Changes

To be proper and clear, a decent scientist would in fact avoid stating that god does not exist. Rather, the scientist should state that evidence for god is significantly lacking and that the probability of an extant god is very small. Even without attempting to "prove" god scientifically, a rational person in examining most theological doctrines would recognize contradictions which create irrationality.  

To be proper and clear, a decent scientist would in fact avoid stating that god does not exist. Rather, the scientist should state that evidence for god is significantly lacking and that the probability of an extant god is very small. Even without attempting to "prove" god scientifically, a rational person in examining most theological doctrines would recognize contradictions which create irrationality.  

What the preceding author—Cmacloud asserts, is a logical contradiction often employed by theists for the existence of god. The claim that a lack of evidence is evidence in and of itself; because we can’t say god does not exist, there is probability that he/she does exist, is a flimsy approach. I could apply this argument to any fable. If I a scientists says, there is no evidence that unicorns exist with the intention of convincing his colleagues that unicorns account for some unexplained phenomenon, he would be appropriately ostracized.

What the preceding author—Cmacloud asserts, is a logical contradiction often employed by theists for the existence of god. The claim that a lack of evidence is evidence in and of itself; because we can’t say god does not exist, there is probability that he/she does exist, is a flimsy approach. I could apply this argument to any fable. If I a scientists says, there is no evidence that unicorns exist with the intention of convincing his colleagues that unicorns account for some unexplained phenomenon, he would be appropriately ostracized. (Dmcallister--10/14/09)

== The Mind is trustworthy ==

== The Mind is trustworthy ==