God & Science Forum Message | |
| Forums: |
Atm ·
Astrophotography ·
Blackholes ·
Blackholes2 ·
CCD ·
Celestron ·
Domes ·
Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem |
|
|
|
|
||||
|
|
||||||
Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place... The Space and Astronomy Agora |
| Alex
Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To Posted by Harvey on April 18, 2001 16:56:10 UTC |
I'm very well aware of the strength of the philosophical argument in question, my point is that you don't seem to think your argument is part of philosophy but rather empirical science. The fact that you can't cite one iota of an experiment to validate your conclusions (i.e., if humans weren't around these things would still have some type of ontological truth) indicates that even you know that your argument is a philosophical argument. Why can't you see that??
|
| Additional Information |
|---|
 |
| About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy |
|
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2024 John Huggins All Rights Reserved Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post. "dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET" are trademarks of John Huggins |