Thats the strangest example of "logical deduction"I have ever heard.

Especially since you are making my point.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability#Inductive_categorical_inference

I'm not even going to dignify this garbage with a response. Instead, let's return from our tangent and get back to basics, shall we?

Your question was:

Which is easier to disprove?

1. Swans are white

2. There are no black swans.

You then pointed out that (1) is easily disprovable while (2) can never be proven -- which is correct, but irrelevant. It is irrelevant because

*both *are easily disprovable and

*both* can never be proven. One could

*disprove* (1) by observing a black swan just as one could

*disprove* (2) by observing a black swan. But

*proof *for either (1) or (2) would require an infinite number of observations, which is impossible. So as I correctly responded when you originally posed the the question, the answer is "neither."

That one is stated in positive terms and one is stated in negative terms is inconsequential, and in fact it is utter nonsense to assert that you "can't prove a negative." You

**can**, I

**did **earlier in the thread (see posts 28 and 54), deal with it. It's

*inductive *arguments that you can't prove -- whether positive or negative in form. As it relates to the question of theism and atheism, this means that

**it is equally impossible to prove the existence or nonexistence of God.**
And I see that you've abandoned your original claim that atheism and science are "incompatible," presumably in recognition that it's an untenable assertion, so I'll desist in even bringing that up.