Ask Science
Ask a science question, get a science answer.
Community Rules
Rule 1: Be respectful and inclusive.
Treat others with respect, and maintain a positive atmosphere.
Rule 2: No harassment, hate speech, bigotry, or trolling.
Avoid any form of harassment, hate speech, bigotry, or offensive behavior.
Rule 3: Engage in constructive discussions.
Contribute to meaningful and constructive discussions that enhance scientific understanding.
Rule 4: No AI-generated answers.
Strictly prohibit the use of AI-generated answers. Providing answers generated by AI systems is not allowed and may result in a ban.
Rule 5: Follow guidelines and moderators' instructions.
Adhere to community guidelines and comply with instructions given by moderators.
Rule 6: Use appropriate language and tone.
Communicate using suitable language and maintain a professional and respectful tone.
Rule 7: Report violations.
Report any violations of the community rules to the moderators for appropriate action.
Rule 8: Foster a continuous learning environment.
Encourage a continuous learning environment where members can share knowledge and engage in scientific discussions.
Rule 9: Source required for answers.
Provide credible sources for answers. Failure to include a source may result in the removal of the answer to ensure information reliability.
By adhering to these rules, we create a welcoming and informative environment where science-related questions receive accurate and credible answers. Thank you for your cooperation in making the Ask Science community a valuable resource for scientific knowledge.
We retain the discretion to modify the rules as we deem necessary.
view the rest of the comments
I agree, but the flipside of that rule is that if someone claims that something exists, then the onus is on them to provide evidence for it.
We do dismiss all kinds of theories all the time due to a lack of evidence. For example, I might claim that there's a pink space unicorn hiding behind Pluto and you really don't need to now put tons of thought into whether that's true, because I have no evidence for it.
As far as I can tell, the afterlife concept doesn't get the same treatment purely because people like the thought of it. But that just isn't scientific...
Once something becomes a shared experience, it 'exists', to a degree. Perhaps some people genuinely believe in a flying spaghetti monster, but it's not comparable to the number of people who have the shared experience of xyz-religious-view.
Why are 'we' asking, "Does God Exist?". Rewind 2000 years and ask that question, and buddy would just point to Jupiter and say "there he fuckin is!" like you're an idiot.
We ask "does god exist", because god must fundamentally supercede our ever evolving understanding. We have disproven the old gods by understanding the forces of nature that ancient "common sense" attributed as evidence for them. As our understanding grows so does our definition of what can constitute a god.
We ask why does god exist because are at a point of knowledge where nothing is apparently god anymore.
Proving negatives is certainly a more philosophical endeavor than a problem to solve with the scientific method. But that doesn't mean we can't apply proper scientific methodology to our philosophical discussions.
Relevant Cyanide and Happiness