From: me22over7@gmail.com   
      
   On 1/01/2026 3:17 pm, Vincent Maycock wrote:   
   > On Thu, 1 Jan 2026 12:09:54 +1100, 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.   
   >   
   > How so?   
      
   You'll only consider materialistic explanations within the scope of   
   science (i.e. under the lampost).   
      
   You refuse to consider supernatural explanations, i.e. if   
   suggested/pointed to by science, and elaborated by religion, philosophy,   
   etc (i.e. elsewhere in the carpark).   
      
   >   
   >> You have have arbitrarily truncated your epistemology to metaphysical   
   >> naturalism.   
   >   
   > Actually, my reply would be consistent with *methodological*   
   > naturalism as well.   
      
   By excluding the supernatural upfront you go beyond methodological   
   to metaphysical naturalism:   
      
   "also called ontological naturalism, philosophical naturalism, or   
   antisupernaturalism – is a philosophical worldview that holds that there   
   is nothing but natural elements, principles, and relations of the kind   
   studied by the natural sciences."   
   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysical_naturalism   
      
   Would you agree?   
      
   >   
   >> This is neither rational, justifiable, nor wise.   
   >   
   > Okay, let's say you claim that you have this explanation for, say, the   
   > origin of life, namely that God was responsible for it.  How do you   
   > test, check, verify, or falsify that explanation?  I mean, how do we   
   > distinguish between "science" and "just making things up" when   
   > considering your claims?   
      
   Let's deal with points above first.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)