Proofs of the existence of God

In the memorable words of our 42nd president, "Ah feel your pain"

Sorry, I don’t feel for you.

---

"He hoped and prayed that there wasn't an afterlife. Then he realized there was a contradiction involved here and merely hoped that there wasn't an afterlife." ~ Douglas AdamsI wish more people would shave with Occam's Razor. Orson Scott Card

agreed.What if the theory has a finite amount of attributes but one of those attributes is infinity? or that what the theory is descibing is infinte? Does that make the theory less parsimonious?This message has been edited by Catholic Scientist, 03-01-2005 23:54 AM

Yes. Any theory with infinity in it is going to more complex than a theory composed of finites.edited to add:Once more think of it in terms of numbers:1+5000+.000677+infinity = infinity1+5000+ 6.78 X 10¹⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰ + pi = a large finite number.This message has been edited by DrJones*, 03-02-2005 02:11 AM

---

*not an actual doctor

It's not that I don't understand what infinity is or how it makes things more complex. Thinking of it (The Principle of Parsimony, or PoP) in terms of numbers isn't working. I don't think those two equations have much to do with the PoP. Were you just making a point about infinity and complexity? or were you refering to the PoP specifically?I still don't agree that if a theory contains infinity then it is more complex and, according to the PoP, a more simpler thoery should be used. I agree that infinity makes the theory more complex I just don't think the PoP is anti-infinity, so to speak.Two examples:A theory that considers the size of the universe to be infinite compaired to a theory of a finite universe. I don't think the PoP suggests that the second theory is better.Albert's theory that mass increases with velocity and that as velocity approches the speed of light, mass approaches infinity. Your argument seems to suggest that the thoery that mass does not increase with velocity should be accepted based on the PoP. I would disagree with this argument.I'd like to reiterate how this argument came about. Someone said that god is implausible becase of the PoP, because god is infinity. I was arguing that non-physical things exist and that putting god into a theory about these things would be simpler than if god didn't exist. The reply was no, god is infinity so it'd be more complex. Now comes in my argument that containing infinity doesn't rule out a theory based on the PoP. When I said 'less parsimonious' I was referring specifically to the PoP, and meant 'more opposed based on the PoP' not just 'less complex'. Parsimonious, outside of the principle, means frugal.

It also depends on evidence. If the evidence we have supports theory A better than it does theory B then we should accept A even if it is less parsimonious than B. If all the evidence supports both theories equally then the most parsimonious theory should be accepted. What evidence do you have that supports putting god/s into theories? If the evidence for these god/s-theories is the same as that for the current ones, then the simplest way to go is with the current theories. If you don't understand why an all powerful being (or collection of them) setting up and managing everything is extremely complex then I cant help you.Jsut as aside this God you're talking about that be the one true god, King of King and Lord of Lords Odin, right?

---

*not an actual doctor

I'm not starting over and I'm not gonna retype my messages. Please read the thread and reply to the argument I've already made.This is my last post tonight, I'll get back when I can. I hope you reply to one of my earlier messages.

That's not jerking you around; I responded with a tautology to show you that your position - the opposite of mine - was a contradiction. For that is what the opposite of a tautology is. Since my position cannot be but true, yours cannot be but false.I wasn't jerking you around. I was showing you how you were wrong. Well, hang on a second. Dictionaries don't actually define words, they describe them. Words are defined by usage. "Atheist" is used to describe both the belief in no God and no belief in any gods. I told you how the word broke down from its etymology; do you deny that the word is spelled "atheist"? Or that "a-" and "theist" are words that have specific meanings themselves?The simple fact is, your dictionary is wrong. It inaccurately describes the word "atheist" as it is used. Because infinity > finite. An infinite amount of entities, or one infinite entity, is always less parsimonious than a finite number of entities. Look at the darn statement of the principle again. "Don't needlessly multiply entities." Don't add more entities than you need. If you only need a finite number of entities to explain something, then having an infinite number is more than you need. How can it get more obvious?Can you explain exactly what you're having trouble with, here? You do understand that infinite is more than finite, right? If the universe can be explained via finite size, then an infinite universe is too many entities. It's more than you need. But if it can't be explained short of infinite size, then an infinite number of entities is what you need, and an explanation of infinite size is the most parsimonious explanation. Do you want some cheese with that whine? Jesus. Why should I give a frog? You asked me questions; I answered them. Just because I'm too smart to fall for your freshman philosophy bullshit doesn't mean I'm wasting your time. Quite the opposite - if you weren't willing to commit to the debate, and address my rebuttals, then it was my time that was wasted.I wouldn't be so quick to follow Custard's lead. All he's done in the global warming thread is make it look like he doesn't have the ability to respond to my rebuttals. I've systematically destroyed all his arguments and he's backed himself into a corner - he can't proceed without addressing my rebuttals, and he can't do that without looking wishy-washy.frog language so noted -PBThis message has been edited by AdminPhat, 05-17-2005 03:52 PM

that message was a load of crap. what you said happened, didn't. you've barely touched the point of my argument. I can't believe you think your so smart. I'll explain it when I have time.

Brilliant rebuttal. Oh, however will I recover?

I didn't bother reading what he said, but anything that affects the physical world can be substantiated, even if just on the level of 'something'.For example, from the observation that the visible universe ain't doing what it should be doing if only the visible is affecting it, we can infer that something else is affecting it. So, we come up with 'Dark Matter' and 'Dark Energy'. We have no friggen clue what these things are, but they are 'somethings'. 'Something else' is substantiated by the failure of the models that include nothing else.If the model works, nothing else is needed. If it fails, something else is needed. So, we can always substantiate that something else is needed by just checking to see if the model works. What'd be the point?
An entirely new word would be needed, and then Christians would just misuse that one too; thus changing its definition.Unbelievers and disbelievers are just taking back the word, and definining it so that theists can't be atheists.atheism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (th-zm)
n.
1. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.I deny that God exists.
I believe in Re, though.As I denied the existence of God, I'm an atheist.
As I accept the existence of a god, I'm a theist.That's theistic atheism for ya'. Actually, I'd have no problem with someone who disbelieves in Yeshua as the Messiah calling themselves Christian. The only requirement is that they believe that the Jewish Messiah has come -- there's no requirement as to who that has to be. Occam's Razor doesn't even apply. And there's nothing wrong with throwing out nonfalisifiable hypotheses.

Wow! I understand things get heated here. I have even used more colorful language on this site during taxing moments, but fuck and bullshit!?! I am not adverse to using such words, but I've never won over anyone in an agrument using them. I think that the existence of a god is irrelevant to what actually happens in our physical universe. If a god exists or not, it doesn't matter b/c that god would be outside of and unable to affect anything in our physical universe. The christian idea of god is incoherant and internally self-contradicting. Since all of the "evidence" put forth by christians comes from an unbelievably flawed book and subjective experiences that cannot be independently confirmed, I have to side with atheism.

First of all, excuse me for being late to reply your speech. I hope your interest about this argument isn't fade away in the intervening period.
Obviously, my message was formulate in a general way. The atheistic claims can be diversified among them. In many cases (the majority) I've found just this type of claim. On the other end, if you will read all the replies to my message you'll found one forum member that greeted me to be part of the atheistic world just on the basis of that message of mine! He, too, makes that claim, evidently!
Moreover, about the "pseudo-philosophical mumbo jumbo" you know that your "seeming" isn't enough to prove your assert. I also believe in my personal existence like you, but this conviction is not derived from the "scientific" method, but from the auto-referential feeling of mine to be existent, simply.
The rest is "mambo strambo" (italian for 'strange mambo').
By.

First of all, excuse me for being late to reply your speech. I hope your interest about this argument isn't fade away in the intervening period.
The scientists (and not "the science") before prove something outside them have to prove the personal existence of themselves. The experimental evidence gets through our sensorial system. The conclusions/interpretations of this system are all of a kind auto-referential. You spoke about "we", but our personal existence isn't derived from a "scientific" method, but it derived from the feeling to be existent, simply.
My argument is that is illogical to have the claim that every beings can be proved (or, falsified [Popper docet], if you prefer)ONLY with the "scientific" method. We humans are one example of this assert. God can be another being belonging to this ensemble.
On the other end, if I've said "that which you already now", my "attempt to discredit science" was non-existent, in any case. In what manner a not-provided-evidence-of-itself-being would be able to discredit another ens (even supposing this latter is existing...)?
By.

First of all, excuse me for being late to reply your speech. I hope your interest about this argument isn't fade away in the intervening period.
You are right. Obviously, my message was formulate in a general way. The atheistic claims can be diversified among them. In many cases (the majority) I've found just this type of claim. On the other end, if you will read all the replies to my message you'll found one forum member [Crashfrog] that greeted me to be part of the atheistic world just on the basis of that message of mine! He, too, makes that claim, evidently! In any case I take note of your different position.
My argument - but I firmly believe that it is an universal belief of every thoughtful people - is that our personal existences can be proved only by the auto-referential sensorial system of us. In other words, the proof of our personal existences aren't derived from a "scientific" method, but it derived from the feeling of us to be existent, simply. It follows that it is illogical the claim to prove the existence of God EXCLUSIVELY with the "scientific" method, because exists the possibility that this ens is part of this ensemble, too (this ensemble includes also humans). I am not asserting that we can prove the existence of God by our feeling that he exists. I am only saying that the "methods" to prove his existence are OUTSIDE the simplistic "scientific" one (that - we must remember -is based on the "replication and observation" principle, by the way).
If you want receive an exhaustive and careful examination of the proofs about the existence of a God Creator I believe is more apt to establish between us a correspondence dialogue (by snail mail).
If you agree it, I will send you my personal address.
Thanks for your concern.
By.