From: me22over7@gmail.com   
      
   On 5/09/2025 1:37 am, Mark Isaak wrote:   
   > 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.   
   >   
      
   FWIW, see my response to JH   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)