Scientific definition relative dating ryan reynolds dating blake lively
I think we should take into account the nature of the explanation.
It is true that we do not need to explain the causes of a drought in order to explain its effects, but the drought itself belongs to the same realm as the failed crop, and it remains explainable in principle.
because it leaves the explanation itself (God) unexplained.
Let us ask ourselves what would happen if we required that a successful explanation must itself be explained.
So the problem with the atheist sacred cow of “Who designed the designer? “God did it” is what atheists should be trying to communicate.
Despite repeated attempts to explain all this to my atheist readers, many still insist that successful explanations must themselves be explained.
I want to kill one of atheism’s most popular and resilient retorts.I vividly recall the moment it dawned on me that, whatever my mother’s answer to my latest why-question, I could simply retort by asking ‘Why?’ of the answer itself, until my mother ran out of answers or patience……the [why-regress] argument brings out the important facts that explanations can be chained, and that what explains need not itself be understood…Or consider atheist philosopher of science Michael Friedman.
These have been some of the for the particles that we have offered as explanations for the quantum phenomena.