@johnnyabnormal:

Perhaps it should be "Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy. Hangovers are proof that God doesn't love us that much, and doesn't want us to be too happy."

nutbastard

@nutbastard: Thas mah man ;)

Carmen-I'M NOT ASIAN!

@jkr2:

now now, lets go over where your assumptions went off the trail:

1) God is infinite.
2) The Universe is finite.
3) Everything that exists, exists within the Universe.
4) God must exist within the universe.
5) God must either be finite, or doesn't exist.

#4 Existing within our Universe doesn't preclude God existing beyond our Universe - in fact #1 and #2 demand that God exist beyond our Universe, as God is infinite but our Universe is not.

Good try though.

nutbastard

@Gann:

It assumes the singular definition of God that is commonly claimed to have been debunked.

nutbastard

@Pope John Peeps II: Sheeeeet. Well, I'm going to go prove that you can get drunk and then curse Friedrich Nietzsche quotes at the sky. Bye everyone!

johnnyabnormal

@Kaiser-Machead's Chips Ahoy!: Well said.

Zlevee

slow day here at gizmodo I guess...

impreza

@nutbastard:
ok, let's give this a shot. This is of course based on a particular definition of god.

1) God is infinite.
2) The Universe is finite.
3) Everything that exists, exists within the Universe.
4) God must exist within the universe.
5) God must either be finite, or doesn't exist.

now we could get into the possibility of parallel universes, but then we get into an infinite multiverse, and then possible multiple gods, all possibly being infinite. Of course one has to ask if anything can exist in multiple parallel universes simultaneously; if not, then god must still be finite, or not exist. Additionally there is the argument if god has to adhere to the laws of physics, but we have now guided our discussion to a point of sophistication on par w/ quantum physicist and philosophers, which is far beyond that of theologians (at least all that I know of or have heard from). And even then I'm putting the physicist above the philosophers because they can back their theories w/ math.

jkr2

I like the t-shirts from tshirthell.com better

Ariel_Wollinger

@jcrockerman: agreed!

Ariel_Wollinger

Science doesn't actually debunk religion, unless that religion involves cropping up a bunch of weird "facts" that can be tested and dismissed later on, much like Kent Hovind's hokey dinosaurs-coexisting-with-people nonsense. For the most part, religion is not mentioned, simply because it's too abstract to counter with any equations. The rest is up to philosophers to yell at each other about.

Kaiser-Machead's Chips Ahoy!

I prove I like science without wearing some fancy t-shirt, every time anyone asks me what's new.

My response? C over lambda.

mhlaxp

@Pope John Peeps II: Fair enough. I guess science is just the lack of faith, and therefore requires evidence for everything.

Also, science can also disprove incorrect assumptions (flat world, earth center of universe, origin of humans, age of the earth, etc.). I guess you could say that these original opinions are "science", but then I guess religion could just be an example of old / bad science combined with morals.

ColdAsIce

@johnnyabnormal: well, yah... I don't know what Franklin would have said about that.

Pope John Peeps II

@Pope John Peeps II: The WTF is a hangover?

johnnyabnormal

@Pope John Peeps II: Although having said that, Ben Franklin used to claim that beer was the proof that god exists and wants us to be happy.

Seriously, how awesome is that? You leave a bunch of juice hanging around and it magically turns into a happy liquid that makes you party? That's pretty awesome.

Pope John Peeps II

@ColdAsIce: The point of faith is that it requires no particular evidence. That's kind of the single defining quality of it.

Pope John Peeps II

@mykalt45: Since religion is based solely on beliefs, would science not be disproving religion, if it is disproving its beliefs? I agree that science cannot disprove the existence of God, and saying that God does not exists without proof is just as flawed as saying that he does.

ColdAsIce

@Curves: The cloning machine just produces an empty shell suitable mainly for reality tv or trophy-wife status. It takes years of dedicated learning (not shown on t-shirt) to turn the cloned hottie into a scientist. There's also the possibility that these are Jessica Simpson clones, in which case the any advancement beyond 'bimbo' is very improbable.

Gann

@jcrockerman: Science can only debunk other science. That's how science works.

Pope John Peeps II

@Kaiser-Machead's Chips Ahoy!:
If only.....

mykalt45

@txpunk: No way man. God wants us to have lots of hot sex. He'd be all for this.

Pope John Peeps II

@nutbastard: That assumes a singular definition of God, but otherwise very well put.

Gann

@johnnyabnormal:

You said it. Let's go drinking instead. Good grief enough godgetry talk.

sharmanova

@Pope John Peeps II: Um, can you not see the scientist cloning devil women?

Kaiser-Machead's Chips Ahoy!

Here we go again...

johnnyabnormal

Why arent the babes wearing lab coats too? Some guys (and a few at Giz) happen to find intelligent women hot. It doesnt have to be a case of is she hot OR smart, we can be both.

Curves

@Log1c: I actually bought the SCIENCE one with the guy hugging the cooling tower (little yellow hearts fluttering out). And I got a g/f one of the red ones with blackbird saying nothin. (inside joke).

SigmundTheSeaMonster

@jcrockerman:

God is by definition beyond and encompassing of the entire Universe, and is therefor inherently immeasurable (at least by the standards of science which demand repeatability) from within the Universe.

Beyond that, logic does not allow one to prove a negative, and nobody has devised a contrary positive that in being true creates a set of conditions wherein God cannot exist by inference.

nutbastard

io9 wins! [io9.com]

The Nuke! one is awesome, I really need to get that one.

Log1c

@jcrockerman:

Actually science cannot debunk religion unless by religion you are referring to beliefs. Besides science does not actually debunk God. Science seeks to explain what we see. Nothing more and nothing less.

mykalt45

If these weren't described as being created "with a faux sarcastic nerd-loving bent" I'd buy the T-Rex one.

dingus

@Pope John Peeps II:
uhm...maybe cuz science completely debunks religion

jcrockerman

@Pope John Peeps II: So you see nothing in here that is spiting the Lord?

txpunk

Calvin-n-Hobbes, anyone?

txpunk

What does that have to do with god, exactly?

Pope John Peeps II

@jkr2: It's an incorrect assumption to bind God to any physical standards of the Universe. The qualities inherent in physicality are all things that are bound. All measurement of physical things exists because of some sort of change in state. A motion towards, or from decay. By definition, God cannot change, as he is ultimate perfection. There's no form of physicality that can be attributed to God.

In fact, one might say that the incarnation story is such a powerful mythology because it's the story of a totally alien being failing by its own choice, and sympathizing with what it is to be human.

@Carmen-I'M NOT ASIAN!: Really... you couldn't contribute SOMETHING to the discussion? If you're gonna chime in, at least say something funny. Like "I didn't do it", or "woozowazza".

Pope John Peeps II

damn!

bpapa9013

testing...

bpapa9013

[img][wearscience.com]]

testing...

bpapa9013

There can never be a resolution between believers and non-believers (other than through a universally observable appearance of the Deity) because a believer in an omnipotent Deity can always say that the Deity created the artifact that "appears" to disprove the deity as a test of faith (although I am not sure how faith benefits the Deity). For example, those who claim that Creation is less than six thousand years in existence can always claim that God created the earth with all the rock strata and fossils.

Skeptical_Geezer

As Epicurus said,
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

mhlaxp

@nutbastard:
And, as a miracle of forgiveness, there really is a Dog, Hair of the... and his name is "Caesar".

ANoel

me+posting pic=FAIL!

bpapa9013

damn

bpapa9013

[img=http://wearscience.com/design/martian/]

bpapa9013

It's all very simple really... Let "God" be "x"...

[www.seespotruninc.com]

ANoel

@bpapa9013:
or should i say:

nutbastard

@bpapa9013:

pretty epic there...

nutbastard

$30 for a shipped t-shirt = no thanks.

$20 shipped = yes sir.

Call me when they lower their prices.

googlefrank26

@nutbastard:
"#3 is no good, as it assumes ours is the only Universe, and that beyond our Universe is nothing."

thus the paragraph below my list, expanding on the comments. Mathematically parallel universe may exist, or may not, which in of itself could be a test of the existence of god (I can qualify this statement if you don't get where I'm going).

"#4 Existing within our Universe doesn't preclude God existing beyond our Universe - in fact #1 and #2 demand that God exist beyond our Universe, as God is infinite but our Universe is not."

again, thus the paragraph following my list. Spatially, nothing can exist beyond the boundaries of our universe, but parallel universes wouldn't share our space, and thus it's kind of an end run around that.

@Pope John Peeps II: "By definition, God cannot change, as he is ultimate perfection." That's not the definition I used to define god, but I did leave room as to whether or not god is bound by the laws of physics. Whats more, why does something have to be unchanging to be perfect? Things in reality are better if they can change depending on the need of the situation.

Now, I do hope that we all realize that this was meant as a satire, I couldn't possibly be pompous enough to think I could end the argument of the existence of god. Which is why I countered my own argument (kind of). But I do think theologians should be left out of discussions about the existence of god, bias and lack of logic have no place in actual discussion.

jkr2

Everybody remember, we drink therefore we are, and I are going drinking. If I run into Franklin's boozy, gout ridden, whorey old ghost, we'll have one in Giz's honor.

@jcrockerman: "uhm...maybe cuz science completely debunks religion"

Hardly.

@Curves: "It doesnt have to be a case of is she hot OR smart, we can be both."

Oh, Baby!

@ColdAsIce: "I agree that science cannot disprove the existence of God"

Can we quit now? That drinking idea sounded good.

@Pope John Peeps II: I always liked Ben. He was really into hookers, too.

@Pope John Peeps II: ":I don't know what Franklin would have said about that."

Everything in moderation.

@nutbastard: "Good try though."

You're being nice.

GadgetPlay

I've never seen so much fuss over fiction! No, I'm not drunk yet. Be right back...

johnnyabnormal

God is created by those people who dont know what science is.

Amiash

holy crap their "teach the controversy" line is even better. i can't decide between the geocentric earth, classical periodic table, and the flat-world-on-elephants-on-giant-turtle designs.

willyolio

religion has always opposed science. see copernicus, darwin, etc.

i've always wanted to ride a giant paramecium.

willyolio

@Pope John Peeps II:

"God cannot change?"

Of course God changes, he MUST if he is infinite!

All semantics aside, saying God can't change and saying God must change are equally false statements. It's the "could God make a corndog so big even He couldn't eat it" pseudo-paradox.

nutbastard

Franklin says "Hi!" [hic!]

GadgetPlay

These shirts are absolutely hilarious.

I think I'm getting five or six.

bobx3

I like the "Teach the Controversy" ones better.

ceilingFANBOY

"Science is an effort to understand the creation.
Biblical Religion involves our relation to the Creator.
Since we can learn about the Creator from his creation, Religion can learn from science."

-Paul H. Carr

ej25lvr

"How life got here is an understanding that is irrelevant, for odds are, life is energy and has always existed, and does not end. What we do in life through understanding life's processes is the true philosophy and the faster people stop looking to some invisible power that doesn't exist for guidance, judgment and afterlife, the faster "heaven" will dawn on the planet earth. The true guidance comes from within, for we are nature itself. We are all brother and sister and we are symbiotically related to all other life forms in the most literal and profound ways. We are God. Period. There is no Evil and no Good- these are false notions based on biased ideals from a very primitive time in our evolution." - Zeitgeist Q & A

kyledouglas

@Pope John Peeps II: The guy who designs the shirts also has a line of "Teach the Controversy' shirts in response to the ID argument.

Zetetic

@Pope John Peeps II: The guy who designs the shirts also has a line of 'Teach the Controversy' shirts, responding to the ID arguments.

Zetetic