he wasn't that stupid. actually, he was one of the smartest kids in the class. used to talk circles around everyone else, and set them up a mile off and they couldn't tell he was doing it.
well, what would it mean to "not believe in" gravity?
if we agree that things we drop falling to earth suggests that (practically speaking) our idea that some more or less "universal" "law", which we refer to for the sake of simplicity as "gravity", accounts for the repeatable downward motion (and this student clearly agreed to that), where do we then have analogous empirical evidence of god? well, nowhere.
that's all.
i mean, yes, this is all very coarse and hackneyed (and YES problematic at deeper philosophical levels). but so was his argument, which was that "we can't prove that there's no god" doesn't matter since "we can't prove there's gravity, either". that's crap. bad science. bad philosophy. bad logic.
j
-- http://www.brainmortgage.com/
Among medieval and modern philosophers, anxious to establish the religious significance of God, an unfortunate habit has prevailed of paying to Him metaphysical compliments.
- Alfred North Whitehead