Re: Ool - out at first base?

On 12/18/24 7:10 PM, MarkE wrote:

Let's say for a moment that naturalistic formation of life is not possible, and life was created by God through supernatural intervention.

If it happened in this universe, then it is, by definition, part of nature and therefore natural.

Which is in fact the contention of the creationist camp, myself included.
 Your comments above seem to make no allowance for this option. You seem to be saying, regardless of any calculated or claimed probabilities or potential natural limitations, life happened, and happened by natural causes. The only legitimate activity now is to work backwards to establish how nature may have done it.
 Is that in effect what you're saying?

Isn't that what you're saying?  Except you add that how it was done was magic, as established by your own preferences for how it should be done.

#3
Stop trying to 'prove' your God hypothesis on the basis of gaps in the
potential pathways suggested by others; you have to show arguments
supporting your hypothesis in its own right.

 There's not a symmetry here with identical requirements. It's not a case of science and the scientific method being applied equally to the nature hypothesis and the God hypothesis.
 Rather, it would be science finding (provisional) inadequacy of naturalistic explanations, and that finding being a scientific pointer, a point of departure, to the God hypothesis.

Just as an exercise in fairness, what would you consider sufficient to establish the inadequacy of the God hypothesis?
[...]
--
Mark Isaak
"Wisdom begins when you discover the difference between 'That
doesn't make sense' and 'I don't understand.'" - Mary Doria Russell