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 ==========