(May 5, 2013 at 9:37 pm)Drew_2013 Wrote: That depends on the standard of proof. Neither scientifically or legally do we hold a standard of proof that is irrefutable and absolute. In a civil matter a mere preponderance of evidence is sufficient to prove something. In that case proving something is merely providing enough evidence in favor of something as opposed to it. In criminal case the standard is beyond a reasonable doubt. To prove something scientifically you have to create an experiment that proves your point and can be repeated by others.
Scientifically, and legally, we hold a standard of proof that demands demonstrable evidence.
Demanding absolute and irrefutable proof is not even necessary because no theist has ever even gotten around to providing basic, examinable evidence of any kind. Even holding theistic claims to the lowest reasonable standards shows nothing of value from them.
