8th March 2008

“If there is no way to disprove that God exists, no conceivable experiment that would disprove his existence, what does it mean to say that God exists? Inability to invalidate the hypothesis does not mean it is true. What is the difference between an invisible, imperceptible, ineffective God and no God at all?”

Unknown author

4 Responses to “8th March 2008”

  1. Critic Says:

    Inability to invalidate the hypothesis does not mean it is true.

    This statement defines the rational basis for a scientific view of the universe. If only we could make the far-reaching implications of this statement understood to the godbots.

  2. Hypatia Says:

    It quite fashionable to attack atheists with the “you can’t prove god doesn’t exist therefore atheism is a faith” approach these days. I think this quote is an effective antidote (and more effective than discussing orbiting teapots 🙂

  3. Terence Meaden Says:

    This is why the strength of the argument is equally strong that no-one can disprove Bertrand Russell’s proposition that a china teapot could just as likely be orbiting the sun between the planets Mars and Jupiter.
    The same applies to the Flying Spaghetti Monster (peace be upon him/ pasta be his name).

  4. epi406 Says:

    What is the difference between an invisible, imperceptible, ineffective God and no God at all?”

    Well yea, this is the point and our experience isn’t it?