When some one says that no scientifc evidence against their belief, proves their belief, are they saying that?

Question

Are they saying that they think scientists are omnipotent? I mean if you think that the fact that we don't know God didn't do it means he did do it, aren't you saying we know everything we can know? That scientists are so omnipotent that everything that they can't figure out is divine and completely beyond understanding?

Nothing against religious people, I just hate people using non-evidence in another area as evidence for their belief.

Hmm, it seems that some people are confused about the post. Just to make sure it's clarified, I am atheist, and won't attack anyone for a belief in God, I just mean that for people who are outwardly using this method to prove their belief over scientific study it is just a little annoying.

And for whoever said it, I don't think science has to prove God for it to be true, any factual basis at all would be nice. And as long as it is only based on faith then sorry but yes I will continue to discount the possibility. No offense, just my beliefs.

Answer 1

Preface: No, it means that religious people cannot prove their beliefs, so they pass the buck to science & turn it around on them. 'God willed it.' doesn't cut it for me. I think they all claim to have the same god, but they all practice different man-made rules. Maybe 'God willed that, too.'

1. Civility is a must when we all disagree, otherwise people develop martyr-like attitudes. I don't know of anyone handing out medals to martyrs. It is within our legal right to defend our right to not believe in a god, if we so choose.

2. Harm only enters in when groups of people deliberately interfere with the freedom, happiness and legal behavior of other groups. Unfortunately, there are religious thiefs. A very small, but underhanded way to steal your time, is the door-to-door, unasked for visits from religious marketers. Larger scale is the last election in which Bush got the previous Pope's cooperation to push his agenda.

3. I may not believe in organized religions, or a monotheistic god, but I am not going to lobby to shut there places of worship down. I just expect the same respect from them in being nonintrusive in my life.

4. If no one is breaking the laws of society, deliberately harming others physically, mentally with unwanted religious marketing, or with slander, Live and Let Live!

5. I don't hate anyone who disagrees with my beliefs, I just vote for politicians, who take visible action to keep church and state separate.

6. Doing so prevents religious groups from oppressing my rights & forcing their beliefs in places of neutral territory (i.e. schools, what I read, watch, hear on the radio, etc.). Places of worship, and religious schools are great places to practice their beliefs without being intrusive.

7. I have no desire wasting my time trying to convert someone to my way of thinking. It's pointless and would be arrogant.

Good luck.

Answer 2

Huh? Geez, that is one convoluted f*cked-up question mess.

Science is based on the idea that if a theory is proven, until something better comes along, then that's the conventional wisdom. Now, proof in science means that it has to be verifiable (like, by quantitative means and within statistical boundaries that show that it's not some fluke) and repeatable. So, say, if you said Jesus was the Messiah, it wouldn't be scientific because there was only the one time he was here. If he comes back, then that's scientific proof--see, science and religion *are* compatible!

I think you're mixing up "truth" and "logic." Truth is logical, but logic is not necessarily true. Logical rules state that if something cannot be proven one way or the other, there is no logical proof for either side. Science doesn't claim to be true--it just claims to be, "the best we've come up with so far." If religious or scientific people got better proof about the whole religion vs. science debate, then something might be proven on either side. But they both have some issues that they can't explain in a logical fashion, so technically, they're both stuck with things they can't say are "true." If science can't prove something, it doesn't mean God did it, and if religion can't prove something, it doesn't mean that there's no divine principle in the universe. It just means that there isn't enough evidence to make a judgment. Kinda like when cases get thrown out of court for insufficient evidence. It doesn't mean that something didn't happen and obviously, there's some explanation for a crime. It's just that the defendant didn't have enough evidence to be convicted--no judgment could be rendered with the proof given.

Science and religion need a lot more logic in their lives!

Answer 3

When someone says that, they are essentially stating that because there is no evidence to contradict their assertion, their assertion must be correct. This is a completely fallacious argument. It is not a statement that scientists are omnipotent (I think you mean omniscient), but that the person making the statement doesn't understand the nature of scientific exploration. This is simply saying that something must be true because it hasn't yet been proven false.

This is very similar to the argument of "Option A, B and C aren't correct, so option D must be the right answer." And no, I'm not talking about a multiple choice question. This is taking the infinite possible solutions, choosing 4 and saying that those are the only 4 solutions, when the most likely scenario is that option Q is the correct answer. This is the very fallacy that proponents of Intelligent Design make as their philosophical bread and butter.

Answer 4

This is a very good point, and quite insightful.

I wrote an article on this a number of years ago, published in _College Teaching_. As I put it, it's the ironic fact that an overly high respect for science causes people to believe that what is not currectly explained by science must be supernatural. It doesn't seem to occur to some people that we just don't yet have the answer.

Nice job with this question.

Answer 5

Your question hurts my head. I am not even sure what you are asking, nor what you believe.

God may or may not exist. There is no evidence of either, and therefore neither is proven. The lack of evidence proves absolutely nothing about anything. I believe that the acts attributed to God in the Bible can be disproved by science, but this doesn't disprove the existence of God, generally - just the inaccuracies of the Bible.

You don't need to believe in the Bible to believe in God, despite what people would have you think.

Answer 6

The inability to prove or disprove the existance of a divine being scientificly does not essentially prove its existance. Science is a tangible pursuit of knowledge and therefor can not prove or disprove something as different as an etherial or supernatural existance. God is beyond knowing and yet as personal as your best friend or closest realitive. To seek to prove the existance of God is a fools pursuit and can neither be proven or disproven by Science. Science can support arguements to either side and that is why it is left to the individual to determine for themselves by using. If you believe in Gods existance you can credit FREEWILL for the ability to choose to believe and if you do not believe in Gods existance you can credit FREETHINKING for your reasons not to believe. One things for sure we all need to believe in something and Right now I believe its time for dinner.
For the record I believe that what I dont know and can't be explained is only one more reason that I have to have faith in the presence of a divine being and for me that would be God

Answer 7

I also can't prove that Barney the purple dinosaur isn't a god, but that doesn't make me believe it, does it?

I also can't prove that the Easter Bunny doesn't exist, it's hard to prove a negative, but I can use the evidence at hand to make a rational, justified decision.

Answer 8

This goes the same both ways.

Since science can't prove God does that means God doesn't exsist?

You have to go by your own beliefs since science can't say one way or the other yet.

Answer 9

Well, it's true. If there's no proof against something, it means that it's right.

So, by that definition, pink unicorns, leprechauns, Godzilla, talking dogs and God all exist, since science hasn't proven with 100% certainty that they don't.

So everything's possible, basically. ;^)

Answer 10

Depending on what ones belief is, evidence from anywhere may be quite appropriate.