Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Infinite_Loser
That's nice and all, but you really didn't answer my question: Since when has science ever considered a lack of supporting evidence to equal non-existence?
|
All of the time. Any scientific idea which is to be without any supporting evidence is very quickly discarded. Some get carried along as "extra baggage" with other theories and so manage to survive for a while.
There is
no scientific evidence for the
non-existence of
Luminiferous aether (rather what once constituted the evidence in its favor was debunked). Exactly what constitutes "evidence of the non-existence of something" is very unclear to me.
When a new drug is under-going testing, it is on the hypothesis that the drug contains some sort of beneficial properties. If after a controlled trial, it is found that the drug fared no better than the placebo, then the drug is discarded. In other words
due to the lack of evidence showing that this drug has any beneficial properties, it is asserted that the drug is useless. The argument "well you haven't actually
proved that drug does not have any medicinal properties, merely failed to show that is does" is not going to cut it with any medical journal on the planet.
Quote:
|
...And, as I'm sure you're well aware, the exact same reasoning you've used here to argue for the existence of aliens has also been used to argue for the existence of God.
|
Well first of all, I wasn't arguing for the existence of aliens. It would be a very poor argument, as I have offered spectacularly little evidence. However even an argument as poor as this one could not be made in favor of the existence of a god. As I stated, extra-terrestrial life is nothing more than
"more of what we have here, somewhere else". It is saying that what happened on this planet, may have happened elsewhere. However the existence or not of a god is emphatically
not simply "more of the same".
Quote:
|
First and foremost, there theists possess no burden of proof. You seem to forget that theistic beliefs aren't based on any set of logical reasoning. Our beliefs are based on faith, and faith is very, very different from logic. If anyone must disprove the notion of God, it's you. Anywho, I'll ask this again (As I fear I'm being ignored); Since when has a lack of evidence ever been equatable to non-existence? Making a concrete assertion based on inconclusive/incomplete evidence is not only absurd but also isn't scientific in the least.
|
Ok, my challenge was implicit in my previous post. Allow me to make it explicit:
Do you believe in the Invisible Pink Unicorn? If not, why not? Can you prove that this particular conception of a god does not exist? Merely pointing to the complete and utter lack of evidence in its favor is apparently not enough.
Quote:
|
Any scientist worth his or her salt knows that science will never be able to qualify the existence of God, and to trying to do so is futile. Religion works in the realm which science simply can't and never will be able to explain. Theists need no rational explanation of God nor do we need to prove that He exists, as we have faith he exists. You, on the other hand, feel the need to rationalize God based upon human limitations (Which, by the way, you'll never be able to do). So, until the day you can pull out some scientific evidence which states "God doesn't exist!", I'll take all atheist arguments with a grain of salt, as they have no logical basings.
|
Any atheist would be (rightly) laughed out of the room if he asserted "I don't need to back up my argument, I have faith that God does not exist". Why the asymmetry?