Re: Ool - out at first base?

On 20/12/2024 1:23 pm, Vincent Maycock wrote:

On Fri, 20 Dec 2024 12:42:24 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
 

On 20/12/2024 10:32 am, Vincent Maycock wrote:

On Fri, 20 Dec 2024 09:25:27 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
>

On 20/12/2024 5:50 am, Vincent Maycock wrote:

On Thu, 19 Dec 2024 17:33:39 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
>

On 19/12/2024 5:17 pm, Vincent Maycock wrote:

On Thu, 19 Dec 2024 14:10:27 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:

<snip>

God conceived of all created things before they came into being.

>
     How could we test this claim?

>
Die.

>
Do you plan on killing yourself to test the claim?

>
No need, we both will get to test this claim soon enough.

>
Why should anyone believe that?  And how can it be considered part of
the scientific process when the results of the tests are inaccessible
to other researchers?
>

>
Some truths are not accessible to science. Your epistemology is incomplete.

 So you agree that you have no scientific basis for your ideas about
origins?
 

Let me pose a question to you (similar to Martin Harran):
If after 10,000 years of concerted OoL research (say), all conceivable natural explanations and pathways have been deemed implausible (say), then we have these options:
1. Keep looking for natural causes only
2. Give up looking
3. Keep looking for natural causes, but consider supernatural agency
4. Give up looking for natural causes, but consider supernatural agency
Personally, you may choose 1 or 2. My question is, do you regard 3 (or 4) as having any merit or validity? If not, what basis for discussion do we then have?