Science cannnot disprove the existence of God.

Originally posted by FistOfThe North
Or can they?

Science doesn't need to, it's kid brother LOGIC does the job for it.

No, it doesn't. Try again once you have a valid argument.

Tell me one scientific fact that proves God exists.

Cue: Tell me one scientific fact that proves God doesn't exist.

😐

Don't be stupid, thats like me saying prove scientifically Santa Claus isn't real or the Easter Bunny. It's not a case where science has to prove anything. We use logic and reason.

And yet logic and reason cannot disprove God. You fail... again.

Originally posted by Starhawk
It's not a case where science has to prove anything. We use logic and reason.

No, you can quite easily begin with a thestic supposition and make conclusions that follow logically.

But please, show us your logic, sir.

Originally posted by Ytse
No, you can quite easily begin with a thestic supposition and make conclusions that follow logically.

But please, show us your logic, sir.

My logic is that we have no scientific evidence at all that God exists.

Originally posted by Nellinator
And yet logic and reason cannot disprove God. You fail... again.

They don't need to, the burden of proof is on the people who do believe. So your saying Santa is real?

Originally posted by Starhawk
My logic is that we have no scientific evidence at all that God exists.

😕

Originally posted by Starhawk
It's not a case where science has to prove anything.

Originally posted by Starhawk
They don't need to, the burden of proof is on the people who do believe. So your saying Santa is real?

No, the burden of proof lies on your shoulders because you're the one claiming you can use logic to disprove religion.

Originally posted by Starhawk
Don't be stupid, thats like me saying prove scientifically Santa Claus isn't real or the Easter Bunny. It's not a case where science has to prove anything. We use logic and reason.

In reality, God is a made up phenomenom. Whether you believe in God or not doesn't change that fact. Those who believe in God, believe because of one or more of the following reasons:

1. Everyone else around them does
2. Someone wanted them to believe
3. They have the intelligence lower than an 8 year old
4. They were pressured into it
5. It ws told around a bunch of facts

Those who don't believe understand the real world. Therefore it's more logical to think there is no God.

Originally posted by Ytse
No, the burden of proof lies on your shoulders because you're the one claiming you can use logic to disprove religion.

Originally posted by lord xyz
I think he's already done that.

No, he hasnt.

And your previous post is just a series of unsubstantiated claims. You don't even attempt to provide any reasoning, you just say "this is the case."

Originally posted by Ytse
No, the burden of proof lies on your shoulders because you're the one claiming you can use logic to disprove religion.

The logic is that we have no evidence that he does. You want to live your life on a leap of faith thats fine for you. But I prefer reality.

Originally posted by Starhawk
The logic is that we have no evidence that he does. You want to live your life on a leap of faith thats fine for you. But I prefer reality.

You're making absolutely no sense. In one breath you say it isn't science's job to disprove religion but then in the next you hold religion to...scientific standards!

How about being a bit more coherent in what you say. Either its not up to science or it is. Which is it?

Its al lfaith nothing else.

Originally posted by Ytse
You're making absolutely no sense. In one breath you say it isn't science's job to disprove religion but then in the next you hold religion to...scientific standards!

How about being a bit more coherent in what you say. Either its not up to science or it is. Which is it?

I'm very coherent, there is no proof at all that God exists. We live in a world where things are proven. That which cannot be proven is not real.

Originally posted by Starhawk
I'm very coherent, there is no proof at all that God exists. We live in a world where things are proven. That which cannot be proven is not real.

But the standards of proof you're using are scientific standards. Yet at the same time you're saying it's not a matter for science. So which is it?