From: me22over7@gmail.com   
      
   On 7/01/2026 6:08 pm, Martin Harran wrote:   
   > On Wed, 7 Jan 2026 11:28:23 +1100, MarkE  wrote:   
   >   
   >> 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."   
   >   
   > How does suggesting we give up looking for naturalistic explanations   
   > address that problem?   
      
   Not sure if you overlooked response options c and d below?   
      
   In listing options a-d I'm not endorsing any in particular, just laying   
   out the range of response possible.   
      
   Is that clear?   
      
   >   
   >   
   >>   
   >>>   
   >>>> 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)