Why do people say if something can not be studied scientifically it does not exist?

Question

An example is "the meaning of life." The scientific method can not study some things, but that doesn't mean science is free to apply the "it does not exist" default.

I ask the question because most of the atheists claim science as their basis for stating God absolutely does not exist. I say, only the agnostic can fall back onto science and that the atheist is a person of faith. I believe a true scientist can say they do not know for sure, based on science, but the atheist can not go there.

Answer 1

Those who argue in this way show their athiesm is foolishness.

Firstly, to study a thing scientifically means that we first subscribe to the view that order exists and that it can be studied. This is a presupposition of science. And those who have excelled in the sciences all believed that order exists and can be studied. Secondly, those who have excelled in science in all ages believed that this order we see before us has as its origin a greater order.

That is why, logically and in actuality, scientists have been men who believed in God. It is logical to believe in God. It is entirely consistent with science. Yet His existence, of course, is beyond science.

Therefore the very existence of the scientific method is wholly consistent with God's existence. That method was also first described by men of faith.

There is no argument here. Men of faith have been the world's greatest scientists. Newton, Kepler, Einstein, and so many others.

Answer 2

Who says that? Whoever told you that understands neither science nor atheism. If something cannot be studied scientifically, then science has NO COMMENT. This is not the same as saying it doesn't exist.

Your additional info shows that you do know science's position on non-scientific subjects. Now let me educate you about atheism. Atheism does not say that "i know absolutely that God doesn't exist," and most atheists aren't so arrogant to take such a position. Atheism says "i don't believe that any gods exist." Can a theist, who has no proof of his god, justifiably go any further?

As for agnosticism vs. atheism, that's a false dichotomy. I am both--atheist because i don't believe that any gods exist, agnostic because i don't claim to know for sure. I suggest that you not go too far with this argument. Non-believers don't appreciate being told what they are, what they believe, or that their lack of faith constitutes faith.

More generally, if you want to know about science, ask scientists. If you want to know about atheism, ask atheists. Apologetics ministries (including creation science and intelligent design institutions) are the worst places you can go for such information.

Answer 3

Lots of people use lots of thing to argue about faith and God. Scientists use empirical methodology and claim as truth anything they find using this methodology. I think you will find that most major scientific discoveries were as a result of someone looking for something else and stumbling upon something completely different.

As for Atheists arguing for scientific evidence, many quantum scientists are now at the point where they are arguing that despite answering many question about the life, universe and everything they are no nearer proving or disproving anything , indeed many of them are now starting to beleive that the only answer is that there must be a creator. I am a said agnostic those who put their faith in only science or purely faith worry me. I don't beleive the answer in in either of these places.

Answer 4

I've never heard anyone say that. I think you have it the wrong way round.

If something does not exist, it cannot be scientifically studied. That's not the same thing, at all.

The terminologies are messed up. Even though it's pretty obvious there are such things as Christians, I could say there isn't and, scientifically, I'd would not be wrong. But I wouldn't be right, either. There is nothing to, scientifically, distinguish a Christian from a non-Christian. Atheists could be said not to exist by the same screwed up rhetoric.

We are all agnostics, in reality.

Answer 5

It's for those of us who want a little more fact than fiction.
If you can offer evidence of gods existance you can prove he exists beyond doubt.

But you have no more evidence to prove god does exist than I have to prove he doesn't therefore the arguments are based entirely on opinion and as my opinion is as valid as yours who's to say which one of us is right.
Actually looking at the world I think god does exist I just can't see any evidence that he gives a crap.

Oh yes, the bible and the church are not evidence: the first is a story book the second is a moneymaking centre of control.

Answer 6

your absolutely right the definition for atheist is one that don't believe in a god and you could not convince them if there life depended on it, look the planet earth exist but yet they cant find the creator in the same sense if a building exists there must be a builder the building is scientific proof that there was a builder the earth is scientific proof that there was a creator .you are in the right realm because there is not an atheist that can not prove that there is not a creator name god

Answer 7

People don't understand science enough to know when and how it applies. When someone is looking for proof that Jesus existed, they will use more of historical evidence than they would scientific evidence.
If someone wanted to see if soap floats in warm water you would use a scientific method over historical.

Answer 8

Does the meaning of life exist?

Can science be applied to Dante?

The scientific method is not used to discuss philosophy or literature.

Answer 9

I agree. Galileo did not discover the planet mars until the year 1610. Does that mean that the planet didn't exsist until that year? Of course not. There are new discoveries every single day. Discoveries that even a hundred years ago would have sounded crazy. It takes courage to consider that the world is not black and white and that there are unseen powers and possibilities.
The scientific mind is one that allows for infinate unrealized possibilities.

Answer 10

It's the company line right now. Secular Progressive people want to remove religion and anything that gives people a reason to question them. The gambit is to say it has to be science and if it isn't your stupid or a fool. The idea being people can be handled like sheep because they don't want to be seen as fools. You see people responding here with that mentality all the time.