: : : : : : Many would say "There has to be a God, so many people say there is, how could so many people be wrong?" : : : : Well in my opinion, the reason so many people believe in god is because it's so much easier thinking there is a god than wondering about the origin of the universe. Reading some books about the origin of the universe gave me such a head ache that I almost wish I believed in a "Creator". : : : : There is a lot more to my opinion on "God" but I don't want to make this post too long. : : : : --From the Shadows : : : Isn't believing in something you can't prove more difficult than : : : believing in science? : : : So don't say believing in God is an easy way out! : : Oh but it's not. If you can't prove "God" exsist you can say it's true without proof and no one can prove you wrong unless they work hard and use science. : Your missing the point. : It's not that you say you believe in God, but that you truly BELIEVE in God. : (with is completely different) Do you really think it si easy to belive in something : you can't proof. Specially when the whole world is "demanding" proof of Gods existence?

I'd like to add another perspective. I think yur generalising a little when you describe a scenario of the "whole world demanding proof of Gods existince". You have offered a conjecture about the state of the world. I offer you a refutation. I met this little lady on the bus the other day who told me explicitly that she never ever once demanded from anyone proof of God's existance. I was a little perplexed at the time but I now realise that she then and there offered my the one shard of evidence that would refute your model. Only one single shard of evidence is needed to support the null hypothesis. All other evidence is purely statistical.

This is all science is trying to do. Test conjectures of possible truths by asking questions that refute the model of truth (i.e. support the null hypothesis).

To apply science to theology one would have to pose a question like "what shred of evidence would I accept that could possibly undermine my entire model of all that I know to be true about this concept I learnt about one day called "God"?", and then you dedicate your energy to finding that question and that evidence.

If you chose to say "but nothing will ever dent my faith in the Creator" then you're not being scientific. You're not speculating or enquiring or creating anything new. You're being empirical. Metaphysics is not physics - quite different - and the model of "truth" you will create (after all it is a historically collective and artistic corpus of prose) will vary from the model created by the mathematicians.

The fundamental scientific method is conjecture and refutation. It requires no faith, no belief, no emotion (but it can be a lot of fun), no ego, no defence. It is just a methodology - not a theology.

Merely gathering anecdotes from people who agree with you is not science. It is empiricism. And it never proved or disproved anything.

It can be a little straining conversing about science with people who don't actually know what science is. But it's really nothing to get defensive over.

Over'n'out from the Antipodes

• Ignorance is Bliss - Shadows/">Shadows - October 5, 1998 - 22:50 UTC