From: rokimoto557@gmail.com   
      
   On 1/9/2026 2:14 AM, Martin Harran wrote:   
   > 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:   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> 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.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> [...]   
   >>>>>   
   >>>   
   >   
   > Having finished "God, the Science, the Evidence", I've gone back to   
   > re-reading "Theology and Sanity" by Frank Sheed [1]. I've always liked   
   > what he had to say about Mystery:   
   >   
   > "Thus a Mystery is not to be thought of as simply darkness: it is a   
   > tiny circle of light surrounded by darkness. It is for us so to use   
   > our own powers and God's grace that the light will grow. It means   
   > using the mind upon what reality may be made to tell us about God, and   
   > upon what God, through His Church, has told us about Himself; it means   
   > praying for more knowledge, and using the knowledge one gains to   
   > enrich one's prayer. Thus the circle of light grows; but it is always   
   > ringed round with darkness: for however our capacity may increase, it   
   > remains finite, and God remains Infinite. Indeed the more the light   
   > grows, the more we see what His Infinity means, what His Immensity   
   > is."   
      
   There has never been an issue with understanding nature and gaining some   
   knowledge that might tell us something about God.  The issue with   
   IDiotic type Biblical creationists is that there is no reason that any   
   understanding will support any of their preconceived notions about their   
   Biblical god.  This was understood at the beginnings of the early   
   church, but we still have IDiotic type creationists that can't accept   
   reality, and want to use their stupid efforts to deny reality while   
   still trying to support their preconceived notions that reality will   
   never support.  MarkE is an example of someone that doesn't want to fill   
   his gaps with a non Biblical god.  IDiots understand that what they are   
   doing is stupid and dishonest.  Kalk and Bill could not continue to be   
   that stupid and dishonest when confronted by the reality of the ID   
   creationist scam.  The Top Six mysteries were never going to tell them   
   what they wanted to lie to themselves about.   
      
   This just means that you can go out and try to learn something about   
   God, but you can't expect to support your preconceived notions of the   
   God that actually exists.  Using the search for denial purposes has   
   always been stupid and dishonest.   
      
   Ron Okimoto   
   >   
   > I think that whilst the surrounding darkness will always remain due to   
   > the constraints we have as humans, science and philosophy and theology   
   > all have a role to play in growing that circle of light. Discarding   
   > any of them sells us short.   
   >   
   > ==============   
   >   
   > [1] Sheed, F. J. Theology and Sanity. London: Sheed & Ward, 1947.   
   >   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)