Re: OoL - out at first base?

On Wed, 11 Dec 2024 08:36:19 -0800, erik simpson
<eastside.erik@gmail.com> wrote:

On 12/10/24 11:37 PM, Martin Harran wrote:

On Tue, 10 Dec 2024 11:16:56 -0800, erik simpson
<eastside.erik@gmail.com> wrote:
 
[snip for focus]
 

I might help to recognize that many scientists believe in God.  "Natural
causes" just refer to what is seen, and has nothing to do with the
actual causes.  Whether God was involved or not is a personal choice,
because the observed event speaks for itself.
>
In particular, it's pointless to try to argue that the appearance of
life is likely or not.  It has no bearing on what we see.

 
 
Neither does it have any bearing on religious belief. Nobody in the ID
or Creationist camp has been able to offer any explanation as to how
they get from MarkE's protocell to a personal God with whom
we can interact.
 

Exactly.  Natural (sans God) or God-created or directed life can explain
what we see.  "Science" can't tell the difference, and even Occam's
razor makes no choice.

Not true.  Using Occam's razor, God is an unnecessary actor.  If one
insists God always existed, then the same reasoning allows life always
existed. Alternately, if one insists life had to arise by unguided
natural processes, then the same reasoning requires God to arise by
unguided natural processes, contra Kalam Cosmological Argument.

--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge