Re: Paradoxes

On 1/26/25 11:40 AM, MarkE wrote:

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"?

I seem to have missed your post. I saw that you posted a long essay by ChatSTD (or whatever it's called), but I see no reason even to read a computer's rehash of other people's ideas, 99% of which, famously, are crap. Did you yourself have something to say?
--
Mark Isaak
"Wisdom begins when you discover the difference between 'That
doesn't make sense' and 'I don't understand.'" - Mary Doria Russell