The question was where did the laws of physics come from and you said "nature"
Inventing things that I said isn't going to win you the argument.
Again nature acting alone did not create my computer.
You believe that your computer was created supernaturally? Do you believe that, when you take a picture with a camera, a little man inside makes a painting of what he can see out of the lens?
So where did the laws of physics come from?
Who gives a fuck? Point not under discussion. Is it the laws of physics that you believe were created by intelligence, or certain biological structures? When you ask things like this, it's obvious that you don't even know.
I know no reasonable person would believe you.
You don't think most people, or most reasonable people, believe that computers operate via the laws of physics instead of supernaturally? Would you care to conduct a survey on this subject?
Isn't ascribing supernatural origin or operation to completely natural phenomenon the precise definition of "unreasonable"?
Is it possible that the reason that you continually misrepresent my posts and then accuse me of doing it to you is because your terms are impossibly vague, but you refuse to specify them, out of a desparate need to avoid grounding your arguments in reality, where they would certainly be refuted instantly?