quote:
Originally posted by John Paul:
John Paul:
It's not a complaint, just an observation. Materialistic naturalism is the prevailing bias. That is just the way it is.
Science, fundamentally, is a game. It is a game with one overriding and defining rule:
Rule No. 1: Let us see how far and to what extent we can explain the behavior of the physical and material world in terms of purely physical and material causes, without invoking the supernatural.
Rule no.1 is spot on & with good reason. The supernatural has never been observed. Natural mechanisms have. What would you go with?
Unless you can give good reason to the question :
"Why is it reasonable to infer the supernatural mechanisms above natural mechanisms, when:
1/ Every known process is a natural mechanistic one, bar none. DNA replication, radioactive decay, nuclear fission, nuclear fusion, etc. ad infinitum.
2/ Supernatural mechanisms are entirely unobserved.
Obviously your answer is one of inferrence. But why chuck what is POSSIBLE for an entire frame of reference that has never been observed? There are natural phenomena that make the likes of abiogenesis possible, & give evidence of the big bang, so why go elsewhere? Not just elsewhere, but to somewhere that has NEVER been, or has any reason, for being inferred over a natural mechanism.
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.