Article <vn4f6v$3edug$1@dont-email.me>

Deutsch English Français Italiano
<vn4f6v$3edug$1@dont-email.me>

View for Bookmarking (what is this?)
Look up another Usenet article
Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!nntp-feed.chiark.greenend.org.uk!ewrotcd!news.killfile.org!news.eyrie.org!beagle.ediacara.org!.POSTED.beagle.ediacara.org!not-for-mail
From: MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Paradoxes
Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2025 15:54:55 +1100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 71
Sender: to%beagle.ediacara.org
Approved: moderator@beagle.ediacara.org
Message-ID: <vn4f6v$3edug$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vmah23$3e6d8$2@dont-email.me>
 <avjhoj5mt2mfdcpotq0rqops96jl212hfi@4ax.com> <vmdhjr$15ag$2@dont-email.me>
 <rslkojplv5j2sg9d9pecthfutp0tmdc285@4ax.com> <vmence$9594$1@dont-email.me>
 <vmpmr3$ia8q$1@dont-email.me> <vmqoq0$10mf5$2@dont-email.me>
 <vmv0pd$1u4nk$1@dont-email.me> <vmv6km$22ou8$2@dont-email.me>
 <3ne8pj575iefq71id6p87uposrvsc3124s@4ax.com> <vn2inq$2ph5q$1@dont-email.me>
 <jebapj5i6aku8rtqsscka5rriplua5itba@4ax.com> <vn48vk$38qmu$1@dont-email.me>
 <1abbpj17tuh66eujbpl1m6dldnuf7n2vun@4ax.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Info: beagle.ediacara.org; posting-host="beagle.ediacara.org:3.132.105.89";
	logging-data="89895"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@beagle.ediacara.org"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
To: talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
Cancel-Lock: sha1:w0Mhc9AyJToO5CDeDpUL0wXOhLQ=
In-Reply-To: <1abbpj17tuh66eujbpl1m6dldnuf7n2vun@4ax.com>
Content-Language: en-US
	HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED,
	RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE,
	USER_IN_WELCOMELIST,USER_IN_WHITELIST autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
	version=3.4.6
	smtp.eternal-september.org
Bytes: 6057

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

Would you agree with this, or how would you put it?