From: specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net   
      
   On 8/31/25 3:41 AM, MarkE wrote:   
   [...]   
   > This is a fundamental issue in this debate. Intending to be constructive   
   > and open-minded, what if I frame it this way:   
   >   
   > Separate from and prior to specific discussions about science, how do   
   > you regard naturalistic vs supernatural* explanations of origins?   
   >   
   > Do you regard one more likely or worthy of consideration that the other,   
   > and why?   
   >   
   > * The so-called "God hypothesis", which might be summaried as: A   
   > transcendent/supernatural agent (an unspecified God, intelligent   
   > designer, non-material cause), involved in the origin and/or   
   > organisation of the material universe.   
      
   What *is* a "transcendent/supernatural agent"? In particular, how does   
   it differ from "unknown causes"?   
      
   The scientific objection to the supernatural has nothing to do with it   
   being supernatural. I have said before and say again that any scientist   
   would be eager to investigate any supernatural being you plop on their   
   lab bench. The problem is not that they're supernatural, but that   
   they're impossible to say anything about, whether because they don't   
   exist, because they are defined to be ineffable, or both.   
      
   That said, we can tentatively rule out an intelligent designer because   
   we *do* know something about what intelligent works look like (albeit   
   out sample of types of intelligence are inadequate), and life does not   
   fit the pattern.   
      
   --   
   Mark Isaak   
   "Wisdom begins when you discover the difference between 'That   
   doesn't make sense' and 'I don't understand.'" - Mary Doria Russell   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)