[continued from previous message]   
      
   > "special revelation", philosophy etc. On the other hand, I infer from   
   > what I know of the universe and from life things like design,   
   > intelligence, powerful agency; also abstract things like love, beauty,   
   > morality. So "natural theology" may identify attributes of a   
   > supernatural agent.   
      
   How can you identify attributes of a supernatural agent without first   
   establishing that such an agent exists?   
      
   > What position would you/do you take?   
      
   My position is that science is our only way of gathering reliable   
   knowledge of the universe. Theology, revelation, philosophy, etc. don't   
   do it.   
      
   > An observed phenomenon could conceivably breach the causality threshold   
   > to a such a degree as to give some individuals full conviction of   
   > supernatural involvement.   
      
   Don't forget that a sufficiently advanced technology is   
   indistinguishable from magic. If you see something that's physically   
   impossible, as far as you know, it's either a miracle or you were wrong   
   about what's possible. How would you tell the difference?   
      
   > Biblical miracles served that purpose (not   
   > arguing for their veracity here, just using them to illustrate the   
   > principle). For example:   
   >   
   > Immediately he made the disciples get into the boat and go before him to   
   > the other side, while he dismissed the crowds. And after he had   
   > dismissed the crowds, he went up on the mountain by himself to pray.   
   > When evening came, he was there alone, but the boat by this time was a   
   > long way from the land, beaten by the waves, for the wind was against   
   > them. And in the fourth watch of the night he came to them, walking on   
   > the sea. But when the disciples saw him walking on the sea, they were   
   > terrified, and said, “It is a ghost!” and they cried out in fear. But   
   > immediately Jesus spoke to them, saying, “Take heart; it is I. Do not be   
   > afraid.”   
   >   
   > And Peter answered him, “Lord, if it is you, command me to come to you   
   > on the water.” He said, “Come.” So Peter got out of the boat and walked   
   > on the water and came to Jesus. But when he saw the wind, he was afraid,   
   > and beginning to sink he cried out, “Lord, save me.” Jesus immediately   
   > reached out his hand and took hold of him, saying to him, “O you of   
   > little faith, why did you doubt?” And when they got into the boat, the   
   > wind ceased. And those in the boat worshiped him, saying, “Truly you are   
   > the Son of God.”   
   >   
   > (Matthew 14:22-33)   
      
   So many problems with that story, from a theological perspective alone,   
   but no need to go into them here. But what does a cheap magic trick tell   
   you about God?   
      
   >>> "Given a priori presuppositions, people holding different views   
   >>> regarding origins look at the same evidence and come to different   
   >>> conclusions. Or they ignore evidence that doesn’t support their   
   >>> viewpoint, while touting evidence that does.   
   >>   
   >> That's true for OEC and YEC, since they are required to ignore almost   
   >> every feature of the world, and the evidence they imagine supports   
   >> their views is in face imaginary. Not sure what you think the evidence   
   >> for PE or DE would be.   
   >>> Personally, I agree with Rau that none of the models has a complete   
   >>> model with adequate explanations for all of the evidence."   
   >>   
   >> Nor would we expect to have such a model. If we did, science would be   
   >> done. We would know everything.   
   >>   
   >>> https://cathyduffyreviews.com/homeschool-reviews-core-curricula/   
   >>> science/creation-science-intelligent-design/mapping-the-origins-debate#   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)