Re: Ool - out at first base?

On 12/13/24 9:41 PM, MarkE 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.
>
Or, would you protest that an unknown natural cause must always remain an option?
>
Eric, would you frame this differently?
>

I'll try.  First I'll quote this: ..god
  can explain anything, including a high probability of OOL. OOL is slef evident;  there it is.  "Science" can't tell the defference between god or natural causes, so practically speaking there isn't any difference. God and natural causes for us is a choice.  God's as good choice as any.
 Dose that make it clearer?