Proofs of the existence of God

Catholic Scientist LOL!Really? Let us test this idea. Let us take 2 suicide bombers A and B each with a equal amount of faith. I will take A who has no bomb into a fortified bunker. You, take B, who is packing 40 pounds of C-4 into a seperate fortified bunker.Then we take turns insulting their faith and at the end of 5 minutes we will see who is still how much damage mere faith does compared with dfaith plus C-4 Love is an emotion,physical is basis,why would it not affect the world? Hope or stubborness? Number one is a poor definition since,in order to disbelieve one must first acknowledge an existence.Denial can only be implemented for something that presents itself to be denied.Since god does not present evidence of itself then this is also a poor definition.Godlessness is close.Immorality is just plain wrong and insulting. Lack of belief is good,lack of belief in god is not. It does not say OR belief in no god it says DENIAL of god and both are inaccurate. Since god does not exist in any way that can be shown it therefore rules itself out.A universe that obeys laws naturally without a guiding entity is obviously less complex than one that does.That the universe is mysterious and hard to comprehend has never meant that it need be operated from a invisible immaterial unknowable ? does it? Really? Just what are they detected by?

When I say that someone is a suicide bomber, I assume they have the bomb in the first place. The statement was to show that his faith is a part of it. I think those guys need faith in order to blow themselves up.Love is something that exists with no substantial proof and I guess you agree that it affects the physical world. Love is an emotion, physical is basis, you say, Why can't love be the basis for the physical stuff?Hope or stubborness? I'd stick with hope, its much more powerful than stubborness, but I guess it could be stubborness. But still, I think hope affects the physical world too.I didn't make that definition, its from dictionary.com. There's a lot of people who have their own internal evidence for god and what about Jesus? He said god existed. Or the Bible in general. So, even though this evidence could be considered extremely poor(bad) evidence, you still deny it, so the definition isn't all bad, but I guess I agree its that it has some problems. immorality, lol, I couldn't belive they put that in there, i just cut and pasted it from there website and didn't see immorality until after I pasted no, it doesn't need to be, I was just thinking about the things that can't be touched by science...those things become simpler when attributed to god. Me, and other people who feel them, but not by people who don't feel them, or people who deny the feeling.

my bold.Excuse me??Atheists are by definition ‘immoral’? Frankly, and not mincing words I am DEEPLY offended by that definition. I happen to be an Atheist and I am not by any means immoral.I know it was not directed at me personally but the inference, no the flat-out accusation that any Atheist is immoral is simply beyond the pale.Where did you get that definition in the first place. ahh it’s almost identical to Dictionary.com’s definition which in turn came from ‘The American Heritage Dictionary of the English language, Fourth Edition.’. ( have already asked dictionary.com to reconsider this entry, and will be doing the same with The AHD very soon).Now as neither the Oxford Dictionary or the Collins Dictionary include the definitions of ‘Godlessness’ or ‘immorality’ in their entries for Atheism I have to wonder where ‘The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language Dictionary’ got their definition from. IMHO it does smack of Christian Right fundie-ness.Just because you are an Atheist that doesn’t make you immoral, nor does being immoral make you an Atheist.And as Godlessness is basically claiming someone to be evil wicked and immoral I take that to be just as bad.Thank you so very much.-- Rant over —-- edit - saw your reply to Sidelined after posting this. appologies for the angry tone.. --edit --This message has been edited by ohnhai, 01 March 2005 01:43 AM

Please tell us where you found that definition. Did you by chance add the last line as a personal comment of your belief? If so, it is misleading to imply that it is part of the definition.I think you need to reference this one.

---

Current entry at dictionary.com

---

Asgara
"Embrace the pain, spank your inner moppet, whatever....but get over it"select * from USERS where CLUE > 0http://asgarasworld.bravepages.com
http://perditionsgate.bravepages.com

Catholic Scientist But faith is not a prerequisite in the way a bomb is.The faith has no effect whatever unless a physical action is instigated.A suicide bombing does not require faith but it does require a bomb. What is internal evidence? But what makes Jesus an authority? Again how is this reliable as a means of determining such a thing? I cannot deny that which you cannot present to me sir. I simply cannot give it any weight. Why can they not be touched by science sir? What do you feel in the situation you are describing? Since our feelings are a result of our nervous system and obey physical laws does this not seem to indicate that the feelings you descibe are dealing with a physical event?This message has been edited by sidelined, 28 February 2005 19:28 AM

Well, except for mispelling my name, that pretty much covers it all, doesn't it? All those things can be substantiated; in fact, they were substantiated by their effect on the natural world. So I stand by my statement, which is really a tautology - that which does not affect the natural world cannot be substantiated; that which cannot be substantiated cannot affect the natural world. What my own position is? I doubt that very much. I'm not about to take your word for what atheism is, because I'm the atheist.Look at the word, even. A-theism. "A", which is the Greek prefix "without", and "theism", which is the belief in God. Hence, atheism is the lack of a belief in God. As I've been telling you. Your made-up definition doesn't count for shit. I rebutted this point already. "God" is never a simpler model than a model consisting of any finite number of physical laws, because God is infinite. No, they clearly don't, as I have already proved. Any explanation involving an infinite God is always less parsimonious than any model consisting of the interaction of a finite number of physical laws. That's exactly what it means. When you introduce, needlessly, an infinite God, you've infinitely multiplied entities. It's always less simple than a model consisting of interactions of a finite number of physical laws. I did, in fact, answer your question. You just didn't like the answer, but that's your problem.

actually it is the Dictionary.com definition for atheism, Click here

ahhh I should have checked -ism instead of -ist.

---

Asgara
"Embrace the pain, spank your inner moppet, whatever....but get over it"select * from USERS where CLUE > 0http://asgarasworld.bravepages.com
http://perditionsgate.bravepages.com

Dictionary.com does show the definition that you posted, so your use of it is supported.There is no need for you to post additional references on this issue.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Their made-up definition doesn't count for shit, either.

Actually Crash, any definition from any source is an ok place to start. When two people are attempting to communicate they may find they aren't useing the same definition of words. Then they have to clarify what they mean.With luck some dictionary definitions will make that easy.We have had extensive discussions of the definition of "atheist". It doesn't matter what the word means in any dictionary. It is necessary to figure out what the individual themselves thinks and believes. If that happens to fit exactly some dictionary definition then great. If not they need to come up with another version or decide that they are not an "atheist" or whatever the word is.We have, I think, had people use the term "positive atheist" which, IIRC, means that the do actually have a belief about gods -- that is that there isn't one. I suppose we will have to invent a half dozen terms to be able to get just the right one for each individual.

Should we also believe that invisible, intangible faeries are flying about our heads?Both belief and disbelief must be justified. Unbelief, as it is the default state, needs no justification.

I say that there are things that exist which cannot be substantiated.You say that because they cannot be substantiated then they don't affect the physical world.Then I say, here are some things that cannot be substantiated and do affect the physical world.Then you say that because they affect the physical world, they are substantiated, which you admitted was a tautology.Why are you jerking me around? You don't even consider the opposing oppinion and are just arguing with me to tease me? When I raise a logical question, you answer it with a tautology. And, when I prove you completely wrong you respond with, 'that doesn't count', as shown below: I reply with the following supported definition of aetheism: to which you reply: and This is stupid. If your beliefs don't agree with the definition of the word you call yourself, then don't change the definition, change the word you are using. It'd be like me saying that I'm a christian but I don't believe in Jesus...Hey, don't say I'm not a christian, I'm the one who's the christian, your definition is wrong.One more thing. You answered three seperate and different questions of mine with the same answer. I don't see why a theory that contains infinity is less parsimonious than one that is finite. Rather than just saying that it is again, can you explain to me why, or perhaps someone else can. I don't see why this is true. what about the size of the universe. what about when considering the things that cannot be substantiated. Plus, I'm not saying god is a model for everything, nor is he a model for the things that are affected by the physical laws/theories. My point was about things non-physical.All in all, I'm very disappointed in your replies, they've provided me with nothing, perhaps a little grief.I spent a lot of time on these posts, time I now considered wasted, because of you. Thanks alot. I guess in the future I'll have to ignore you since your not gonna add anything useful to the thread and are just gonna jerk me around and waste my time.(I feel like Custard in the global warming thread)Am I wrong here? Does anyone else outthere feel for me?

Think of it as numbers. Nothing is bigger than infinity, if you have a finite number by definition it will be smaller than infinity. A theory that has infinite attritubes is by definition more complex than a theory that has finite attributes.

---

*not an actual doctor