Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 81 (8972 total)
184 online now:
14174dm, AnswersInGenitals, kjsimons, PaulK, Percy (Admin), ringo (6 members, 178 visitors)
Newest Member: Howyoudo
Post Volume: Total: 875,397 Year: 7,145/23,288 Month: 1,051/1,214 Week: 63/303 Day: 24/39 Hour: 0/6


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Proofs of the existence of God
sidelined
Member (Idle past 4415 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 16 of 63 (189312)
02-28-2005 7:57 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by New Cat's Eye
02-28-2005 6:24 PM


Re: Cashfrog, you misunderstood me and are wrong
Catholic Scientist

The faith of a suicide bomber affects the physical world

LOL!Really? Let us test this idea. Let us take 2 suicide bombers A and B each with a equal amount of faith. I will take A who has no bomb into a fortified bunker. You, take B, who is packing 40 pounds of C-4 into a seperate fortified bunker.

Then we take turns insulting their faith and at the end of 5 minutes we will see who is still how much damage mere faith does compared with dfaith plus C-4

Earlier this month, love affected the physical world, specifically Feb. 14th

Love is an emotion,physical is basis,why would it not affect the world?

hope is what kept the guy clinging to the telephone pole after the tsunami, his physical world was affected

Hope or stubborness?

a·the·ism

1. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
2. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.
-Godlessness; immorality.

Number one is a poor definition since,in order to disbelieve one must first acknowledge an existence.Denial can only be implemented for something that presents itself to be denied.Since god does not present evidence of itself then this is also a poor definition.

Godlessness is close.Immorality is just plain wrong and insulting.

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.

Lack of belief is good,lack of belief in god is not. It does not say OR belief in no god it says DENIAL of god and both are inaccurate.

Now, my point that you misunderstood (or perhaps avoided) was that the Principle of Parsimony does not rule out the existance of god.

Since god does not exist in any way that can be shown it therefore rules itself out.A universe that obeys laws naturally without a guiding entity is obviously less complex than one that does.That the universe is mysterious and hard to comprehend has never meant that it need be operated from a invisible immaterial unknowable ? does it?

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.

Really? Just what are they detected by?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-28-2005 6:24 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-28-2005 8:29 PM sidelined has responded
 Message 49 by robinrohan, posted 05-23-2005 6:03 PM sidelined has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 63 (189321)
02-28-2005 8:29 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by sidelined
02-28-2005 7:57 PM


Re: Cashfrog, you misunderstood me and are wrong
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.

Since god does not present evidence of itself

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.

Godlessness is close.Immorality is just plain wrong and insulting.

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

does it?

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.

Just what are they detected by?

Me, and other people who feel them, but not by people who don't feel them, or people who deny the feeling.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by sidelined, posted 02-28-2005 7:57 PM sidelined has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by sidelined, posted 02-28-2005 9:27 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded
 Message 53 by sidelined, posted 05-30-2005 1:41 AM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

  
ohnhai
Member (Idle past 3669 days)
Posts: 649
From: Melbourne, Australia
Joined: 11-17-2004


Message 18 of 63 (189326)
02-28-2005 8:38 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by New Cat's Eye
02-28-2005 6:24 PM


Re: Cashfrog, you misunderstood me and are wrong
a•the•ism
1. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
2. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.
-Godlessness; immorality.
my bold.

Excuse me??

Atheists are by definition ‘immoral’? Frankly, and not mincing words I am DEEPLY offended by that definition. I happen to be an Atheist and I am not by any means immoral.

I know it was not directed at me personally but the inference, no the flat-out accusation that any Atheist is immoral is simply beyond the pale.

Where did you get that definition in the first place…. ahh it’s almost identical to Dictionary.com’s definition which in turn came from ‘The American Heritage Dictionary of the English language, Fourth Edition.’. ( have already asked dictionary.com to reconsider this entry, and will be doing the same with The AHD very soon).

Now as neither the Oxford Dictionary or the Collins Dictionary include the definitions of ‘Godlessness’ or ‘immorality’ in their entries for Atheism I have to wonder where ‘The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language Dictionary’ got their definition from. IMHO it does smack of Christian Right fundie-ness.

Just because you are an Atheist that doesn’t make you immoral, nor does being immoral make you an Atheist.

And as Godlessness is basically claiming someone to be evil wicked and immoral I take that to be just as bad.

Thank you so very much.

-- Rant over –

-- edit - saw your reply to Sidelined after posting this. appologies for the angry tone.. --edit --

This message has been edited by ohnhai, 01 March 2005 01:43 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-28-2005 6:24 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Asgara, posted 02-28-2005 9:00 PM ohnhai has not yet responded

  
AdminJar
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 63 (189328)
02-28-2005 8:45 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by New Cat's Eye
02-28-2005 6:24 PM


Need a source
Catholic Scientist writes:

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

a·the·ism

1. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
2. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.
-Godlessness; immorality.

Please tell us where you found that definition. Did you by chance add the last line as a personal comment of your belief? If so, it is misleading to imply that it is part of the definition.

I think you need to reference this one.


New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.

Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
General discussion of moderation procedures
Thread Reopen Requests
Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum

Other useful links:

Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-28-2005 6:24 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

  
Asgara
Member (Idle past 809 days)
Posts: 1783
From: Wisconsin, USA
Joined: 05-10-2003


Message 20 of 63 (189333)
02-28-2005 9:00 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by ohnhai
02-28-2005 8:38 PM


Re: Cashfrog, you misunderstood me and are wrong
Current entry at dictionary.com


a·the·ist Audio pronunciation of "atheist" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (th-st)
n.

One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.

[Download or Buy Now]
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

atheist

adj : related to or characterized by or given to atheism; "atheist leanings" [syn: atheistic, atheistical] n : someone who denies the existence of god

Source: WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University


Asgara
"Embrace the pain, spank your inner moppet, whatever....but get over it"

select * from USERS where CLUE > 0

http://asgarasworld.bravepages.com
http://perditionsgate.bravepages.com


This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by ohnhai, posted 02-28-2005 8:38 PM ohnhai has not yet responded

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 4415 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 21 of 63 (189341)
02-28-2005 9:27 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by New Cat's Eye
02-28-2005 8:29 PM


Re: Cashfrog, you misunderstood me and are wrong
Catholic Scientist

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.

But faith is not a prerequisite in the way a bomb is.The faith has no effect whatever unless a physical action is instigated.A suicide bombing does not require faith but it does require a bomb.

There's a lot of people who have their own internal evidence for god

What is internal evidence?

what about Jesus? He said god existed

But what makes Jesus an authority?

Or the Bible in general

Again how is this reliable as a means of determining such a thing?

So, even though this evidence could be considered extremely poor(bad) evidence, you still deny it

I cannot deny that which you cannot present to me sir. I simply cannot give it any weight.

I was just thinking about the things that can't be touched by science.

Why can they not be touched by science sir?

Me, and other people who feel them, but not by people who don't feel them, or people who deny the feeling.

What do you feel in the situation you are describing? Since our feelings are a result of our nervous system and obey physical laws does this not seem to indicate that the feelings you descibe are dealing with a physical event?

This message has been edited by sidelined, 28 February 2005 19:28 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-28-2005 8:29 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

  
crashfrog
Member
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 22 of 63 (189343)
02-28-2005 9:28 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by New Cat's Eye
02-28-2005 6:24 PM


Re: Cashfrog, you misunderstood me and are wrong

Well, except for mispelling my name, that pretty much covers it all, doesn't it? :D

-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

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.

You seem to be the one who doesn't understand.

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.

a·the·ism

1. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
2. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.
-Godlessness; immorality.

Your made-up definition doesn't count for shit.

Now, my point that you misunderstood (or perhaps avoided) was that the Principle of Parsimony does not rule out the existance of god.

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.

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.

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.

Just because a theory cantains infinity it doesn't mean its less simple, and the PoP doesn't even suggest this.

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.

One more thing...you didn't answer my question.

I did, in fact, answer your question. You just didn't like the answer, but that's your problem.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-28-2005 6:24 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by ohnhai, posted 02-28-2005 9:34 PM crashfrog has responded
 Message 29 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-01-2005 5:59 PM crashfrog has responded

  
ohnhai
Member (Idle past 3669 days)
Posts: 649
From: Melbourne, Australia
Joined: 11-17-2004


Message 23 of 63 (189346)
02-28-2005 9:34 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by crashfrog
02-28-2005 9:28 PM


a·the·ism

1. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
2. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.
-Godlessness; immorality.

Your made-up definition doesn't count for shit.

actually it is the Dictionary.com definition for atheism, Click here


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by crashfrog, posted 02-28-2005 9:28 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Asgara, posted 02-28-2005 9:35 PM ohnhai has not yet responded
 Message 26 by crashfrog, posted 03-01-2005 12:34 AM ohnhai has not yet responded

  
Asgara
Member (Idle past 809 days)
Posts: 1783
From: Wisconsin, USA
Joined: 05-10-2003


Message 24 of 63 (189347)
02-28-2005 9:35 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by ohnhai
02-28-2005 9:34 PM


ahhh I should have checked -ism instead of -ist.


Asgara
"Embrace the pain, spank your inner moppet, whatever....but get over it"

select * from USERS where CLUE > 0

http://asgarasworld.bravepages.com
http://perditionsgate.bravepages.com


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by ohnhai, posted 02-28-2005 9:34 PM ohnhai has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 32505
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 25 of 63 (189360)
02-28-2005 10:04 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by New Cat's Eye
02-28-2005 6:24 PM


It appears that your definition is referenced.
Dictionary.com does show the definition that you posted, so your use of it is supported.

There is no need for you to post additional references on this issue.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-28-2005 6:24 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

  
crashfrog
Member
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 26 of 63 (189381)
03-01-2005 12:34 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by ohnhai
02-28-2005 9:34 PM


actually it is the Dictionary.com definition for atheism, Click here

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by ohnhai, posted 02-28-2005 9:34 PM ohnhai has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by NosyNed, posted 03-01-2005 12:55 AM crashfrog has not yet responded

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8930
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 27 of 63 (189387)
03-01-2005 12:55 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by crashfrog
03-01-2005 12:34 AM


definitions
Actually Crash, any definition from any source is an ok place to start. When two people are attempting to communicate they may find they aren't useing the same definition of words. Then they have to clarify what they mean.

With luck some dictionary definitions will make that easy.

We have had extensive discussions of the definition of "atheist". It doesn't matter what the word means in any dictionary. It is necessary to figure out what the individual themselves thinks and believes. If that happens to fit exactly some dictionary definition then great. If not they need to come up with another version or decide that they are not an "atheist" or whatever the word is.

We have, I think, had people use the term "positive atheist" which, IIRC, means that the do actually have a belief about gods -- that is that there isn't one. I suppose we will have to invent a half dozen terms to be able to get just the right one for each individual.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by crashfrog, posted 03-01-2005 12:34 AM crashfrog has not yet responded

  
DominionSeraph
Member (Idle past 3261 days)
Posts: 365
From: on High
Joined: 01-26-2005


Message 28 of 63 (189411)
03-01-2005 6:29 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by New Cat's Eye
02-24-2005 5:10 PM


Re: your cup is half empty
Catholic Scientist writes:

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?

Should we also believe that invisible, intangible faeries are flying about our heads?

Both belief and disbelief must be justified. Unbelief, as it is the default state, needs no justification.


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 not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 29 of 63 (189521)
03-01-2005 5:59 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by crashfrog
02-28-2005 9:28 PM


What!? how lame...all I can say is...wow
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:

Crashfrog writes:

Atheism is not the belief that there is no god.

I reply with the following supported definition of aetheism:

The doctrine that there is no God or gods.

to which you reply:

Crashfrog writes:

Your made-up definition doesn't count for shit.

and

I'm not about to take your word for what atheism is, because I'm the atheist.

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.

"God" is never a simpler model than a model consisting of any finite number of physical laws, because God is infinite.

Any explanation involving an infinite God is always less parsimonious than any model consisting of the interaction of a finite number of physical laws.

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 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?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by crashfrog, posted 02-28-2005 9:28 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by DrJones*, posted 03-01-2005 6:47 PM New Cat's Eye has responded
 Message 31 by Monk, posted 03-01-2005 8:28 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded
 Message 32 by Demosthenes Fan, posted 03-01-2005 9:58 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded
 Message 38 by crashfrog, posted 03-04-2005 2:19 AM New Cat's Eye has responded
 Message 41 by DominionSeraph, posted 03-06-2005 10:10 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

  
DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2096
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


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 responded

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

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020