Because via the scientific method you can't come to the conclusion that God exists. I am not asking you to think religiously or spiritually or philosophically- I am asking you to look at it scientifically.
The scientific method. And note that the conclusion, as I have said countless times in this thread, is that we do not know the answer but that we cannot believe because we do not know.
Personally, weighing the probabilities I do not think a personal God exists, but that is for other reasons and opinion. Based on fact and science, we cannot believe- at best we can be agnostic. You have to note the distinction.
Simply put Clax...science says there is no God.
This does not mean a man of science cannot believe in one, it just states there is no scientific basis for said belief.
Is there something out there that guides the universe?
We do not know...likely never will, and science supports this conclusion.
It does not claim it can, or does know it exists...just that it cannot prove it does.
God, is therefore unproven and thus does not matter to science, any more than the next unproven hypothesis.
This does not mean a man of science cannot believe in one, it just states there is no scientific basis for said belief.
Is there something out there that guides the universe?
We do not know...likely never will, and science supports this conclusion.
It does not claim it can, or does know it exists...just that it cannot prove it does.
God, is therefore unproven and thus does not matter to science, any more than the next unproven hypothesis.
I think we can because we don't know, I choose to, not for science, for other personal reasons, I think it really doesn't matter to science if I do choose to believe. It doesn't effect my objectivity, because I know it is my opinion, no proof exists and my personal belief us just that. How does that make me a hypocrite?
It doesn't make you a hypocrite because you don't understand or think science is very important anyway. (no disrespect intended, I am going by what you posted here)
This says it better than I can:
"
What Can Science Prove or Disprove?
To understand why "God does not exist" can be a legitimate scientific statement, it's important to understand what the statement means in the context of science. When a scientist says "God does not exist," they mean something similar to when they say "aether does not exist," "psychic powers do not exist," or "life does not exist on the moon."
All such statements are casual short-hand for a more elaborate and technical statement: "this alleged entity has no place in any scientific equations, plays no role in any scientific explanations, cannot be used to predict any events, does not describe any thing or force that has yet been detected, and there are no models of the universe in which its presence is either required, productive, or useful."
What should be most obvious about the more technically accurate statement is that it isn't absolute. It does not deny for all time any possible existence of the entity or force in question; instead, it's a provisional statement denying the existence of any relevance or reality to the entity or force based on what we currently know. Religious theists may be quick to seize upon this and insist that it demonstrates that science cannot "prove" that God does not exist, but that requires far too strict of a standard for what it means to "prove" something scientifically."
I really do think science is important, I just don't think it is every thing. I don't understand your definition of science, you never explained it, you are putting more to it then there is.
I understand it to be intellectual and practical activity through the systematic study of the behavioral and structural of the physical and natural.
That is a perfect definition, what do you add to it that makes that definition wrong? I understand the above science perfectly, I don't understand the myp defined science because I can't, you have to explain what you mean by science and how any body should accept your definition over the real one.
Even if you use your definition you don't understand what it means because you don't understand the "systematic study" part of it (again your views on peer review are flatout wrong- you can't get published in any real journal without peer review).
On top of that you don't understand how science is applied and where to apply it. It applies to the God question whether or not you like it or find it comfortable.
this is not true, in behavioral science God serves a purpose. People who believe in God are typically happier, and better adjusted
journalism has nothing to do with science. If people choose not to accept proof by peer review, it doesn't mean there is no proof. Peers do not establish proof.
You don't understand science, because out doesn't apply to personal belief, I don't have to have proof to believe something, science doesn't have to suggest that what I believe is or is not.
You are improperly applying it to my belief so that you are justified in saying i don't understand.
The system is pretty simple, you are adding things to it that don't exist
You don't know what peer-review is. Do you know anyone who has been published in a science journal? If so, I ask you to go ask them what peer-review means. Or go to any journal's webpage and read about their process. You have very little knowledge of how the modern scientific process works, clax
It is not a science based forum, but that is the way I see the world, so that is how I look at things.
Similar threads
