Quote:
Originally Posted by cdnredraider
What is your scientific data to prove that God does not exist.
|
You misunderstand science. Geometry has "proofs" of theorems which are then incontrovertible. Science does not. It deals in observations and explanations. Initial observations of falling hammers and orbiting planets results in Newton's theory of gravity. That system of explanations of how matter behaves has never been "proven", and in fact has been refined by Einstein's General Relativity, but it's pretty darned good for most purposes. As more data are gathered, theories are refined to explain the new information.
One basic thing about how science works is that the "burden of proof" is on the person making the positive assertion. Some hypothesis must be accompanied by a description of an experiment that can be carried out whose positive result would confirm the hypothesis and whose negative result would falsify it. So in the case of Newton's Laws, you would set up some dynamic system, predict what the objects will do, and compare the prediction with what really happens. As it turns out, it works pretty well until things start moving really really fast.
You claim that God exists. Okay, then. Show us. Present an instrument or method that will back up your claim. In fact, you don't even have to go that far. All I'll really ask is a definition of God that includes some clue about how to verify or falsify His existence. You could show how scientific hypotheses and theories are incomplete without accounting for the "God Effect", whatever that is.
I thought I posted this earlier, but I can't find it. But it's relevant to this discussion:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Bertrand Russell
If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.
|
So. There's this china teapot in an elliptical orbit between Earth and Mars. And you can't prove it ain't so. By your logic about God, you must accept the existence of the teapot. Now can you see how silly it is to conclude that since something can't be disproven, it must be true?
Have I told you about the
Invisible Pink Unicorn? She's going to eat the
Flying Spaghetti Monster.