[continued from previous message]   
      
   >> domain.   
   >   
   >Not by definition. Entirely for practical reasons, because the    
   >supernatural is characterized by a lack of discernible properties.    
   >There's nothing for science to grab onto.   
   >   
   >> Further investigation would be in the realms of theology and    
   >> "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#   
      
      
   MarkE continues to argue that hypotheses using supernatural causes are   
   equivalent to hypotheses using natural causes.  That he can't/won't   
   identify/define what are supernatural causes suggests he knows that   
   his line of reasoning has no merit.   
      
   --    
   To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)