Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,878 Year: 4,135/9,624 Month: 1,006/974 Week: 333/286 Day: 54/40 Hour: 1/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Proofs of the existence of God
DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2290
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 6.9


Message 30 of 63 (189533)
03-01-2005 6:47 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by New Cat's Eye
03-01-2005 5:59 PM


Re: What!? how lame...all I can say is...wow
I don't see why a theory that contains infinity is less parsimonious than one that is finite
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-01-2005 5:59 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-02-2005 12:51 AM DrJones* has replied

  
DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2290
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 6.9


Message 34 of 63 (189579)
03-02-2005 2:08 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by New Cat's Eye
03-02-2005 12:51 AM


Re: Parsimony
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?
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 = infinity
1+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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-02-2005 12:51 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-03-2005 11:42 PM DrJones* has replied

  
DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2290
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 6.9


Message 36 of 63 (189944)
03-04-2005 12:10 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by New Cat's Eye
03-03-2005 11:42 PM


Re: Parsimony
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.
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.
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.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-03-2005 11:42 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-04-2005 1:10 AM DrJones* 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