From: 69jpil69@gmail.com   
      
   On Sun, 4 Jan 2026 22:59:23 +1100, MarkE  wrote:   
      
   >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."   
      
      
   I for one find it depressing that a rational thoughtful human would be   
   critical of Cox's comments above.  That you characterize them as   
   "unconditionally reject consideration of supernatural explanations" is   
   in fact nothing of the kind, but instead a recognition that you, me,   
   and all humanity are part and parcel of the natural order of the   
   universe.   
      
   --    
   To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)