If scientific theory is not based upon evidence, then why....?

Question

do folks on this forum continually bring up the fact that if there is no evidence then they do not believe it?

I'm talking about an article I just read in Yahoo news on the new planet they found that just might be able to hold life. Of course I realize they say that about Mars too, only because it is capable of having water ... but my question derived from a paragraph within the article:

"Besides having the right temperature, the new planet is probably full of liquid water, hypothesizes Stephane Udry, the discovery team's lead author and another Geneva astronomer. But that is BASED ON THEORY ABOUT HOW PLANETS FORM, NOT ON ANY EVIDENCE, he said." (emphasis is mine)

So how can they do that? How can they have a theory without any evidence of any kind? Especially since the folks here insist that a theory must have evidence of some kind in order to be valid? Isn't that the whole "God can't exist because there is no evidence?" claim?

And please don't hand me that "it is why they call it a theory" because then by your logic, lack of evidence of God does not mean He does not exist. Can you admit that?

No, I did not intend it to be an argument for proving God's existence, I'm ASKING how it is possible to have a hypothesis or theory WITHOUT evidence ... and if it's possible to have it, why do Atheists argue so vehemently that since they have no evidence of God, it's not possible?

Answer 1

Well, no one has been able to disprove the theory that God exists. And anyway.....there is no evidence on how planets form....all are theories....yet people follow them with such conviction. Let's not be hypocrites, when a scientist (of which I am one) says "the new planet is probably full of liquid water". He/she means "I know it's full of water but since you guys might not believe me, i'll use probably."

There is no evidence that God does not exists.
"God exists!!" hypothesizes Me.

Answer 2

Alot of people confuse theory with deductive certainty. Actually, the scientific method, far and away, uses inductive reasoning and the inferences drawn there from. Their knowledge of how planets are formed and under what circumstances give them a theoretical framework to be able to say what they do, and make predictions with a fair amount of accuracy. For example, I saw a parked car with one of those windshield panels on the inside to reflect the heat back away from the vehicle. The one I was looking at was silver like aluminum foil. I "theorized" that if I put up tin foil over the windows in my house that get the morning and afternoon sun, that I could drop the interior temperature and not have to run the a/c as much. So I went home and did so, and after one half hour the temperature in my living room dropped over 26 degrees, from 87 to 61. I ran the a/c until it was 57, then shut it off and turned a small fan on to circulate the cooler air. Now I do this every summer and my electric bill has dropped tremendously.

Answer 3

If I am understanding the article (read it earlier this morning) what they mean by "lack of evidence" is that because it is several trillion lightyears away, nobody has been able to go there and physical confirm that the planet has water, etc. But based on science's current understanding of the universe and how it works, there are logical reasons to believe that the planet could sustain life and have water on it.

As a Christian, I can not physical confirm that God exist. He resides in another realm (similar to being lightyears away) and lacks a physical form, so I can not physical touch him. But based on the Bible's revelation of God and how he works, there are logical reason to believe that he exist.

Answer 4

Thank you for a great question. And the article shows just how ridiculous modern science is. Most scientists today are looking for something that they think is already there. This is not research. Research is looking for what is there, not what one thinks should be there. And very big difference.

So for many years now the idea that life exists beyond our planet has lead people to speculate about that. And this is all that this article is about. Nothing else.

This holds true as far as the theory of evolution and natural selection. They already believe they have the answers and so they try to prove what they already believe. Again this is not research, it searching for something that they claim is already there. Every new fossil find is looked at, not as what it is, but how it should fit into something they think is already there.

Answer 5

You are misreading it. What they are saying is that they have no evidence that this particular planet has water, but are assuming it might based on the theory of how planets are formed. They are not saying that thee is no evidence for the theory, but that there is no evidence at present that the planet actually has water. There is evidence for the theory of how planets are formed- theories are based on evidence, and they CAN be proven or disproven, just as whether the planet has or does not have water is something that can eventually be tested and proven or disproven.
That is the difference. There is no way that the existence of God can be proven- short of his making himself available for examination and testing, which he refuses to do.

Answer 6

I believe in science and I believe in God. However, good science always builds on what came before it. Every new discovery (evidence) leads to a new theory. I came to believe in God because of some convincing arguments I read in books (non-religious), not because of what I read in the Bible or heard in church. That I why I believe in God, but not in Jesus Christ. Logic and reason do not support that he lived as we've been told.

Answer 7

You don't see the difference between what he said and what believers say?

First of all, there's a theory about how planets form, and that theory, of course, relies on what we know - based on evidence - about physical processes. There's no similar evidence-based theory suggesting the existence of a god.

Secondly, he says that the planet is "probably full of liquid water". He doesn't say "I know for a fact that it's full of liquid water". He also explicitly admits that he has no evidence for that. Do believers act as honestly? Typically, no, they do not.

Finally, scientists follow up this kind of thing with a search for evidence. At this very moment on NPR a scientist on the discovery team is talking about the kinds of instruments that would be needed to detect water on the planet. Believers? Claim they don't need to.

If you meant this to be an argument for the existence of god, you missed the mark by a wide margin, apparently as a result of deliberately ignoring obvious differences.

What are you so afraid of? It seems pretty clear that you're desperately trying to convince yourself of something you know not to be true.
=================
"why do Atheists argue so vehemently that since they have no evidence of God, it's not possible?"

The vast majority of atheists say no such thing.
We say that because there's no evidence of God, God doesn't exist.

I'm afraid you're in way over your head on this.

Answer 8

What you described is how somebody's idea comes to be a fact. Scientists take an idea and then try to disprove it. If nobody disproves it, we teach it in our schools.

I can't prove that God exists in the sense that I have no photograph or hard evidence. But my whole life changed when I turned to Him and that's evidence to me.

Answer 9

Scince is based on making a theory and trying to disprove it, if you cannot disprove it, it must be true. It's easy to say all mice have tails, but a scientist will try to find a mouse without a tail, to disprove the theory.

Answer 10

Indeed the theory of evolution has no evidence and in fact the evidence to date contradicts even the possibility of it. There are too many people changing the facts to fit in with their worldview rather than going where the evidence leads. That's true science. Even if it leads to God.