Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Proofs of the existence of God
Asteragros
Member (Idle past 3400 days)
Posts: 40
From: Modena, Italy
Joined: 01-11-2002


Message 1 of 63 (185439)
02-15-2005 4:32 AM


The claim of atheists that the existence of God must be sustained by the "scientific" method is inconsistent, at least.
Before the entity A are able to prove the existence of the entity B (outside from A) he must prove the existence of itself, primarily.
Since A (man) is able to prove his existence only in a auto-referencial manner, he cannot have the pretension to prove the existence of God with a "scientific" method. The Cartesian "cogito ergo sum" is not enough to prove "scientifically" the our personal existence. Why, do the atheists search for a proof that they have not found for themselves?

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by NosyNed, posted 02-19-2005 2:20 PM Asteragros has replied
 Message 4 by Delusion, posted 02-19-2005 2:48 PM Asteragros has replied
 Message 5 by Chiroptera, posted 02-19-2005 3:09 PM Asteragros has replied
 Message 6 by DominionSeraph, posted 02-20-2005 7:02 AM Asteragros has not replied
 Message 7 by crashfrog, posted 02-20-2005 12:40 PM Asteragros has not replied
 Message 12 by Loudmouth, posted 02-24-2005 5:29 PM Asteragros has replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 2 of 63 (186784)
02-19-2005 2:16 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 3 of 63 (186786)
02-19-2005 2:20 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Asteragros
02-15-2005 4:32 AM


Atheists Claim
The claim of atheists that the existence of God must be sustained by the "scientific" method is inconsistent, at least.
Do atheists make this claim? Don't they simply say that a God that is defined as supernatural is not some that that the scientific method would be applied to at all?
The rest seems to me to be pseudo-philosophical mumbo jumbo that some others may want to discuss.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Asteragros, posted 02-15-2005 4:32 AM Asteragros has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Asteragros, posted 05-09-2005 10:16 AM NosyNed has not replied

  
Delusion
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 63 (186792)
02-19-2005 2:48 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Asteragros
02-15-2005 4:32 AM


Nice try.
You overlook that science can never "prove" a thing, only falsify through experimental evidence. "Proof" is reserved for mathematics. Also, your arguement does not aim to provide evidence for anything, but merely reiterate that which we already know and draw a faulty conclusion.
Your attempt to discredit science has failed. Good luck next time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Asteragros, posted 02-15-2005 4:32 AM Asteragros has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Asteragros, posted 05-09-2005 10:51 AM Delusion has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 63 (186796)
02-19-2005 3:09 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Asteragros
02-15-2005 4:32 AM


quote:
The claim of atheists that the existence of God must be sustained by the "scientific" method is inconsistent, at least.... Why, do the atheists search for a proof that they have not found for themselves?
This atheist is not searching for anything. I am quite content with my belief that there is no god. Now, if someone were to claim to be able to prove that a god exists, then I would become interested in what they have to say. At least until I find out that it is one of the classic discredited ones.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Asteragros, posted 02-15-2005 4:32 AM Asteragros has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Asteragros, posted 05-09-2005 11:31 AM Chiroptera has not replied

  
DominionSeraph
Member (Idle past 4755 days)
Posts: 365
From: on High
Joined: 01-26-2005


Message 6 of 63 (186896)
02-20-2005 7:02 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Asteragros
02-15-2005 4:32 AM


There's no inconsistency. The scientific method applies to explanations -- not to observations; and what goes on inside your head is pure observation.
So, if you want to say, "I have a conceptual model that I've assigned the name 'God' to," then that's fine. However, if you want to use 'God' as an explanation for another observation, then the scientific method applies, and should be used to attempt to falsify the hypothesis.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Asteragros, posted 02-15-2005 4:32 AM Asteragros has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 7 of 63 (186965)
02-20-2005 12:40 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Asteragros
02-15-2005 4:32 AM


Hi, welcome to atheism. You've just proved that it's the most logical, you know. See:
Before the entity A are able to prove the existence of the entity B (outside from A) he must prove the existence of itself, primarily.
Since A (man) is able to prove his existence only in a auto-referencial manner, he cannot have the pretension to prove the existence of God with a "scientific" method.
Exactly. Since the existence of God cannot be substantiated, we cannot know that he exists. Hence, we must proceed absent of a belief that he does.
That's called "atheism", which of course means "without belief in God." And you've just proved that it's the most consistent with what we can know about reality.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Asteragros, posted 02-15-2005 4:32 AM Asteragros has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-24-2005 5:10 PM crashfrog has replied

  
unkerpaulie
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 63 (188196)
02-24-2005 4:23 PM


God's existence can be proven /disproven if a conclusive and concise definition is provided. theists usually have no definition for God except very vague terms. I think its time that a precise definition for God be derived and agreed on by everyone. then we can begin to discuss proofs.
This message has been edited by unkerpaulie, 02-24-2005 16:24 AM

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by coffee_addict, posted 02-24-2005 5:03 PM unkerpaulie has not replied

  
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 477 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 9 of 63 (188205)
02-24-2005 5:03 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by unkerpaulie
02-24-2005 4:23 PM


Genesis 28:13 And, behold, the LORD stood above it, and said, I am the LORD GOD of Abraham thy father, and the GOD of Isaac: the land whereon thou liest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed;

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by unkerpaulie, posted 02-24-2005 4:23 PM unkerpaulie has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 63 (188208)
02-24-2005 5:10 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by crashfrog
02-20-2005 12:40 PM


your cup is half empty
Since the existence of God cannot be substantiated, we cannot know that he exists. Hence, we must proceed absent of a belief that he does.
why not:
Since the absence of God cannot be substantiated, we cannot know that he doesn't exists. Hence, we must proceed with a belief that he does.
hmm?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by crashfrog, posted 02-20-2005 12:40 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by crashfrog, posted 02-24-2005 5:18 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 28 by DominionSeraph, posted 03-01-2005 6:29 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 11 of 63 (188209)
02-24-2005 5:18 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by New Cat's Eye
02-24-2005 5:10 PM


Since the absence of God cannot be substantiated, we cannot know that he doesn't exists. Hence, we must proceed with a belief that he does.
Principle of parsimony. By this logic we not only have to believe in your God, but in all gods, and indeed in literally every single fictional entity that anyone can come up with whose existence we haven't yet disproven.
My way, we wind up beliving in only that we know about. Your way we have to believe in literally everything nobody's disproven. That's simply incoherent.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-24-2005 5:10 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-24-2005 5:59 PM crashfrog has replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 63 (188213)
02-24-2005 5:29 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Asteragros
02-15-2005 4:32 AM


quote:
Since A (man) is able to prove his existence only in a auto-referencial manner, he cannot have the pretension to prove the existence of God with a "scientific" method.
The scientific method assumes that you and I exist and that reality can be reliably observed and reliably reproducible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Asteragros, posted 02-15-2005 4:32 AM Asteragros has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Asteragros, posted 05-23-2005 10:41 AM Loudmouth has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 63 (188237)
02-24-2005 5:59 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by crashfrog
02-24-2005 5:18 PM


Do you believe that nothing exists that cannot be substantiated?
So we got 2 extremes...
1. Nothing exists unless its proven.
2. Everthing exists unless its disproven.
Principle of Parsimony
n : the principle that entities should not be multiplied needlessly; the simplest of two competing theories is to be preferred
The Principle of Parsimony suggests 1 for simplicity. But I believe, with no substantial evidence, that things exist that we cannot prove.
Multiple gods = bad idea...Principle of Parsimony
One God vs. Principle of Parsimony....the belief that zero gods exist isn't neccessarily simpler than the belief that one god exists, because of the existance of things that cannot be substantiated/proven. Without a god, the explination for these things is compicated. God is the simple explanation.
Some examples of things that I feel exist with no substantial proof:
mind, soul, faith, hope, love
Do you believe that nothing exists that cannot be substantiated?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by crashfrog, posted 02-24-2005 5:18 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by crashfrog, posted 02-24-2005 9:35 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 14 of 63 (188285)
02-24-2005 9:35 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by New Cat's Eye
02-24-2005 5:59 PM


Do you believe that nothing exists that cannot be substantiated?
I believe - in fact, I know - that anything that exists that cannot be substantiated is unable to affect the physical world, and is therefore irrelevant.
So we got 2 extremes...
1. Nothing exists unless its proven.
2. Everthing exists unless its disproven.
You still don't seem to understand what atheism is, yet. Atheism is not the belief that there is no god. It's the lack of belief that there is a god. So, no, we don't have two extremes. We have one position that is logical, and one that is not.
Without a god, the explination for these things is compicated. God is the simple explanation.
God, being infinite, can never be a simpler explanation than an explanation consisting of the interactions of a finite number of physical laws. Finite is always less than infinite.
This message has been edited by crashfrog, 02-24-2005 21:37 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-24-2005 5:59 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-28-2005 6:24 PM crashfrog has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 63 (189297)
02-28-2005 6:24 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by crashfrog
02-24-2005 9:35 PM


Cashfrog, you misunderstood me and are wrong
I believe - in fact, I know - that anything that exists that cannot be substantiated is unable to affect the physical world, and is therefore irrelevant.
-The faith of a suicide bomber affects the physical world.
-Earlier this month, love affected the physical world, specifically Feb. 14th. (could be a bad example if you just think about marketing and comsumerism)
-hope is what kept the guy clinging to the telephone pole after the tsunami, his physical world was affected
You still don't seem to understand what atheism is, yet. Atheism is not the belief that there is no god. It's the lack of belief that there is a god.
I understand what atheism is. You seem to be the one who doesn't understand. Here's the definition:
atheism
1. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
2. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.
-Godlessness; immorality.
Def 1 says it can be both the lack of belief of god OR the belief in no god. Def 2 clearly show that your statement "Atheism is not the belief that there is no god." is wrong.
Now, my point that you misunderstood (or perhaps avoided) was that the Principle of Parsimony does not rule out the existance of god. The 2 extremes I mentioned were not describing anything in particular, they were there to lead up to the PoP and my point. (you seemed to think extreme 1 was atheism). The PoP says that entities should not be multiplied needlessly and to take the simpler theory. I said that the things that exist with no substantial proof, which do affect the physical world (as I feel I've shown above), have a simpler explanation when you put god into the theory.
you came back with:
God, being infinite, can never be a simpler explanation than an explanation consisting of the interactions of a finite number of physical laws. Finite is always less than infinite.
The things I'm trying to explain aren't detected by physical laws, niether a finite nor infinite number of them, so this argument falls apart. Finite is always less than infinite!? So what. Just because a theory cantains infinity it doesn't mean its less simple, and the PoP doesn't even suggest this. Think about the size of the universe.
One more thing...you didn't answer my question.
Do you believe that nothing exists that cannot be substantiated?
irrelevant or not, do you believe they exist?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by crashfrog, posted 02-24-2005 9:35 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by sidelined, posted 02-28-2005 7:57 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 18 by ohnhai, posted 02-28-2005 8:38 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied
 Message 19 by AdminJar, posted 02-28-2005 8:45 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied
 Message 22 by crashfrog, posted 02-28-2005 9:28 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 25 by jar, posted 02-28-2005 10:04 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024