Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!nntp-feed.chiark.greenend.org.uk!ewrotcd!news.eyrie.org!beagle.ediacara.org!.POSTED.beagle.ediacara.org!not-for-mail
From: Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Paradoxes
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2025 13:14:41 +0000
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 75
Sender: to%beagle.ediacara.org
Approved: moderator@beagle.ediacara.org
Message-ID: <rslkojplv5j2sg9d9pecthfutp0tmdc285@4ax.com>
References: <vlt8mu$h46e$1@dont-email.me> <vlu0b5$lfhs$1@dont-email.me> <vlve01$som5$2@dont-email.me> <vm0n1k$16lsd$2@dont-email.me> <vm0r7q$178hu$1@dont-email.me> <vm7sd5$2sled$1@dont-email.me> <pvdhojpi9mdffqp9qah9im4fbq1t6i9m26@4ax.com> <vmah23$3e6d8$2@dont-email.me> <avjhoj5mt2mfdcpotq0rqops96jl212hfi@4ax.com> <vmdhjr$15ag$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Info: beagle.ediacara.org; posting-host="beagle.ediacara.org:3.132.105.89";
	logging-data="73217"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@beagle.ediacara.org"
User-Agent: ForteAgent/8.00.32.1272
To: talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
Cancel-Lock: sha1:9M/JebnQVyHmIOooU5piik/Te58=

On Fri, 17 Jan 2025 23:14:51 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 16/01/2025 9:21 pm, Martin Harran wrote:
>> On Thu, 16 Jan 2025 19:46:59 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> On 16/01/2025 6:46 pm, Martin Harran wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 19:42:09 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Sure, be careful to avoid a god-of-the-gaps.
>>>>> Sure, knowledge of God lies outside the province of science.
>>>>> Sure, do not rest religious belief on the science of the day.
>>>>>
>>>>> But, I suspect the thinking you espouse is the product of an a priori
>>>>> commitment to metaphysical naturalism. Which itself is a position of
>>>>> faith, for example:
>>>>>
>>>>> "The cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be." (Carl Sagan)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I've already asked you this several times but you've always ignored
>>>> it; is there any chance of you addressing it this time?
>>>>
>>>> How do you squareyour claim of an a priori faith-like commitment to
>>>> metaphysical naturalism with the many, many theistic evolutionists
>>>> like myself who are totally convinced of  their religious beliefs but
>>>> have no problem accepting the role of natural processes in both OOL
>>>> and Evolution?
>>>>
>>>> As pointed out by Eugenie Scott, Director of the US National Center
>>>> for Science Education, "In one form or another, Theistic Evolutionism
>>>> is the view of creation taught at the majority of mainline Protestant
>>>> seminaries, and it is the official position of the Catholic church"
>>>>
>>>
>>> I assume you meant to say "metaphysical supernaturalism"?
>> 
>> I was quoting your own words.
>> 
>>>
>>> Personally, I haven't ruled out Theistic Evolutionism. A have trusted
>>> and respected friends who are orthodox Christians and hold to various
>>> forms theistic evolution.
>> 
>> So why do you insist that acceptances of natural processes is "the
>> product of an a priori commitment to metaphysical naturalism"; does it
>> apply to those  "trusted and respected friends who are orthodox
>> Christians"?
>
>That's not what I said.
>
>What I did say was this: "I suspect the thinking you espouse is the 
>product of an a priori commitment to metaphysical naturalism". The 
>thinking to which I refer is the position of excluding the possibility 
>of agency outside the material universe, full stop.
>
>> 
>>>
>>> However, to me, the scientific evidence does not support a
>>> noninterventionist interpretation.
>> 
>> I'm not asking you about that. I'm asking you about your suggestion
>> that accepting a noninterventionist interpretation equates to atheism.
>
>You're proposing "noninterventionist theism".
>
>What does this noninterventionist do then in relation to the universe, 
>if anything?
>

Evasion doesn't cut it. As I've said to you before, you really should
think long and hard about why you find my questions hard to answer.