It's a bastardization of the scientific method using god as the null hypothesis: If you can't prove otherwise, it must be because of god. This isn't science, it's just a smokescreen.
The actual null hypothesis is: Nothing happened / There is no effect. The scientist must disprove that nothing happened or simply that it is statistically unlikely that nothing happened. In the case of the existence of god, the null hypothesis must be: There is no god. The believer must then endeavor to disprove by the preponderance of evidence that there is no god /designer. This is the same rule for all of science.
In addition, correlation is not causality. Even if one could disprove the non-existence of god, they would still not be able to attribute causality.
Given the complete absence of disproof of this null hypothesis, the idea that there is a god cannot be scientifically entertained.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-11-21 09:55 am (UTC)The actual null hypothesis is: Nothing happened / There is no effect. The scientist must disprove that nothing happened or simply that it is statistically unlikely that nothing happened. In the case of the existence of god, the null hypothesis must be: There is no god. The believer must then endeavor to disprove by the preponderance of evidence that there is no god /designer. This is the same rule for all of science.
In addition, correlation is not causality. Even if one could disprove the non-existence of god, they would still not be able to attribute causality.
Given the complete absence of disproof of this null hypothesis, the idea that there is a god cannot be scientifically entertained.