Re: Paradoxes

On Mon, 27 Jan 2025 15:32:53 +1100, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com>:

On 27/01/2025 12:04 pm, Bob Casanova wrote:

On Mon, 27 Jan 2025 06:41:10 +1100, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com>:
 

On 27/01/2025 3:43 am, Bob Casanova wrote:

On Sun, 26 Jan 2025 17:51:53 +1100, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com>:
>

On 26/01/2025 5:06 pm, Bob Casanova wrote:

On Sun, 26 Jan 2025 15:54:55 +1100, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com>:
>

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

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

On 26/01/2025 5:31 am, Vincent Maycock wrote:

On Sat, 25 Jan 2025 22:42:49 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
>

On 25/01/2025 12:17 pm, Vincent Maycock wrote:

On Fri, 24 Jan 2025 15:57:58 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
>

On 24/01/2025 2:17 pm, Mark Isaak wrote:

On 1/22/25 4:37 AM, MarkE wrote:

On 22/01/2025 1:56 pm, Mark Isaak wrote:

On 1/17/25 2:59 PM, MarkE wrote:

>
Here's a serious question regarding nonintervention, from genuine
wondering on my part. It seems to me there are different forms of
theistic evolution with respect to intervention, which might be
characterised as:
>
1. E.g. speciation "download" (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)

>
I take issue with your nomenclature. Those items (1-4) are not forms
of theistic anything. They are forms of unknown superpower
intervention. Even if one of those scenarios is fact, there is no
reason to say that the actor behind it is a god.
>

>
I'm okay with "God" equals "unknown superpower" for the purpose of
this discussion.

>
You seem to have a very naturalistic view of God.
>

>
I'm really just acknowledging that, in this context, it's only possible
to make a generic reference to the inferred supernatural agent.

>
Why can't you go beyond a generic reference, here?
>

>
Because the context and scope of this discussion is defining the logical
structure and options regarding supernatural intervention generally.

>
When do you move beyond that, if ever?  Why or why not?
>

>
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
>

An additional, and closely related, question: Exactly how
many angels can dance on the point of a pin?
>
If you don't see the relevance of this to the current
discussion I suggest you think about it.

>
As a starting point though, do you agree with the dichotomy as stated,
or if not, why?
>

Neither you nor I has any idea which, if either, is correct.
(And BTW, there are more than two scenarios in your
"dichotomy", explicit and implicit.) And *we have no way to
find out*, as is the case, since apparently you missed the
relevance, with the angels cavorting on pinpoints.
Conjecture all you want, but realize that such conjectures
will never be more than conjectures, since there is no
objective physical evidence beyond "we don't know, and we
have no way to learn".
>
Please stop trying to use the methods of science to evaluate
what is essentially a basic religious question; the two are
in no way similar, and conflating them borders on heresy.

>
My attempt at 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"?
>

Your really don't seem to get it. Conjecturing about things
for which no objective evidence exists (or, almost
certainly, *could* exist) is a fool's game, amusing for
late-night bull sessions in the dorm but of no other use.
"Truth" is not available through discussion.
 
Bottom line: You have no *first principles* WRT religious
beliefs, and nothing in the methods of science can provide
them.
 
One more time: *Science is not about belief, and religion is
not about evidence*. Please stop trying to conflate the two.

>
The *interpretation* of scientific evidence is at times about belief.
I'll demonstrate this further down.
>
But first, the separation you're asserting is a common misrepresentation
or misdirection in this debate. I come across it quite often; it's
sometimes hard to tell if it stems from ignorance, incomprehension, or
disingenuousness.
>
Okay, I'll drop the sarcasm - we've both been around TO far too long for
simplistic tit-for-tat.
>
Let's review the example of the initial low entropy state of the
universe, i.e. an example of scientific evidence. From an understanding
of the implications of the second law of thermodynamics, we seek an
explanation of its source. That explanation is either it is caused by
(i) the action of a powerful agency transcending spacetime (aka God), or
(ii) a naturalistic mechanism or process.
>
I am not saying that this scientific evidence proves God. Nor am I
saying that we should therefore cease the search for a naturalistic
explanation. I am only saying that God is a valid possible explanation,
alongside naturalistic possibilities.
>
To exclude the God explanation as an option out of hand would be the
result of *belief* and not a rational response to the scientific evidence.
>

One should always exclude (actually, "ignore") explanations
which are by nature impossible to test. And we're back to
the dancing angels. Or the invisible, immaterial elephant in
the closet.

Have fun discussing this sort of thing; I pretty much gave
up inherently fruitless speculations a while ago, at least
as a subject for discussions about science.

>
An atheistic worldview may preference naturalistic options, and a
theistic worldview may preference the God option. We may give more
weight and consideration to a particular explanation based on our *belief*.
>
Moreover, science itself can tell us nothing about this postulated
agent. That is a task of other epistemological domains (philosophy,
theology, personal experience, etc). Nevertheless, science can provide
an evidential pointer to God as a possible explanation.
>
Would you agree with this?
>
>
>

--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
 the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov