it was the opponent.

 

Here's the problem with atheists blaming religion for the world's woes - if you don't think that gods exist, you think that all this religious mumbo-jumbo is entirely man-made. So the ills you put at the feet of religion you're actually putting at the feet of man. Remove religion and you still have man, hence you still have the same ills, the same wrongs - they're just committed in the name of some other "thing." Atheists can't blame religion for anything. They need to blame man, and be realistic about the source of the problem.

Except humans don't have the 'religion' excuse anymore. And they don't have the religious influence anymore. Some of the wrongs might still be committed, but for a reason other than a magical being or some book told them to. It would be a naturalistic explanation, such as "I think all black people are inferior to me for no reason other than I'm of a different race." And hopefully we'd get to a point where the human race says "You're f'ing stupid."

I personally, think that instance like these might be minimized if religion wasn't involved. You forget that religion has a amazingly strong influence on politics and societal beliefs. As well as both psychologically and culturally. And has so for thousands and thousands of years. To save 100,000 Jews from dying in a concentration camp.....or to save one child from being molested because a priest took advantage of him. I think is worth it.

1st argument: Let's say you have 3 kids and 1 kid did something bad but instead of punishing that 1 kid which is what any normal person would do you instead punish all 3 even though the other 2 didn't deserve it. This is essentially what YHWH did. If you punish all 3 kids then you are punishing for enjoyment. I would bet you in all of Israel there would be people who didn't deserve to be dragged off into babylon. But instead of punishing the ones who deserve it he said f#*k it everyone is getting punished.

 

2nd argument: Why do you think the ones who study the bible intently and strive for a relationship with YHWH are often the ones who end up leaving versus the ones who barely knows what the bible says are often passionate stay? YHWH loves it when you sin so that through him you can seek redemption. But once you start doing the right thing and be more righteous that's when the feeling leaves you and start to become less righteous and fall back into sin so you can start the whole cycle again. Yes YHWH does love you no matter what.

 

 

For your first argument, what is your proof that all of Israel didn't deserve punishment? God said it did, the Bible said it did. Where's your evidence this is wrong? All of these straw men don't make much of an argument.

Neither does your evidence from authority

How do you know that Satan is the bad guy and God is the good guy of the Bible? Ever done a body count after reading through it?

I don't know that God "commanded" any of those armies to pillage or rape "his children." I think God stood aside and allowed it to happen (which could make him just as culpable, I suppose), but I don't recall a time when God advocated rape or murder.

As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you.

(Deuteronomy 20:10-14)

Lo, a day shall come for the Lord when the spoils shall be divided in your midst. And I will gather all the nations against Jerusalem for battle: the city shall be taken, houses plundered, women ravished; half of the city shall go into exile, but the rest of the people shall not be removed from the city. (Zechariah 14:1-2)

"This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: Strap on your swords! Go back and forth from one end of the camp to the other, killing even your brothers, friends, and neighbors." The Levites obeyed Moses, and about three thousand people died that day. Then Moses told the Levites, "Today you have been ordained for the service of the LORD, for you obeyed him even though it meant killing your own sons and brothers. Because of this, he will now give you a great blessing." (Exodus 32:26-29)

And not to mention the many Jewish laws about rape or when it's okay to murder.

Would my parents have the right to kill their child? Not in this time or this culture, but in other times/cultures yes, they have had that right. Go back a couple thousand years and think what kind of rights a parent would/should have. Can't judge the entirety of the situation by today's standards. Humanity has been around in some form or another in excess of 200,000 years. Civilization has only existed for 10k to maybe 20k years.

And do you see this as something that is moral?

I'm not judging the situation by today's standards...I'm judging the situation on what is morally just and what isn't. And a parent killing a child or chaining them up in the basement and torturing them FOREVER, is NOT morally right. In ANY century. Just like slavery was morally wrong 100 years ago as it is today. People may have been too stupid to accept it, but what century it is doesn't matter to how a human being is treated. That's like saying it's okay that children are forced to work in sweat shops today in Asia...'cause that's just how it is over there. Or, genital mutilation has been around for centuries, who are you to say Middle Eastern cultures can't practice it.

Yes, I can judge actions to be moral! And you are well within your right to say they're not moral either!

The second argument in the explanation is, "Now you hear it doesn't matter what you do and what you believe that God always cares no matter what," which is half straw man, half misinterpretation of the God of the Bible. It also draws a fallacious conclusion "...that defeats the purpose of religion because you essentially don't have to care or worship God to get any kind of favors from him," because that's expressly not what God/Jesus have said in the Bible. Yes, God loves you no matter what, but that doesn't mean that God is going to do anything/everything for you because of that. Again, like a parent, you may love your child implicitly, but that doesn't mean you won't punish them. Nor does it mean that the child can't "break the camel's back" and the parent can't ultimately disown the child.

 

My parents should have done this with their daughter, and although they didn't, she has moooooooooore than earned it. The parent may still love that child, will forever love that child, but if the child wholly turns away from the parent, spurns their teaching and behaves in a way they know the parent abhors, the parent is within their rights to turn away. God is no different.

Would your parents have it within their right to kill their child, then? How about locking that child in their basement and torturing them for eternity?

I'm fine with anyone believing in the god of the Bible, but don't ignore all the stories of him commanding armies to slaughter, pillage and rape his children by comparing it to teaching a child a lesson for breaking a window. It's just insane how you can logically be against a human harming another...but god has it within his right if you make him mad!

The thing that keeps coming to me as I read this thread is John 8:7 Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. It wouls appear there are many who do not heed or believe in this advice. Plenty seem more than willing to toss that rock without hesitation.

Can I ask, what does that passage mean to you?

Am I not allowed to ask for prosecution of pedophiles because I've done some lesser "sins" in my life too?

But, yes...I have no problem refusing to follow or believe in that advice, however poetic it may seem out of context.

While I have the utmost respect for the late Hitchens and Slate, neither are an authoritative or unbiased source of Church analysis.

Would the BBC work?

http://news.bbc.co.u...cas/3157859.stm

---edit---

my favorite is the last paragraph

All these official communications shall always be made under the secret of the Holy Office; and, since they concern the common good of the church to the greatest degree, the precept of doing these things obliges under serious sin

I notice they glossed over the problems with the fetus that prompted the abortion. ("[after they] learned her daughter suffered from fetal anomalies.") It's hard to form an opinion on this story without this key bit of information. Was the baby merely suffering from cosmetic anomalies? Or something more serious that would likely have resulted in death shortly after birth?

Yeah . . . I noticed that too. I don't think that it's at all likely that it was just cosmetic abnormalities . . .

 

I'd like to know the rest of the story.

Of course, it's an obiviously biased article. It also states "The Washington Post reported yesterday that both the medical examiner and Montgomery County Police Department are conducting an investigation"...but goes ahead and labels the article as Carhart's victims identified. As if he's already guilty.

I also love how the source of most of the information for the article is "sidewalk counselors"

Unobservable as in not existing in this universe -- not related to our tools/instruments or distance.

Okay, then responding back to your original post:

To me, I think there are only two sides of the fence you can eventually fall on in regards this.

You either entertain the idea (with varying degrees of certainty) of a Deity (theist) and continue to contemplate the significance of your role in this grand experiment ...

or you reject the concept of a Deity outright (atheist) and simply stop thinking about the unobservable how and the why altogether.

I guess then I would say that an atheist (and a skeptic) would choose not to believe in the unobservable because of their rejection of the god claim. Yes. An unobservable how and an unobservable why, would need as much (if not more) evidential support as an unobservable god. So in other words, you'd have to not only show evidence of a god, but also evidence of a purpose. So most atheists/skeptics, would choose to reject that as well.

However, take the word "unobservable" out and just leave "how and why" in your original statement...and I disagree with you. I'm in a constant state of wondering how and why we came to be here. But, I'd also have to ask, what distinguishes the unobservable from the non-existant?

So you would humor someone by talking about the possibility of a Deity, but you don't believe it possible?

Not necessarily to humor someone...but to talk about it in a hypothetical or philosophical sense. Atheists do that all the time when discussing religion.

Like discussing all the great flavors of ice cream with someone, even though you only eat custard?

Again, if were talking about hypothetical flavors (ie. Invisible and Timeless Snazzle Berry Ice Cream), then yes. I could have a hypothetical discussion about them. I'd probably tell you at the end of the discussion I didn't think that flavor existed.

Now, if you said it was chocolate ice cream. I would probably think, "well, I've had ice cream before. I've also had chocolate in other products before. So I can probably take your word on it that another flavor probably exists." And then I can just go to the store and find it on the shelf. It's too bad your Snazzle Berry Ice Cream happens to also be invisible though! Dang!

Do you believe we live in the Matrix?

Nope

"Because I haven't ruled that out.

I read a book by Brian Greene called "The Hidden Reality :.." and he covers that topic - the "Holographic Universe" theory. Crazy good stuff."

I'll have to check that one out.

You misread or I failed to make that point clear.

 

Unobservable. I know it's technically not a word...but you get my meaning hopefully.

 

-------

 

I would argue an atheist who is curious about the unobservable and entertains the possibility of a Deity when considering - without picking one as a convenient question filler-, is not an atheist.

 

...but words are hard and I could be wrong wrong wrong.

You'll have to explain what you mean by unobservable? Because theists sometime mean two different things. Unobservable with the current limits of our technology (like billions of light years away?)...or unobservable like other dimensions of space/time or a supernatural realm?

Also, I wouldn't say someone who entertains the possibility of a deity is not an atheist. We can talk about hypothetical possibilities all day long, but when it comes down to what I actually believe, that's different. Sure it's possible there is a god. But it's also possible we all live in the Matrix. Now, ask me if I believe we live in the Matrix?

I agree with that post, Conga.

 

Nice to see others who see it that way.

 

"Since asking before the Big Bang is non-sensical" is an un-clever way of dodging the glaringly obvious problem itself. It needs an answer, at least to me anyway. But apparently millions are content not to ponder it.

 

That interests and confuses me greatly.

As I said in my post above (sorry, I just started replying without reading everyone's post)...it's not dodging the question. I think it's hard for us (me included) to understand 'no-time'. As in, there is no before. It's like trying to explain what "nothing" is. We have no such example of "nothing" as we have no such example of "no-time". It's hard for a lot of us to perceive.

So it's not that I think asking what happened before the Big Bang is stupid...or what caused the Big Bang is just a waste of time to talk about. I actually am extremely intrigued at the universe around me. I just choose not to settle on "God did it" (which I actually would call even MORE unimaginative). What I was saying was it's a non-intelligible question to ask what happened before there was time. There is no before!

Of course, that doesn't mean there aren't other theories. This is just how I understand the prevailing idea. You'll have to ask a particle physicist

Wouldn't that be time AT the Big Bang then? Since asking before the Big Bang is non-sensical.

No. T=0 represents "no time" or "before time", before the moment of the big bang. T as in "time" doesn't exist - as in "0"

 

=======================

 

 

My original point was atheists are boring and lack imagination. I meant it as a playful jab the the atheists who frequent the board.

 

bennychico11 helps me to illustrate that point by saying,

 

'Since asking before the Big Bang is non-sensical.'

 

I don't think I helped illustrate your point at all with that comment. I was purely saying time BEFORE the Big Bang is non-sensical. Because time and space came into existence simultaneously. You defined it yourself above...t=0, time doesn't exist. There is no before. It's like asking what's north of the North pole. That's not lacking imagination, it's just physics.

what is a 'practiced atheist'?

 

How bout this...

 

Are you an atheist?

 

If so, why do you exist? Is this something you enjoy considering? Or do you generally find the question irrelevant?

 

Depending on your answer will determine if you're a 'practiced atheist' or not.

Are you an atheist? yes

If so, why do you exist? I exist because my parents had sex and through natural processes, I was born. Do you exist from a different process?

Is this something you enjoy considering? lol, I don't generally like to enjoy thinking about my parents having sex, no.

Or do you generally find the question irrelevant? I have a feeling you were meaning something different than "why do you exist", then...yes?

The word "practiced" typically defines someone who is an expert or customarily performs something....as in a practicing Catholic (one who follows the rules, customs, dogma of that particular faith). However, there are no tenants, rules, dogma to atheism. So to really say I'm a practicing atheist doesn't make sense to me.

T0 or T=0 is how a theoretical physicist would describe the event prior to the big bang - when time was zero.

Wouldn't that be time AT the Big Bang then? Since asking before the Big Bang is non-sensical.

If we ask 10 atheists to describe what it means to be atheist... might we get 10 different versions? But the bottom line is you do not believe a 'god' created our universe with design or purpose in mind....correct?

Not quite. Again, it's only a response to a claim, "God X exists!" Being an atheist only means I don't believe in god X. It has nothing to do with design on the universe, purpose of my life, etc.

Now, as a result of my atheism (or response that I don't believe in god X)...it also may lead to not believing god X created the universe with design or purpose in mind. This is only because of the first premise; I don't believe in god X. It's much like how many theists might believe in a god, but believe he had no part in the creation of the universe. Or if he did, he just set the wheels in motion and there really is no purpose or design in mind.

Of course, it could get tricky by how you define "god."

To an atheist the BIG ANSWER is .... 'because...no big deal'.

I guess I'd have to ask what the BIG QUESTION is first before I respond with that. I don't see that you have asked me one yet. And not all atheists are going to give you the same answer.

I'm sure I could have an enjoyable conversation with someone about science and the origin debate who happens to be an atheist... I just find the fervent "belief" in the non-belief to be....well, boring and lacking imagination.

 

...but I'l be honest, I haven't had big time discussions with practiced atheists before.

Again, it's a belief in the non-belief. It's just a simple rejection of a single claim. I believe in all sorts of other things. Of course, as a skeptic too I reject claims about aliens visiting Earth, Lochness Monster, ghosts, a soul, etc. But doesn't have anything to do with whether or not I believe in a god. Many theists reject those same claims too.

Abiogenesis obviously only attempts to explain the third item in the list he posted. It only deals with one of the five things he gave on the list, it doesn't have anything to do with the other four. Life from non-life and complex life from simple life, that's small potatoes compared to the other three.

 

But really, abiogenesis doesn't actually have much to do with the question of whether or not god, gods, or God exists.

That's why I said "to start"

The rest is way out of my field. I suggest talking to a particle physicist or molecular biologist for more information

And I know abiogenesis doesn't have anything to do with the existence of a god. I wasn't asserting that. I was only responding to his assertion that there are no natural explanations for the world around us and that we must then conclude that the default position is then based in the supernatural. Which is absurd.

Atheism is boring and lacks imagination.

How so?

 

When someone says they are an atheist, they are rejecting an infinite number of possibilities for [existence/origin/genesis/t0/etc]

 

When someone says they believe in [God/Creator/Something], they are only rejecting one possibility.

 

So yeah, I find atheism boring and unimaginative.

atheism is only the rejection of a god claim. Someone asks me "do you believe in the god X"...and I say no.

My atheism is not dependent on my beliefs on existence, origins of life, the universe, political views, moral values, etc (although, I don't know what t0 is).

Even if it was. Purely because something is "possible" or can be imagined, does NOT make it true. Just because I can imagine the most amazingly, magical dragon that can teleport through time....does NOT make you un-imaginative for saying I'm delusional.

There is this thing called reality. And I'm content with living in it.

Atheism is boring and lacks imagination.

 

No thanks.

 

and, I'd add is indefensible as well.

I'm hoping he was just joking about the "lacks imagination" thing

But I wonder, how you do you see it as indefensible?

For your consideration...

 

try to explain matter from non-matter or energy from non-energy or life from non-life or complex life from simple life or sentient thought on a molecular basis or....

 

what you will find is that there is no natural explanation for any of these things, nothing from the natural realm is reasonable based on the data alone --- so if you were asked to explain life without invoking the supernatural, you likely would be left unsatisfied as well.

http://en.wikipedia....iki/Abiogenesis

Evolution

...to start.

There is actually a lot of the scientific community working on natural explanations to these things. And what is not known right now, doesn't mean it's not unknowable. Sometimes it's okay to say "I don't know" in science.

But just because there is an 'I don't know', doesn't mean you can invoke the supernatural or "magic" as an answer. You can't answer a mystery with an even bigger mystery. You'd have to show evidence for the supernatural first.