Re: Paradoxes

On 1/20/25 1:47 AM, Martin Harran wrote:

On Mon, 20 Jan 2025 07:02:11 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
 

On 19/01/2025 11:00 pm, Martin Harran wrote:

 […]
 

Perhaps I need to extend/clarify my position to something like this:

>
You are still not addressing my question. Let's make it simple for
you.
>
Your comments above and elsewhere suggest that you regard acceptance
of OOL through natural process as equating to a rejection of God. Is
that a fair summary of your position, yes or no?

>
No.

 Why then are you so anxious to make them exclusive to each other?
There is nothing in stop anyone *right now* investigating direct
intervention by God in OOL, why should they have to wait until science
runs out of steam?
 

>
As I say following, this acceptance is also compatible with what I'm
calling "undetectable theism" (with respect to OoL). In other words, I'm
explicitly NOT excluding belief in God.

 The reason intervention is undetectable is either (a) it's
non-existent or (b) the intervention exists but we are unable to
detect it. You seem to favour (b) but the problem is that you have not
suggested any way in which we might be able to detect it. Until you or
someone else does so, science will treat it as entirely natural
processes because whilst they don't have *all* the answers, the things
they can figure out all point in that direction.

There's a third option, one which I believe is fairly commonplace:
The intervention exists and is detected routinely. Our mistake is not to associate those "natural" processes with God.
--
Mark Isaak
"Wisdom begins when you discover the difference between 'That
doesn't make sense' and 'I don't understand.'" - Mary Doria Russell