Unfortunately someone came up with this reply:
No of course. Science believes that everything exists for a ‘scientific’ reason God isn’t scientific.
God’s existence, creation story can’t be proved by science experiments. They wouldn’t agree that God created the Sun, the earth, the plants, the animals and us… so I guess they won’t even try to find and prove this.
But I still have my faith. :) I don’t need to see God to believe in him. Just like the wind. I don’t need to see it but I know it’s there.
I really like the person who said this. A very rational (on all other topics we discussed) and lovely being.
I wondered why this person used these words and got into the rational mood I discussed with this person on so many other topics:
Science does not “believe”.
Science, i.e. humans, runs tests, observes, reruns tests, tries to explain it in other ways and bases the knowledge on reproducible observation.
Science is based on data which allows it to make conclusions but does not close the input for more data to either prove or disprove the conclusions.
If the conclusions are right an overwhelming majority of incoming data and observations will support them and it will get more and more unlikely that data or observations turning the conclusions as wrong will emerge (e.g. the conclusions about the shape, position and movement of the earth in space).
This is my understanding of science as a not scientific trained person.
Unlike God you can prove that wind exists.
You can observe leaves of a tree which move, you can observe clouds moving in the sky.
You even can make wind by yourself by blowing air out of your lung with more pressure than usual.
If you go on and observe the world and start to test and experiment you can even achive the knowledge how wind can exist without using your lung and move leaves and clouds.
It’s not up to science to proof gods existence. Humans were able to shake off faith and replace it with knowledge how the world really works over time.
Like your example with the wind: faith explains nothing.
If you assume that there is no god you are currently supported by the majority of data and knowledge available.
There is no evidence that supports the existence or even a theoretical approach (i.e. theory) that god exists or is even necessary for anything to be explained. Many things unknown to people may stay unknown forever or for so long that we will not be able to hear about it, but this does not imply a need for a god for anything related to the real world and science.
It can’t be proven that there is no god, it is only very, very unlikely that there will emerge any evidence for any sort of god to be existent.
Picture: nasa1fan/MSFC under