Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Infinite_Loser
Now, if that were my argument I would have said "Science can't disprove God there he must exist!" which, as I'm sure you're well aware, I didn't.
|
You aren't reading what I'm writing. Atheists say god doesn't exist. The theist argument against that is that atheists can't disprove god's existence, therefore they are wrong to say that god doesn't exist. Don't strawman.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Infinite_Loser
I hate repeating myself, but sometimes I feel I must. The aim of science isn't to prove, but rather to disprove.
|
No, it's both. It's equally about proving what's right and disproving what is wrong.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Infinite_Loser
Science follows statistical logic. You have a hypothesis and you have a null hypothesis. To accept the hypothesis you must reject the null hypothesis. If you can't reject the null hypothesis then either one of two things is correct:
1.) Your hypothesis is wrong or
2.) You're unable to form a conclusion with the given data.
There are only two possible hypotheses (God exists and God doesn't exist), neither of which is disprovable. Therefore, science simply states that God might exist but there is no scientific evidence supporting that claim. Therefore, it's inherently faulty to claim that God doesn't exist because you can't prove him.
|
There is no given data outside outdated religious texts and word of mouth. If there is zero proof of something, then the suggestion that it is not real is more reasonable than the suggestion that it is. That's where most atheists, myself included, stand.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Infinite_Loser
I'm pretty sure they could disprove that (Hell, I could disprove that) as it'd be easily observable that the coke bottle would do nothing/go nowhere
|
I'm glad you responded to this. What if I said that god was going to use my remote to turn the coke can into the sun?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Infinite_Loser
Ummm... No. You would be laughed at if you walked into a scientific convention and said "<Insert name of object here> doesn't exist because I can't prove it!". A lack of proof doesn't equal non-existance. Disproof of existance, however, equals non-existence
|
No evidence exists, and no one can offer any reason to believe in the existence of god. It's incorrect to make the argument that a complete lack of evidence for something doesn't suggest it's non-existence.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Infinite_Loser
Not really. The existence of God has a higher statistical probability than dose that of various multiverses, one of which is able to sustain life. What most atheists assert, however, is that there is a fourth option that we don't know yet which is more likely than God.
|
Some theoretical evidence exists to suggest that the multi-verse is real. No evidence exists to suggest god exists. There's your razor.
They're making a movie about Darwin right now, but I expect it to be eaten by a faster, stronger, and smarter movie.