Mrebo said:
ender expresses much of my sentiment on this topic. And it goes to Leonardo's response about his view of the world versus others. But I think it's a cop-out to complain about generalization.
The word arrogant has been bandied about. I think the real problem is ignorance (the pure definition of the word: lacking in knowledge), whether that ignorance of God is based on allegedly rational scientific thought or just accepted for some other reason.
The scientific process is not a brick wall; it's an open-ended expanse. I think that is ender's point. When those claiming to adhere to the scientific process declare God non-existent, they are the ones using it as a brick wall. The great faith in the scientific method is another issue. I see the scientific method as nothing more than a very limited set of tools. In order to scientifically demonstrate that God doesn't exist, one must define God in some narrow way and not just come up empty-handed, but as Leonardo suggests, show that God cannot possibly inhabit the same space as other demonstrable elements. I don't see how science can possibly do so.
A cop-out? Seriously?
This whole discussion is getting so very silly.
Science doesn't need to disprove the existence of gods or god-like creatures. No evidence exists for them, there is no reason to assume they exist or to feel the need to disprove they don't.
There are all sorts of things that don't exist, and thankfully, we don't waste a lot of time on proving they don't. If someday we discover mermaids or unicorns, I for one, think that would be super cool, and I'd be very excited about it. Until then, I am content to assume they are mythological (which I am sure you assume the same about them).
So now we have those who through faith believe in a deity (which I am perfectly cool with, if it brings you comfort, if it makes you happy, please, have at it), waving the burden of disproof in our faces for something we haven't the slightest good reason to suspect any possibility of. If you are going to make a claim, then the burden of proof is on your shoulders. "Period. End of sentence." As Warb would say.
If I make the claim I am a super awesome vigilante that makes Batman look extremely lame by comparison, whose job is it to verify this? Yours of course! No! Obviously it is mine. You have no way to prove I am not an amazingly awesome vigilante who fights crime every evening, but I am the one making the fantastic claim.
I cannot disprove your god. Me admitting this is no more of a victory in the name of theism than me admitting that we cannot prove or disprove the existence of centaurs. But ultimately, all evidence points away from their existence, we only know about centaurs thanks to ancient writings of fantastical tales that they are included in.
So...to get more directly to your point CP3S, there is a difference in not believing in a particular formulation and 'knowing' that no deity exists. At best, us monotheists are partial weak atheists ;) I am of the view that (a mere belief without a claim of knowledge) many/most views of god(s) are the imperfect human perceptions of the true God. Looking at it from a more pseudo-scientific perspective, a belief in one particular formulation may preclude the existence of some other god(s).
I know centaurs and Santa do not exist. If you can prove to me either one exists, then I will drop my defense of Leonardo's statement that, according to his belief system and world view, he knows god does not exist.
Barring proof of centaurs or Santa, I'm not going to reply to another word on Leo's claim, and my defense of his use of wording. It has just gotten absurd, and driven what was an interesting discussion into a pithy debate over semantics.
Leo feels he knows God does not exist. Many religious people are at least as certain that God does exist.
Why should either of these concern us to the point of discussing it with nearly as many words as we already have?