Originally Posted by TJDave
That's not what you said in 13972.
"lack of scientific evidence is not proof of a lack of existence"
I have not been clear.
I am making a distinction between scientific proof and evidence. What I am saying is that I am willing to accept testimony as evidence in some circumstances even if there is no science to back it up.
For example, the testimony of multiple pilots and military people that they have seen UFOs that behaved in ways that suggests they couldn't be from earth does not constitute scientific proof or evidence of aliens. We'd need the saucer for that.
However, it is evidence if you believe the witnesses are reliable enough to understand what they saw and they are being honest. So I do not feel it is appropriate to dismiss the notion that we have been visited simply because there is no scientific proof or evidence. I think being agnostic and leaning one way or the other based on your opinion of the evidence is appropriate.
I know of no reliable witnesses that have said they have seen the Tooth Fairy. There is no scientific proof either. So I feel free to reject it.
Years ago I was at a church in Canada that was lined with the crutches of long term cripples and other injured people that were supposedly cured by the patron saint of that church.
That does not represent scientific proof of God, but if I was to research it carefully and get the testimony of family, friends, family doctors, etc... about their health before and after like the Catholic Church typically does before declaring something miraculous, that would represent evidence of something extraordinary. It would also be consistent with witnesses in religious documents from thousands of years ago.
So I do not feel it is appropriate to reject God and become an atheist. I am agnostic because there is some testimony and evidence of God to be considered.