every time i come to this subsection you guys are debating whether or not God exists. its pretty funny.

whenever somebody can do this we ought to contact CNN, too. it will be a pretty big story as the winner will be the first to do this -- ever.

You can't prove something doesn't exist.

It's been proven that there's no algorithm for squaring a circle using straight edge and compass.

Why $1,000?

$10,000,000 if you can prove leprechauns don't exist.

Which god and do you believe in it/them yourself?

My entire BR to anyone who can prove the Judeo-Christian god or Allah DOES exist.

$1,000,000 to anyone who can prove that I exist.

Heads up paradoxes for whether rollz really exist!

1 million galleons on wizardbookers for anyone who can prove Harry Potter doesn't exist.

Aren't you just a rumour of yourself?

I'm a donk, therefore I jam.

See Induction vs Deduction.

about 3.5 Sklansky bucks to anyone who can carefully explain what an existence proof/disproof of god, harry potter and leprechauns involves.

Burden of proof is on the claimant, you can't disprove anything that hasn't been proven.

[ ] thread delivers.

That's not entirely true. One can disprove thing that are self contradictory. Many definitions of the Christian god fall in this category. The problem is that whenever one points this out, Christians are quick to change their definition.

Really? I checked and in the first three pages there is is almost no debate on God's existence.

In the future, when you want to strut... less poultry, more lion.

Which one do you think is used in the proof that was mentioned?

Could you name a couple?


Also eternal salvation for anyone who can prove that I am god.

If I find a way to implant the certainty that DeucesAx is God into PairDice's brain, as well as that that revelation was divinely inspired by the one true god, do I still get the prize?

One unvigintillion dollars to anyone who can prove that there is enough matter in the universe to print an unvigintillion single dollar bills.

From my understanding, and please correct me if I'm wrong, a proof of the lack of an existence of an algorithm is deductive. God, or proofs about the physical world, would be inductive, in which case you can only show something to exist rather than not. (Black swans, yadda yadda).

That's easy. All you have to do is state that 'God is unknowable'. To know that you'd have to know everything, proving that you are God, and that you're wrong.

And then DA put it, you'd vanish in a puff of logic.

"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."

This is correct.

It depends on the extent of "proof" that you're looking to achieve and the specific language concepts you're using for your claim. It also may depend on the nature of the claim that you're testing.

Do you believe that the Michelson–Morley experiment proved that luminiferous ether does not exist? Or at least that there does not exist an ether wind?

Alternatively, let's say I show you an empty bag. And then you watch me put one brick in it, and then a second brick in it. (No sleight of hand here.) You conclude that there are two bricks in the bag. The number of bricks in the bag is a claim about the physical world. Do you consider this inductive or deductive?

Probably best to propose a deductive proof of god's nonexistence if you want the cash.