From: me22over7@gmail.com   
      
   On 3/02/2026 7:18 pm, jillery wrote:   
   > On Tue, 3 Feb 2026 07:26:21 +1100, MarkE  wrote:   
   >   
   >> On 3/02/2026 1:10 am, jillery wrote:   
   >>> On Mon, 2 Feb 2026 09:18:56 +1100, MarkE  wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>> On 2/02/2026 7:59 am, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:   
   >>>>> On Mon, 2 Feb 2026 06:57:31 +1100   
   >>>>> MarkE  wrote:   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>> On 2/02/2026 1:55 am, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:   
   >>>>> []   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>>> I came to see what recent advances there had been on how life began.   
   >>>>>>> 'Goddidit' isn't a satisfactory answer.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> What if, in reality, God did it?   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>> Then he's a rubbish creator, if it takes 4 billion years to get any   
   >>>>> worshipper feedback.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> What if I asked you a trick question with a huge suppostion in it?   
   >>>>> e.g.   
   >>>>> Do you feel some deep insecurity about life that you need a 'god'   
   >>>>> to comfort you?   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Marx's "opium of the people"?   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Certainly, recognise one's worldview and the risk of confirmation bias   
   >>>> etc that it brings. I try to argue on the basis of science, as best I   
   >>>> can. But who of us is free from the influence of our preconceptions and   
   >>>> beliefs?   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >>> It's reasonable to expect thoughtful individuals to recongnize their   
   >>> perceptions and beliefs, and the limits to them.   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >>>> Similarly, do you reject God because the idea of moral accountability is   
   >>>> uncomfortable?   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >>> The fatal flaw with God as an explanation is that it doesn't explain   
   >>> anything.  Even if you were to precisely define what you mean by   
   >>> "God", you still couldn't show why your God did this instead of that.   
   >>> With God, it's mysterious ways all the way down.   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> Are you saying that because God doesn't provide an explanation according   
   >> to the scientific method, a supernatural creator cannot have any   
   >> expectations over their creation?   
   >   
   >   
   > No.  To beat the point to death and beyond resurrection, whatever its   
   > type or expectations, invoking "God" as an explanation provides   
   > nothing but emotional comfort for those who find that explanation   
   > comforting.   
      
   There are two mutually exclusive hypotheses of reality: materialism and   
   supernaturalism (super-materialism if you like).   
      
   You reject one of these out-of-hand, based on your assessment that it   
   "doesn't explain anything". Bold move.   
      
   Moreover, your "doesn't explain anything" assertion is on the basis that   
   super-materialism cannot be examined within materialism.   
      
   A hot mess of category errors, logical inconsistencies, and a tiresome   
   shell game reheating simplistic tropes and lazy strawmen.   
      
   >   
   > And in the spirit of answering innuendos, rejecting God as an   
   > explanation is different from rejecting God or morality.  Whatever   
   > your basis for moral accountability, history shows God has been used   
   > to justify any and all behavior people felt like doing.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)