From: specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net   
      
   On 2/3/26 7:44 AM, Martin Harran wrote:   
   > On Mon, 2 Feb 2026 09:24:22 -0800, Mark Isaak   
   >  wrote:   
   >   
   >> On 2/1/26 1:34 AM, Martin Harran wrote:   
   >>> On Sat, 31 Jan 2026 17:49:39 -0800, 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 don't get to make up your own definitions. I gave you the Mirriam   
   >>> Webster definition of supernatural a few days ago; here is the almost   
   >>> identical Cambridge Dictionary definition   
   >>>   
   >>>       - caused by forces that cannot be explained by science   
   >>>   
   >>>        - things that cannot be explained by science   
   >>   
   >> Of course you get to make up your own definitions, as long as you tell   
   >> people what they are.   
   >   
   > A definition is useless unless people accept with the definition. Can   
   > you cite any source that supports the definition you give above?   
      
   The etymology of the word "supernatural."   
      
   >> The definitions you quote would mean that a great many things, including   
   >> dew, earthquakes, and ulcers, were once supernatural but now are not.   
   >> And they would mean that schizophrenia is still supernatural. Is that   
   >> your idea of "supernatural"?   
   >   
   > No, there is a distinct difference between not having an answer at   
   > present but good reason to think that we will get one in the future   
   > compared to not being able to see where we might even start to look   
   > for an answer - cf for example  the 'Hard Problem of  Consciousness'.   
   >   
   > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness   
      
   I seriously doubt that anyone in the mid-1400s would have good reason to   
   think that we would, in the future, have a good reason to expect to have   
   an explanation of why the sun shines, much less of schizophrenia.   
      
   But let's accept your definition for now. How do you determine whether   
   there is good reason to expect that we will understand something in the   
   future? Do you say that abiogenesis is supernatural? Mark E certainly   
   expects us never to understand it. How about schizophrenia? Before you   
   answer, consider that understanding schizophrenia will probably entail   
   understanding consciousness.   
      
   Finally, consider Clarke's first law: "When a distinguished but elderly   
   scientist states that something is possible, they are almost certainly   
   right. When they state that something is impossible, they are very   
   probably wrong."   
      
   >>> https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/supernatural   
   >>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>>> 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.   
   >>>   
   >>> Science has been able to figure out where processes happen in the   
   >>> brain but nothing about what consciousness even is let along where it   
   >>> comes from.  As I've described it before, it's like an electronics   
   >>> engineer analysing the electronic processes going on in my PC as I   
   >>> type this response and claiming that gives him understanding of where   
   >>> the ideas are coming from that I am using the PC to express. No need   
   >>> to take my word from it, here is what a detailed analysis in this   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)