From: me22over7@gmail.com   
      
   On 3/01/2026 9:24 am, 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.   
   >   
      
   The range of Christian creationist positions (TE, OEC, ID, RTB/PC, YEC)   
   demonstrate that reconciling a supernatural explanation (i.e.   
   interpretations of the biblical account of creation) with observations   
   of the material world is of real importance. How successful this has   
   been or will be is another topic.   
      
   All the same, whenever I pose this thought experiment here, a common   
   response is to unconditionally reject consideration of supernatural   
   explanations, often asserting that science is the only source of knowledge.   
      
   IMO, this resistance goes transparently beyond, for example, reasonable   
   caution against premature god-of-the-gaps appeals. Physicist Brian Cox   
   gives us a clue I think as to where this is coming from (capitalisation   
   mine):   
      
   “There’s no evidence that the universe has purpose or intent, and it   
   doesn’t care about us at all. The laws of physics will continue to   
   operate whether we exist or not. I don’t find that depressing — I FIND   
   IT LIBERATING, BECAUSE IT MEANS MEANING ISN’T IMPOSED FROM OUTSIDE. It’s   
   something we create for ourselves, and with that comes complete   
   responsibility for what we do."   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)