> it seems difficult to definitively prove that ghosts do not exist. It's pretty difficult to definitively prove anything doesn't exist. Big Foot, unicorns, l

> it seems difficult to definitively prove that ghosts do not exist. It's pretty difficult to definitively prove anything doesn't exist. Big Foot, unicorns, leprechauns, grachflaxaprods. I made the last one up just now, but hard to prove it doesn't exist. I think that when people say things like you did, like the existence of ghosts or Santa Claus, it is generally presented as binary choice. They exist or they don't. In reality, it is a continuum and looked at as the odds for something like that to exist. So the odds that a different species of lemurs exist and we have not found it might be 80%. But that a god exists, let alone the one that you happen to believe in rather than the other 10,000+ that have existed, is .0000000000000000000...0000000000000000001%. For example, I'm not saying a god doesn't exist, but I AM saying that the odds are not binary, meaning a 50/50 chance. Agnosticism therefore is an extremely weak position. This is important, because no scientist is going to try to prove leprechauns exist, because the odds are so exceedingly low that it is a bad choice to try to prove it. Sure, one scientist in the world might, but the vast majority don't. It's a poor choice of where to beneficially spend one's time. And on some things, like a god, the odds are so extremely low that you might as well be like limits in calculus - you just say "close enough" and say it is zero odds of a god existing, so practically speaking, you're an atheist. Which isn't to say that if the evidence changes, as a scientist you would wouldn't change your mind - of course a scientist would...because there is evidence. However, the evidential burden would and should be quite high that this "entity" is indeed a god. And really, a god's power is really only just atom-moving (or changing quantum field states if you prefer). For example, if we take the story of Jesus turning water into wine, people look at it as "turning water into wine", but it isn't. Not really. It is just moving atoms. "Turning water into wine" is a misnomer. What actually happens is take H2O atoms, grab two Carbon atoms and extra 4 Hydrogens atoms and rearranging them into C2H5OH - Ethanol alcohol. This is the reality. Jesus was just an atom twiddler. Sure, wine might have more actual atoms arranged into additional molecules, but still it is the same thing. So when you think about it, Jesus had to take the Carbon and extra hydrogen from the air or dirt on the ground or rearrange the atoms into a different molecule. It's the same thing with everything - bringing Lazurus back from the dead? No. Jesus just twiddled some atoms in Lazurus' body. This is pretty much true for any god. If I can move individual atoms, like the replicator in Star Trek, am I a god? If I can bring atoms into existance from quantum fields, am I a god? Ooops, got off track there on the whole god (Jesus) "miracle" thing, sorry.