Re: Paradoxes

On Mon, 27 Jan 2025 06:41:43 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:

On 27/01/2025 3:40 am, Vincent Maycock wrote:

 
 
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.
 

>
My attempt at an incremental approach from first principles doesn't seem
to be working for us. Instead, what are your thoughts on my recent post
"Roger Penrose can’t escape an ultimate explanation for the universe"?

He may have gotten it wrong.  From

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Emperor%27s_New_Mind

we have, regarding one of his other ideas:

"Penrose states that his ideas on the nature of consciousness are
speculative, and his thesis is considered erroneous by some experts in
the fields of philosophy, computer science, and robotics."

And from:

https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang/universe-zero-entropy/

"We don't need some miraculously low-entropy state to occur to begin
our Universe or to begin the process of inflation. All we need is for
inflation to arise in some volume of the Universe, even a small one,
and for the space within that volume to begin inflating."

And the multiverse is scientific because it has the laws of physics
that it has to conform to, while an omnipotent creator has no such
helpful restrictions on it.