At any rate, I will respond to the original topic because I seem to have missed it.
However, if there is evidence - not complete, definitive, deductive evidence, but a reasonable amount nonetheless - then we can more or less conclude that the more supported explanation is probably true. And there would need to be a comparable amount of evidence to the contrary and pointing to an alternate explanation for it to be considered plausible.
That can be extended to basically anything factual.
AngelSL Wrote:Is Science really everything? (excluding fictional characters that are also know as gods)Depends what you call science. Is art a science, for example? Or, could you equally say that science is an art?
AngelSL Wrote:If something does not have scientific evidence, is it false? (excluding fictional characters that are also know as gods)Depends. If there is more evidence to the contrary, then it's probably false. If there is simply nothing there, then one cannot say. Also, lack of evidence now does not mean lack of evidence in the future, one way or the other.
AngelSL Wrote:If something does not comply with some scientific laws, is it false? (excluding fictional characters that are also know as gods)If said scientific laws are taken to be universal, then yes.
AngelSL Wrote:If you answered Yes to any of the above 3 questions, then..True, which is why anything with absolutely no evidence, for or against, we can't conclude. We can only guess.
you obviously don't know or is ignoring the fact that current science
Is Not Complete! There are still many, many things undiscovered or untested.
However, if there is evidence - not complete, definitive, deductive evidence, but a reasonable amount nonetheless - then we can more or less conclude that the more supported explanation is probably true. And there would need to be a comparable amount of evidence to the contrary and pointing to an alternate explanation for it to be considered plausible.
That can be extended to basically anything factual.