Catholic Scientist writes:
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.
I didn't bother reading what he said, but anything that affects the physical world
can be substantiated, even if just on the level of 'something'.
For example, from the observation that the visible universe ain't doing what it should be doing if only the visible is affecting it, we can infer that something else is affecting it. So, we come up with 'Dark Matter' and 'Dark Energy'. We have no friggen clue what these things are, but they are 'somethings'. 'Something else' is substantiated by the failure of the models that include nothing else.
If the model works, nothing else is needed. If it fails, something else is needed. So, we can always substantiate that something else is needed by just checking to see if the model works.
Catholic Scientist writes:
(Re: Atheism) 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.
What'd be the point?
An entirely new word would be needed, and then Christians would just misuse that one too; thus changing its definition.
Unbelievers and disbelievers are just taking back the word, and definining it so that theists can't be atheists.
atheism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (th-zm)
n.
1. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
I deny that God exists.
I believe in Re, though.
As I denied the existence of God, I'm an atheist.
As I accept the existence of a god, I'm a theist.
That's theistic atheism for ya'.
Catholic Scientist writes:
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.
Actually, I'd have no problem with someone who disbelieves in Yeshua as the Messiah calling themselves Christian. The only requirement is that they believe that the Jewish Messiah has come -- there's no requirement as to who that has to be.
Catholic Scientist writes:
I don't see why a theory that contains infinity is less parsimonious than one that is finite.
Occam's Razor doesn't even apply. And there's nothing wrong with throwing out nonfalisifiable hypotheses.
™ Version 4.2