Re: OT: Huckabee, Ughh

Brian Henderson wrote:
On Sun, 6 Jan 2008 08:21:20 -0500, "J. Clarke"
<jclarke.usenet@xxxxxxx> wrote:

The bottom line on this is that sooner or later either science will be backed into a corner where some phenomenon is observed that requires the existence of a deity, or it won't ever be backed into such a corner.

When that actually happens, fine. Until then, assuming it will happen
is foolish. To date, there's no reason to think that a deity exists
at all, therefore making assumptions based upon the existence of a
deity is silly.

In science the null hypothesis is that there is no deity.

No, there isn't a single shred of objective evidence to support the
existence of a deity, therefore there is no reason to posit one. The
same is true of dragons. Science has no belief that there are no
dragons, it simply sees no reason to think that there are.

Come up with evidence for God and science will accept God and not
until.

There isn't a shred of "objective evidence" that *you* or *I* exist.
"Objective" facts are a consequence of the *unprovable* starting
points of logic, upon which science is based. You object to
religion being made up out of whole cloth. But *every* system
that claims to bring us knowledge has this problem. You
have absolutely no way of telling whether we're in some
virtual reality like "The Matrix" or whether we actually exist
as it seems. The truth is that science got tractions because it
brings us practical results. But it is not inherently free of
the constraints that haunt all epistemologies. In short,
something is "objectively true" based entirely on what you
believe (but cannot prove) in the first place ... no different
that the most ardent religious believers...

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk tundra@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
.

Loading