Science is close-minded

[Overdog]

An hypothesis that "God exists" is not considered scientific simply because it is not falsifiable.

If I search the entire universe and do not find god, the hypothesis is still not dis-proved. In fact there is no way it can be falsified.

On the other hand, the hypothesis that "God does not exist" can be falsified. All it takes is evidence.

[alexander]

Stop being a liberal, you obviously do not see the clear point of my post. In science, its not "if there's no proof it exists, or way to describe it, it could", science says "if there is no proof of existence, and no mathematical way to express the phenomenon, whether based on another theory, or a new one, there is a very low probability of the object's existence" which, in the simple terms, means that we don't think it exists, until there is enough evidence for us to consider the opposite.

[REASON]

Originally Posted by Overdog

On the other hand, the hypothesis that "God does not exist" can be falsified. All it takes is evidence.

What evidence could be provided that "God does not exist?" It is illogical to suggest that it is possible to "prove" that something does not exist.

Concurrently, it should be understood that just because one cannot prove that something does not exist, it is a fallacy to therefore conclude that it does exist.

It is not closed-minded if I make such a statement.

[Overdog]

Originally Posted by REASON

What evidence could be provided that "God does not exist?" It is illogical to suggest that it is possible to "prove" that something does not exist.

Concurrently, it should be understood that just because one cannot prove that something does not exist, it is a fallacy to therefore conclude that it does exist.

It is not closed-minded if I make such a statement.

I disagree with you.

Suppose I assert that Hydrogen does NOT exist, then you can show me some Hydrogen, then my assertion that it does NOT exist has been demontrated to be false, has it not?

Perhaps you misunderstand my earlier post. I'm saying that it is not scientific to postulate that God Exists, that the scientific approach would be that God does NOT exist, until such time as the evidence shows otherwise.

[Overdog]

Originally Posted by alexander

Stop being a liberal, you obviously do not see the clear point of my post. In science, its not "if there's no proof it exists, or way to describe it, it could", science says "if there is no proof of existence, and no mathematical way to express the phenomenon, whether based on another theory, or a new one, there is a very low probability of the object's existence" which, in the simple terms, means that we don't think it exists, until there is enough evidence for us to consider the opposite.

Not sure if you were responding to me or someone else, but we are in total agreement here.

[alexander]

sorry, i took it the wrong way, overdog.... respect

i would only change one thing in your statement:

I'm saying that it is not scientific to postulate that God Exists, that the scientific approach would be that God does NOT exist, until such time as the evidence shows otherwise.

until such time as the evidence suggests a high probability of the otherwise.
As proof is not always a clear cut act, sometimes a high probability of an event or object is all you will be able to come up with...

[REASON]

Originally Posted by Overdog

I disagree with you.

Suppose I assert that Hydrogen does NOT exist, then you can show me some Hydrogen, then my assertion that it does NOT exist has been demontrated to be false, has it not?

Perhaps you misunderstand my earlier post. I'm saying that it is not scientific to postulate that God Exists, that the scientific approach would be that God does NOT exist, until such time as the evidence shows otherwise.

Ok, yes I believe I did misunderstand what you were originally getting at. I definitely agree with what you are stating here.

And as such, I assume you would therefore agree with the second part of my post where I said:

Originally Posted by REASON

Concurrently, it should be understood that just because one cannot prove that something does not exist, it is a fallacy to therefore conclude that it does exist.

[Overdog]

Originally Posted by REASON

Ok, yes I believe I did misunderstand what you were originally getting at. I definitely agree with what you are stating here.

And as such, I assume you would therefore agree with the second part of my post where I said:

Yes, I agree. My point (which I see was perhaps a bit cryptic) was about criteria for determining whether or not an hypothesis is scientific. Falsifiability is one of them. And this is where assertions such as "God Exists" runs into trouble, it is not a scientific hypothesis.

[REASON]

Originally Posted by Overdog

Yes, I agree. My point (which I see was perhaps a bit cryptic) was about criteria for determining whether or not an hypothesis is scientific. Falsifiability is one of them. And this is where assertions such as "God Exists" runs into trouble, it is not a scientific hypothesis.

Well stated.

[Overdog]

Originally Posted by alexander

sorry, i took it the wrong way, overdog.... respect

i would only change one thing in your statement:

until such time as the evidence suggests a high probability of the otherwise.
As proof is not always a clear cut act, sometimes a high probability of an event or object is all you will be able to come up with...

Yes, I would go futher to state that no scientific theory is ever proven to be true. Experimental results or observations confirm a theory, or dis-prove a theory, but do not prove the theory is true. That is why theories and hypothesis must be carefully stated in a particular way in order to be scientific. Proofs are in mathematics.