5. Water Paradox
Description: Water is essential for life but also promotes the
hydrolysis of complex biomolecules like RNA, DNA, and proteins, breaking
them apart. This makes it difficult to reconcile the stability of biomolecules in early Earth conditions.
- Proposed Resolutions:
Episodic drying and wetting cycles (e.g., in hydrothermal vents or tidal pools).
Alternative solvents or local protective environments.
On Sat, 11 Jan 2025 8:04:55 +0000, MarkE wrote:
Potential paradoxes are of particular interest because if unresolved,
they may indicate not just difficultly but impossibility.
Benner's framing remark is noteworthy: "Discussed here is an alternative approach to guide research into the origins of life, one that focuses on 'paradoxes', pairs of statements, both grounded in theory and
observation, that (taken together) suggest that the 'origins problem' cannot be solved."
Seems to me that framing things as paradoxes is a transparently
deceptive sophistry.
It displaces the actual argument's details to a categorical that
pretends
to be a fundamental problem. Thus we get chicken and egg paradoxes.
Can't
get one without the other --- see it's a paradox. Or you get sophistry
like
zeno's paradox, or the liar's paradox. They are games on sets up by
language
that superficially sounds fair and reasonable but ultimately embed a
hidden
absurdity in their premises.
On 16/01/2025 6:46 pm, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 19:42:09 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
Sure, be careful to avoid a god-of-the-gaps.
Sure, knowledge of God lies outside the province of science.
Sure, do not rest religious belief on the science of the day.
But, I suspect the thinking you espouse is the product of an a priori
commitment to metaphysical naturalism. Which itself is a position of
faith, for example:
"The cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be." (Carl Sagan)
I've already asked you this several times but you've always ignored
it; is there any chance of you addressing it this time?
How do you squareyour claim of an a priori faith-like commitment to metaphysical naturalism with the many, many theistic evolutionists
like myself who are totally convinced of their religious beliefs but
have no problem accepting the role of natural processes in both OOL
and Evolution?
As pointed out by Eugenie Scott, Director of the US National Center
for Science Education, "In one form or another, Theistic Evolutionism
is the view of creation taught at the majority of mainline Protestant seminaries, and it is the official position of the Catholic church"
I assume you meant to say "metaphysical supernaturalism"?
Personally, I haven't ruled out Theistic Evolutionism. A have trusted
and respected friends who are orthodox Christians and hold to various
forms theistic evolution.
However, to me, the scientific evidence does not support a
noninterventionist interpretation.
Perhaps I need to extend/clarify my position to something like this:
"If OoL research were to find no plausible naturalistic explanation
after some large amount of research time and effort, would one then
consider supernatural action as a possible explanation? If your answer
is no, that suggests an a priori commitment to either metaphysical
naturalism or undetectable theism."
Definitions & clarifications:
- "find no plausible naturalistic explanation" = a general consensus
that all known hypotheses, mechanisms and pathways have been shown to be implausible
- "implausible" = generally accepted as essentially physically
impossible or with vanishingly small probability
- "some large amount of research time and effort" = an arbitrary and conservatively large allowance
- "consider supernatural action" = allow for this option, but with no requirement to abandon further research
- "suggests an a priori commitment" - at this point an unwillingness to
even consider supernatural agency is rationally contrary to the balance
of scientific evidence, and therefore is based on other factors
- "undetectable theism" - the position that any and all divine action is
not detectable or unable to be inferred from observation/analysis of
physical phenomena
- Would this situation provide any information about this hypothesised
agent? No; that's the domain of theology, philosophy, personal
experience etc
Thoughts?
Equally, I'd value a response to my question on intervention and
theistic evolution.
You first, please.
On Mon, 20 Jan 2025 07:02:11 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 19/01/2025 11:00 pm, Martin Harran wrote:
[…]
Perhaps I need to extend/clarify my position to something like this:
You are still not addressing my question. Let's make it simple for
you.
Your comments above and elsewhere suggest that you regard acceptance
of OOL through natural process as equating to a rejection of God. Is
that a fair summary of your position, yes or no?
No.
Why then are you so anxious to make them exclusive to each other?
There is nothing in stop anyone *right now* investigating direct
intervention by God in OOL, why should they have to wait until science
runs out of steam?
As I say following, this acceptance is also compatible with what I'm
calling "undetectable theism" (with respect to OoL). In other words, I'm
explicitly NOT excluding belief in God.
The reason intervention is undetectable is either (a) it's
non-existent or (b) the intervention exists but we are unable to
detect it. You seem to favour (b) but the problem is that you have not suggested any way in which we might be able to detect it. Until you or someone else does so, science will treat it as entirely natural
processes because whilst they don't have *all* the answers, the things
they can figure out all point in that direction.
Here's a serious question regarding nonintervention, from genuine
wondering on my part. It seems to me there are different forms of
theistic evolution with respect to intervention, which might be
characterised as:
1. E.g. speciation "download" (significant interventions; detectable)
2. Nudging the molecules (subtle interventions; detectable in principle)
3. Quantum event loading (probabilistic interventions; undetectable?)
4. Pure front-loading (initial intervention only; undetectable)
On 22/01/2025 1:56 pm, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 1/17/25 2:59 PM, MarkE wrote:
Here's a serious question regarding nonintervention, from genuine
wondering on my part. It seems to me there are different forms of
theistic evolution with respect to intervention, which might be
characterised as:
1. E.g. speciation "download" (significant interventions; detectable)
2. Nudging the molecules (subtle interventions; detectable in principle) >>> 3. Quantum event loading (probabilistic interventions; undetectable?)
4. Pure front-loading (initial intervention only; undetectable)
I take issue with your nomenclature. Those items (1-4) are not forms
of theistic anything. They are forms of unknown superpower
intervention. Even if one of those scenarios is fact, there is no
reason to say that the actor behind it is a god.
I'm okay with "God" equals "unknown superpower" for the purpose of this discussion.
OK, powercuts here due to bad storm, intermittent internet access,don't
know when it will be restored but wil get back to this.
--
On 26/01/2025 2:56 pm, Vincent Maycock wrote:
On Sun, 26 Jan 2025 14:08:35 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 26/01/2025 5:31 am, Vincent Maycock wrote:
On Sat, 25 Jan 2025 22:42:49 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>
On 25/01/2025 12:17 pm, Vincent Maycock wrote:
On Fri, 24 Jan 2025 15:57:58 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>
On 24/01/2025 2:17 pm, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 1/22/25 4:37 AM, MarkE wrote:
On 22/01/2025 1:56 pm, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 1/17/25 2:59 PM, MarkE wrote:
I take issue with your nomenclature. Those items (1-4) are not forms >>>>>>>>>> of theistic anything. They are forms of unknown superpower >>>>>>>>>> intervention. Even if one of those scenarios is fact, there is no >>>>>>>>>> reason to say that the actor behind it is a god.
Here's a serious question regarding nonintervention, from genuine >>>>>>>>>>> wondering on my part. It seems to me there are different forms of >>>>>>>>>>> theistic evolution with respect to intervention, which might be >>>>>>>>>>> characterised as:
1. E.g. speciation "download" (significant interventions; detectable)
2. Nudging the molecules (subtle interventions; detectable in >>>>>>>>>>> principle)
3. Quantum event loading (probabilistic interventions; undetectable?)
4. Pure front-loading (initial intervention only; undetectable) >>>>>>>>>>
I'm okay with "God" equals "unknown superpower" for the purpose of >>>>>>>>> this discussion.
You seem to have a very naturalistic view of God.
I'm really just acknowledging that, in this context, it's only possible >>>>>>> to make a generic reference to the inferred supernatural agent.
Why can't you go beyond a generic reference, here?
Because the context and scope of this discussion is defining the logical >>>>> structure and options regarding supernatural intervention generally.
When do you move beyond that, if ever? Why or why not?
Vince, what do you really want to discuss, and why?
Whether supernatural intervention per se is a properly formed
scientific hypothesis. My position is that it's not; in fact it may
be not just anti-science but anti-intellectual as well. I think this
is something that could bear some clarification in ID/evolution
debates. For example, what distinguishes supernatural intervention
from superstition?
I suggest a first step is to establish a logical and complete set of >overarching possibilities, which I would state as:
1. Either the universe has always existed or it came into existence
without supernatural intervention, and in either case it develops
without supernatural intervention; or
2. The universe came into existence with supernatural intervention,
and/or it develops with supernatural intervention
Would you agree with this, or how would you put it?
On 26/01/2025 5:06 pm, Bob Casanova wrote:
On Sun, 26 Jan 2025 15:54:55 +1100, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com>:
On 26/01/2025 2:56 pm, Vincent Maycock wrote:An additional, and closely related, question: Exactly how
On Sun, 26 Jan 2025 14:08:35 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>
On 26/01/2025 5:31 am, Vincent Maycock wrote:
On Sat, 25 Jan 2025 22:42:49 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>
On 25/01/2025 12:17 pm, Vincent Maycock wrote:When do you move beyond that, if ever? Why or why not?
On Fri, 24 Jan 2025 15:57:58 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>
On 24/01/2025 2:17 pm, Mark Isaak wrote:Why can't you go beyond a generic reference, here?
On 1/22/25 4:37 AM, MarkE wrote:
On 22/01/2025 1:56 pm, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 1/17/25 2:59 PM, MarkE wrote:
I take issue with your nomenclature. Those items (1-4) are not forms
Here's a serious question regarding nonintervention, from genuine >>>>>>>>>>>>> wondering on my part. It seems to me there are different forms of >>>>>>>>>>>>> theistic evolution with respect to intervention, which might be >>>>>>>>>>>>> characterised as:
1. E.g. speciation "download" (significant interventions; detectable)
2. Nudging the molecules (subtle interventions; detectable in >>>>>>>>>>>>> principle)
3. Quantum event loading (probabilistic interventions; undetectable?)
4. Pure front-loading (initial intervention only; undetectable) >>>>>>>>>>>>
of theistic anything. They are forms of unknown superpower >>>>>>>>>>>> intervention. Even if one of those scenarios is fact, there is no >>>>>>>>>>>> reason to say that the actor behind it is a god.
I'm okay with "God" equals "unknown superpower" for the purpose of >>>>>>>>>>> this discussion.
You seem to have a very naturalistic view of God.
I'm really just acknowledging that, in this context, it's only possible
to make a generic reference to the inferred supernatural agent. >>>>>>>>
Because the context and scope of this discussion is defining the logical
structure and options regarding supernatural intervention generally. >>>>>>
Vince, what do you really want to discuss, and why?
Whether supernatural intervention per se is a properly formed
scientific hypothesis. My position is that it's not; in fact it may
be not just anti-science but anti-intellectual as well. I think this
is something that could bear some clarification in ID/evolution
debates. For example, what distinguishes supernatural intervention
from superstition?
I suggest a first step is to establish a logical and complete set of
overarching possibilities, which I would state as:
1. Either the universe has always existed or it came into existence
without supernatural intervention, and in either case it develops
without supernatural intervention; or
2. The universe came into existence with supernatural intervention,
and/or it develops with supernatural intervention
many angels can dance on the point of a pin?
If you don't see the relevance of this to the current
discussion I suggest you think about it.
As a starting point though, do you agree with the dichotomy as stated,
or if not, why?
--
Would you agree with this, or how would you put it?
On 26/01/2025 2:56 pm, Vincent Maycock wrote:
On Sun, 26 Jan 2025 14:08:35 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
Vince, what do you really want to discuss, and why?
Whether supernatural intervention per se is a properly formed
scientific hypothesis. My position is that it's not; in fact it may
be not just anti-science but anti-intellectual as well. I think this
is something that could bear some clarification in ID/evolution
debates. For example, what distinguishes supernatural intervention
from superstition?
I suggest a first step is to establish a logical and complete set of overarching possibilities, which I would state as:
1. Either the universe has always existed or it came into existence
without supernatural intervention, and in either case it develops
without supernatural intervention; or
2. The universe came into existence with supernatural intervention, and/
or it develops with supernatural intervention
Would you agree with this, or how would you put it?
On 26/01/2025 3:54 pm, MarkE wrote:
Whether supernatural intervention per se is a properly formed
scientific hypothesis. My position is that it's not; in fact it may
be not just anti-science but anti-intellectual as well. I think this
is something that could bear some clarification in ID/evolution
debates. For example, what distinguishes supernatural intervention
from superstition?
I suggest a first step is to establish a logical and complete set of
overarching possibilities, which I would state as:
1. Either the universe has always existed or it came into existence
without supernatural intervention, and in either case it develops
without supernatural intervention; or
2. The universe came into existence with supernatural intervention,
and/ or it develops with supernatural intervention
Would you agree with this, or how would you put it?
By "supernatural intervention" I mean an agent existing outside
spacetime/the material universe acting upon it to cause or influence its creation and/or development.
To recap, the detectability of this supernatural action would be in one
or more of these categories with respect to the origin of life (as a
specific example):
0. Instantaneous creation of all lifeforms (full intervention)
1. Speciation "download" etc (significant interventions; detectable)
2. Nudging the molecules (subtle interventions; detectable in principle)
3. Quantum event loading (probabilistic interventions; undetectable?)
4. Pure front-loading (initial intervention only; undetectable)
On 26/01/2025 6:00 pm, Vincent Maycock wrote:
On Sun, 26 Jan 2025 15:54:55 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 26/01/2025 2:56 pm, Vincent Maycock wrote:
On Sun, 26 Jan 2025 14:08:35 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>
On 26/01/2025 5:31 am, Vincent Maycock wrote:
On Sat, 25 Jan 2025 22:42:49 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 25/01/2025 12:17 pm, Vincent Maycock wrote:When do you move beyond that, if ever? Why or why not?
On Fri, 24 Jan 2025 15:57:58 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> >>>>>>>> wrote:
On 24/01/2025 2:17 pm, Mark Isaak wrote:Why can't you go beyond a generic reference, here?
On 1/22/25 4:37 AM, MarkE wrote:
On 22/01/2025 1:56 pm, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 1/17/25 2:59 PM, MarkE wrote:
Here's a serious question regarding nonintervention, from >>>>>>>>>>>>> genuine
wondering on my part. It seems to me there are different >>>>>>>>>>>>> forms of
theistic evolution with respect to intervention, which >>>>>>>>>>>>> might be
characterised as:
1. E.g. speciation "download" (significant interventions; >>>>>>>>>>>>> detectable)
2. Nudging the molecules (subtle interventions; detectable in >>>>>>>>>>>>> principle)
3. Quantum event loading (probabilistic interventions; >>>>>>>>>>>>> undetectable?)
4. Pure front-loading (initial intervention only;
undetectable)
I take issue with your nomenclature. Those items (1-4) are >>>>>>>>>>>> not forms
of theistic anything. They are forms of unknown superpower >>>>>>>>>>>> intervention. Even if one of those scenarios is fact, there >>>>>>>>>>>> is no
reason to say that the actor behind it is a god.
I'm okay with "God" equals "unknown superpower" for the
purpose of
this discussion.
You seem to have a very naturalistic view of God.
I'm really just acknowledging that, in this context, it's only >>>>>>>>> possible
to make a generic reference to the inferred supernatural agent. >>>>>>>>
Because the context and scope of this discussion is defining the >>>>>>> logical
structure and options regarding supernatural intervention generally. >>>>>>
Vince, what do you really want to discuss, and why?
Whether supernatural intervention per se is a properly formed
scientific hypothesis. My position is that it's not; in fact it may
be not just anti-science but anti-intellectual as well. I think this >>>> is something that could bear some clarification in ID/evolution
debates. For example, what distinguishes supernatural intervention
from superstition?
I suggest a first step is to establish a logical and complete set of
overarching possibilities, which I would state as:
1. Either the universe has always existed or it came into existence
without supernatural intervention, and in either case it develops
without supernatural intervention; or
2. The universe came into existence with supernatural intervention,
and/or it develops with supernatural intervention
Would you agree with this, or how would you put it?
I would say the real first step would be to make some predictions so
we can test the "hypothesis" of supernatural intervention. But I
think the concept of supernatural intervention is too broad to take
that approach to the data.
Before we talk about predictions, we need to establish an agreed
foundation:
1. Define God as an agent who exists outside of spacetime.
2. The origin and development of the universe either did or did not
involve intervention by God.
So far so good?
On 27/01/2025 3:43 am, Bob Casanova wrote:
On Sun, 26 Jan 2025 17:51:53 +1100, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com>:
On 26/01/2025 5:06 pm, Bob Casanova wrote:Neither you nor I has any idea which, if either, is correct.
On Sun, 26 Jan 2025 15:54:55 +1100, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com>:
On 26/01/2025 2:56 pm, Vincent Maycock wrote:An additional, and closely related, question: Exactly how
On Sun, 26 Jan 2025 14:08:35 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>
On 26/01/2025 5:31 am, Vincent Maycock wrote:
On Sat, 25 Jan 2025 22:42:49 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>
On 25/01/2025 12:17 pm, Vincent Maycock wrote:When do you move beyond that, if ever? Why or why not?
On Fri, 24 Jan 2025 15:57:58 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 24/01/2025 2:17 pm, Mark Isaak wrote:Why can't you go beyond a generic reference, here?
On 1/22/25 4:37 AM, MarkE wrote:
On 22/01/2025 1:56 pm, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 1/17/25 2:59 PM, MarkE wrote:
I take issue with your nomenclature. Those items (1-4) are not forms
Here's a serious question regarding nonintervention, from genuine
wondering on my part. It seems to me there are different forms of
theistic evolution with respect to intervention, which might be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> characterised as:
1. E.g. speciation "download" (significant interventions; detectable)
2. Nudging the molecules (subtle interventions; detectable in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> principle)
3. Quantum event loading (probabilistic interventions; undetectable?)
4. Pure front-loading (initial intervention only; undetectable) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
of theistic anything. They are forms of unknown superpower >>>>>>>>>>>>>> intervention. Even if one of those scenarios is fact, there is no
reason to say that the actor behind it is a god.
I'm okay with "God" equals "unknown superpower" for the purpose of
this discussion.
You seem to have a very naturalistic view of God.
I'm really just acknowledging that, in this context, it's only possible
to make a generic reference to the inferred supernatural agent. >>>>>>>>>>
Because the context and scope of this discussion is defining the logical
structure and options regarding supernatural intervention generally. >>>>>>>>
Vince, what do you really want to discuss, and why?
Whether supernatural intervention per se is a properly formed
scientific hypothesis. My position is that it's not; in fact it may >>>>>> be not just anti-science but anti-intellectual as well. I think this >>>>>> is something that could bear some clarification in ID/evolution
debates. For example, what distinguishes supernatural intervention >>>>>> from superstition?
I suggest a first step is to establish a logical and complete set of >>>>> overarching possibilities, which I would state as:
1. Either the universe has always existed or it came into existence
without supernatural intervention, and in either case it develops
without supernatural intervention; or
2. The universe came into existence with supernatural intervention,
and/or it develops with supernatural intervention
many angels can dance on the point of a pin?
If you don't see the relevance of this to the current
discussion I suggest you think about it.
As a starting point though, do you agree with the dichotomy as stated,
or if not, why?
(And BTW, there are more than two scenarios in your
"dichotomy", explicit and implicit.) And *we have no way to
find out*, as is the case, since apparently you missed the
relevance, with the angels cavorting on pinpoints.
Conjecture all you want, but realize that such conjectures
will never be more than conjectures, since there is no
objective physical evidence beyond "we don't know, and we
have no way to learn".
Please stop trying to use the methods of science to evaluate
what is essentially a basic religious question; the two are
in no way similar, and conflating them borders on heresy.
My attempt at incremental approach from first principles doesn't seem to
be working for us. Instead, what are your thoughts on my recent post
"Roger Penrose can’t escape an ultimate explanation for the universe"?
On 27/01/2025 12:04 pm, Bob Casanova wrote:
On Mon, 27 Jan 2025 06:41:10 +1100, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com>:
On 27/01/2025 3:43 am, Bob Casanova wrote:Your really don't seem to get it. Conjecturing about things
On Sun, 26 Jan 2025 17:51:53 +1100, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com>:
On 26/01/2025 5:06 pm, Bob Casanova wrote:Neither you nor I has any idea which, if either, is correct.
On Sun, 26 Jan 2025 15:54:55 +1100, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com>:
On 26/01/2025 2:56 pm, Vincent Maycock wrote:An additional, and closely related, question: Exactly how
On Sun, 26 Jan 2025 14:08:35 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>
On 26/01/2025 5:31 am, Vincent Maycock wrote:
On Sat, 25 Jan 2025 22:42:49 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 25/01/2025 12:17 pm, Vincent Maycock wrote:
On Fri, 24 Jan 2025 15:57:58 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 24/01/2025 2:17 pm, Mark Isaak wrote:Why can't you go beyond a generic reference, here?
On 1/22/25 4:37 AM, MarkE wrote:
On 22/01/2025 1:56 pm, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 1/17/25 2:59 PM, MarkE wrote:
Here's a serious question regarding nonintervention, from genuine
wondering on my part. It seems to me there are different forms of
theistic evolution with respect to intervention, which might be
characterised as:
1. E.g. speciation "download" (significant interventions; detectable)
2. Nudging the molecules (subtle interventions; detectable in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> principle)
3. Quantum event loading (probabilistic interventions; undetectable?)
4. Pure front-loading (initial intervention only; undetectable)
I take issue with your nomenclature. Those items (1-4) are not forms
of theistic anything. They are forms of unknown superpower >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> intervention. Even if one of those scenarios is fact, there is no
reason to say that the actor behind it is a god. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I'm okay with "God" equals "unknown superpower" for the purpose of
this discussion.
You seem to have a very naturalistic view of God.
I'm really just acknowledging that, in this context, it's only possible
to make a generic reference to the inferred supernatural agent. >>>>>>>>>>>>
Because the context and scope of this discussion is defining the logical
structure and options regarding supernatural intervention generally.
When do you move beyond that, if ever? Why or why not?
Vince, what do you really want to discuss, and why?
Whether supernatural intervention per se is a properly formed
scientific hypothesis. My position is that it's not; in fact it may >>>>>>>> be not just anti-science but anti-intellectual as well. I think this >>>>>>>> is something that could bear some clarification in ID/evolution >>>>>>>> debates. For example, what distinguishes supernatural intervention >>>>>>>> from superstition?
I suggest a first step is to establish a logical and complete set of >>>>>>> overarching possibilities, which I would state as:
1. Either the universe has always existed or it came into existence >>>>>>> without supernatural intervention, and in either case it develops >>>>>>> without supernatural intervention; or
2. The universe came into existence with supernatural intervention, >>>>>>> and/or it develops with supernatural intervention
many angels can dance on the point of a pin?
If you don't see the relevance of this to the current
discussion I suggest you think about it.
As a starting point though, do you agree with the dichotomy as stated, >>>>> or if not, why?
(And BTW, there are more than two scenarios in your
"dichotomy", explicit and implicit.) And *we have no way to
find out*, as is the case, since apparently you missed the
relevance, with the angels cavorting on pinpoints.
Conjecture all you want, but realize that such conjectures
will never be more than conjectures, since there is no
objective physical evidence beyond "we don't know, and we
have no way to learn".
Please stop trying to use the methods of science to evaluate
what is essentially a basic religious question; the two are
in no way similar, and conflating them borders on heresy.
My attempt at incremental approach from first principles doesn't seem to >>> be working for us. Instead, what are your thoughts on my recent post
"Roger Penrose can’t escape an ultimate explanation for the universe"?
for which no objective evidence exists (or, almost
certainly, *could* exist) is a fool's game, amusing for
late-night bull sessions in the dorm but of no other use.
"Truth" is not available through discussion.
Bottom line: You have no *first principles* WRT religious
beliefs, and nothing in the methods of science can provide
them.
One more time: *Science is not about belief, and religion is
not about evidence*. Please stop trying to conflate the two.
The *interpretation* of scientific evidence is at times about belief.
I'll demonstrate this further down.
But first, the separation you're asserting is a common misrepresentation
or misdirection in this debate. I come across it quite often; it's
sometimes hard to tell if it stems from ignorance, incomprehension, or >disingenuousness.
Okay, I'll drop the sarcasm - we've both been around TO far too long for >simplistic tit-for-tat.
Let's review the example of the initial low entropy state of the
universe, i.e. an example of scientific evidence. From an understanding
of the implications of the second law of thermodynamics, we seek an >explanation of its source. That explanation is either it is caused by
(i) the action of a powerful agency transcending spacetime (aka God), or
(ii) a naturalistic mechanism or process.
I am not saying that this scientific evidence proves God. Nor am I
saying that we should therefore cease the search for a naturalistic >explanation. I am only saying that God is a valid possible explanation, >alongside naturalistic possibilities.
To exclude the God explanation as an option out of hand would be the
result of *belief* and not a rational response to the scientific evidence.
An atheistic worldview may preference naturalistic options, and a
theistic worldview may preference the God option. We may give more
weight and consideration to a particular explanation based on our *belief*.
Moreover, science itself can tell us nothing about this postulated
agent. That is a task of other epistemological domains (philosophy,
theology, personal experience, etc). Nevertheless, science can provide
an evidential pointer to God as a possible explanation.
Would you agree with this?
On 28/01/2025 1:59 am, Bob Casanova wrote:
One should always exclude (actually, "ignore") explanations
which are by nature impossible to test. And we're back to
the dancing angels. Or the invisible, immaterial elephant in
the closet.
Have fun discussing this sort of thing; I pretty much gave
up inherently fruitless speculations a while ago, at least
as a subject for discussions about science.
After all this you don't seem to comprehend the content and logic of the >argument, or choose not to. So we can't even agree to disagree.
[...]
An atheistic worldview may preference naturalistic options, and a
theistic worldview may preference the God option. We may give more
weight and consideration to a particular explanation based, in part, on
our belief.
Moreover, science itself can tell us nothing about this postulated
agent. That is the task of other epistemological domains (philosophy, theology, personal experience, etc). Nevertheless, science can provide
an evidential pointer to God as a possible explanation.
What do you think?
On 27/01/2025 6:31 am, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 1/25/25 8:54 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 26/01/2025 2:56 pm, Vincent Maycock wrote:
On Sun, 26 Jan 2025 14:08:35 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> [...]
Vince, what do you really want to discuss, and why?
Whether supernatural intervention per se is a properly formed
scientific hypothesis. My position is that it's not; in fact it may
be not just anti-science but anti-intellectual as well. I think this >>>> is something that could bear some clarification in ID/evolution
debates. For example, what distinguishes supernatural intervention
from superstition?
I suggest a first step is to establish a logical and complete set of
overarching possibilities, which I would state as:
1. Either the universe has always existed or it came into existence
without supernatural intervention, and in either case it develops
without supernatural intervention; or
2. The universe came into existence with supernatural intervention,
and/ or it develops with supernatural intervention
Would you agree with this, or how would you put it?
Since "supernatural" is undefined, both statements are effectively
meaningless. There is nothing to agree or disagree with.
My attempt at incremental approach from first principles doesn't seem to
be working for us. Instead, what are your thoughts on my recent post
"Roger Penrose can’t escape an ultimate explanation for the universe"?
On 3/02/2025 4:23 am, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 1/26/25 9:29 PM, MarkE wrote:
[...]
An atheistic worldview may preference naturalistic options, and a
theistic worldview may preference the God option. We may give more
weight and consideration to a particular explanation based, in part,
on our belief.
Moreover, science itself can tell us nothing about this postulated
agent. That is the task of other epistemological domains (philosophy,
theology, personal experience, etc). Nevertheless, science can
provide an evidential pointer to God as a possible explanation.
What do you think?
If I believed in the god you believe in, I would be an atheist.
How so?
Just to clarify, I believe that the material world and the study and understanding of it reveals much about its creator, e.g. "The heavens
declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his
hands." (Psalm 19:1). This is so-called "natural theology". But science
has no access to the things of God available only through "special revelation".
On 1/26/25 9:29 PM, MarkE wrote:
[...]
An atheistic worldview may preference naturalistic options, and a
theistic worldview may preference the God option. We may give more
weight and consideration to a particular explanation based, in part,
on our belief.
Moreover, science itself can tell us nothing about this postulated
agent. That is the task of other epistemological domains (philosophy,
theology, personal experience, etc). Nevertheless, science can provide
an evidential pointer to God as a possible explanation.
What do you think?
If I believed in the god you believe in, I would be an atheist.
On 3/02/2025 5:45 pm, MarkE wrote:
On 3/02/2025 4:23 am, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 1/26/25 9:29 PM, MarkE wrote:
[...]
An atheistic worldview may preference naturalistic options, and a
theistic worldview may preference the God option. We may give more
weight and consideration to a particular explanation based, in part,
on our belief.
Moreover, science itself can tell us nothing about this postulated
agent. That is the task of other epistemological domains
(philosophy, theology, personal experience, etc). Nevertheless,
science can provide an evidential pointer to God as a possible
explanation.
What do you think?
If I believed in the god you believe in, I would be an atheist.
How so?
Just to clarify, I believe that the material world and the study and
understanding of it reveals much about its creator, e.g. "The heavens
declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his
hands." (Psalm 19:1). This is so-called "natural theology". But
science has no access to the things of God available only through
"special revelation".
"By examining the structure and function of a snapdragon bloom, I might reasonably conclude that the God who created the snapdragon is powerful
and wise—that is natural theology. By examining the context and meaning
of John 3:16, I might reasonably conclude that God is loving and generous—that is revealed theology."
https://www.gotquestions.org/natural-theology.html
On 4/02/2025 4:29 am, Ernest Major wrote:
On 03/02/2025 06:45, MarkE wrote:
On 3/02/2025 4:23 am, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 1/26/25 9:29 PM, MarkE wrote:
[...]
An atheistic worldview may preference naturalistic options, and a
theistic worldview may preference the God option. We may give more
weight and consideration to a particular explanation based, in
part, on our belief.
Moreover, science itself can tell us nothing about this postulated
agent. That is the task of other epistemological domains
(philosophy, theology, personal experience, etc). Nevertheless,
science can provide an evidential pointer to God as a possible
explanation.
What do you think?
If I believed in the god you believe in, I would be an atheist.
How so?
Just to clarify, I believe that the material world and the study and
understanding of it reveals much about its creator, e.g. "The heavens
declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his
hands." (Psalm 19:1). This is so-called "natural theology". But
science has no access to the things of God available only through
"special revelation".
To put it in a few words, a god of the gaps is no god at all.
Which is why I argue for science pointing to the God-of-the-gulfs (as
you may recall): https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/Q0H4U47iYgk/ m/2fprGczIBwAJ
On 3/02/2025 4:23 am, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 1/26/25 9:29 PM, MarkE wrote:
[...]
An atheistic worldview may preference naturalistic options, and a
theistic worldview may preference the God option. We may give more
weight and consideration to a particular explanation based, in part,
on our belief.
Moreover, science itself can tell us nothing about this postulated
agent. That is the task of other epistemological domains (philosophy,
theology, personal experience, etc). Nevertheless, science can
provide an evidential pointer to God as a possible explanation.
What do you think?
If I believed in the god you believe in, I would be an atheist.
How so?
On 9/02/2025 4:30 am, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 2/3/25 1:26 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 3/02/2025 5:45 pm, MarkE wrote:
On 3/02/2025 4:23 am, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 1/26/25 9:29 PM, MarkE wrote:
[...]
An atheistic worldview may preference naturalistic options, and a
theistic worldview may preference the God option. We may give more >>>>>> weight and consideration to a particular explanation based, in
part, on our belief.
Moreover, science itself can tell us nothing about this postulated >>>>>> agent. That is the task of other epistemological domains
(philosophy, theology, personal experience, etc). Nevertheless,
science can provide an evidential pointer to God as a possible
explanation.
What do you think?
If I believed in the god you believe in, I would be an atheist.
How so?
Just to clarify, I believe that the material world and the study and
understanding of it reveals much about its creator, e.g. "The
heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his
hands." (Psalm 19:1). This is so-called "natural theology". But
science has no access to the things of God available only through
"special revelation".
"By examining the structure and function of a snapdragon bloom, I
might reasonably conclude that the God who created the snapdragon is
powerful and wise—that is natural theology. By examining the context
and meaning of John 3:16, I might reasonably conclude that God is
loving and generous—that is revealed theology."
https://www.gotquestions.org/natural-theology.html
You have to engage with the criticisms of natural theology if you want
to espouse it. Can you do that? Do you even know what they are?
To clarify, my mention of natural theology was only to acknowledge its connection to the discussion. Not implying any particular endorsement or criticism of it.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 498 |
| Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
| Uptime: | 76:51:03 |
| Calls: | 9,820 |
| Calls today: | 8 |
| Files: | 13,757 |
| Messages: | 6,190,098 |