From: me22over7@gmail.com   
      
   On 1/02/2026 12:49 pm, Mark Isaak wrote:   
   > On 1/31/26 3:15 AM, Martin Harran wrote:   
   >> On Fri, 30 Jan 2026 14:04:03 +0000, "Kerr-Mudd, John"   
   >>  wrote:   
   >>   
   >>> On Wed, 21 Jan 2026 08:18:42 +1100   
   >>> MarkE  wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>> On 20/01/2026 9:29 am, Jim Jackson wrote:   
   >>>>> On 2025-12-17, MarkE  wrote:   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> It is difficult to quantify, but even a casual observer of chimps and   
   >>>>>> humans recognises the scale of the difference. Civilisation and   
   >>>>>> spaceflight, for example.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> I would just make the observation that there were people only about   
   >>>>> 150   
   >>>>> years that said the similar things when comparing white people with   
   >>>>> indigenous people.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> It's a reminder of how wrong a widely held viewpoint can be. God and   
   >>>> materialism are both widely held, mutually exclusive viewpoints.   
   >>>>   
   >>>   
   >>> Martin Harran, if I understand him correctly, doesn't see it this way.   
   >>   
   >> Depends on how you (or MarkE) define, materialism. If you go with the   
   >> standard definition that *everything* is due to natural causes and   
   >> there is no such thing as the supernatural, then that excludes God by   
   >> definition. As a convinced dualist, I certainly would not subscribe to   
   >> that.   
   >   
   > A literal definition of "supernatural" is "beyond (outside of) nature",   
   > with nature, in that context meaning all that exists. So the   
   > supernatural, by definition, does not exist. A more useful definition   
   > is, "stuff that nobody understands or expects ever to understand."   
      
   You're saying that, by definition, God does not exist?   
      
   Would you like to reconsider your formulation?   
      
   >   
   >> I accept materialist explanations where there is good scientific   
   >> evidence to support those explanations as is the case with both   
   >> evolution and cosmology, the areas that ID'ers struggle with.   
   >>   
   >> Science, however, despite its best effort, has nothing to offer in   
   >> explaining consciousness which I believe is the same thing that   
   >> religious believers term the soul.   
   >   
   > That's overstating it. Science does not have a complete handle on   
   > consciousness, but what it has is far from nothing.   
   >   
   >> I thoroughly disagree with those   
   >> who insist that because science has done such a fantastic job at   
   >> finding out how material things function, that they will eventually,   
   >> somehow or other figure out consciousness.   
   >   
   > The larger problem is that, once science has figured it out, 99.9% of   
   > the general public (even counting only those capable of understanding   
   > the science) will reject the explanation. Nobody wants to be told that   
   > their most valued thoughts are a type of illusion.   
   >   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)