Re: Ool - out at first base?

On Sat, 14 Dec 2024 16:41:25 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:

On 14/12/2024 3:06 am, erik simpson wrote:
"MaekE is stuck with his idea that only a zero probability of OOL is
necessary to prove the existence of god.  He doesn't understand that god
can explain anything, including a high probability of OOL.  He has a
real blind spot there, to be charitable."
>
Say, for argument's sake, we determined that the origin of life could
not be explained by natural causes.
>
Then by definition, we must conclude supernatural causes, and haggle
over the definition of supernatural.

No, all you can conclude is that we can't figure it out. A few
thousand years ago, people couldn't figure out how the sun moved
across the sky so they concluded it must be a god driving a fiery
chariot. How did that go?

The thing that you and other IDers either don't see or choose to
ignore is that the absence of an explanation doesn't prove anything,
you have to have some linkage between the unexplained problem and your
proposed answer. I asked you before how you get from your protocell to
a God we can interact with. As far as I remember, your answer was that
it wasn't up to you to figure that out. Well, I have news for you, if
you want to gain any credibility for your arguments, then you do have
to figure it out.

>
Or, would you protest that an unknown natural cause must always remain
an option?
>
Eric, would you frame this differently?