Bertvan:
Do you think it posssible that there could be no theory which you would
consider an improvement over pure ordinary naturalism?
Chris
>Again, since that's what a naturalistic universe with any number of
>variations would do also, I don't see how you can propose to test it, unless
>you can show that it's violating laws of chemistry or physics by occurring
i>n ways that contradict those laws.
Bertvan:
Any theory which assumed the laws of nature were part of a complex design
would not contradict the laws of chemistry of physics. Have you figured out
a way to test whether the universe is an accident? Or do you claim you don't
have to test it, because you've already put the burden of proof on everyone
else?
Bertvan