From: me22over7@gmail.com   
      
   On 2/01/2026 12:24 am, Vincent Maycock wrote:   
   > On Thu, 1 Jan 2026 18:49:27 +1100, MarkE  wrote:   
   >   
   >> 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:   
   >    
   >>>>>>> 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).   
   >   
   > Okay.  In your case you announce  "Found them!"  when you find an   
   > unusual pebble in the dark.  I, on the other hand, am always willing   
   > to wait for more light after I've searched for the keys under the lamp   
   > post before announcing success.   
      
   No, but enough on an analogy.   
      
   >   
   >> 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).   
   >   
   > That's the problem; the evidence can't "point to" a supernatural   
   > explanation, any more than a blank clock face can "point to" the   
   > current time.  It's just not possible!   
      
   This is foundational in this debate. To reiterate a thought experiment:   
      
   If, say, 1000 years from now, after consistent and concerted scientific   
   research over that time, there is a large majority scientific consensus   
   that all postulated naturalistic explanations for each of the following   
   had been excluded or shown be excessively improbable:   
      
   2. origin of the universe   
   3. fine tuning   
   4. origin of life   
   5. macroevolution   
      
   It seems to me the options are:   
      
   a. Keep looking for naturalistic explanations   
   b. Give up looking for naturalistic explanations   
   c. Consider supernatural explanations   
   d. Some combination of the above   
      
   Within the terms of this hypothetical, how would you respond?   
      
   >   
   >>>   
   >>>> 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:   
   >   
   > I exclude them *from science.*  That's, of course, the standard   
   > secular claim, and it's consistent with methodological naturalism.   I   
   > will, say, though that it's rather silly to include entities in your   
   > life (even beyond science) without good evidence for them.   
   >   
   >> "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?   
   >   
   > It's really the only way to think about things, given, that there's   
   > more to study in life than "the natural world," as it were,  (I'm   
   > referring here to disciplines like  history or psychology,  not Casper   
   > the Friendly Ghost). What's called "naturalism" should really be   
   > called "critical thinking."   
   >   
   >>>> 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.   
   >   
   > Done.  So how do you *dis*prove your "God did it" claims?   
   >   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)