Atheists often justify their
atheism by saying there’s no evidence for God. But when pressed about what type
of evidence they’re looking for, it often turns out they’re only looking for
scientific evidence. But this quest for truth starts off on the wrong foot. (why? all objective evidence is scientific)
Science is an empirically
based discipline, and as such is ordered to physical reality within our
physical universe. But if science’s detecting powers are restricted to physical
reality, and God by definition is a non-physical being, then how could science
in principle detect God? The answer is, “It can’t!” (true, BUT, science can and does investigate the claims of God's intervention in physical reality, the only reality we know about. all such claims have been falsified)
Science can no more detect
God than a metal detector can detect plastic cups. And to not believe in God
because there is no scientific evidence for him is as unreasonable as refusing
to believe there are plastic cups on the beach because a metal detector
provided no evidence for them. (see response directly above)
The metal detector’s
inability to detect plastic cups says nothing about whether or not plastic cups
exist on the beach. It’s simply a manifestation of the limitations of the
detecting powers of the instrument. (fallacious analogy to the point in hand: science can falsify any claim on physical reality. any God that does not interact with reality is not worth knowing about because it would have no effect on us)
Similarly, science’s
inability to detect God says nothing about whether or not God exists; it’s
simply a manifestation of the limitations of the detecting powers of science—it
can be used to detect only that which is empirically verifiable and
quantifiably measurable. (see all of the above pertinent comments)
To say that God doesn’t
exist (atheist don't say this, we only says there is no evidence for any claim for such, big difference) because science can’t detect him is to confuse the method for knowing
reality with reality itself. In order to know the things that science can’t,
such as God, we must use other methods, such as philosophy. (philosophy is NOT evidence, and, unlike science, there is no consensus within such)
So, it really doesn’t matter
that science can’t detect God, and therefore it’s not a justifiable reason to
be an atheist. (absolutely a false conclusion from faulty thinking)
