[continued from previous message]   
      
   >>> followers, even when facing suffering and death. Circumstantial   
   >>> evidence can used to make rational inferences, e.g. for a verdict in   
   >>> a court of law.   
   >>>   
   >>> All the same, as I've acknowledged, assessing the mutually exclusive   
   >>> truth claims of different religions is problematic and personal. I'm   
   >>> not claiming otherwise.   
   >>>   
   >>> I should say too that my own faith does not depend on science, though   
   >>> I do take science seriously.   
   >>>   
   >>> All of which takes us back to my original proposal: if my "1000   
   >>> years" scenario eventuates, then rationally that adds impetus to   
   >>> consider supernatural explanations, even with the challenges   
   >>> mentioned. You may still declare your own unwillingness to consider   
   >>> the supernatural, even with the the most compelling "1000 years"   
   >>> scenario imaginable, and may justify that by claiming that such   
   >>> explanations are not knowable. I would respond that, at some point, a   
   >>> refusal to at least explore would betray an a priori commitment to   
   >>> materialism in the face of scientific evidence. And you may disagree,   
   >>> and there we would reach a stalemate.   
   >>   
   >> Once more I ask how we would consider supernatural explanations. This   
   >> is the heart of your problem.   
   >   
   > Something like this:   
   >   
   > "Assessing the truth claims of world religions—especially since many   
   > make mutually exclusive claims—requires a careful, multi-layered   
   > approach. Here are several angles you could use, depending on whether   
   > you prioritize philosophy, history, or lived experience:   
   >   
   > 1. Philosophical Coherence   
   >   
   > Internal consistency: Does the religion’s worldview avoid contradictions   
   > within its own teachings? For example, does its concept of God,   
   > morality, or human purpose hold together logically?   
      
   Doesn't matter to the origin of life denial.   
      
   >   
   > External explanatory power: Does the worldview make sense of the world   
   > we observe—things like the existence of consciousness, morality, order   
   > in nature, and human longing for meaning?   
      
   Such explanatory power doesn't really exist.  Just think of how many   
   times the Bible has been wrong about things as they exist in nature.   
   Any explanatory power seems to be reliant on personal interpretation of   
   any possible consistency.   
      
   >   
   > 2. Historical Credibility   
   >   
   > Origins and development: Are the religion’s founding events historically   
   > verifiable or plausible? For example, the historical resurrection claim   
   > in Christianity, the compilation of the Qur’an in Islam, or the   
   > verifiable life of Siddhartha Gautama in Buddhism.   
   >   
   > Transmission reliability: How well preserved are the original texts and   
   > traditions? Do we have strong textual evidence or is it mostly late,   
   > fragmented, or contradictory?   
   >   
   > Miracle claims: These are often central to veracity. Assess whether they   
   > have corroborating witnesses, early testimony, or whether they look more   
   > like legendary accretions.   
      
   None of this matters to the origin of life denial.  The Bible in any   
   version isn't very credible for accounting for nature.  You have been   
   posting to TO for around 25 years and it would be delusional for you to   
   think that any interpretation of the Bible holds much credibility in   
   terms of the creation of the universe, our solar system, and the   
   evolution of life on earth.  Old earth Biblical creationists pretty much   
   all acknowledge this fact.  You can go to the Reason to Believe site and   
   see them admitting that the Bible doesn't mention the actual origin of   
   life on earth, nor anything about Biological evolution.  They use these   
   ommissions in two totally different ways.  They deny that evolution ever   
   happened, but they claim that the order of the creation of life in the   
   Bible may not be the actual order of creation because other lifeforms   
   may have been created before plants, but the creation of land plants was   
   only first mentioned to be on the 3rd day.  Birds, sea creatures and   
   land animals may have been mentioned out of order.  This just means that   
   the credibility is about zero.   
      
   >   
   > 3. Moral and Existential Fruitfulness   
   >   
   > Practical impact: Does following the religion produce consistent moral   
   > transformation in adherents? Not just in isolated saints, but across   
   > broad communities.   
   >   
   > Human needs: Does the religion adequately address deep existential   
   > questions—such as the problem of suffering, the need for forgiveness, or   
   > the quest for ultimate meaning?   
      
   Doesn't matter to the origin of life denial.  What is the moral   
   fruitfulness of having to lie about the origin of life denial like the   
   ID perps and you have to do?   
      
   >   
   > 4. Comparative Exclusivity   
   >   
   > Since religions make mutually exclusive claims (e.g., monotheism vs.   
   > polytheism, reincarnation vs. resurrection, salvation by grace vs. by   
   > works):   
   >   
   > One strategy is critical elimination: examine contradictory claims and   
   > see which stand up better to scrutiny.   
   >   
   > Another is to explore whether partial truth is possible (religions may   
   > contain overlapping moral or metaphysical truths even if not all are   
   > wholly correct).   
   >   
   > Some adopt a pluralist stance (all religions are different paths to the   
   > same reality), but this itself is a truth claim that often contradicts   
   > what religions themselves say.   
      
   The Supreme court left it open for any real creation science to be   
   taught in the public schools, but nothing that the creationist had, that   
   included the name change junk in Of Pandas and People, was not any   
   creation science that could be taught in the public schools.  They left   
   open the possiblity that Biblical creationism could be taught in the   
   public schools as part of a comparative religion class.  This has been   
   rejected by the ID perps and all the creationists that want to teach   
   their religious beliefs in the public schools.  Such Biblical   
   creationists have always been losers and liars.  They do not want their   
   kids to be exposed to other religious beliefs because they understand   
   what an honest evalutation could result in.  You are probably lying to   
   yourself if you think that you have done an honest evaluation of   
   "Comparative Exclusivity".  Such a comparison has never mattered to why   
   you have to wallow in the origin of life denial because if you had the   
   faith of Saint Augustine denial of nature would not be needed to support   
   your religious beliefs.  The actual origin of life on earth isn't even   
   mentioned in the Bible, and what is written about the creation is wrong.   
      
   Ron Okimoto   
      
   >   
   > 5. Personal and Experiential Dimensions   
   >   
   > While harder to evaluate objectively, many believers appeal to lived   
   > religious experience (answered prayer, transformative encounters,   
   > mystical insight).   
   >   
   > One can test these experiences against external reality: are they   
   > consistent, verifiable, and not easily reducible to psychological or   
   > cultural explanation?   
   >   
   > 6. Methodological Guardrails   
   >   
   > Beware confirmation bias: People often judge religions by the one they   
   > were raised in or by isolated negative experiences with others.   
   >   
   > Use historical method: Treat religious claims with the same standards   
   > you’d use for other ancient historical claims (documents, archaeology,   
   > multiple attestation).   
   >   
   > Balance head and heart: Purely intellectual tests might miss the lived   
   > power of faith, while purely experiential tests might ignore   
   > contradictions."   
   >   
   >>   
   >>> Okay, we know where we stand. The best we can do then is stick to   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)