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
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.