Science VS. God

[Josee]

Many atheists justify their belief that believing in a God is less reasonable than the alternative by referring to Occam's razor or by saying that lack of evidence is compelling.

Scientists like Dawkins misuse the term "statistically" to give off the impression that science tells us that God does not exist, or that he most likely does not exist.

The main issue with this is that we have no evidence that the scientific way of thinking applies to God and therefore using science to disprove something that is not necessarily part of our world is absurd. The scientific method involves making observations, elaborating a hypothesis, predicting future events and then confirming the predicted events. Many people define God as a being that is not subject to the laws of science and exists outside of the universe. Almost by definition, people should conclude that science does not apply to God.

People often use the Bayesian interpretation of probability to state that since we are continuously lacking proof of God, our prior odds are continuously being updated by lack of information and thus the probability that God exists is one that is vanishing continuously. But again, we fall into the problem of defining a sample space and an event that has a probability. For example, to update your odds you would need to say that the event that God part the seas is one that we should expect to happen with a certain probability. If it does not happen, then we can update our prior odds. But again, we don't have any evidence of a specific event that is likely to happen, should God exist.

What do you think?