Re: Paradoxes

On 1/25/25 9:21 PM, MarkE wrote:

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.

Okay, now "supernatural" has meaning, but not enough to make it practical.

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)

Sorry, none of those would detect supernatural action. If any of them were detected, the cause would be unknown. To detect the supernatural according to your definition, someone would need to go outside the existing universe.
--
Mark Isaak
"Wisdom begins when you discover the difference between 'That
doesn't make sense' and 'I don't understand.'" - Mary Doria Russell