From: {$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk   
      
   On 02/01/2026 12:06, MarkE wrote:   
   > 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?   
      
   As I wrote earlier, nobody is stopping you proposing supernatural   
   explanations.   
      
   If, say, 1000 years from now, no-one has proposed a substantive   
   supernatural explanation (implicit in your thought experiment), would   
   you consider stopping looking for a gap to stuff your god into, and   
   consider that perhaps you ought to consider the possibility that there's   
   a natural explanation.   
      
   --   
   alias Ernest Major   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)