Yet you have no evidence that God doesn't exist. How can you criticize my faith, when your has just as little barring as mine.
You don't understand science and scholarship if you can make a statement like that and expect to be taken seriously.
It is never necessary to provide evidence to prove a negative. The burden of proof is always on the one who asserts the positive.
If this were not the case, then all science and scholarship would grind to a halt as we dissipated our finite resources in proving that
every crackpot hypothesis is false. It is always up to the person who presents an assertion to explain what makes him think it is true. It is never everybody else's responsibility to prove it false.
Yes, its a hunch, a belief, its faith.
But it's an
irrational faith, and that's the key. There is a unbridgeable chasm of difference between rational faith and irrational faith. My wife has stood by me for 34 years, trusting me, relying on me, helping me, guiding me, forgiving me, and loving me without exception. This is plenty of
evidence for my totally
rational faith that she will continue to do so.
We've had four Mercedes Benz automobiles that were as dependable as the seasons (two of which are still in the family, one for 33 years). This
evidence inspired our
rational faith that buying a fifth one was a wise decision.
But what evidence does the religionist have to explain his own faith in the existence of an invisible, illogical supernatural universe, filled with creatures and forces that perturb the operation of the natural universe? Science in its current robust form has existed for half a millennium, and no evidence of these creatures and forces, no evidence of their perturbation of the natural universe, no exceptions to the laws of nature, have ever been observed. Despite the fact that literally millions of people would very much like to find one, and get their photo on the cover of Time magazine over the caption, "The Man (or Woman) Who Proved Religion and Disproved Science." The best they can show us is a tortilla, one out of tens of millions manufactured every year, with a random burn pattern said to look (if you squint through one eye) exactly like a figure from the Bible. A figure of whom no portraits exist so we don't actually know what he or she looked like!
The only real evidence I could give you is life its self. It is SOOOO complex, so impossible, yet its perfect. Think about the millions, upon millions tinny events that had to occur for life to happen.
Oh geezy weezy, not this balderdash AGAIN!!! I hope you're about fourteen and can be excused for being so silly. For sure you must be an American because my people are incapable of conceptualizing very large numbers. This planet has existed for more than
four billion years. Do you have any idea how many random events occur over the course of four billion years? Especially considering that at the beginning the earth was much warmer and was bombarded by significantly more radiation, so molecules were boppin' and poppin' all the time? Do you actually know enough mathematics, physics and chemistry to say with confidence that this biosphere could not have evolved by random mutation from simple molecules that were formed by abiogenesis?
And then please remember that there are close to one septillion (10^24) stars in the universe, and we already know that planets are not exactly a rarity so there are rather a lot of those out there too. And you're still going to tell us that the odds of life occurring at random on just one of them are too small to occur in the thirteen billion years that the universe has been here?
Yet what you insist is not only
possible but
certain, is that supernatural forces which you cannot describe, which work in ways that do not conform to natural laws, which have never made themselves known,
do exist! You dismiss the possible but have faith in something so bizarre that it can't even be described!
That is, indeed, faith of the most stupendously
irrational kind. Only a fellow American could have a
hunch of such outrageous proportions, and present it as a reasonable hypothesis on a website devoted to science, without being embarrassed.
You've run into those types too? Anyway the same arguments about proof still apply. When they spout BS and call it proof, I usually make an excuse to leave and then ignore them if I ever see them again.