TruthWorthy,
There is a different between proving something, and proving something scientifically. You can prove things logically without resorting to science at all (for instance, the proof that 1 = 1).
Throw out this notion that all "proof" means "scientific proof", it is a faulty view. Science can only test the observable reality. It has nothing to do with proofs in mathematics and in logic. God is usually put somewhere outside of the realm of the observable reality, and thus is untouchable by science.
"God exists" is a theory in the non-scientific sense of the word, as it is an idea. It has no need to be disproved, but many have sought to do so, and many have sought to prove it. These proofs and disproofs have taken the form of logical arguments, not scientific ones. For there to be a scientific proof / disproof, there would have to be a good idea of what God is, how to observe God, and how to repeatedly test for the existence of God. So far, there is no such information.
There is a different between proving something, and proving something scientifically. You can prove things logically without resorting to science at all (for instance, the proof that 1 = 1).
Throw out this notion that all "proof" means "scientific proof", it is a faulty view. Science can only test the observable reality. It has nothing to do with proofs in mathematics and in logic. God is usually put somewhere outside of the realm of the observable reality, and thus is untouchable by science.
"God exists" is a theory in the non-scientific sense of the word, as it is an idea. It has no need to be disproved, but many have sought to do so, and many have sought to prove it. These proofs and disproofs have taken the form of logical arguments, not scientific ones. For there to be a scientific proof / disproof, there would have to be a good idea of what God is, how to observe God, and how to repeatedly test for the existence of God. So far, there is no such information.
