On Thu, 22 Oct 1998, Kevin L. O'Brien wrote:
However, the analogy between archaeology and cosmology is not good for one main reason. When an archaeologist finds a pottery shard he can
immediately recognize it as an artifact because he knows (often from personal experience) that pottery is a set of artificial objects created
by artificial means. If necessary he can compare his shard with pottery being made today to confirm what it is. A cosmologist on the
other hand has no prior experience (personal or otherwise) to fall back on, nor any other similar or identical artifact to compare the
universe with. As such, the "fact" that the universe was created by an intelligent being is far from obvious. He would need other kinds of
evidence, and not negative evidence. He cannot make a case for the universe being an artifact based simply on his lack of imagination or
luck or ability to find a natural explanation. He would need to find actual positive evidence that shows that the universe is an artifact
to be able to make such a conclusion. So far, no such positive evidence has been found.
>
> Kevin L. O'Brien
>
Would Hugh Ross's argument that the physical constants of the
universe give the appearance of having been fine-tuned to permit
the existence of life count as positive evidence?
Randy