The existence - or lack of - a God is one of humanity's fundamental questions. Since the first birth, the first sunrise, the first death, humans have sought to explain the world around them. The whole of human existence, in the end, comes down to this: Is there a God?
One of the great and most widely read English poets of the 18th century, William Cowper, wrote: "The absence of proof is not proof of absence." This caveat alone should humble the scientist who seeks to prove that God does not exist by suggesting that there is no proof that God does exist! There were those who sought to prove that our planet was flat with similar argumentation. Today, we look upon them as primitive in their thinking, if not foolish.
Furthermore, good science is equally humble in distinguishing between what it can and cannot achieve. Good science aims to prove null-hypotheses, meaning it can disprove theories that explain phenomena insufficiently, but, it can only hypothesize and theorize, based upon data currently extant and available, to explain phenomena. As such, by the standards that science itself employs, the burden of disproof of the theory of the existence of God is placed squarely upon my opposition in this debate.
Next Argument
Biweekly updates on new debates and experts
Please check your email to confirm your subscription.
© 2008 Opposing Views, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Opposing Views, Inc. is not responsible for the content posted on this website. Please view full disclaimer under Terms
Expert Verified
