On May 5, 2005, at 7:41 PM, William T Goodall wrote:
Lack of evidence for something is evidence against it. Overwhelming lack of evidence for something is overwhelming evidence against it.
That's a fair premise, I think.
The claim is that there is a god, omniscient, omnipotent, created the universe and so on. A remarkable claim.
Not the least because I didn't see anyone putting forth that claim in this thread; you're arguing against an idea no one's actually proposed in this discussion. Your straw god is easy to knock down but is not the focus of this flurry of electrons, I think.
And after thousands of years not one shred of evidence or plausible argument to support the idea. Case closed.
For the personally involved god idea, sure. Unless, of course, that god was something more like a universal scientist, possibly something akin to Sawyer's entity in _Calculating God_ -- one who got involved only in the most extreme moments, and even then indirectly, acting as a force of nature a la Job's whirlwind.
That, you could argue, is a sophistry, and I'd likely agree. I'm presenting it here partly to be the Devil's advocate and partly to point out that not all conundrums necessarily have binary resolutions.
-- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress "The Seven-Year Mirror" http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
