Everything "allows" for a creator because a creator is not disprovable. Gravity "allows" for the theory that a gigantic invisible turtle is pushing us all down onto the Earth, but that doesn't mean gravity is proof that it's true.
1st objection) God is very much disprovable if something cannot be seen with the eye or a microscope, cannot be heard, smelt, or touched, cannot be detected through means of science or math, it does not exist, except for in the human imagination. God is not a tree or the wind! i would say invisible is a synonym for non-existence. ( (and atoms are NOT INVISIBLE!)
First of all, I'm an agnostic atheist, so your proselytizing is unnecessary. Second, you can misinterpret the scientific method however you'd like, but the only way to scientifically disprove something is to provide significant empirical proof of its nonexistence. Lack of proof alone does not disprove. That's a logical fallacy. There is zero evidence of the Loch Ness monster, but that doesn't mean it's disproven - just means it's illogical to believe in it. We can use Occam's Razor in the meantime.
IIN that scientists make stuff up when evidence points to a creator
↑ View this comment's parent
← View full post
Everything "allows" for a creator because a creator is not disprovable. Gravity "allows" for the theory that a gigantic invisible turtle is pushing us all down onto the Earth, but that doesn't mean gravity is proof that it's true.
--
100%darkie
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
1st objection) God is very much disprovable if something cannot be seen with the eye or a microscope, cannot be heard, smelt, or touched, cannot be detected through means of science or math, it does not exist, except for in the human imagination. God is not a tree or the wind! i would say invisible is a synonym for non-existence. ( (and atoms are NOT INVISIBLE!)
--
flutterhigh
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
First of all, I'm an agnostic atheist, so your proselytizing is unnecessary. Second, you can misinterpret the scientific method however you'd like, but the only way to scientifically disprove something is to provide significant empirical proof of its nonexistence. Lack of proof alone does not disprove. That's a logical fallacy. There is zero evidence of the Loch Ness monster, but that doesn't mean it's disproven - just means it's illogical to believe in it. We can use Occam's Razor in the meantime.