On Sun, 01 Jun 2008 18:22:39 +0000, Kenny McCormack wrote:
> In article <qi0bh5-ohv.ln1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, Kelsey Bjarnason
> <kbjarnason@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote: ...
>>By this reasoning, until there was evidence for the electron, the
>>electron did not exist, then *spung* magically popped into existence,
>>out of nothing at all, exactly at the time the evidence became
>>available.
>>
>>Since that's obviously absurd, the assertion "does not exist" must be in
>>error.
>>
>>A more correct formulation would be "The null hypothesis is that
>>something with no evidence for it is treated as if it does not exist" -
>>thus we do not pay any attention whatsoever to electrons, or gods, or
>>pixies, unless and until evidence demands otherwise, but we do not
>>actively deny the possibility, as this would require us to invoke magic
>>to explain the sudden change from non-existence to existence.
>
> Wrong. But thank you for playing.
Wrong?
Ah. Okay, so electrons *did* magically spung into existence when
evidence of them was discovered. They did not exist at all before that
point, and *zot*, by magic, now they do.
Which presupposes both the existence of magic, and something which can
keep track of who has discovered what evidence, in order to magic things
into existence at the right time.
As an argument for God, I'm sorry, but it's not compelling. Nice try,
though, trying to sneak him in the back door.
|
