Nature is as it is. We have to assume we don't know what exists in nature or how to correctly characterize it. "God" is a hypothesis. I don' t know of any evidence to support it. Do you? You can never prove that something unknown doesn't exist. You just don't know if it does or not. You can prove that something doesn't exist *as hypothesized* and every God hypothesis that I know of has been rejected scientifically.
If you want to say that there God might exist, you'd have to come up with a hypothesis. What sort of God do you propose?
boddi
On 12/3/05, Chris Doss <lookoverhere1 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> The second proposition does not follow from the first.
> In fact, you are deriving an ontological proposition
> from an epistomological one. ;)
>
> A. I have no reason to believe that x exists.
> B. Therefore, x does not exist.
>
> WTF?
>
> Suppressed premise:
>
> If I have no reason to believe that x exists, then x
> does not exist.
>
> This is obvious false.
>
>
>
> --- boddi satva <lbo.boddi at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > What we can say is that there are no known,
> > reproducible observations
> > which logically imply the existence of God. As a
> > matter of scientific
> > fact, therefore, God does not exist. \
>
> Nu, zayats, pogodi!
>
>
>
> __________________________________________
> Yahoo! DSL – Something to write home about.
> Just $16.99/mo. or less.
> dsl.yahoo.com
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>