Re: Paradoxes

On 26/01/2025 3:54 pm, MarkE wrote:

Whether supernatural intervention per se is a properly formed
scientific hypothesis.  My position is that it's not; in fact it may
be not just anti-science but anti-intellectual as well.  I think this
is something that could bear some clarification in ID/evolution
debates.  For example, what distinguishes supernatural intervention
from superstition?
>

 I suggest a first step is to establish a logical and complete set of overarching possibilities, which I would state as:
 1. Either the universe has always existed or it came into existence without supernatural intervention, and in either case it develops without supernatural intervention; or
2. The universe came into existence with supernatural intervention, and/ or it develops with supernatural intervention
 Would you agree with this, or how would you put it?
 

By "supernatural intervention" I mean an agent existing outside spacetime/the material universe acting upon it to cause or influence its creation and/or development.
To recap, the detectability of this supernatural action would be in one or more of these categories with respect to the origin of life (as a specific example):
0. Instantaneous creation of all lifeforms (full intervention)
1. Speciation "download" etc (significant interventions; detectable)
2. Nudging the molecules (subtle interventions; detectable in principle)
3. Quantum event loading (probabilistic interventions; undetectable?)
4. Pure front-loading (initial intervention only; undetectable)