<div>Paul Rumelhart wrote:</div>
<div><br><a href="http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2008-June/054696.html">http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2008-June/054696.html</a><br><br>A deity, on the other hand, requires a whole bunch of different beliefs for which there is no evidence, nor is it predictive in any way. </div>
<div>-----------------------</div>
<div>Is this an overstatement of the case? </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Maybe you are speaking from a very strict only scientific viewpoint, as an explanation for the Big Bang, in which case I agree, with some hesitation, given that your statement might be interpreted as closing the door on new empirical evidence that might support the existence of a "deity," and offer scientifically predictive power.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Furthermore, the first cause and/or design arguments for the existence of God, as a source or foundation of our universe, some will argue, have a sort of predictive power, offering a basis for the continuity of the laws of nature (Hume's analysis of causality and induction negates "laws" of nature; and if his analysis is valid, science has serious theoretical problems, which cannot be solved by science, such as explaining why the laws of nature should remain constant over time), though I do not think these arguments and creationism are scientific theories.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>As an agnostic, I don't think the evidence for a creator "God" is compelling or conclusive, nor do I find other metaphysical views of God convincing, despite the problems that belief in God can solve. But there is the possibility of new evidence. I if I truly thought there was no evidence that could ever be discovered, for a God that pre-dated and caused the Big Bang, and that the idea of God had no predictive power "in any way" (am I making too much of this phrase in your statement?), I would be an atheist.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Ted Moffett</div>
<div> </div>