[continued from previous message]   
      
   >>> Of course, the threshold for this is an individual decision.   
   >>>   
   >>> What could science itself tell us about this supernatural cause?   
   >>> In one sense, nothing - it is by definition restricted to the natural   
   >>> 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?   
   >   
   > I started addressing each of your responses individually, but decided   
   > that a consolidated statement might be more coherent and constructive.   
   >   
   > I think that what we are really debating is epistemology.   
   >   
   > The Wikipedia article on this, for example, points to a philosophical   
   > rabbit hole. In any case, science (empiricism) occupies a unique   
   > position, insofar as the scientific method provides a means of testing,   
   > refining and accumulating knowledge of the physical world, utilising   
   > falsifiability and reproducibility to provide a capacity for   
   > self-correction.   
   >   
   > And it does this rather well. Indeed, our modern technological society   
   > is built on science, among other things. Science rightly enjoys   
   > prominence in the epistemological framework.   
   >   
   > Given that, two avenues of discussion come to mind:   
   >   
   > 1. The legitimacy of other epistemological categories (including   
   > religion), and their relationship to science.   
   >   
   > 2. The double-edged nature of science itself.   
   >   
   > What do I mean by that? Science relies on cause and effect. In fact, I   
   > wonder if one  definition of "natural" might be that which is subject to   
   > causality (quantum acausality notwithstanding).   
   >   
   > What if science itself identifies non-causal phenomena? Now, if I   
   > understand correctly, you are saying this can never happen; rather, what   
   > may appear to be non-causal can only be categorised as "currently   
   > unexplained naturally".   
   >   
   > This is the nub of the issue I think. You seem to have upfront excluded   
   > epistemologies apart from science (as good as it is). This provides a   
   > jusfication to leave it at "currently unexplained naturally" rather than   
   > considering supernatural explanation, because you assume that there is   
   > no other legitimate means of acquiring knowledge, and the best we can do   
   > is park it in the science baskets of "to do" or "too hard" (which takes   
   > us back to 1 above).   
   >   
   > This brings me back to my "1000 years" thought exercise. If that   
   > scenario did play out, it would be an instance of science providing   
   > evidence of non-causality. That's the other sharp edge - evidence from   
   > science giving reason to consider explanations beyond the reach of science.   
      
   Perhaps you could rephrase that? It sounds like gobbledygook.   
      
   But we really don't need to wait a thousand years. We can start with one   
   simple question: what has religion produced in the last 2000 years, as   
   far as tangible results about the OOL? We've got a few books that   
   describe magic poofing. We've got a bunch of fables, like those   
   featuring Coyote. We've got the Dreamtime of Australian Aboriginal   
   people. And at least a few hundred others. None of these seem to be any   
   more reliable than the rest. Why hasn't religion settled on one, or at   
   least a few similar hypotheses? Just because science has been doing   
   other stuff should not have held theologians back from working on this.   
      
   Chris   
      
   >   
   > Of course, even at that point you may say, so what, science is the only   
   > valid epistemology, therefore whatever your "supernatural" may be, we   
   > have no way of knowing anything about it. Nothing to see here folks. But   
   > to adopt this position would be itself an act of faith.   
   >   
   > To take different tack: maybe there is a God, and maybe that God created   
   > the world and us, and maybe this has consequences that have profound   
   > personal implications. To exclude consideration of this possibility   
   > because of the limits of the scientific method would be to misapply   
   > science; especially so if science was loudly pointing us to the non-causal.   
   >   
   >>   
   >>> 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."   
   >>>>   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)