Quote# 148

God cannot be proven not to exist, so in turn he must exist -Basics of Science.

FoxStriker, Below Top Secret Forums 43 Comments [6/25/2005 12:00:00 AM]
Fundie Index: 11

Username  (Login)
Comment  (Text formatting help) 

1 2 | bottom


The invisible pink unicorn cannot be proven not to exist, so, by this guy's logic, in turn it must exist. *rolls eyes*

6/26/2005 8:52:13 PM

dave whipple

neither than allah therefore allah exists as well. so dose fsm and the invisible pink unicorn

1/15/2007 10:45:33 PM

David D.G.

\"Basics of Science\"? More like basics of lunacy!

~David D.G.

1/15/2007 11:45:08 PM


Putting '-science\" does not make your absurd rambling science.

1/16/2007 6:47:32 PM


@_@ That's not how it works, bonehead...

1/16/2007 7:13:00 PM


You cannot prove that you haven't molested like a dozen little boys, so you're under arrest.

1/16/2007 7:32:50 PM


WRONG. You're air supply has been reduced to 75%, please try again.

Oh if only.

1/17/2007 3:12:42 PM


All hail the invisible pink unicorn!

1/17/2007 11:26:06 PM


You can't disprove that there is a teacup orbiting the sun. Therefore I'm right.

3/3/2007 3:33:28 AM


Just because something cannot be proven false doesn't mean it is true. Also when a positive claim is made for the existence of something the burden of proof is on the one making the claim, not the one disproving it. Basics of logic.

3/3/2007 3:37:58 AM

Blue Lithium

Nope, that would be basics of Argumentum ad Ignorantium.

3/3/2007 11:35:29 AM


It's because of stuff like this that I think logic courses should be mandatory in U.S. high schools.

3/3/2007 12:10:56 PM


Oh,yeah, this is original... try again!


3/3/2007 2:03:06 PM


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.

1/20/2008 6:33:10 AM


"...God has not been proven not to exist; Therefore he must exist"
-Chairman Shang-Ji Yang
-Looking god in the eye

From Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri

1/20/2008 6:58:55 AM


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.

1/20/2008 8:57:37 AM


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.

1/20/2008 10:04:39 AM


What the Hell?

"God cannot be proven not to exist, so in turn he must exist -Basics of Creation Science."


1/20/2008 10:17:58 AM


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.

1/28/2008 6:41:45 AM


Wow. Is there a logical fallacy award?

1/28/2008 8:37:26 AM


your basic of knowledge is almost non existent...

1/28/2008 11:30:36 AM


Science doesn't work that way!

Also, all hail the Purple Oyster(of Doom) (A.K.A. PO(oD)).

1/28/2008 11:40:57 AM

El Guapo

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.

1/28/2008 2:06:38 PM


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."

1/29/2008 10:36:23 AM


Ah, no. As a matter of fact, that's markedly UNscientific.

1/29/2008 3:44:27 PM

1 2 | top: comments page