Bertvan:
Do you think it posssible that there could be no theory which you would
consider an improvement over pure ordinary naturalism?
Bit of a loaded question dear Bert. And of course you already know the answer to your rethoric.
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?
It's up to those who consider a theory to be wrong to provide disproof. So far however we have seen how naturalism can explain quite well the observations, so far we have seen ID fail to provide a solid theoretical foundation allowing it to be tested or disproven.
You say that you "assume that laws of nature were part of a complex design". Fine, but explain how adding these extra requirements can explain better the observations and tell us how one can support or falsify your assumptions?
God of the gaps wrapped in a new concept....