"Fr. Ivo Da C. Souza" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >It is impossible to have "objective evidence" in > this area.
Santosh Helekar responds:> > Not true again. Hypotheses about the origins of the universe and of humankind can certainly be supported by objective evidence. Mario adds: "Not true again"? I find it ironic that Dr. Helekar now says, "Hypotheses about the origins of the universe and of humankind can certainly be supported by objective evidence." In a post on May 5, 2005, along with the now familiar refrains of superior "understanding and knowledge", he had said, "The derivations contained in these papers have been checked and rechecked by countless physicists and mathematicians over the past 35 years, and have been deemed to constitute a plausible description of the physical nature of the Big Bang. However, until this description is supported by objective physical evidence, it would remain a working hypothesis." So, what is it? A hypothesis that "can be supported by objective evidence" or merely a "plausible" working hypothesis that awaits objective physical evidence to be more than just plausible? There are many scientific scholars who continue to wrestle with this dilemma, spending entire careers developing theories that can never be proven. Some, like Dr. Antony Flew, have conceded that an alternative circumstantial hypothesis of a superior being is "reasonable" in the circumstances.
