Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Infinite_Loser
I'm not sure how one can make an absolute statement with inconclusive evidence. The stance "God doesn't exist because I can't prove it" just isn't scientifically sound. As Dawkins points out, there are many things science can't prove but it doesn't say that these things don't exist, but rather that they might exist.
|
It's not only scientifically sound, it's science.
All these ludicrous claims, from God to the tooth fairy, might exist but it is highly improbable. So much so that it's considered extremely safe to do so. That's science.
For instance, there's nothing that proves the non-existence of the
aether under the
Lorentz–FitzGerald contraction hypothesis, yet such a theory has been discarded by science. It is, both, scientific and reasonable.
We can't prove that there is a god. We can't prove that there isn't a god. By your reasoning, we should believe both theories!
No, it's much more reasonable to simply disbelieve all that can't be proven and wait for actual evidence before changing our opinion...