Block, Siteadmin, SkipCaptcha, Upload, Automoderated users, delete, edit, Moderators, move, protect, rollback, Administrators
27,336
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
mLine 18:
Line 18: − 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. (Dmcallister--10/14/09)
Reverted edits by Paramedic851 (Talk) to last version by Jpatt
Any decent scientist would not say God does not exist. God cannot be measured and tested. He is like everything else that is outside the field of science. <br /> Scientists simply do not have a professional opinion about it. [[User:CMacloud|CMacloud]] 19:17, 21 February 2008 (EST)
Any decent scientist would not say God does not exist. God cannot be measured and tested. He is like everything else that is outside the field of science. <br /> Scientists simply do not have a professional opinion about it. [[User:CMacloud|CMacloud]] 19:17, 21 February 2008 (EST)
== The Mind is trustworthy ==
== The Mind is trustworthy ==