Path: ...!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!feeds.news.ox.ac.uk!news.ox.ac.uk!nntp-feed.chiark.greenend.org.uk!ewrotcd!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: Mon, 27 Jan 2025 06:40:51 +1100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 33
Sender: to%beagle.ediacara.org
Approved: moderator@beagle.ediacara.org
Message-ID: <vn6344$1q7s$2@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> <vn4f6v$3edug$1@dont-email.me>
 <vn62j9$2edg$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: beagle.ediacara.org; posting-host="beagle.ediacara.org:3.132.105.89";
	logging-data="13808"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@beagle.ediacara.org"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
To: talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
Cancel-Lock: sha1:33kYuwCJiSjwXb2G5TT5Z21PCso=
Return-Path: <news@eternal-september.org>
X-Original-To: talk-origins@ediacara.org
Delivered-To: talk-origins@ediacara.org
	id 4BC9422978C; Sun, 26 Jan 2025 14:40:59 -0500 (EST)
	by beagle.ediacara.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0C323229783
	for <talk-origins@ediacara.org>; Sun, 26 Jan 2025 14:40:57 -0500 (EST)
          by moderators.individual.net (Exim 4.98)
          for talk-origins@moderators.isc.org with esmtps (TLS1.3)
          tls TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384
          (envelope-from <news@eternal-september.org>)
          id 1tc8V4-00000003AaE-3XNw; Sun, 26 Jan 2025 20:40:54 +0100
	(using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)
	 key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-256))
	(No client certificate requested)
	by smtp.eternal-september.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A3CF15FD89
	for <talk-origins@moderators.isc.org>; Sun, 26 Jan 2025 19:40:53 +0000 (UTC)
Authentication-Results: name/A3CF15FD89; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com
	id 5B1BFDC01CA; Sun, 26 Jan 2025 20:40:53 +0100 (CET)
X-Injection-Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2025 20:40:53 +0100 (CET)
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vn62j9$2edg$1@dont-email.me>
X-Auth-Sender: U2FsdGVkX1/U7nk3wqihyDPY1EmS24GJfQGeLRiZVjQ=
	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: 4560

On 27/01/2025 6:31 am, Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 1/25/25 8:54 PM, MarkE 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:
>>>> [...]
>>>> 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?
> 
> Since "supernatural" is undefined, both statements are effectively 
> meaningless. There is nothing to agree or disagree with.
> 

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"?