Pointing out faulty logic is an insult?
You've missed the point. He explained how people make claims and try to make it impossible to disprove it, which is terrible logic. Remember, he said no telescope can detect it, not even the most powerful telescopes. He's showing the hedging.
You're making the claim these gods cannot be disproved. It's stupid logic. The Muslim can say that about Allah. The Hindu about Shiva.
You can LOL if you want, but it's clear you have no idea. Look on the list of fallacies I posted from a book called "The Book of Fallacies." Do you see "Hedging"? That's where you make a claim and HEDGE it so you can't be shown to be wrong. This is what you do. You say, "I have a god and you cannot prove or disprove it." Terrible logic.
And you wrongly defined an argument from ignorance. What you defined was a non sequitur.
Ahhh, so, you put your man’s THEORY and now it is MY FAULT that it is faulty? You purported it as saying something is not provable as being faulty logic. As I said, it CAN be proved or disproved with time, money, and technology. That leads one to the obvious conclusion that it is a very weak candidate for a faith analogy. I am not sure why I am supposed to remember, as you tell me, that he had no telescope. That just tried to hedge the original with new parameters. I am guessing, since that is all you leave me that you claim this to be a few hundred years ago when technology had not developed telescopes. So, what? I believe that something will be proved to be faster than light. I have faith that when technology advances enough, it will be discovered and measured. I don’t make the claim that it is never provable, only that it is not provable NOW.
You seem to have some wild idea that logic has no room for thing that cannot be proved or disproved. In high math, the thing that cannot be proved, or disproved is called “undecidable.”
In mathematical logic, independence refers to the unprovability of a sentence from other sentences.
A sentence σ is independent of a given first-order theory T if T neither proves nor refutes σ; that is, it is impossible to prove σ from T, and it is also impossible to prove from T that σ is false. Sometimes, σ is said (synonymously) to be undecidable from T; this is not the same meaning of "decidability" as in a decision problem.
A theory T is independent if each axiom in T is not provable from the remaining axioms in T. A theory for which there is an independent set of axioms is independently axiomatizable.
Some authors say that σ is independent of T if T simply cannot prove σ, and do not necessarily assert by this that T cannot refute σ. These authors will sometimes say "σ is independent of and consistent with T" to indicate that T can neither prove nor refute σ.
Independence results in set theory
Many interesting statements in set theory are independent of Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory (ZF). The following statements in set theory are known to be independent of ZF, granting that ZF is consistent:
• The axiom of choice
• The continuum hypothesis and the generalised continuum hypothesis
• The Suslin conjecture
The following statements (none of which have been proved false) cannot be proved in ZFC to be independent of ZFC, even if the added hypothesis is granted that ZFC is consistent. However, they cannot be proved in ZFC (granting that ZFC is consistent), and few working set theorists expect to find a refutation of them in ZFC.
• The existence of strongly inaccessible cardinals
• The existence of large cardinals
• The non-existence of Kurepa trees
The following statements are inconsistent with the axiom of choice, and therefore with ZFC. However they are probably independent of ZF, in a corresponding sense to the above: They cannot be proved in ZF, and few working set theorists expect to find a refutation in ZF. However ZF cannot prove that they are independent of ZF, even with the added hypothesis that ZF is consistent.
• The Axiom of determinacy
• The axiom of real determinacy
• List of statements undecidable in ZFC
• Parallel postulate for an example in geometry
Truth in mathematics
Main articles: Model theory and Proof theory
There are two main approaches to truth in mathematics. They are the model theory of truth and the proof theory of truth.
Historically, with the nineteenth century development of Boolean algebra mathematical models of logic began to treat "truth", also represented as "T" or "1", as an arbitrary constant. "Falsity" is also an arbitrary constant, which can be represented as "F" or "0". In propositional logic, these symbols can be manipulated according to a set of axioms and rules of inference, often given in the form of truth tables.
In addition, from at least the time of Hilbert's program at the turn of the twentieth century to the proof of Gödel's incompleteness theorems and the development of the Church-Turing thesis in the early part of that century, true statements in mathematics were generally assumed to be those statements which are provable in a formal axiomatic system.
The works of Kurt Gödel, Alan Turing, and others shook this assumption, with the development of statements that are true but cannot be proven within the system. Two examples of the latter can be found in Hilbert's problems. Work on Hilbert's 10th problem led in the late twentieth century to the construction of specific Diophantine equations for which it is undecidable whether they have a solution, or even if they do, whether they have a finite or infinite number of solutions. More fundamentally, Hilbert's first problem was on the continuum hypothesis. Gödel and Paul Cohen showed that this hypothesis cannot be proved or disproved using the standard axioms of set theory. In the view of some, then, it is equally reasonable to take either the continuum hypothesis or its negation as a new axiom.
Axiomatic set theory
In 1931, Kurt Gödel proved the first ZFC undecidability result, namely that the consistency of ZFC itself was undecidable in ZFC.
The axiom of constructibility (V=L, all sets in the universe are constructible) implies the generalized continuum hypothesis (which states that ℵn = ℶn for every ordinal n) and the combinatorial statement ◊, which both imply the continuum hypothesis (which states that ℵ1 = ℶ1). All these statements are independent of ZFC, as shown by Paul Cohen and Kurt Gödel.
Martin's axiom together with the negation of the continuum hypothesis is undecidable in ZFC.
Assuming that ZFC is consistent, the existence of large cardinal numbers, such as inaccessible cardinals, Mahlo cardinals etc., cannot be proved in ZFC. On the other hand, few working set theorists expect their existence to be disproved.
 Set theory of the real line
There are many cardinal invariants of the real line, connected with measure theory and statements related to the Baire category theorem whose exact values are independent of ZFC (in a stronger sense than that the continuum hypothesis is in ZFC. While nontrivial relations can be proved between them, most cardinal invariants can be any regular cardinal between and ). This is a major area of study in set theoretic real analysis. Martin's axiom has a tendency to set most interesting cardinal invariants equal to .
 Order theory
The answer to Suslin's problem is independent of ZFC. The diamond principle ◊ proves the existence of a Suslin line, while Martin's axiom + the negation of the continuum hypothesis proves that no Suslin line exists.
Existence of Kurepa trees is independent of ZFC.
 Group theory
In 1973, Saharon Shelah showed that the Whitehead problem ("is every abelian group A with Ext1(A, Z) = 0 a free abelian group?") is independent of ZFC. A group with Ext1(A, Z) = 0 which is not free abelian is called a Whitehead group; Martin's Axiom + the negation of the continuum hypothesis proves the existence of a Whitehead group, while the axiom of constructibility proves that no Whitehead group exists.
 Measure theory
A stronger version of Fubini's theorem for positive functions, where the function is no longer assumed to be measurable but merely that the two iterated integrals are well defined and exist, is independent of ZFC. On the one hand, the continuum hypothesis implies that there exists a function on the unit square whose iterated integrals are not equal — the function is simply the indicator function of an ordering of [0, 1] equivalent to a well ordering of the cardinal . A similar example can be constructed using Martin's axiom. On the other hand, the consistency of the strong Fubini theorem was first shown by Friedman. It can also be deduced from a variant of Freiling's axiom of symmetry.
Now, the logic of the mathematicians that use that extreme high form of logic are far beyond my capabilities, but they have shown with their math that some things cannot be mathematically proved or disproved. I guess you attempt to insult them as well that THEY have terrible logic?
You can LOL if you want, but it's clear you have no idea.
Really, so I can only compare my logical abilities and facts if they suit you and you are the measure? How is it that you can make the vastly wild claim that I “have no idea”? You used a completely contrary statement to my own to make a false claim. The difference between can and cannot. I am unsure if you did it from ignorance or malice, but it was there. That was my LOL. Not as you transferred to “hedging” which IS the changing or morphing so one cannot disprove an idea. The use of “maybe” becomes a hedge. The statement “Father’s do not spank their children.” Gets shown that it does happen, then hedges to “’good fathers do not spank their children.” THAT is a hedge.
Most things can be proved or disproved. Some will need time or technology to do it, but there is an eventual confidence (faith) that it can be proved. Yet, there is still a subset that cannot and will not be able to be proved or disproved. That you wish to mock me and belittle my intelligence just because you cannot reach a level of logic that can accept that fact, does not mean that it magically disappears to suit your personal opinion.
Does showing that some things are never provable or disprovable say that there is a God? No, but it does show that the statement that the existence of God cannot be proved or disproved is a logical statement and not a fallacy as you assert. Your personal opinion merely cannot accept it as valid, but that does not make the logic false. What it does do is make my own opinion exactly equivalent to your own non provable opinion that there is no god because it cannot be proved.
I have faith that math is a very exacting science.
I have faith that atoms exist even though I have never seen one.
I have faith that gravity will hold me to the planet even if I don’t know how it formed or why it works.
I have faith that most people are more inherently good than inherently evil.
I have faith that the universes are finite even though it is likely to be not provable.
I have faith that evolution is an earth process and has only been proved to a limited amount.
I have faith that there is a God.
I have no problem that you have the personal opinion that there is no god because it cannot be proved, but you wish to belittle me and mock my intelligence because I equally believe the opposite. I cannot prove that there is a god, but neither can you prove that there is not. I have faith that there is a God. You have faith that there is not. They are equal. While you base your opinion on other indicators that you use to show possible truth or possible false, it does not change the logic that it is an undecidable. Further, simply stating a wild personal opinion that my logic skills or intelligence is severely lacking because it doesn’t fit with your personal opinion does not advance discussion but is a clear attempt to shut down discussion. Which logical fallacy is that one?