Re: Paradoxes

On Sun, 26 Jan 2025 22:10:59 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:

On 26/01/2025 6:00 pm, Vincent Maycock wrote:

On Sun, 26 Jan 2025 15:54:55 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
 

On 26/01/2025 2:56 pm, Vincent Maycock wrote:

On Sun, 26 Jan 2025 14:08:35 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:

<snip>

Vince, what do you really want to discuss, and why?

>
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?

 
I would say the real first step would be to make some predictions so
we can test the "hypothesis" of supernatural intervention.  But I
think the concept of supernatural intervention is too broad to take
that approach to the data.
 

>
Before we talk about predictions, we need to establish an agreed foundation:
>
1. Define God as an agent who exists outside of spacetime.

Postulating something that does nothing but "explain" what you're
trying to explain is not a good intellectual foundation. 

2. The origin and development of the universe either did or did not
involve intervention by God.
>
So far so good?

#2 is a tautology, so including that helps with nothing.