![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
Once the current dispute is resolved, I would like to request partial protection of this article.-- Jeffro77 ( talk) 03:05, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
All respect to your point of view. But, do you honestly believe that the character of God is displayed accurately? One one hand God is portrayed as One who knows all, but then again could he have forgotten the shape of our solar system - leave alone the universe? So much as to bring down the Tower of Babel before the earthlings could build to His high place? And about mixing their language, doesn't the law of God teach people to love one another, how could He possibly go against His principles (...does he have such?) to cause all the tribalism in Africa and racism elsewhere? All these wars in His name...
Maybe you will agree with me, chaos rules the day. Could God choose a race from among humans and use them to slaughter all the others? What is His gain? Now again, do you believe that African, Indians, Chinese, Arabs, Blondes and others all originated from Noah and his three sons? If so, does it mean that man (according to the Bible) evolved after Noah's time to all the UNIQUE races that walk this earth now? Did the EVOLUTION take only 4,000 years? Or is man, according to that definition, only the white man? Then where did all the others come from?
Is it possible that, God went on a 'creation spree' one day, or maybe in six days (if God exists at all)? Then He created a black man, moved a little distance and created a white man, moved a little distance and created an Indian, etc in a certain order? Or did he create several 'Adams' and 'Eves' instantaneously then later on proceeded to seperate them with masses of water so that they could not mix?
Don't you think there is more to this than just a twist in the laws of Physics?
--
Kaosa (
talk)
16:29, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
By all means - this discussion might turn out to be the most important discussion of our lives, for all mankind (considering we only exist for limited periods). -- Kaosa ( talk) 13:51, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Ilkali, I removed my entire argument. But, how are we expected to make any progress with our hands tied behind our backs? -- 62.24.99.80 ( talk) 11:01, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Maybe you might want to look at this: Existence of God is part of WikiProject Atheism, which aims to organize, expand, clean up, and guide atheism related articles on Wikipedia. -- Kaosa ( talk) 11:36, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
To clarify a little bit, the existence of GOD has everything to do with theology and history and almost nothing to do with Physics. You don't expect to physically find God, or evidence of His whereabouts. Do you? Please note that Dan Brown (after The Da Vinci Code) was thoroughly criticized, one such critic is Chuck Missler - The Da Vinci Deception, over his apparent lack of information on what is contained in Judeo-religious material (like The Bible). We should learn from that and take time to study on what other people believe before we start qualifying or disqualifying it on our grounds. I also need to remind you that people have paid big prices for their belief in God, and though I am also into Physics, I am sure this is no forum for Physicists either. You can't just send me off. What do you say?-- Kaosa ( talk) 14:26, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Done. I find that in the article, Omega Point Theory is only a small section of it. I quote "Deductive arguments attempt to prove their conclusions by deductive reasoning from true premises" right from the article. I also find theology is really important here-- 62.24.99.80 ( talk) 16:22, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
I see I got your attention. Your knowing my IP address is not in the least scary. I own none of 'em. The point is, there is not a heading or discussion topic for "Omega Point Theory" that is just a sub-topic, and a rather baseless one, much more difficult to accept than the most absurd religion. Did you try to block me?-- Kaosa ( talk) 17:42, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks for the advice. Bold as I may be ( WP:bold) I understand that it is not what I feel alone that counts here. I suggest that the entire Omega Point Theory be removed from the article ( Existence of God) for it contradicts the neutral point of view. Only a link to the article ' Omega Point Theory' should remain. The last line in the section "Most religious people will, I think, disagree with Tipler about what the core features of their religions are" should strengthen my point. 'Omega Point Theory' should remain as an article but only as a book-review like the other controversial ' Da Vinci Code'.-- Kaosatalk 12:37, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Jeffro77 replaced this entry--which is very similar to the version that existed there since October 31, 2008, with some improvements--with this entry, giving the excuse in his edit summary of "WP:FRINGE," which doesn't even make sense as an explanation for his edits: i.e., deletion of a number of citations; deletion of the information on theologian Prof. Wolfhart Pannenberg's defense of the theology of the Omega Point Theory; etc. As well, there's no need for the large displayed quote, as the previous entry already stated that Prof. David Deutsch doesn't agree that the Omega Point is God; furthermore, Jeffro77's edit deletes the mention of the fact that Prof. Deutsch endorses the physics of the Omega Point Theory.
In addtion, Jeffro77's edit isn't even literate, as he give the following mangled citation to Prof. Deutsch: " Chapter 14: "The Ends of the Universe," with additional comments by Frank J. Tipler; also available here". Whereas the version before was properly cited: "David Deutsch, The Fabric of Reality: The Science of Parallel Universes—and Its Implications (London: Allen Lane The Penguin Press, 1997), ISBN 0713990619. Extracts from Chapter 14: "The Ends of the Universe," with additional comments by Frank J. Tipler; also available here and here."
As stated above, Jeffro77's excuse in his edit summary doesn't even make sense, as it doesn't explain why he would delete mention of Prof. Deutsch's endorsement of the physics of the Omega Point Theory, particularly since Jeffro77 himself called Deutsch an "eminent physicist" in his own edit (i.e., that statement wasn't there before): of which argues against the notion that Jeffro77 considers the physics of the Omega Point Theory as fringe. Further, Jeffro77 deleted mention of the fact that Prof. Wolfhart Pannenberg, who is one of the leading theologians in the world, has defended the theology of the Omega Point Theory and Tipler's position that the Omega Point is consistent with the Judeo-Christian God.
Additionally, while Jeffro77's "fringe" claim's aren't even relevant to his edit, they have already been refuted numerous times. Indeed, Jeffro77 himself refutes this claim in this very edit of his: to state again, therein Jeffro77 himself called Prof. Deutsch an "eminent physicist" in his own words. So obviously Jeffro77 himself must consider Deutsch's endorsement of the physics of the Omega Point Theory to be noteworthy, and yet he deleted this endoresement in an area where Jeffro77 himself agrees that Deutsch is eminently qualified and replaced it with a large displayed quotation regarding a matter that Deutsch has no qualification or erudition in, even though the previous version already clearly mentioned that Deutsch disagrees that Omega Point is God. Moreover, in this edit Jeffro77 deletes all mention of the fact that an actual trained theologian, Prof. Wolfhart Pannenberg, who is one of the world's leading theologians, has defended the theology of the Omega Point Theory.
As well, Prof. Tipler himself has defended the theology of the Omega Point Theory and his identification of the Omega Point as being God in a peer-reviewed academic journal: see Frank J. Tipler, "The Omega Point as Eschaton: Answers to Pannenberg's Questions for Scientists," Zygon: Journal of Religion & Science, Vol. 24, Issue 2 (June 1989), pp. 217-253. Regarding the physics, Prof. Tipler has published his Omega Point Theory in many peer-reviewed science journals, including a number of the leading physics journals such as Reports on Progress in Physics (one of the world's leading physics journals) and Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society (one of the world's leading astrophysics journals). The Wikipedia article on the Omega Point Theory lists seven different mainstream peer-reviewed scientific journals in which Tipler's Omega Point Theory has been published (and that's not including the Zygon journal). That is quite a significant amount.
Jeffro77 is out of control. Given his mangled and illiterate Deutsch citation, he doesn't even know what he's doing: he's simply wildly deleting information he dislikes, like a bull on a rampage in a china shop.-- 74.4.222.208 ( talk) 17:36, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
It is vandalism. It is best to argue issues out rather than deleting. See Absolute Zero RR.-- Kaosa ( talk) 17:35, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Considering the nature of his attacks against advances in this discussion, with due respect, I think that either Jeffro77 owns Wikipedia, or he has serious issues - sounds like he's a daring guardian of something. It is essential that we know what we really need to know. --
Kaosa (
talk)
14:08, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
It's desperate... -- Kaosa ( talk) 11:51, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
I repent.-- Kaosa ( talk) 17:33, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Wikiepedia is not a directory, nor is it a bibiography. We have a notes section for refs actually usd in the article (in which the number is messed up by the way, someone should fix that). There is absolutley no justification for a HUGE additional refs listing and "further reading". I moved that section off themanin page and put it here. If any of the following is actually used as a real reference to something within the article, footnote it instead: — Preceding unsigned comment added by DreamGuy ( talk • contribs) 21:59, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
I updated the bit about Occam's razor, which I didn't like. Here is my motivation. The old piece said:
"The belief that God created the universe and God just exists makes too many unproven assumptions,"
I found this rather vague: each belief is an assumption. It does not make many assumptions. Furthermore assumptions are always unproven.
"therefore using Occam's Razor one can "shave" off the unnecessary assumptions, leaving the universe just exists."
One does not use Occam's Razor to do something, instead it is a principle that dictates that we do something. The last part of this sentence is not grammatical.
"The theistic response to this statement is that Occam's Razor applies only in philosophy not logic, and has no bearing on whether God or Gods exist."
I object to the notion of Occam's Razor "applying" or "not applying": it is a principle that one may or may not embrace. I have therefore tried to explain more clearly why Occam's Razor might make sense, and what its limitations are.
I feel that actually this is not a deductive argument but an empirical one, and it should be merged with the parsimony item. What do others think? Also, citations are missing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sderooij ( talk • contribs) 12:51, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Ilkali deleted this edit with this incorrect statement: "Reverted 1 edit by 74.4.222.208; See talk page - this material has already been lengthily discussed and rejected."
Of course, as the above discussions show, no such rejection has ever taken place: disagreements occured as to what form this section on Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point Theory should take, but everyone was in agreement that it should exist in the article. And indeed, going by Wikipedia policies, such a claim by Ilkali doesn't even make the slightest sense, as Wikipedia isn't an arbiter of what anyone thinks is or isn't the truth, including that of ideologically-motivated people such as Ilkali. Although Ilkali therein does reveal the censorious agenda of himself and those like him, as he therein makes clear that he's violating Wikipedia policy by attempting to be an arbiter of his version of "truth" by keeping verboten subjects from corrupting the unwashed minds of the masses.
That is, Ilkali and those like him hate any mention of Prof. Tipler's Omega Point Theory. And if finally forced by Wikipedia policy to include it, they'll attempt to sabotage this section to the greatest extent they can, as their previous dishonorable history on this matter amply demonstrates.
Ilkali has not only stated a false claim regarding the above discussions, but the notion behind the claim in of itself violates Wikipedia policy.
And as was voluminously shown in the above discussions, Prof. Tipler's Omega Point Theory is extensively verifiable in the only sense in which Wikipedia policy cares about, as it as been published in a number of the world's most prestigious peer-reviewed physics journals.-- 74.4.222.208 ( talk) 19:31, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
First of all, I changed the Boeing 747 Section to read that "[it] is a fallacy with or without the use of special pleading", because the two possibilities if the argument is accepted are: The use of special pleading to try and get out of it or an acceptance of the argument, which holds that the idea of god is, in fact, a logical fallacy
Second Thing: The part that talks about Russel's Teapot is not so much an argument for or against either side, just a statement that the existence of god must be proven by the theist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.121.53.2 ( talk) 03:42, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
I have taken the liberty of adding an additional change. I do not think that you can truly say that natural selection has a real explanation for complex design (as suggested by the cosmological argument). If anyone can convince me that natural selection has a reasonable proof of design, then humor me please. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Emperor Cool VIII (
talk •
contribs)
03:47, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
The following is not research, but rather readily verifiable arithmetical observation. Remember, this is a question but this is also not a forum. The question is essentially whether God exists with a real non-traditional but in the modern sense commonly acceptable definition. I will leave my opinion out and ask credentialled scholars, practicing theologians, and public figures only to reply in an analytical way only. Weigh in from a peace science perspective first, please, and do not bog things down on the obvious special nature of these identities. These are moderating requests. Here are the strange new facts: A) (365+1/4)^2=3^7*61+9/16 and B) (365+1/4)^4=17797577732+7^2/2^8. On the question of verifiability and to see the little dispute on whether and how these facts could be presented in wikipedia, see first the Talk:Numerology section and follow the history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Julzes ( talk • contribs) 14:03, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
"Arguments for and against the existence of God have been proposed by scientists, philosophers, theologians, and others."
This sentence is void of substantive information. Why does the article start out with something completely generic and rather obvious? It doesn't introduce the concept or provide a basic definition. Wouldn't the second line be a much better lead into the article?:
"In philosophical terminology, "existence-of-God" arguments concern schools of thought on the epistemology of the ontology of God."
At least this line actually leads into the subject - rather than just providing a random, unremarkable statistic...
What do you all think?
Ofus ( talk) 20:22, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
I see nothing wrong with it. "Arguments for and against the existence of God have been proposed by scientists, philosophers, theologians, and others." Absolutely! After all we are talking about Theism, Agnosticism, Pantheism, Gnosticism, etc. Many different views that have this interest and most likely argue on it-- 72.74.98.143 ( talk) 23:29, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
As an amateur philosopher, I would like to know how can I obtain funding to try to prove the existence of God. Could you add this information to the article, please? (maybe in external links, at least). I only know of the existence of the Templeton Foundation, but I would like to know more sources. -- 62.57.0.234 ( talk) 14:45, 15 July 2009 (UTC) If provable, would have been a long time ago. The catholic church would have put all there resources together and proven the existance. With all the power and money they have, if the topic was provable it would have been done. You shouldn't waste your time on a topic that has no provable outcome. Go enjoy your life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nashka ( talk • contribs) 22:06, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
The fact of the matter is that so long as we have a broad enough definition of God--not a particular one from an ancient text written by people (generally men) with an agenda--then God was proven to exist by me in January of 2006 and made public here recently (Feel free to look over my contribution attempts starting at Numerology by substituting "Julzes" for your name in the web command line after clicking "My Contributions" above). The God--whoever it is, and I prefer advanced ET with a natural (Godless) origin limited by physical rules and natural resource limits--is such that I cannot lay a claim to the discovery, as you will see. So I won't be looking for funding except through whatever book(s) I may write. Anyone who can SIGNIFICANTLY add to what I am trying to do in the publicizing of this NEW KNOWLEDGE (or perhaps in finding more complicated prior attempts at proof as having been overlooked) AND who can say something meaningful about how we should move forward as a species and biosphere should get that $1M (the Templeton award), in my opinion. Other than that, the job is basically done, though a solid proof needs to be provided for those without a mathematical sense but with the ability to understand mathematics. All that said, I would not expect miracles from me, though I am strangely special. No miracles, no end of world type stuff. Nothing but the strange facts. Now, back to the section before last. What is PUBLISHED on the burden of proof, anyway? It seems that the burden of proof should be on existence, with science having given pretty good explanations for things without necessitating a God. Julzes ( talk) 02:29, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
"An agnostic believes it is not possible to prove or disprove the existence of gods. Agnosticism as a broad umbrella term does not define one's belief or disbelief in gods, a person can be an agnostic but still identify themselves as a theist or an atheist.[29]"
How can someone be agnostic and a theist at the same time? Theism is the positive belief in God/gods. You can not have a positive belief in something, and claim to be neutral on the subject at the same time. An atheist is anyone who does not have a positive belief in God or gods so all Agnostics are necessarily non-theists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.22.235.160 ( talk) 06:15, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
I appreciate your response, and apologize for not sourcing my quote.. I am not sure how to feel about the term agnostic-theism, it seems a little like apolitical-republican or left-handed-snake. What I mean to say is (I am quoting the main article) "Theism: The theistic conclusion is that the arguments indicate there is sufficient reason to believe that at least one god exists." is in direct contradiction with the term agnosticism. We can create a term (e.g. agnostic-theism) and give it any meaning we want. But a "conclusion..that the arguments indicate there is sufficient reason to believe that at least one god exists" seems to be almost the exact opposite of Agnosticism.
An Agnostic has not come to ANY conclusion, but a theist necessarily has.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.94.204.200 ( talk) 06:09, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
if you're referring to the existence of God, with a capital G, you are probably referring to a monotheistic god (lower-case g). the typical white fluffy hair and halo guy most people seem to make the christian god into is a monotheistic god. however, there are numerous other gods which one could argue have similar characteristics, but which are described as part of a host of gods, e.g., zeus and hera (& kittens…). so maybe it would be easiest to structure the document from the beginning-top to say that the document discusses the existence of a single omnipotent/omnipresent God (there's that G again) rather than "A god" which is entirely different. 76.111.68.88 ( talk) 03:29, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't feel this belongs here. The information in this section is speculation about a future event, not an argument for the current existence of "God". 216.96.150.36 ( talk) 00:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
I present an outline of the Omega Point theory, which is a model for an omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent, evolving, personal God who is both transcendent to spacetime and immanent in it, and who exists necessarily. The model is a falsifiable physical theory, deriving its key concepts not from any religious tradition but from modern physical cosmology and computer science; from scientific materialism rather than revelation. Four testable predictions of the model are given. The theory assumes that thinking is a purely physical process of the brain, and that personality dies with the brain. Nevertheless, I show that the Omega Point theory suggests a future universal resurrection of the dead very similar to the one predicted in the Judeo-Christian-Islamic tradition. The notions of "grace" and the "beatific vision" appear naturally in the model.
-- Jeffro77 ( talk) 04:26, 5 December 2008 (UTC)I have mentioned several respects in which Tipler's 'God' differs from the God or gods that most religious people believe in. There are further differences, too. For instance, the people near the omega point could not, even if they wanted to, speak to us or communicate their wishes to us, or work miracles (today). They did not create the universe, and they did not invent the laws of physics – nor could they violate those laws if they wanted to. They may listen to prayers from the present day (perhaps by detecting very faint signals), but they cannot answer them. They are (and this we can infer from Popperian epistemology) opposed to religious faith, and have no wish to be worshipped. And so on. But Tipler ploughs on, and argues that most of the core features of the God of the Judaeo-Christian religions are also properties of the omega point. Most religious people will, I think, disagree with Tipler about what the core features of their religions are.
I have deleted this section altogether. Aside from its questionable notability, it doesn't actually say anything of substance about the actual existence of God anyway, and is therefore out of scope.-- Jeffro77 ( talk) 02:16, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Acceptance by other scholars of any of the physics presented by Tipler does not establish any acceptance of Tipler's theological theories in the scientific community, as is explicitly shown by Deutsch. No sources that endorse Tipler's theology have been provided, which is the specific purported relevance to this article. It has absolutely not been established that Tipler is a reliable source regarding his theological views. The presence of articles (all written by Tipler) in scientific journals is being used as a fallacious argument from authority to establish validity of his theologicl views.-- Jeffro77 ( talk) 13:13, 5 December 2008 (UTC)Wikipedia articles should use reliable, third-party, published sources. Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. ... Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made;
I've opened a Wikiquette alert regarding 74.4.222.208 here. Ilkali ( talk) 03:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Since 74.4.222.208 has now reverted five times within one day, I've also filed a 3RR report here. Ilkali ( talk) 12:38, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
In the middle of this heated debate I think 74.4.222.208 is using unnecessarily long words. This is not a discussion about people's opinions, it is about facts. 69.136.72.16 ( talk) 00:35, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Please, go easy on each other, such energy could be channeled for useful purposes. We could try finding God and die in the process - could be more worthwhile than killing eachother for nothing. -- Kaosa ( talk) 17:12, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
When discussing the existence of God, the theist has the burden of proof because he is making an existence claim. Shouldn't there be an section on the Burden of Proof? Consentium ( talk) 04:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
why is it assumptive in every discusion about a god, that the god in the Existance of god article, is the biblical god? Is this section about the god from the bible or god in general. If god in general, why is god with a capital "G", which would give the word god (when capitalized) power. Who gives the word "god" the power but the side that assumes god exists. And which god exists?? i am new at this but my concern is that if we are having a discusion to improve the article concerning the existance or non existance of a god i am confused by which god we are speaking of if not defined initially. Unless it has already been defined by the title, which is the existance of God....should it not be "existance of a god"? Then, the discusion of a god other than the biblical god would have equal strength.....The arguement from an Athiest point would be an arguement against a god, whether it be the god from the bible or the blue monkey god, and any other god that is conceivable in the human mind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nashka ( talk • contribs) 22:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Although there have been thousands of books and papers written throughout the course of human history, nowhere is there one shred of physical proof that a God of any kind other than those created in the minds of men has ever existed. Only writings, usually made years after the fact, made by man, have existed. The book of God describes many "objects of divinity" including the Cup of Christ, the Staff of Moses, the Ark of the Covenant containing the tablets of commandments, Noah's Ark and many other objects mentioned as physical items used or displayed by the characters in the bible story. Yet their non-existence has been also termed to mean symbolism in the face of criticism [ [2]]. -- Watchdog09 ( talk) 00:14, 16 August 2009 (UTC) [1]
Here is a famous paradox: if a tree falls and no one senses it, did it fall? If it falls and the senses are not used and the fall is not perceived then the argument that because no one sensed the tree falling it must not have happened is false if it actually happened, since the senses do not deal with what is real or not and only deal with what is perceived.-- 72.74.98.143 ( talk) 23:21, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
I added some Hindu arguments to make the article well-rounded. Raj2004 ( talk) 02:56, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
added it.
It's not really a philosophical argument, it's more of a claim of evidence. Philosophical argument start from assumed truths and then applies logic to reach conclusions. This section makes very controversial claim, that the bible foretells the future through supernatural means. The "implied argument" just points out that yes, if such evidence did exist, it might be evidence for the existence of God. It's a notable claim, but not a philosophical argument.
The writing style is problematic.
But more glaringly, the limitation to the Bible is unacceptable. Many, many religions make claim the power of prophecy. Obviously, any individual editor will find some religions' claims more convincing than others, but Wikipedia cannot.
I proposed an alternate text that religion-neutral with a more encyclopedic tone. That text was rejected by the original author of this section, who reinserted his own version with the comment "No other religious writings foretell future events as the Bible". Obviously, there is no consensus on that point, nor would I expect there to be any consensus on the one true religion anytime in the foreseeable future.
Since I object to the religion-specific presentation, and since the original author objects to a religion-neutral presentation, we need to create a text that does have consensus before the article can cover this argument.
According, I'm removing the disputed section, but I'll refrain from adding my own version in. -70. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.160.114.106 ( talk) 18:22, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
The article starts by claiming it is about arguments for and against the existence of God. Not really. Either God exists or does not exist - - - regardless of our arguments. The article is about arguments for our belief in the existence of God. This needs clarification in the article. Grantmidnight ( talk) 03:15, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Quite a few arguments are rejections of the determinability of "existence of God":
maybe in a way "felt by the mind" can be seen as a "proof", but not in my language, since a "proof" for me, is where one person is demonstrating a truly factual phenomenon for a public of other persons, and those other persons are declaring the phenomenon true, based on each individuals own experiences. I think maybe there should be three sections:
Where atheism and humanism (life stance) is a religio/philosophical context.
provable? | God exist? | |
---|---|---|
yes | no | |
yes | belief | atheism |
(yes) | (pro) | (contra) |
no | belief | agnosticism |
(no) | provability denied |
Rursus dixit. ( mbork3!) 06:51, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Under Arguments for..., the venerable transcendental argument for God (TAG) is described in a sentence, followed by a separate " Argument from Reason". The AfR is a type of transcendental argument and should be moved and made part of the TAG. AfR is merely a name that began to be popularized in the '50s on to the recent present. Foggg ( talk) 19:41, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Who first used the terms "apatheism" or "apatheist"?
Did they develop or discuss these terms more than what is shown?
Is there any link between apatheism and the development of a morality or philosophy that doesn't require religion? Stuman89 ( talk) 08:35, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Given that this article has been around since 2004, I doubt I'm going to get much support for this idea, but it seems pretty obvious to me that article is grossly unencyclopedic. The article would seem to beg for WP:BATTLEGROUNDing. Would anyone agree with me if I were to make the assertion that WP should not be forum for theological debates, b/c frankly, it's just stupid. NickCT ( talk) 16:26, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Which specific issues are there; give examples? IRWolfie- ( talk) 14:47, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
Once the current dispute is resolved, I would like to request partial protection of this article.-- Jeffro77 ( talk) 03:05, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
All respect to your point of view. But, do you honestly believe that the character of God is displayed accurately? One one hand God is portrayed as One who knows all, but then again could he have forgotten the shape of our solar system - leave alone the universe? So much as to bring down the Tower of Babel before the earthlings could build to His high place? And about mixing their language, doesn't the law of God teach people to love one another, how could He possibly go against His principles (...does he have such?) to cause all the tribalism in Africa and racism elsewhere? All these wars in His name...
Maybe you will agree with me, chaos rules the day. Could God choose a race from among humans and use them to slaughter all the others? What is His gain? Now again, do you believe that African, Indians, Chinese, Arabs, Blondes and others all originated from Noah and his three sons? If so, does it mean that man (according to the Bible) evolved after Noah's time to all the UNIQUE races that walk this earth now? Did the EVOLUTION take only 4,000 years? Or is man, according to that definition, only the white man? Then where did all the others come from?
Is it possible that, God went on a 'creation spree' one day, or maybe in six days (if God exists at all)? Then He created a black man, moved a little distance and created a white man, moved a little distance and created an Indian, etc in a certain order? Or did he create several 'Adams' and 'Eves' instantaneously then later on proceeded to seperate them with masses of water so that they could not mix?
Don't you think there is more to this than just a twist in the laws of Physics?
--
Kaosa (
talk)
16:29, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
By all means - this discussion might turn out to be the most important discussion of our lives, for all mankind (considering we only exist for limited periods). -- Kaosa ( talk) 13:51, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Ilkali, I removed my entire argument. But, how are we expected to make any progress with our hands tied behind our backs? -- 62.24.99.80 ( talk) 11:01, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Maybe you might want to look at this: Existence of God is part of WikiProject Atheism, which aims to organize, expand, clean up, and guide atheism related articles on Wikipedia. -- Kaosa ( talk) 11:36, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
To clarify a little bit, the existence of GOD has everything to do with theology and history and almost nothing to do with Physics. You don't expect to physically find God, or evidence of His whereabouts. Do you? Please note that Dan Brown (after The Da Vinci Code) was thoroughly criticized, one such critic is Chuck Missler - The Da Vinci Deception, over his apparent lack of information on what is contained in Judeo-religious material (like The Bible). We should learn from that and take time to study on what other people believe before we start qualifying or disqualifying it on our grounds. I also need to remind you that people have paid big prices for their belief in God, and though I am also into Physics, I am sure this is no forum for Physicists either. You can't just send me off. What do you say?-- Kaosa ( talk) 14:26, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Done. I find that in the article, Omega Point Theory is only a small section of it. I quote "Deductive arguments attempt to prove their conclusions by deductive reasoning from true premises" right from the article. I also find theology is really important here-- 62.24.99.80 ( talk) 16:22, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
I see I got your attention. Your knowing my IP address is not in the least scary. I own none of 'em. The point is, there is not a heading or discussion topic for "Omega Point Theory" that is just a sub-topic, and a rather baseless one, much more difficult to accept than the most absurd religion. Did you try to block me?-- Kaosa ( talk) 17:42, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks for the advice. Bold as I may be ( WP:bold) I understand that it is not what I feel alone that counts here. I suggest that the entire Omega Point Theory be removed from the article ( Existence of God) for it contradicts the neutral point of view. Only a link to the article ' Omega Point Theory' should remain. The last line in the section "Most religious people will, I think, disagree with Tipler about what the core features of their religions are" should strengthen my point. 'Omega Point Theory' should remain as an article but only as a book-review like the other controversial ' Da Vinci Code'.-- Kaosatalk 12:37, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Jeffro77 replaced this entry--which is very similar to the version that existed there since October 31, 2008, with some improvements--with this entry, giving the excuse in his edit summary of "WP:FRINGE," which doesn't even make sense as an explanation for his edits: i.e., deletion of a number of citations; deletion of the information on theologian Prof. Wolfhart Pannenberg's defense of the theology of the Omega Point Theory; etc. As well, there's no need for the large displayed quote, as the previous entry already stated that Prof. David Deutsch doesn't agree that the Omega Point is God; furthermore, Jeffro77's edit deletes the mention of the fact that Prof. Deutsch endorses the physics of the Omega Point Theory.
In addtion, Jeffro77's edit isn't even literate, as he give the following mangled citation to Prof. Deutsch: " Chapter 14: "The Ends of the Universe," with additional comments by Frank J. Tipler; also available here". Whereas the version before was properly cited: "David Deutsch, The Fabric of Reality: The Science of Parallel Universes—and Its Implications (London: Allen Lane The Penguin Press, 1997), ISBN 0713990619. Extracts from Chapter 14: "The Ends of the Universe," with additional comments by Frank J. Tipler; also available here and here."
As stated above, Jeffro77's excuse in his edit summary doesn't even make sense, as it doesn't explain why he would delete mention of Prof. Deutsch's endorsement of the physics of the Omega Point Theory, particularly since Jeffro77 himself called Deutsch an "eminent physicist" in his own edit (i.e., that statement wasn't there before): of which argues against the notion that Jeffro77 considers the physics of the Omega Point Theory as fringe. Further, Jeffro77 deleted mention of the fact that Prof. Wolfhart Pannenberg, who is one of the leading theologians in the world, has defended the theology of the Omega Point Theory and Tipler's position that the Omega Point is consistent with the Judeo-Christian God.
Additionally, while Jeffro77's "fringe" claim's aren't even relevant to his edit, they have already been refuted numerous times. Indeed, Jeffro77 himself refutes this claim in this very edit of his: to state again, therein Jeffro77 himself called Prof. Deutsch an "eminent physicist" in his own words. So obviously Jeffro77 himself must consider Deutsch's endorsement of the physics of the Omega Point Theory to be noteworthy, and yet he deleted this endoresement in an area where Jeffro77 himself agrees that Deutsch is eminently qualified and replaced it with a large displayed quotation regarding a matter that Deutsch has no qualification or erudition in, even though the previous version already clearly mentioned that Deutsch disagrees that Omega Point is God. Moreover, in this edit Jeffro77 deletes all mention of the fact that an actual trained theologian, Prof. Wolfhart Pannenberg, who is one of the world's leading theologians, has defended the theology of the Omega Point Theory.
As well, Prof. Tipler himself has defended the theology of the Omega Point Theory and his identification of the Omega Point as being God in a peer-reviewed academic journal: see Frank J. Tipler, "The Omega Point as Eschaton: Answers to Pannenberg's Questions for Scientists," Zygon: Journal of Religion & Science, Vol. 24, Issue 2 (June 1989), pp. 217-253. Regarding the physics, Prof. Tipler has published his Omega Point Theory in many peer-reviewed science journals, including a number of the leading physics journals such as Reports on Progress in Physics (one of the world's leading physics journals) and Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society (one of the world's leading astrophysics journals). The Wikipedia article on the Omega Point Theory lists seven different mainstream peer-reviewed scientific journals in which Tipler's Omega Point Theory has been published (and that's not including the Zygon journal). That is quite a significant amount.
Jeffro77 is out of control. Given his mangled and illiterate Deutsch citation, he doesn't even know what he's doing: he's simply wildly deleting information he dislikes, like a bull on a rampage in a china shop.-- 74.4.222.208 ( talk) 17:36, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
It is vandalism. It is best to argue issues out rather than deleting. See Absolute Zero RR.-- Kaosa ( talk) 17:35, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Considering the nature of his attacks against advances in this discussion, with due respect, I think that either Jeffro77 owns Wikipedia, or he has serious issues - sounds like he's a daring guardian of something. It is essential that we know what we really need to know. --
Kaosa (
talk)
14:08, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
It's desperate... -- Kaosa ( talk) 11:51, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
I repent.-- Kaosa ( talk) 17:33, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Wikiepedia is not a directory, nor is it a bibiography. We have a notes section for refs actually usd in the article (in which the number is messed up by the way, someone should fix that). There is absolutley no justification for a HUGE additional refs listing and "further reading". I moved that section off themanin page and put it here. If any of the following is actually used as a real reference to something within the article, footnote it instead: — Preceding unsigned comment added by DreamGuy ( talk • contribs) 21:59, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
I updated the bit about Occam's razor, which I didn't like. Here is my motivation. The old piece said:
"The belief that God created the universe and God just exists makes too many unproven assumptions,"
I found this rather vague: each belief is an assumption. It does not make many assumptions. Furthermore assumptions are always unproven.
"therefore using Occam's Razor one can "shave" off the unnecessary assumptions, leaving the universe just exists."
One does not use Occam's Razor to do something, instead it is a principle that dictates that we do something. The last part of this sentence is not grammatical.
"The theistic response to this statement is that Occam's Razor applies only in philosophy not logic, and has no bearing on whether God or Gods exist."
I object to the notion of Occam's Razor "applying" or "not applying": it is a principle that one may or may not embrace. I have therefore tried to explain more clearly why Occam's Razor might make sense, and what its limitations are.
I feel that actually this is not a deductive argument but an empirical one, and it should be merged with the parsimony item. What do others think? Also, citations are missing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sderooij ( talk • contribs) 12:51, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Ilkali deleted this edit with this incorrect statement: "Reverted 1 edit by 74.4.222.208; See talk page - this material has already been lengthily discussed and rejected."
Of course, as the above discussions show, no such rejection has ever taken place: disagreements occured as to what form this section on Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point Theory should take, but everyone was in agreement that it should exist in the article. And indeed, going by Wikipedia policies, such a claim by Ilkali doesn't even make the slightest sense, as Wikipedia isn't an arbiter of what anyone thinks is or isn't the truth, including that of ideologically-motivated people such as Ilkali. Although Ilkali therein does reveal the censorious agenda of himself and those like him, as he therein makes clear that he's violating Wikipedia policy by attempting to be an arbiter of his version of "truth" by keeping verboten subjects from corrupting the unwashed minds of the masses.
That is, Ilkali and those like him hate any mention of Prof. Tipler's Omega Point Theory. And if finally forced by Wikipedia policy to include it, they'll attempt to sabotage this section to the greatest extent they can, as their previous dishonorable history on this matter amply demonstrates.
Ilkali has not only stated a false claim regarding the above discussions, but the notion behind the claim in of itself violates Wikipedia policy.
And as was voluminously shown in the above discussions, Prof. Tipler's Omega Point Theory is extensively verifiable in the only sense in which Wikipedia policy cares about, as it as been published in a number of the world's most prestigious peer-reviewed physics journals.-- 74.4.222.208 ( talk) 19:31, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
First of all, I changed the Boeing 747 Section to read that "[it] is a fallacy with or without the use of special pleading", because the two possibilities if the argument is accepted are: The use of special pleading to try and get out of it or an acceptance of the argument, which holds that the idea of god is, in fact, a logical fallacy
Second Thing: The part that talks about Russel's Teapot is not so much an argument for or against either side, just a statement that the existence of god must be proven by the theist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.121.53.2 ( talk) 03:42, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
I have taken the liberty of adding an additional change. I do not think that you can truly say that natural selection has a real explanation for complex design (as suggested by the cosmological argument). If anyone can convince me that natural selection has a reasonable proof of design, then humor me please. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Emperor Cool VIII (
talk •
contribs)
03:47, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
The following is not research, but rather readily verifiable arithmetical observation. Remember, this is a question but this is also not a forum. The question is essentially whether God exists with a real non-traditional but in the modern sense commonly acceptable definition. I will leave my opinion out and ask credentialled scholars, practicing theologians, and public figures only to reply in an analytical way only. Weigh in from a peace science perspective first, please, and do not bog things down on the obvious special nature of these identities. These are moderating requests. Here are the strange new facts: A) (365+1/4)^2=3^7*61+9/16 and B) (365+1/4)^4=17797577732+7^2/2^8. On the question of verifiability and to see the little dispute on whether and how these facts could be presented in wikipedia, see first the Talk:Numerology section and follow the history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Julzes ( talk • contribs) 14:03, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
"Arguments for and against the existence of God have been proposed by scientists, philosophers, theologians, and others."
This sentence is void of substantive information. Why does the article start out with something completely generic and rather obvious? It doesn't introduce the concept or provide a basic definition. Wouldn't the second line be a much better lead into the article?:
"In philosophical terminology, "existence-of-God" arguments concern schools of thought on the epistemology of the ontology of God."
At least this line actually leads into the subject - rather than just providing a random, unremarkable statistic...
What do you all think?
Ofus ( talk) 20:22, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
I see nothing wrong with it. "Arguments for and against the existence of God have been proposed by scientists, philosophers, theologians, and others." Absolutely! After all we are talking about Theism, Agnosticism, Pantheism, Gnosticism, etc. Many different views that have this interest and most likely argue on it-- 72.74.98.143 ( talk) 23:29, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
As an amateur philosopher, I would like to know how can I obtain funding to try to prove the existence of God. Could you add this information to the article, please? (maybe in external links, at least). I only know of the existence of the Templeton Foundation, but I would like to know more sources. -- 62.57.0.234 ( talk) 14:45, 15 July 2009 (UTC) If provable, would have been a long time ago. The catholic church would have put all there resources together and proven the existance. With all the power and money they have, if the topic was provable it would have been done. You shouldn't waste your time on a topic that has no provable outcome. Go enjoy your life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nashka ( talk • contribs) 22:06, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
The fact of the matter is that so long as we have a broad enough definition of God--not a particular one from an ancient text written by people (generally men) with an agenda--then God was proven to exist by me in January of 2006 and made public here recently (Feel free to look over my contribution attempts starting at Numerology by substituting "Julzes" for your name in the web command line after clicking "My Contributions" above). The God--whoever it is, and I prefer advanced ET with a natural (Godless) origin limited by physical rules and natural resource limits--is such that I cannot lay a claim to the discovery, as you will see. So I won't be looking for funding except through whatever book(s) I may write. Anyone who can SIGNIFICANTLY add to what I am trying to do in the publicizing of this NEW KNOWLEDGE (or perhaps in finding more complicated prior attempts at proof as having been overlooked) AND who can say something meaningful about how we should move forward as a species and biosphere should get that $1M (the Templeton award), in my opinion. Other than that, the job is basically done, though a solid proof needs to be provided for those without a mathematical sense but with the ability to understand mathematics. All that said, I would not expect miracles from me, though I am strangely special. No miracles, no end of world type stuff. Nothing but the strange facts. Now, back to the section before last. What is PUBLISHED on the burden of proof, anyway? It seems that the burden of proof should be on existence, with science having given pretty good explanations for things without necessitating a God. Julzes ( talk) 02:29, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
"An agnostic believes it is not possible to prove or disprove the existence of gods. Agnosticism as a broad umbrella term does not define one's belief or disbelief in gods, a person can be an agnostic but still identify themselves as a theist or an atheist.[29]"
How can someone be agnostic and a theist at the same time? Theism is the positive belief in God/gods. You can not have a positive belief in something, and claim to be neutral on the subject at the same time. An atheist is anyone who does not have a positive belief in God or gods so all Agnostics are necessarily non-theists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.22.235.160 ( talk) 06:15, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
I appreciate your response, and apologize for not sourcing my quote.. I am not sure how to feel about the term agnostic-theism, it seems a little like apolitical-republican or left-handed-snake. What I mean to say is (I am quoting the main article) "Theism: The theistic conclusion is that the arguments indicate there is sufficient reason to believe that at least one god exists." is in direct contradiction with the term agnosticism. We can create a term (e.g. agnostic-theism) and give it any meaning we want. But a "conclusion..that the arguments indicate there is sufficient reason to believe that at least one god exists" seems to be almost the exact opposite of Agnosticism.
An Agnostic has not come to ANY conclusion, but a theist necessarily has.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.94.204.200 ( talk) 06:09, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
if you're referring to the existence of God, with a capital G, you are probably referring to a monotheistic god (lower-case g). the typical white fluffy hair and halo guy most people seem to make the christian god into is a monotheistic god. however, there are numerous other gods which one could argue have similar characteristics, but which are described as part of a host of gods, e.g., zeus and hera (& kittens…). so maybe it would be easiest to structure the document from the beginning-top to say that the document discusses the existence of a single omnipotent/omnipresent God (there's that G again) rather than "A god" which is entirely different. 76.111.68.88 ( talk) 03:29, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't feel this belongs here. The information in this section is speculation about a future event, not an argument for the current existence of "God". 216.96.150.36 ( talk) 00:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
I present an outline of the Omega Point theory, which is a model for an omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent, evolving, personal God who is both transcendent to spacetime and immanent in it, and who exists necessarily. The model is a falsifiable physical theory, deriving its key concepts not from any religious tradition but from modern physical cosmology and computer science; from scientific materialism rather than revelation. Four testable predictions of the model are given. The theory assumes that thinking is a purely physical process of the brain, and that personality dies with the brain. Nevertheless, I show that the Omega Point theory suggests a future universal resurrection of the dead very similar to the one predicted in the Judeo-Christian-Islamic tradition. The notions of "grace" and the "beatific vision" appear naturally in the model.
-- Jeffro77 ( talk) 04:26, 5 December 2008 (UTC)I have mentioned several respects in which Tipler's 'God' differs from the God or gods that most religious people believe in. There are further differences, too. For instance, the people near the omega point could not, even if they wanted to, speak to us or communicate their wishes to us, or work miracles (today). They did not create the universe, and they did not invent the laws of physics – nor could they violate those laws if they wanted to. They may listen to prayers from the present day (perhaps by detecting very faint signals), but they cannot answer them. They are (and this we can infer from Popperian epistemology) opposed to religious faith, and have no wish to be worshipped. And so on. But Tipler ploughs on, and argues that most of the core features of the God of the Judaeo-Christian religions are also properties of the omega point. Most religious people will, I think, disagree with Tipler about what the core features of their religions are.
I have deleted this section altogether. Aside from its questionable notability, it doesn't actually say anything of substance about the actual existence of God anyway, and is therefore out of scope.-- Jeffro77 ( talk) 02:16, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Acceptance by other scholars of any of the physics presented by Tipler does not establish any acceptance of Tipler's theological theories in the scientific community, as is explicitly shown by Deutsch. No sources that endorse Tipler's theology have been provided, which is the specific purported relevance to this article. It has absolutely not been established that Tipler is a reliable source regarding his theological views. The presence of articles (all written by Tipler) in scientific journals is being used as a fallacious argument from authority to establish validity of his theologicl views.-- Jeffro77 ( talk) 13:13, 5 December 2008 (UTC)Wikipedia articles should use reliable, third-party, published sources. Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. ... Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made;
I've opened a Wikiquette alert regarding 74.4.222.208 here. Ilkali ( talk) 03:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Since 74.4.222.208 has now reverted five times within one day, I've also filed a 3RR report here. Ilkali ( talk) 12:38, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
In the middle of this heated debate I think 74.4.222.208 is using unnecessarily long words. This is not a discussion about people's opinions, it is about facts. 69.136.72.16 ( talk) 00:35, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Please, go easy on each other, such energy could be channeled for useful purposes. We could try finding God and die in the process - could be more worthwhile than killing eachother for nothing. -- Kaosa ( talk) 17:12, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
When discussing the existence of God, the theist has the burden of proof because he is making an existence claim. Shouldn't there be an section on the Burden of Proof? Consentium ( talk) 04:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
why is it assumptive in every discusion about a god, that the god in the Existance of god article, is the biblical god? Is this section about the god from the bible or god in general. If god in general, why is god with a capital "G", which would give the word god (when capitalized) power. Who gives the word "god" the power but the side that assumes god exists. And which god exists?? i am new at this but my concern is that if we are having a discusion to improve the article concerning the existance or non existance of a god i am confused by which god we are speaking of if not defined initially. Unless it has already been defined by the title, which is the existance of God....should it not be "existance of a god"? Then, the discusion of a god other than the biblical god would have equal strength.....The arguement from an Athiest point would be an arguement against a god, whether it be the god from the bible or the blue monkey god, and any other god that is conceivable in the human mind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nashka ( talk • contribs) 22:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Although there have been thousands of books and papers written throughout the course of human history, nowhere is there one shred of physical proof that a God of any kind other than those created in the minds of men has ever existed. Only writings, usually made years after the fact, made by man, have existed. The book of God describes many "objects of divinity" including the Cup of Christ, the Staff of Moses, the Ark of the Covenant containing the tablets of commandments, Noah's Ark and many other objects mentioned as physical items used or displayed by the characters in the bible story. Yet their non-existence has been also termed to mean symbolism in the face of criticism [ [2]]. -- Watchdog09 ( talk) 00:14, 16 August 2009 (UTC) [1]
Here is a famous paradox: if a tree falls and no one senses it, did it fall? If it falls and the senses are not used and the fall is not perceived then the argument that because no one sensed the tree falling it must not have happened is false if it actually happened, since the senses do not deal with what is real or not and only deal with what is perceived.-- 72.74.98.143 ( talk) 23:21, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
I added some Hindu arguments to make the article well-rounded. Raj2004 ( talk) 02:56, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
added it.
It's not really a philosophical argument, it's more of a claim of evidence. Philosophical argument start from assumed truths and then applies logic to reach conclusions. This section makes very controversial claim, that the bible foretells the future through supernatural means. The "implied argument" just points out that yes, if such evidence did exist, it might be evidence for the existence of God. It's a notable claim, but not a philosophical argument.
The writing style is problematic.
But more glaringly, the limitation to the Bible is unacceptable. Many, many religions make claim the power of prophecy. Obviously, any individual editor will find some religions' claims more convincing than others, but Wikipedia cannot.
I proposed an alternate text that religion-neutral with a more encyclopedic tone. That text was rejected by the original author of this section, who reinserted his own version with the comment "No other religious writings foretell future events as the Bible". Obviously, there is no consensus on that point, nor would I expect there to be any consensus on the one true religion anytime in the foreseeable future.
Since I object to the religion-specific presentation, and since the original author objects to a religion-neutral presentation, we need to create a text that does have consensus before the article can cover this argument.
According, I'm removing the disputed section, but I'll refrain from adding my own version in. -70. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.160.114.106 ( talk) 18:22, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
The article starts by claiming it is about arguments for and against the existence of God. Not really. Either God exists or does not exist - - - regardless of our arguments. The article is about arguments for our belief in the existence of God. This needs clarification in the article. Grantmidnight ( talk) 03:15, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Quite a few arguments are rejections of the determinability of "existence of God":
maybe in a way "felt by the mind" can be seen as a "proof", but not in my language, since a "proof" for me, is where one person is demonstrating a truly factual phenomenon for a public of other persons, and those other persons are declaring the phenomenon true, based on each individuals own experiences. I think maybe there should be three sections:
Where atheism and humanism (life stance) is a religio/philosophical context.
provable? | God exist? | |
---|---|---|
yes | no | |
yes | belief | atheism |
(yes) | (pro) | (contra) |
no | belief | agnosticism |
(no) | provability denied |
Rursus dixit. ( mbork3!) 06:51, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Under Arguments for..., the venerable transcendental argument for God (TAG) is described in a sentence, followed by a separate " Argument from Reason". The AfR is a type of transcendental argument and should be moved and made part of the TAG. AfR is merely a name that began to be popularized in the '50s on to the recent present. Foggg ( talk) 19:41, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Who first used the terms "apatheism" or "apatheist"?
Did they develop or discuss these terms more than what is shown?
Is there any link between apatheism and the development of a morality or philosophy that doesn't require religion? Stuman89 ( talk) 08:35, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Given that this article has been around since 2004, I doubt I'm going to get much support for this idea, but it seems pretty obvious to me that article is grossly unencyclopedic. The article would seem to beg for WP:BATTLEGROUNDing. Would anyone agree with me if I were to make the assertion that WP should not be forum for theological debates, b/c frankly, it's just stupid. NickCT ( talk) 16:26, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Which specific issues are there; give examples? IRWolfie- ( talk) 14:47, 31 December 2010 (UTC)