On 4/25/2013 12:39 AM, Pat Hayes wrote:
> 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. (01)
I agree. (02)
My recommendation is to treat all arguments pro or con as outside
the scope of and irrelevant to any aspect of science. (03)
> A very straightforward application of Occam's principle then suffices. (04)
Excellent suggestion. I used that razor to shave off the meme
hypothesis as a thinly disguised ploy to prolong a pointless debate. (05)
John (06)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (07)
|