On Apr 24, 2013, at 10:11 PM, John F Sowa wrote: (01)
> I'm willing to grant that all arguments for the existence of God
> are unscientific. But I also believe that all arguments *against*
> the existence of God are equally unscientific. It's actually harder
> to develop a solid proof that something does *not* exist. (02)
The basic scientific argument against the existence of God is that there is
absolutely no observational evidence for the existence of a God, nor any reason
to hypothesise such an entity in order to explain anything that is observable.
A very straightforward application of Occam's principle then suffices. Of
course this is not a *proof*, but it is a sound *scientific* argument. Proofs
are irrelevant here. There is no proof that the flying spaghetti monster does
not exist, but that does not shake the faith of the true Pastafarian. (03)
Pat (04)
------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973
40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office
Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax
FL 32502 (850)291 0667 mobile
phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes (05)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J (06)
|