I'm under the impression that science, by itself, cannot prove anything (by coherent argument or sense data). The method of science involves logical fallacies; for one, repeating a test hundreds of times and getting the same result for each does not prove that it will always be that way. It does not follow logically. No amount of appealing to "common sense" or claiming that science is all we have (which it isn't) will avoid this.
While one might argue that science is true because it works, or that it can get us very close to truth, it should be understood that in order to say such a thing, we have to use "sense data", a part of science, to see and say it's working. Not only is that circular, but sense data, as a method, comes with its own set of impossibilites. The short, simple, water-tight, and obnoxious example for the problems of sense data would be the "brain in a vat" theory. The problem in principle is that the evidence we call sense data can represent an infinite number of theories (and of course... testing a theory only involves MORE sense data).
Empricial evidence is completely useless for establishing any belief. Now, why then do I believe in God? In fact, why do I believe in anything at all? My point is, evidence does not nor cannot preceed a belief. You have to start somewhere, and that's why I lean toward being a presuppositionalist. So the long and short of it is, I agree with bardicverse. I believe God exists, because I know (presuppositionally speaking) he exists. I also believe the sun will rise tomorrow because I know it will. And I can't "prove" either of these beliefs.
Okami
To lavish praise upon this title, the assumption of a common plateau between player and game must be made. I won't open my unworthy mouth.
