/sci/ - Science & Math

How can you know that it is impossible to disprove god?

>>4492518

Prove that is cannot be proven or disproven.

SAGE GOES IN ALL FIELDS

ASK YOURSELF THE FOLLOWING QUESTION: DO YOU BELIEVE IN GOD? IF YOU CANNOT ANSWER "YES", YOU ARE AN ATHEIST. DEAL WITH IT.

>implying that there could be a god in the first place

>>4492518
Decent to solipsistic retardation commenced.

>>4492524
Wrong. Atheism="I do not believe God exists." Agnosticism="I don't know if God exists"

>>4492525
There could certainly be an as-yet-undiscovered god out there, we just choose to suspend believe until evidence presents itself. That is why we're agnostic atheists.

Solipsism beckons. The only truth you can logically deduce is Cogito Ergo Sum. Everything else is taken on faith.

i dont believe in god however i am not saying that there is no god, you have to read the words carefully

>>4492533
Solipsism is a joke. If it's true, it would imply you can't prove there's no invisible pink dragon under my chair.

>>4492531
there could, but why is OP assuming that the two arguments are equal, so far we have only seen the lack of evidence that proves gods existence, therefore until we find different evidence, the truth is that god does not exist

Can't I say this to anything? What's wrong with this argument?
just because we can't prove or disprove that rainbow pegasus exists, we must remain in a unsure state

>>4492535

Well, you can't.

Also, what chair? Chairs don't exist.

but there is proof that god doesnt exist, just like the ether, fuck you OP suck a bag of dicks

>>4492540
Nope sorry, you can't prove negatives.

>>4492537

It's a logical deduction that there's only one thing you can prove exists, and everything else is taken on faith.

I think, therefore, I am. If I were not, what's thinking? Because there is thinking, there must be a thing thinking; let's call this thing me, whatever it is.
So I know my mind exists.

Now, everything beyond that? Super-simulation magic voodoo nonexistence. Everything can be a figment of my imagination.

>>4492518
This is what I read:
>The existence of an invisible dragon in my garage cannot be proven or disproven and thus garage dragon agnosticism is the only valid garage dragon opinion.
>Deal with it.

The Dragon In My Garage, by Carl Sagan
http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/Dragon.htm

>>4492537
Pretty sure you could prove a rainbow pegasus exists.

>>4492544
If he's so smart, how come he's dead?

>>4492542
>>4492542
how is god not like the ether? we cant observe any of the two, so it doesnt exist

i mean for all we know many other things can exist but if we cannot detect or observe them they essentially dont exist

>>4492518

Your right OP.

But your also right about my personal Savior OP. His name is Malphor McShannigans. He creatwd God to be his bitch and do all the dirty work. You also cant disprove the existance of unicorns, Vishna, and any other fictatious creation.You see OP, we can say with reasonable confidence that none of those exist because of the fact that one hasn't been observed it, anywhere, in the universe. So I'll keep a reasonable doubt that none of those wacky works of the mind exist in reality.

>>4492537
Hypothesis A - Santa delivered your Christmas gifts.
Hypothesis B - Your mom is a liar.
As the (probability of B) / (probability of A) approaches infinity my burden of proof is met.

>>4492542
>you can't prove negatives
hales disagrees:

"it is not the case that a thing can be X and not X at the same time". What's more, any argument can be expressed in its negative form. For example, to the extent that you can prove that you are real (a positive argument), you can also prove that you are not imaginary. Whether an argument is phrased as a positive or negative can be arbitrary

hey OP ever heard of argumentum ad ignorantiam?

>>4492548
We didn't know electricity existed at one time either.

>>4492542
"You do not have a magical pug who can recite 'King Lear' from memory in your crawlspace."

It's a negative, and you could definitely prove it. Honestly, did you think for two seconds before you posted that?

>>4492561

Even if we didn't understand it, we saw examples of electricity and the capacity to measure their effects existed.

>>4492570

Tell me how exactly you could prove it? You cannot prove a negative.

Here: I do have it. You examine my crawlspace? I hid it with magic. Now prove I can't do magicOHWAIT

>>4492574
"You do not have a magical, not invisible, not intangible, detectible pug who can recite 'King Lear' from memory in your crawlspace."

Fixed it, just for you.

>>4492577

Ah, now you're applying double negatives. Doesn't count.

>>4492579

I tried being an agnostic theist once, but I really couldn't convince myself there was a god.
As much of a douche I'll look like being an atheist, I think as long as I convince myself being a good person is all I need to do in life and not give anybody religious a hard time, I should be fine.

I don't think people should look at atheism and agnosticism as exclusive concepts. "True" agnosticism is a really rare belief; most people lean one way or another. They may be agnostic (because they don't claim to know whether a god exists) but they may lean one way or another.

I describe myself as an agnostic atheist. I am open to the possibility of a god existing (I hope that there's an afterlife) but I don't believe in a god and I think pretending that I'm 50/50 sure on it is just being dishonest.

I've never heard an agnostic address Russel's Teapot.

Is it because they're not familiar with it? Or do they ignore it so they can pretend that their worldview hasn't been shattered into a million pieces?

>bringing religion into a science board
Seems like op's a little unsure of himself.

fix'd

once and for all.

SCEPTICISM.

validity refers to things that have been reasonably proven, not things that have not been disproven

>>4492619
Heard of it and laughed it off as nonsense.

>>4492528
Sorry. But you're a moron.
Pic related.

Agnosticism: Without a belief in gods, you're still an atheist, but you get to pretend there's a middle ground and play devil's advocate in religion threads

>>4492781
Not him, but judging by the picture you are the moron here.