A_C_E said:
No, the very point of science is to peer review factual findings and test them against the fabric of the universe in order to better understand reality. How can you do this with a belief claim? Your kind of thinking is so counter-intuitive considering the burden of proof is on the one making the claim, whether it's a belief or not. Let's put it this way: A believer claims there is a God, a Scientists' claim will be that there is no evidence. You are now saying it is not up to the believer who made the initial claim, instead up to science, so explain to me this: How can science prove that there is nothing of something that doesn't exist? |
You still don't get it. Religion is not a science, it is not a hypothesis. Someone religious is not putting out some theory that God exists and trying to prove it like scientists do for their theories. They just believe. A believer does not care about proof or not. They have faith, or believe. Proof is contrary to that. They don't need proof and don't desire to find proof. If you need proof to believe in God, you do not beleive in God.
You and other non-believers seem to care about proof that he exists or not. Thus if you want that proof, then it's up to you to go and get that proof one way or another.
