🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <6162@tuegate.tue.nl> johan@blade.stack.urc.tue.nl (Johan Wevers) writes:
>andrew@rentec.com (Andrew Mullhaupt) writes:

>>would seem to me that in the absence of the appropriate experiment, scientists
>>should either hold that the result of science is agnosticism, or that science
>>is not equipped to decide the question of God.
>
>The existence of a god has never shown to be nessecary for any experiment.
>Therefore, using Occams razor, the concept can be removed.

     This is certainly appropriate for science, but not for religion.
     The rules by which you arrived at this conclusion are not necessarily
     the rules under which religion works.  Look at it this way, if you
     insist on using the rules of science in religion, there are going
     to be a large number of people who want equal time for the rules
     of religion within science.  

     We have enough trouble with 'creationists' now. 

>>'Science vs. Religion' is
>>about as sensible a contest as 'Cooking vs. Linguistics' or 'Sportsmanship
>>vs. Geology'
>
>No, it's experimental proof vs. no proof at all.

     You cannot even offer 'proof' in science that the next experiment
     will show the same thing as the last.  I suggest you reevaluate
     the 'proof'-nature of science.  As far as religion goes, 'proof'
     is not necessary within faith.

                             dale bass
-- 
C. R. Bass                                           crb7q@virginia.edu
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, Virginia                            (804) 924-7926