From: 69jpil69@gmail.com   
      
   On Wed, 7 Jan 2026 22:15:33 +1100, MarkE  wrote:   
      
   >On 7/01/2026 8:24 am, RonO wrote:   
   >> Here is the strongest argument for the ID scam.   
   >>    
   >> https://scienceandculture.com/2026/01/the-strongest-argument-for-    
   >> intelligent-design-is-also-the-simplest/   
   >>    
   >> You just have to have no knowledge of physics, chemistry nor how    
   >> biological evolution works to think that it is any valid argument at all.   
   >>    
   >> Ron Okimoto   
   >   
   >Off topic, but I'm curious to know your view on the    
   >first-cause/cosmological argument?   
   >   
   >I find Roger Penrose's position revealing. He recognises that this    
   >argument has weight, and attempts to avoid an absolute space/time    
   >beginning (and thus a “first cause”) without invoking a multiverse or    
   >speculative quantum creation from nothing with his Conformal Cyclic    
   >Cosmology (CCC).   
   >   
   >Thanks Roger for confirming that (i) the first-cause problem is real;    
   >(ii) current materialist hypotheses are doubtful at best; and (iii)    
   >materialists are willing to try any amount of mathematical gymnastics    
   >(e.g. CCC) to avoid the God hypothesis.   
      
      
   If by "first-cause problem" you refer to the claim that the universe's   
   existence is proof of God, then Penrose's CCC is orthogonal to it.     
      
   Care to cite anything to show Penrose supporting your (ii) and (iii)?   
      
   --    
   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)