From: admin@127.0.0.1
On Mon, 19 Jan 2026 19:29:09 -0800
Mark Isaak wrote:
> 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:
> >
Just repeating stuff doesn't make you right, or the couter arguments go
away.
> > 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.
>
No,no! you must give up and admit goddidit.
What do I win? Eternal Salvation? Thanks. But I have to sing god's
praises every day? for eternity? oh dear, what have I done?
--
Bah, and indeed, Humbug
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
