Testability and crossposting

F. Frank LeFever flefever at ix.netcom.com
Mon Nov 23 22:56:34 EST 1998





wrong newsgroup




In <73d56s$4dl$1 at usc.edu> "Dane Myers" <iotarho at yahoo.com> writes: 
>
>>Let me point out the flaw in your reasoning.
>
>
>Ironically in attempting this, you have perfectly illustrated the flaw
in
>yours.  While faith-healers and missionaries and the like may cling to
the
>"faith requires no proof" dogma to defend their doctrines from the
>dissecting scrutiny of the scientific method, I would argue that they,
nor
>you, has any valid argument whatsoever in saying that the foundations
of
>religion can not some day be tested.  And as you pointed out, my
argument
>might be idiotic, but yours is plainly blind.  Idiots can be taught,
but the
>blind are utterly helpless (euphemistically, of course).
>
>>
>>Darwin's original hypothesis was untestable in his time, but it is
>>certainly testable (and has been tested) today. The difference
>>between his hypothesis and the hypothesis of Creation of God's
>>existence is that the latter CANNOT be tested for verification/
>>falsification.
>
>
>




More information about the Neur-sci mailing list