From: me22over7@gmail.com
On 1/01/2026 1:09 pm, RonO wrote:
> On 12/31/2025 7:09 PM, MarkE wrote:
>> On 1/01/2026 11:33 am, Vincent Maycock wrote:
>>> On Thu, 1 Jan 2026 10:20:42 +1100, MarkE wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 1/01/2026 1:00 am, Vincent Maycock wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 1 Jan 2026 00:22:08 +1100, MarkE wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 31/12/2025 1:56 pm, Vincent Maycock wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What is *your* solution to this dilemma? It seem to me you have
>>>>>>>>> two
>>>>>>>>> possibilities:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> #1
>>>>>>>>> God tweaked the existing systems in a common ancestor of man and
>>>>>>>>> chimps so that a human descendant would eventually appear.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> #2
>>>>>>>>> God directly created man as a brand new species but acting as a
>>>>>>>>> designer, he adapted the plans he had already used for chimps.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Which of those is it or have you a third option I haven't
>>>>>>>>> thought of?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Personally, I haven't resolved that question. I lean toward #2,
>>>>>>>> as a
>>>>>>>> tentative OEC.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> My own convictions are that
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 1. God created
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> and, that purely naturalistic explanations
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> By supernaturalistic, don't you mean "I can make up whatever I want
>>>>>>> and call it a solution"?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Vince, what were you hoping to achieve with this comment?
>>>>>
>>>>> I meant that "I don't know" is a better intellectual evaluation than
>>>>> "A supernatural agent was at work."
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> are inadequate for
>>>>>
>>>>> Supernaturalism is always inadequate. Let's look at your scientific
>>>>> puzzles and their supposed solutions:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 2. origin of the universe
>>>>>
>>>>> God did it.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 3. fine tuning
>>>>>
>>>>> God did it.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 4. origin of life
>>>>>
>>>>> God did it.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 5. macroevolution
>>>>>
>>>>> God did it.
>>>>>
>>>>> 6. My car won't start
>>>>>
>>>>> God did it. Better offer some sacrifices!
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> My approach on TO is to attempt to use scientistic evidence to
>>>>>>>> support
>>>>>>>> 2-5. If this can be done to a significant degree for one of more of
>>>>>>>> these, then I think 1 becomes the most realistic alternative in
>>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>> shape or form. The who/why/what/when/how of 1 is a separate
>>>>>>>> endeavour,
>>>>>>>> and is not a requirement for 2-5.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Genuine question: What is your reason for removing God from any
>>>> consideration?
>>>
>>> Well, it's not because we don't like him. It's just that we can't
>>> test the hypothesis that God did it, since the idea of God is
>>> compatible with any conceivable evidence.
>>>
>>
>> You are the man who lost his keys somewhere in the carpark, and but
>> insists on looking only under the lamppost because because he says the
>> light is better there.
>>
>> You have have arbitrarily truncated your epistemology to metaphysical
>> naturalism.
>>
>> This is neither rational, justifiable, nor wise.
>>
>>
> Your god did it claims have had a 100% failure rate. They have never
> been testable on their own, and only failed when it has been figured out
> what was actually happening. The Bible claims that God opens the
> firmament to let the rain fall through, but the firmament was never
> determined to exist, and we figured out the water cycle and how water
> cycles through the earth and atmosphere. Look at how Genesis 1 has
> failed to describe the creation accurately. We do not live in a
> geocentric universe, and the earth is not flat. When Pasteur performed
> his experiments to look for spontaneous generation one of the players
> were Biblical creationists that wanted to believe that the creation was
> ongoing, but his experiments falsified the notion of special creation of
> the life forms. Centuries ago the creationists who were dealing with
> geology and the initial fossil record understood that there would have
> had to have been multiple floods to account for the fossil record even
> as incomplete as it initially was. They knew of many ancient biomes
> consisting of organisms that must not have survived each successive
> flood because life has been evolving on this planet for billions of years.
>
> It hasn't just been Biblical god did it claims that have a 100% failure
> rate. There is no god making babies. No god was needed to develop
> something from a fertilized egg. It was discovered that the cells of
> the developing embryo communicated with each other, and that no god was
> directing development unless it was a god that could be thwarted by
> placing slivers of mica between cells of the developing embryo. No god
> is needed to pull the sun and moon across the sky. No god causes the
> seasons to change by taking a vacation. 100% failure means a zero
> success rate in the entire history of humanity. Why would you consider
> something that has had zero value in our scientific understanding of
> nature?
>
[continued in next message]
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
