Many a theist accuse atheists or judge atheism by what they believe atheism doesn’t/ can’t answer. I don’t know whether atheism is to answer why birds fly and whether failure to do this makes it false.
In this article by Eric makes it his main point to create a problem which the only way he sees out of it is to invoke the unknown. He asks,
Everything can be explained purely naturally through a study of the natural world. In short, nature exists “naturally,” not supernaturally.
If such is the case, however, then how did nature get here to begin with?
Why must he assume that Nature, which encompasses all there is, had to come from somewhere. This information cannot be given by experience. All we see is things changing from one form to another but never a thing arising out of nothing. To therefore ask where nature comes from is to leave the province of experience and delve into that which is better called speculative reason.
I contend that we have no way of knowing if there are any supernatural things. In fact, what is supernatural is not clearly defined.
Eric thinks he has argued against atheism by asking why anyone would believe something from nothing is possible while not realizing the theist believes that a being living in a timeless and space-less somewhere created all things out of nothing. If anything, the naturalists at least believes matter cannot be created or destroyed and could be eternal and that it requires no force outside of itself to transform.
Why the theist insists that the origin of life, if it had any, is supernatural is beyond my understanding. To claim that this and that are a result of this supernatural action, I think, requires evidence in their support.