Re: Ool - out at first base?

On Fri, 20 Dec 2024 15:08:33 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:

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),

Is it really possible to rule out every *conceivable* natural
explanation for a phenomenon?

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?

Well, I don't think that just because we have no explanation for
something, we should just make something up that does nothing but
"explain" what we're dealing with. 

So your supernatural/natural dichotomy is problematic.  It's better to
think of it as a dichotomy between approaching the world rationally
and approaching it irrationally.

So the end of the matter in science has to be "We still don't know." 

There's no reason to think that invoking the Flying Spaghetti Monster
or Superman or the Jolly Green Giant or Yahweh the vengeful god of the
Old Testament is likely to tell us anything more about the world than
saying "We just don't know, and perhaps we never will." 

But calling for more research at that point is probably always a good
thing even under those bleak conditions.