(February 16, 2014 at 4:44 pm)Stimbo Wrote:(February 15, 2014 at 11:53 pm)Esquilax Wrote: ... Then the moment you find evidence of that, it'll be rational to accept it as true. That's why the conclusions of science are only ever tentative, but the scientific community equally won't bend over backwards for every ludicrous "what if?" scenario you cook up.
This. In spades.
Merely suggesting possible causes and explanations is only the first step of a very long and involved process of experimentation, fact-checking and correction. Sadly, all-too many amateur pulpit pundits are content to leave all the hard work to others better versed in the rigours of scientific method that they deride so much, yet depend upon for their very existence.
it's logically improper for dismissal of God's existence based on so-called God-of-the-gaps arguments since not all gaps will be filled (it's expected gaps to be filled, after all that's what science does). all things that exist are not scientifically verifiable; science is limited to empirical (based on observation and experiment) causal explanations.
Atheist Credo: An universe by chance that also just happened to admit the observer by chance.