Proofs of the existence of God

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?

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 preferredThe 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, loveDo you believe that nothing exists that cannot be substantiated?

-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 I understand what atheism is. You seem to be the one who doesn't understand. Here's the definition:atheism1. 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: 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?

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.

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?

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

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.

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 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.