Proofs of the existence of God

Hi, welcome to atheism. You've just proved that it's the most logical, you know. See: 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.

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.

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. 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. 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

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.

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

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

Brilliant rebuttal. Oh, however will I recover?