Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Because strictly speaking a lack of evidence for god's existance is not really evidence of his non existance.Also logic can only disprove god if you define god in a specific way.
I'm not saying that. If god exists, it throws wreches into logic all over the place.
Any god of consequence can be disproved by logic.
Originally posted by Alliance
Why does the existance of god matter is he is not of consequence?
Creation, heaven, moral values etc are still atributed even to gods who do very little in the mortal coil.
However on a purely personal levl I don't give a load of fetid dingo kidneys wether god exists or not.
Perhaps science can't disprove God because not only because He is indeed and real after all, and that He's beyond anything science can comprehend.
What I'm trying to say is that God is scientifically unimaginable. How can one reach the level of what is too high to attain. And because our low form of science cannot reach that level, - since we're still primitives in a way - (look at the world and people around you) they just settle with him not existing.
Originally posted by FistOfThe North
Perhaps science can't disprove God because not only because He is indeed and real after all, and that He's beyond anything science can comprehend.What I'm trying to say is that God is scientifically unimaginable. How can one reach the level of what is too high to attain. And because our low form of science cannot reach that level, - since we're still primitives in a way - (look at the world and people around you) they just settle with him not existing.
How can you disprove something that doesn't exist, especially when people keep changing the definition of what that something is?
Science cannot prove the existence of God because science is only reliant upon what can be proved through evidence (although some forces of nature which are widely accepted as factual cannot be proved), whereas religion is what can be proved based upon experience (And possibly evidence). Religion and science aren't nor should the be mutually exclusive but they both take drastically different approaches which both have advantages and disadvantages.
Here is a wonderful use of Occam's Razor:
God, or anything else supernatural is not as plausible as any naturalistic explanation for any problem because it posits an unknown amount of unknowable and untestable hypotheses.
Using "God" as the answer to any question simply changes the nature of it. Instead of the question being about the mechanisms of a natural phenomena, they become questions about supernatural mechanisms and origins.