Re: Paradoxes

On Tue, 28 Jan 2025 14:43:10 +1100, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com>:

On 28/01/2025 1:59 am, Bob Casanova wrote:

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.

>
After all this you don't seem to comprehend the content and logic of the
argument, or choose not to. So we can't even agree to disagree.
>

Since you seem unable to accept the fact that science and
religious belief do not intersect, and that the idea of a
supernatural entity is inherently impossible to evaluate by
the methods which work for science, neither logic nor the
content of arguments which try to conflate the two are of
any value beyond entertainment; the "late night dorm bull
session".

I comprehend the logic; I simply assign it the same
intrinsic value as the logic involved in arguments regarding
angels dancing on pinpoints. I.e., none whatsoever.

Post objective (i.e., scientific) evidence regarding the
existence of any supernatural entity and the discussion
might be interesting. Until then, have fun arguing with
others who also enjoy useless conjectures..

>

--

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