In front of you there is a glass of water. You see it, you can touch it, you can drink it. You know it is there. You believe it is there. You are wrong! In fac

In front of you there is a glass of water. You see it, you can touch it, you can drink it. You know it is there. You believe it is there. You are wrong! In fact, the water does not exist, the glass does not exist. You do not exist. Could this be? No, you say, I have proof that the water exists: "I can drink it". Not really. You think you can drink it. But you are not there. The water is not there. Maybe you are in the matrix. Just like that, any kind of rational discussion is impossible. "Hard water believing", believing that the water exists just because you think you can drink it, is not rational - after all, it could not exist. Should science work like this? Should science explain, when stating any theory, that it could be that all stated facts are maybe not real? Obviously not. Science only cares about falsifiable theories: theories which can be disproved. The rest, from the point of view of science, does not exist. From the point of view of science, the water exists and god does not exist. Neither do the golden unicorn, or the green monster. God believers, and water deniers, when using those believes in the realm science, are making science a disservice, since they are allowing for non-rational conversation - and thus destroying any kind of rational discourse.