>>it's obvious to me that I'm saying I have no way to gather
enough data to read beyond it.<<
I had originally pre replied to this but took it out because I
felt it complicated the matter too much for this particular
exercise. So here it is again for the first time.
Even if one feels there is no more data and they're stuck
using what they've got, and is not enough for a conclusion,
they should still "make-up" imaginary data with properties
consistent with that of the original data. bla bla bla, I
think you can see where I'm going with this. So in
conclusion because you still don't try to think further than
the data you don't think for yourself on issues like this.
But then again not making a decision is still a decision, so
in a way this is thinking for yourself. Hmm. Didn't think of
this before.
>>The sheaf of hypotheses lumped and labeled "(G/g)od(s)" is
too broad for me to meaningfully disprove. Popper and
all, you know.<<
It should be easy. The broadest definition I can think of is
"the creator of all things." I can easily say it's hogwash
because then "what created it?", ad infinity. If it created
itself (note: a very very complex entity) then what about
the smallest particles creating themselves? After all the
smallest particle is much simpler than the god. So if
anything created itself (appeared out of nowhere) by occam's
razor the particle created itself. The particle couldn't
make up god because god is the "creator of all things." So,
in a poof of logic god disappears.
Clint O'Dell http://clintodell.freeservers.com
______________________________________________________________________
Get Visto.com! Private groups, event calendars, email, and much more.
Visto.com. Life on the Dot.
Check it out @ http://www.visto.com/info
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:02:38 MDT