From: rokimoto557@gmail.com   
      
   On 1/2/2026 6:37 PM, Chris Thompson wrote:   
   > Ernest Major wrote:   
   >> 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.   
   >>   
   >   
   > If I might...   
   >   
   > ISTM that in the last 1000 years, humans have proposed scores or   
   > hundreds (or more) supernatural explanations for the origin of the   
   > universe (or just this world) and certainly the origin of life. Some   
   > religions have even put forth explanations for the planet's biodiversity.   
   >   
   > But none of these hypotheses- not one, ever- has ever succeeded in   
   > satisfactorily accounting for what we actually know of biology or   
   > cosmology to the exclusion of all other hypotheses.   
   >   
   > It seems like humans have been considering supernatural explanations for   
   > lots of stuff for considerably more than 1000 years, and none of it has   
   > been worth a tinker's damn.   
   >   
   > Chris   
   >   
      
   Elsewhere in this thread MarkE is running from the fact that there has   
   been a 100% failure rate for god-did-it claims about nature throughout   
   the entire history of humanity.  The only reason that MarkE has to   
   indulge in his current gap denial is because of this 100% failure rate.   
   If there ever had been a success he wouldn't need to wallow in the   
   denial.  It is just a fact that every god-did-it claim where we have   
   figured out what is actually happening the god-did-it claim has failed   
   and been replaced by some aspect of nature.  Most of the TO IDiots left   
   posting when the ID perp's put out their Top Six, in the order in which   
   they must have occurred in this universe, quit the ID scam because the   
   events in that order was not the Biblical order.  They quit because it   
   turned out that they had never wanted the ID perps to succeed in   
   producing any legitimate science because it would have just been more   
   science for them to deny.  It isn't just the Biblical claims that have   
   been falsified, but all the god-did-it claims where we have figured out   
   what is happening have failed.  There is no god that pulls the sun and   
   moon across the sky.  The seasons do not change because some god takes a   
   vacation.  No god seems to be responsible for making babies.  Sperm and   
   egg have to unite and the baby develops from that single cell to get   
   that job done.   
      
   Ron Okimoto   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)