I actually agree with much of what you post here, except of course, for your conclusion that science points to a supernatural cause. Just because we theorize a beginning to nature as we know it doesn't mean there wasn't a different kind of nature before that. That's not a big point of contention, though. I do applaud you for pointing out the dividing lines between observational science and philisophical disciplines.
I would like you to expand on this statement, though:
the most logical conclusion would be that intellect would come from intellect
I'm afraid I don't see the logic here.
Brief points
I actually agree with much of what you post here, except of course, for your conclusion that science points to a supernatural cause. Just because we theorize a beginning to nature as we know it doesn't mean there wasn't a different kind of nature before that. That's not a big point of contention, though. I do applaud you for pointing out the dividing lines between observational science and philisophical disciplines.
I would like you to expand on this statement, though:
the most logical conclusion would be that intellect would come from intellect
I'm afraid I don't see the logic here.