Intelligent Design cannot be disproven.

"No! I see you trying to pull a fast one there. 'Cannot disprove' is not the same as 'unable to prove'. It's actually 'unable to disprove.'" However, something can be unable to prove and unable to disprove at the same time. "First of all, as Pro and the Instigator, you're the one in the first place that made the claim that intelligent design cannot be disproven in the first place. Just because you say you don't have the burden of proof doesn't mean anything. The resolution does not imply that I have the burden of proof." http://www.debate.org... I-am-a-panda: "The instigator should decide who has to give burden of proof." wjmelements: "And if the contender accepts a debate that declares that he/she has BOP, then he should accept that BOP." "Sorry pal. It doesn't matter if you say I have the burden of proof, what matters is the resolved and the resolved only. The resolved doesn't imply I have the burden of proof because I never said that intelligent design cannot be disproven. You did it." You still have the burden of proof, as it was a rule outlined for the debate. "And right now your[sic] being a hypocrite..." Did you ever say that the Contender would have the BOP? "Other way around pal. As you clearly bear the burden of proof, you must show how intelligent design cannot be disproven. I can simply offer the possibility of it being able to be disproven. Hey, you made the claim." Intelligent Design cannot be disproven. There is no logic that can absolutely prove that Intelligent Design could not have happened. An experiment would also fail, because there is a chance that the Intelligent Designer does not wish to make himself known, or the Intelligent Designer died a while after creation. "I don't know who you think you are trying to play around with burden of proof rules." I'm the Instigator. Who gave you burden of proof. Which you then accepted. "Not only you made the claim but you have yet to present evidence." However, I gave you the burden of proof. "Ok, I'll let it be fairies cannot be disproven. You would still have to present evidence as to HOW. The burden of proof is on you" Fairies could easily be invisible and metaphysical, and unable to be detected. Therefore, fairies could exist, and we'd NEVER KNOW. o.O "Still playing with burden of proof rules. You made the claim buddy. You said that intelligent design couldn't be disproven. You don't show how." See somewhat above. "Let me ask you this: Can intelligent design be proven?" Yes. If we were to set up a controlled experiment in which we asked for the Intelligent Designer to write something on a chalkboard, and a message about Intelligent Design did appear, then Intelligent Design would be proven. However, a lack of reaction would still leave it as a mystery, as the Intelligent Designer might be dead, or might want to mess with our minds, or might not care about little controlled experiments. "Intelligent design has no proof for it whatsoever, which is why can't be considered proven" It also apparently has no proof against it, which is why it can't be considered disproven. "See, I disproved it right there, saying that for it to be true there must be an infinite regress of designers. If our designer didn't need a designer, then why do we need one?" We are physical. An Intelligent Designer would have to be metaphysical, at least in our universe. A metaphysical thing could appear through metaphysical events. Technically, the chain could end anywhere. There might be five levels of Intelligent Design. There might be twenty. There might be forty-two. Humans could continue this chain. If we were to invent some controlled science project in which we had created nano-microscopic organisms in a dimension lesser to our own, in which they had their own universe identical to our own, then we'd be Intelligent Designers. This could just as easily be us. "Also, intelligent design claims to be science, so it must follow the scientific method. But it doesn't." Just because something cannot be proved through science doesn't mean that it isn't true. Let's say I take a bow, and fire an arrow into a target one hundred feet away, a bulls-eye. I then run up to you and say that I shot a bulls-eye. You ask me to prove it, but I can only show the arrow, which you conclude may have been placed there from two feet away, rather than one hundred feet, like I claim. It hasn't been proven. However, it was true. "No. You keep it up with that mindset that I have the burden of proof and I'll be the clear winner of this debate." But you do. See above arguments, as well. You're using some logic, actually, with the infinite regression and all. You're actually cooperating with the rules. "And worse, you've shown no proof for your case whatsoever, you just attack mine and assume you're correct by default. That sound's[sic] like negative proof to me." That's what the debate was supposed to be. Anyways, I now have some arguments: "Fairies could easily be invisible and metaphysical, and unable to be detected by anything, leaving no proof of their existence behind that can't be explained through some other process. Therefore, fairies could exist, and we'd NEVER KNOW. o.O" "We are physical. An Intelligent Designer would have to be metaphysical, at least in our universe. A metaphysical thing could appear through metaphysical events. Technically, the chain could end anywhere. There might be five levels of Intelligent Design. There might be twenty. There might be forty-two. Humans could continue this chain. If we were to invent some controlled science project in which we had created nano-microscopic organisms in a dimension lesser to our own, in which they had their own universe identical to our own, then we'd be Intelligent Designers. This could just as easily be us." "Just because something cannot be proved through science doesn't mean that it isn't true. Let's say I take a bow, and fire an arrow into a target one hundred feet away, a bulls-eye. I then run up to you and say that I shot a bulls-eye. You ask me to prove it, but I can only show the arrow, which you conclude may have been placed there from two feet away, rather than one hundred feet, like I claim. It hasn't been proven. However, it was true." Let's see you handle that.