User talk:SouthWriter/sandbox/An atheist's objections/@comment-1375165-20100810200559

You're right, we could very well decide that we "know that nothing exists" outside of the universe. But from an observational point of view, that's no more likely than there IS something outside of the universe. Though I'm tempted to argue that since there are infinitely more states of 'existence' than 'non-existence' for outside the universe it is more likely that there is, I'll only mention it since I disagree with the notion of using probability like that.

Anyway, since science can only be used to determine that there's a 50/50 chance of something/nothing, then we humans can either ignore the issue, as many do, or seek other answers, as many more do. I know this isn't a resolution to that issue, but it kind of makes (non-)existence of things outside the universe a moot point now in this whole discussion.

"This all depends on what aspects of science they are. Could you give an example, please?"

Certainly. The biggest example is String Theory, where there is no evidence, except for what people have determined theoretically, to prove it, and yet many people put their entire career and livelihood on the line to because they have faith in it being true. The point is though every scientific theory is a tool to be used by humans to improve their lifestyle, its not a set of facts and principles, and in fact it'd be a safe bet to say that more than half of the scientific theories that are most popular today will be "proven" wrong by later observations.

But this is getting too long, so I'll make another comment for that last point.