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)