refuted

If X cannot be refuted, that means you can't prove not-X.

Example: civilian makes grandiose claim that is untrue and that cannot be refuted due to the camera malfunctioning.

The rest of your anti-Christian rant is also pretty much baseless, but not easily refuted with a single sentence.

A consequence of this is that data put into the lake is immutable, an observation once stated cannot be removed (although it may be refuted later), you should also expect ContradictoryObservations.

If a statement can not be refuted - meaning no counterexample exists - then this is a proof that it is true.

Most people agree that this view was decisively refuted in 1929, do they not?

Second, the factual claim is refuted by experiment, for at least some environments.

First, the argument I made refuted the claim that there was no conjugal definition in law.

I just refuted the charges on my credit card and got it back that way.

Hume pretty much refuted this point of view 300 years ago.

His theories were later definitely refuted by advancements in physics.

Rathakrishnan on Monday refuted Arrington story and introduced JooJoo.

"A did X" is not refuted by "B would have done X too if B were in A's place."

Here is a hypothesis which can be refuted: "There does not exist any naturally occurring genotype whose existence is not explicable by a process of natural selection in the context of non-directed mutation." Let's call that the DarwinWins hypothesis.

Instead of alluding to a mysterious critique that refuted anything, you should have delivered it, because this post was not only sexist but you appear to have entirely missed the point in your fervor to demonstrate your "right" thinking.

You're using words like "first order", "second order", "axiom system", "true statements", "refuted", with confused understanding of what they mean.