Quote Originally Posted by MMI View Post
people who deny god on scientific grounds, if they cannot prove he does not exist, should set out the scientific requirements for the existence of god.
Why? Those parameters are already in existence, put forth by the theists. It's up to them to prove their case, not up to scientists to prove them wrong.
They can then say it is only possible for gods to exist where those conditions prevail, and it can be safely assumed that there is no god anywhere else, because science would preclude that.
And how can they do that without knowing the conditions in which gods could exist? And you cannot know that unless you know that there are gods in the first place. It would be like trying to establish an environment that's conducive to raising unicorns, without knowing anything about unicorns in the first place. It cannot be done. It's up to the Unicornists to show proof that these creatures exist.

If it can be demonstrated that the required conditions do not exist anywhere, then it can be inferred there can be no god.
Anywhere? Even places which we cannot see? Or measure? Like maybe between the universes? Or in the infinite time before the creation of the universe? Again, there's no way to absolutely say these hypothetical conditions do not, or can not, exist anywhere, any more than we can prove that gods, or unicorns, do not exist.

As for teapots, if it is established convention that there is a tiny teapot orbiting the sun, and this is truly believed by the majority, then it is for doubters to prove their case.
But first the majority would have to prove their case, not just base everything on an unprovable assertion. That's the point of atheism, after all. Theists are in the majority and asserting the existence of their multiple gods, without any evidence, and expecting non-believers to prove something which is ultimately unprovable. Show me the evidence for gods and then we can study that evidence and try to determine if it is truly evidence for supernatural beings or perhaps evidence of a much more advanced, but natural, race of beings. Just remember Clarke's third law: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."