From: martinharran@gmail.com   
      
   On Wed, 7 Jan 2026 21:55:51 +1100, MarkE  wrote:   
      
   >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:   
   >>>>>r   
   >>>>> 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?   
      
   It's you who is doing the overlooking, I responded to them. I said   
   (still preserved in your post):   
      
   "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."   
   >   
   >In listing options a-d I'm not endorsing any in particular, just laying   
   >out the range of response possible.   
   >   
   >Is that clear?   
      
   Why put it forward as adoption? You have been persistently doing this   
   for a long time (except it was originally70 years, not 1000) and give   
   the distinct impression that it is your favoured option.   
      
   >   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>>> 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)