Re: Paradoxes

On Thu, 16 Jan 2025 19:46:59 +1100
MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:

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.
 

The trouble is that any postulated interventions are quite bizarre; a
well-organised god would be much better advised to skip messy evolution
and create mankind more quickly and with fewer flaws. Or maybe just sit
back after setting up some firmament, and let nature do the rest.
Either way this god is unlikely to have a cosmic hotline for any
individuals woes.
--
Bah, and indeed, Humbug