God cannot be proven not to exist, so in turn he must exist -Basics of Science.
43 comments
The invisible pink unicorn cannot be proven not to exist, so, by this guy's logic, in turn it must exist. *rolls eyes*
IPU FSM R's TP... All exist now..
And dragons, Aurochs [whatever the hell they are], and those spaceships from "Operation Ground and Pound" music video.
Also, there are dinosaurs on Antartica.
Since God's existance cannot be proven false by unambiguous means, no one may factually state that he does exist.
FoxStriker (Gay porn name?) strikes out.
In the thread, he goes on to say:
"By the way, when it comes to religion, your bound to find infanite argueing."
That last clause is home to three spelling/grammatical mistakes inside 6 words. 50% fail at writing, 100% fail at logic.
God cannot be proven not to exist, so in turn absolutely nothing-Common Sense
The problem is, god can be proven not to exist. Read the bible, it'll become clear.
1. The first part, "God cannot be proven not to exist" is a summary of Hume's problem of induction. The hypethetico-deductive method (used by most Scientists) is an evasion of this problem, but by no means concludes that everything exists because it cannot be proven NOT to exist. The method evades the problem of induction by relying on falsification and corroboration of hypotheses, and excluding verification as a possible outcome. For example, I cannot verify the statement "No black swans exist" regardless of how many swans I look at. I can falsify it by observing a single black swan. If I look at a great number of swans and find that none of them are black, this corroborates the hypothesis, meaning that a reasonable person should take that hypothesis as increasingly more probable (but not true) as the number of observations of non-black swans increases.
2. God doesn't qualify as a hypothesis. The idea "God" is poorly defined. In fact, believers agree on so little regarding this idea, that to posit anything regarding the joint attributes of "God" is meaningless. A hypothesis in science has to predict some (but not all) possible observations, and must do so explicitly. If you can tell me what observations the idea "God" predicts, while ruling out others, the hypothesis "God exists" could be falsified or corroborated, but STILL not verified. However, I doubt that you could do that. In essence, when you say "God exists" it has as much meaning as a statement "Phlurgb exists". I don't know what "Phlurgb" is or what observations "Phlurgb" predicts. My time is better spent thinking about meaningful statements, and experiments that might falsify or corroborate them.
I hope to all hell that this guy never gets tapped for jury duty. Or votes. Or has kids. Christ, imagine that. "I diddn't break the lamp Daddy. You cannot prove I broke the lamp, therefore I diddn't break it."
By that logic, wouldn't, "God cannot be proven to exist, so in turn he must not exist." work as well?
Actually the scientific basics on this particular matter go roughly like; If there is no evidence for the existence of something, or evidence of things that can reasonably allow someone to create a testable hypothesis about the existence of something, it is irrelevant to science.
Which isn't the same as saying it doesn't exist so much. Its saying there is no evidence for its existence, and that without any such evidence to research, there is nothing science can do with it.
Therefor the entire issue of the existence of god falls not under science, but rather under philosophy.
You cannot disprove kappas live in my natatorium's swimming pool, therefore it's infested with kappas.
You can't disprove that rhinoceroses fire lasers out of thier nostrils, therefore they do.
Hey, this is fun!
Man's unfailing capacity to believe what he prefers to be true rather than what the evidence shows to be likely and possible has always astounded me. We long for a caring Universe which will save us from our childish mistakes, and in the face of mountains of evidence to the contrary we will pin all our hopes on the slimmest of doubts. God has not been proven not to exist, therefore he must exist.
Academician Prokhor Zakharov
(Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri)
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.