From: me22over7@gmail.com
On 7/01/2026 3:28 am, Martin Harran wrote:
> On Fri, 2 Jan 2026 23:06:02 +1100, MarkE wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>> 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
>
> Borrowing from an old thread, back in the fifth century BCE,
> Democritus proposed that matter consists of indestructible,
> indivisible units called atoms. It took nearly two and a half
> millennia before Dalton showed that it was a valid proposition. Why do
> you think that 1000 years of what you see as failure is enough to
> abandon the search?
My thought experiment is intended to demonstrate your point:
"There are issues on both sides of the fence there. Just as there are
Creationists and ID'ers who reject science where it seems to conflict
with their religious beliefs, there are scientists who dismiss ideas
just because they think those ideas might let religion in the door;
the authors of this book make a very strong case that the virulent
opposition to the Big Bang was largely driven by ideological
opposition to religious belief which is not a good way to do science."
>
>> c. Consider supernatural explanations
>> d. Some combination of the above
>
> There are plenty of people doing that. Only a few of them are
> scientists because science is not a particularly useful way of trying
> to figure God out.
>
> [...]
>
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
