DAVID: More help for dhw thought patterns: > > http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/18/magazine/18wwln-lede-t.html?_r=1& > > Once again, thank you for your integrity and generosity of spirit. Not many folk would draw attention to articles that seriously consider hypotheses of which they themselves disapprove. > > This is an excellent article. ... but clearly Nagel was toying with an atheist concept. Why not? It's as feasible and as non-feasible as any other hypothesis.-Thank you for enjoying it