From: 69jpil69@gmail.com
On Wed, 4 Feb 2026 09:13:12 +1100, MarkE wrote:
>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.
You're relying too much on your perceptions and beliefs. One more
time, I reject nothing out-of-hand. And since you claim
"supernaturalism" aka "God" explains something, then specify what you
think it explains, with examples. Short of that, you're just posting
strings of polemical objections.
>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.
That sounds more like what you posted. I await your list of what and
how you think "God" explains something. Past experience suggests I'll
be waiting a long time.
>> 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.
--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
