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=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vn62j9$2edg$1@dont-email.me>
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"?