From: specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net
On 1/2/26 4:06 AM, MarkE wrote:
> On 2/01/2026 12:24 am, Vincent Maycock wrote:
>> On Thu, 1 Jan 2026 18:49:27 +1100, MarkE wrote:
>>
>>> On 1/01/2026 3:17 pm, Vincent Maycock wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 1 Jan 2026 12:09:54 +1100, MarkE wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 1/01/2026 11:33 am, Vincent Maycock wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 1 Jan 2026 10:20:42 +1100, MarkE wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 1/01/2026 1:00 am, Vincent Maycock wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>> Supernaturalism is always inadequate. Let's look at your
>>>>>>>> scientific
>>>>>>>> puzzles and their supposed solutions:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 2. origin of the universe
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> God did it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 3. fine tuning
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> God did it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 4. origin of life
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> God did it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 5. macroevolution
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> God did it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 6. My car won't start
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> God did it. Better offer some sacrifices!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> My approach on TO is to attempt to use scientistic evidence
>>>>>>>>>>> to support
>>>>>>>>>>> 2-5. If this can be done to a significant degree for one of
>>>>>>>>>>> more of
>>>>>>>>>>> these, then I think 1 becomes the most realistic alternative
>>>>>>>>>>> in some
>>>>>>>>>>> shape or form. The who/why/what/when/how of 1 is a separate
>>>>>>>>>>> endeavour,
>>>>>>>>>>> and is not a requirement for 2-5.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Genuine question: What is your reason for removing God from any
>>>>>>> consideration?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, it's not because we don't like him. It's just that we can't
>>>>>> test the hypothesis that God did it, since the idea of God is
>>>>>> compatible with any conceivable evidence.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You are the man who lost his keys somewhere in the carpark, and but
>>>>> insists on looking only under the lamppost because because he says the
>>>>> light is better there.
>>>>
>>>> How so?
>>>
>>> You'll only consider materialistic explanations within the scope of
>>> science (i.e. under the lampost).
>>
>> Okay. In your case you announce "Found them!" when you find an
>> unusual pebble in the dark. I, on the other hand, am always willing
>> to wait for more light after I've searched for the keys under the lamp
>> post before announcing success.
>
> No, but enough on an analogy.
>
>>
>>> You refuse to consider supernatural explanations, i.e. if
>>> suggested/pointed to by science, and elaborated by religion, philosophy,
>>> etc (i.e. elsewhere in the carpark).
>>
>> That's the problem; the evidence can't "point to" a supernatural
>> explanation, any more than a blank clock face can "point to" the
>> current time. It's just not possible!
>
> This is foundational in this debate. To reiterate a thought experiment:
>
> 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
> c. Consider supernatural explanations
> d. Some combination of the above
e. Reinvent the scientific method, since it looks to have been lost or
abandoned in the intervening 1000 years.
--
Mark Isaak
"Wisdom begins when you discover the difference between 'That
doesn't make sense' and 'I don't understand.'" - Mary Doria Russell
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
