Evidence for God

from the plaines said

I get your point, but couldnt that cut both ways depending on who is asking the questions. If some one says the univerese is a random collection of actions and matters. Wouldnt they need to back that claim as well? I dont see in the end the difference, since in the end we are talking about how something started, that we never figure out how. So it seems to be a issue of faith or belief more so than proof

Click to expand...

Sure, if you claim it's a random collection of matter you do need to prove it. The thing is, that even if you can't prove that (and someone probably can), it's doesn't mean that the only other option is "God did it." At the same time, even if you prove that it is a random collection of elements, it doesn't prove that god does not exist. Neither position if mutually exclusive of the other.

But, yeah, the burden is on the person making the claim. It's the nature of science and no real scientist or fan of science would want it any other way. So, no, science won't allow for "faith" to be the answer. It requires "proof". Faith does not cut it for science.