Atheists! How do you respond to the oldest religious trick in the book...?

Question

Apoligetics use the scientific method in an attempt to make you agnostic, like so,

Hypothesis: There is no God
Null Hypothesis: There may be a God
Design an experiment to prove that there is no God.

No need to harass me; The question was desciptive enough.

Nah, I'm a scientist myself. The hypothesis must be something that can be proven, the null, that which can otherwise be assumed.

Entwined's answer is much better. Here we assume that things we cannot preceive do not exist.

Tha't really not true the null hypothesis MUST always be "there may be a god," in this example. You can change the hypothesis to "The is a God", and use entwined's answer. You cannont change the null hypothesis into something that cannot be automatically assumed. The scientific method slowly narrows the field of reason. You don't understand you're own philosophy, or the scientific method, if you use the "wrong null" arguement. And apparently there is a scientist here with the same problem. And true, dragons and whatnot, but only Entwined's reasoning makes sense. It changes the null and uses philosophy to cmplete the proof. Wake up!

Answer 1

A better idea, seeing as the burden of proof lies with those who believe in God (despite the lack of any evidence):

Hypothesis: There is a God.

Design an experiment to prove that there is a God.

The point is that neither side can prove their hypothesis, but the onus lies on people with faith. There is no scientific value in designing an experiment to prove that something isn't.

Supposing there are two groups of people sitting in a field. The first group claim they are just sitting in a field and the only things in the field are the things they can see. The second group claim that there is manhole in the middle of the field which leads to a sewer. The first group have no incentive to go and look for the manhole. All they need to do is say "I can't see a manhole, nor do I see any evidence for a manhole. Ergot, there is no manhole".
Their view of the feild has not been upset.
The second group, if they wish to either comfirm their own beliefs or prove themselves right to the first group, must provide the evidence of said manhole.

Hopefully, you'll see what I'm getting at. If you can't see, feel, hear, smell or taste something, then you would be perfectly within your rights to assume that it wasn't there. Whether you were right or wrong is irrelevent: you would still have made the best use of the data available to you.

Moreover, in Philosophical terms, it is almost impossible to prove that something doesn't exist. Absence itself becomes a hinderance. Can you prove to me that Unicorns don't exist? The answer, whatever you may think, is no. If, however, I was to attempt to prove that Unicorns do exist, things would be different. I would fail miserably (unless, by some strange fortune, I stumbled accross some Unicorns), adding credence to the notion that they are, in fact, fictitious.

The way that reason has to work is to acknowledge existance only after this is proven to be likely (not necessarilly certain - black holes, for example). Until the existance of something is proven to be likely, the reasoned mind will take the view point that it probably (but not definitely) doesn't exist.

With our current understanding of the universe, it would be impossible to prove whether or not there is a God. Unfortunately for religion, this means that, reasonably, we should all assume that there is probably no God.

This, of course, will not happen because people have a cultural and pyschological prediliction towards believing in a Divine creator, protector, and/or maintainer (pluralise as appropriate).

Answer 2

Atheists think that science can be used to disprove the existence of God. But in reality, science actually brings us closer to God.

Science is the one and only true path to understanding the heart and mind of God. That's why we have this brain, this sense of wonder...and opposable thumbs.

After all, the only thing that He gave us that we can see, smell, hear, touch, and measure is the universe. Science strives to understand the universe, therefore, science strives to understand the heart and mind of God.

It's a lot like looking at and understanding a work of art. To do so is to connect with the artist; to know his or her heart and mind.

I don't understand how people can not see and know the truth of this.

Answer 3

I suppose Dawkins offers his case good after which it's take it or depart it so far as i'm involved. Not "you are going to cross to hell for now not believing" I learn his God Delusion guide and discovered him to compare plenty of fabric and use many resources-sure of direction he's going to use those that go well with him-however faith does not anything of the sort! It makes use of one guide after which says-that is that! I have additionally under no circumstances noticeable him, as so much atheists, duck or dive and preclude questions like I see day-to-day in this internet site from christians. He isn't the rationale I do not consider in faith however he obviously turns out to percentage my perspectives and likewise has plenty extra eduction to again them up. Fundamentalist Atheist--intriguing, I believe the deluded devout folks will do whatever to dangle onto that alleviation blanket and once they see an highbrow scientist whose middle field topic appears to be exposing their madcap ideals they're understandably concerned. I suppose fundamentalist turns out slightly harsh considering the fact that he most effective turns out concerned about info except someone is aware of if he's making plans to take over the sector.

Answer 4

Nothing is ever proven in science. Proof is the exclusive domain of logic and mathematics.

AS has been stated, the null hypothesis is atheism - see also, dragon in garage, gremlin on head and "this sentence is in Russian when you aren't reading it"..

Answer 5

The null hypothesis is actually that there is no god.

You can use the same experiment to prove/disprove that I have a dragon in my garage.

Answer 6

Just because something can't be proven doesn't mean that it is likely that it really exists.

For instance I say that there is a three foot tall invisible unicorn standing next to you . I could put certain qualities into this unicorn that make it impossible for you to disprove it is there. Do you think there is a unicorn there?

Answer 7

Speculation is not the same as science. When you substitute "santa" for "god" in these types of arguments, the emporers clothes are readily revealed.

In real life, we summarily reject rediculous claims as a matter of expedience. I see no reason to apply a different standard to metaphysical claims.

Answer 8

that just shows that you can't use the scientific method in religion. religion is based on faith. science is based on facts and theories that can be tested.

only the stupid people try to prove or disprove the existence of a god

Answer 9

As I have said previously, it is not possible to know for a fact if there is or there isn't a God, so why keep asking these type of questions?

Answer 10

A wise man once wrote," I would rather believe in God, Die and find their is no God; Than not to believe in God , Die and meet him face to face....You will find that their are no atheist in a foxhole when motar shells are dropping around you...LOL