Deutsch English Français Italiano |
<vn7miu$oopm$2@dont-email.me> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!feeds.phibee-telecom.net!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!newsfeed.xs3.de!nntp-feed.chiark.greenend.org.uk!ewrotcd!news.eyrie.org!beagle.ediacara.org!.POSTED.beagle.ediacara.org!not-for-mail From: MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> Newsgroups: talk.origins Subject: Re: Paradoxes Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2025 21:19:09 +1100 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 216 Sender: to%beagle.ediacara.org Approved: moderator@beagle.ediacara.org Message-ID: <vn7miu$oopm$2@dont-email.me> References: <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> <bcnbpjh50r4v9v8igrfkq298etk7gs0e8n@4ax.com> <vn5584$3mhc6$1@dont-email.me> <k8pcpj509sre1veqqu9q9b7iu8mrcmcp4n@4ax.com> <vn635o$1q7s$4@dont-email.me> <cf3epjhhf91ihq6i5t7mnvi5bm399146bg@4ax.com> <vn75jq$inai$1@dont-email.me> <vs8epjhd8i4q6gija07n5vp2kt1829ii4o@4ax.com> 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="37468"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@beagle.ediacara.org" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird To: talk-origins@moderators.isc.org Cancel-Lock: sha1:O2hvP/vr55VFLjUl+6Ef+FJz0iQ= Return-Path: <news@eternal-september.org> X-Original-To: talk-origins@ediacara.org Delivered-To: talk-origins@ediacara.org id 8153D22978C; Mon, 27 Jan 2025 05:19:19 -0500 (EST) by beagle.ediacara.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 23F4F229783 for <talk-origins@ediacara.org>; Mon, 27 Jan 2025 05:19:16 -0500 (EST) by pi-dach.dorfdsl.de (8.18.1/8.18.1/Debian-6~bpo12+1) with ESMTPS id 50RAJDx82311998 (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for <talk-origins@moderators.isc.org>; Mon, 27 Jan 2025 11:19:14 +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 2FDEA5FDB9 for <talk-origins@moderators.isc.org>; Mon, 27 Jan 2025 10:19:12 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: name/2FDEA5FDB9; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com id D1F99DC01CA; Mon, 27 Jan 2025 11:19:11 +0100 (CET) X-Injection-Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2025 11:19:11 +0100 (CET) Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: <vs8epjhd8i4q6gija07n5vp2kt1829ii4o@4ax.com> X-Auth-Sender: U2FsdGVkX18/tF06/Sp3MTR0oRLS89qVk+rqzmvp/lM= HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED,RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_CERTIFIED_BLOCKED, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE,URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_IN_WELCOMELIST, USER_IN_WHITELIST autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 smtp.eternal-september.org Bytes: 11652 On 27/01/2025 6:14 pm, Vincent Maycock wrote: > On Mon, 27 Jan 2025 16:29:24 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 27/01/2025 3:45 pm, Vincent Maycock wrote: >>> 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. >>> >> >> Regarding low initial entropy, Sean Carroll disagrees: >> >> "The second law, the idea of entropy increasing, is an interesting case >> because near the time of the Big Bang, entropy was very, very, very low. >> That's why it's been increasing for the past 14 billion years. This >> doesn't violate the second law, but the question remains: why did the >> Big Bang have such low entropy? The answer is that nobody knows. This is >> an open question for cosmology." >> https://youtu.be/FgpvCxDL7q4?si=-bjJ8GpUwoNOxmq4 > > Low, but not miraculously low. > >> But, fair point, who knows? And of course Penrose could be (may well be) >> wrong. >> >> Let's take any one of a number of phenomena whose explanation is >> contended in terms of natural vs supernatural explanation, e.g. first >> cause, > > That's theological philosophy, not science. > >> low initial entropy, fine tuning, > > Both of which could be explained by a multiverse. > > https://scienceinfo.net/how-do-scientists-prove-the-existence-of-the-multiverse.html > >> OOL, > > An unsolved problem for which "God did it" is not an appropriate > solution. > >> macroevolution, > > The evidence for which is incontrovertible. > >> etc. > > What other supposedly "faith-building ideas" have you got there with > "etc."? > >> Assume that for at least one of these, the contention has some >> legitimate basis. >> >> The explanation is either the contended phenomena is caused by (i) the >> action of a powerful agency transcending spacetime (aka God), or (ii) a >> naturalistic mechanism or process. > > So if your car won't start, do you invoke a powerful agency > transcending spacetime, and pray for it to start? Or do you assume a > naturalistic mechanism of the sort that an auto mechanic would be able > to fix? > >> I am not saying that this evidence proves God. > > As well you shouldn't. > >> Nor am I saying that we >> should therefore cease the search for a naturalistic explanation. ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========