The Scientific Method, Proof, and Skepticism

About a year ago I was having a conversation with a friend who told me that science had proven that God was not necessary for the universe to come into being. He concluded from that God is not required to explain the existence of the universe, and he is justified in his belief that God does not exist. He claims that an honest look at the evidence will lead to this conclusion (implying that other conclusions are not honest evaluations of the scientific data, and that they stifle scientific progress).

On the other hand, about a month ago I was in a conversation with a person who told me that science can't prove anything, and he must be skeptical of everything that scientists say. He believes that he is justified in rejecting many of the commonly accepted-as-true theories in the scientific world in favor of one that the scientific community, as a whole, has rejected. He claims that this is a humble and honest approach to science (implying that all other approaches to science are dishonest, and only skepticism promotes scientific progress).

Evidence For vs. Proof Of

In my discussions with nonbelievers when I offer an argument that supports Christianity, they will sometimes tell me, "That doesn't prove anything." I also hear claims that "there is no evidence for Christianity." I could understand the first statement, but the second normally causes me to make some weird faces, as I'm trying to figure out how such a claim could be made.


Not too long ago, the distinction between proof and evidence was offered to me. Evidence being a series of arguments that, if sound, point towards the truth of Christianity. Evidence has an objective sense about it. Arguments that are sound do provide evidence of their conclusion. However, a lot of the time, the conclusion offered is not exclusive.