Korean Job Discussion Forums

[nicholas_chiasson]

ah but...the usual definitions of a god require that his existance can not be proved by observations. In other words...scientific facts could never porve the existance of a god, because a god who was subject to scientific facts would fail the defining characteristic of omnipotence in that HE(the god) could not violate the very laws of science the prooved his existance. Therefore He would not be a 'god' at all, but a demi-god.
-Faires and goblins are not omnipotent and thus can not violate all the laws of science but only a select few. Thus the 'non-existance' of faires can be proven much more so than a god. At best one can argue that science can not, by definition, proove God exists. Which is not the same as saying science prooves there is no God.

[ED209]

[Justin Hale]

It is impossible to disprove supernatural phenomena. It is possible to disprove natural phenomena like dinosaurs (we know the dinos no longer exist), but if you were to add �ah, but the modern day dinos are undetectable� then it becomes impossible to disprove it because a condition of their being is we cannot observe them and subsequently disprove them. Moon aliens? There are none, clearly, but if you were to add "they�re invisible" we cannot disprove it.

Whether it's possible to prove lack of existence depends entirely upon the conditions of the thing's existence. Modern-day dinosaurs, no problem. Proponents of the supernatural always come up with some reason as to why the thing they believe exists cannot be disproven and usually they're right. However, these folks are committing the Russell's Teapot fallacy.