![]() | 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 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
The article requires that existence be defined to progress. This wiki existence article requires some work. To me, the most relevant definition is "the state or fact of having being especially independently of human consciousness and as contrasted with nonexistence" from [1]. It is self evident that God exists in human consciousness but how god exists independently of consciousness seems to be the subject here. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ ( talk) 16:05, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Should "God" also be defined? Or, can we just link to [ignostic]? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaronwayneodonahue ( talk • contribs) 01:50, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
I do not feel comfortable with just having an atheism group working on this. We need both sides. It's like writing an article about meat with the help of a vegetarian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.68.237.117 ( talk) 11:14, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Atheists are here to make sure that the article doesnt imply that God exists. Portillo ( talk) 07:43, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
"Tipler equates this final singularity and its state of infinite information capacity to God. Tipler proposes reversing the acceleration of the universe by annihilating the baryons in the universe, which he maintains would cancel the positive cosmological constant, thereby allowing the universe to collapse."
This whole section sounds like fringe pseudo-science to me. Does it really have any mainstream support other then in science fiction? Does it really belong with the otherwise extremely well known and debated arguments already listed?
The section saying he "proposes reversing the acceleration of the universe by annihilating the baryons in the universe" is completely unfounded and speculative.
I propose removing the entire Omega Point dot point.
I would be happy seeing it relegated to a "See Also" link at the bottom of the page. Bmgoau ( talk) 14:41, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Do you like that nice, long title that probably won't make sense until I explain it, but that will make perfect sense as soon as I'm done? Right now, we only classify arguments here as according to their basis (empirical, deductive, inductive, or subjective), rather than on what the argument is trying to accomplish, which is also very important to consider. Whereas some arguments are truly arguments against the existence of God (eg. the Omnipotence Paradox), others are arguments about who bears the burden of proof (eg. the Russel's Teapot), and yet others are counter-arguments to arguments presented by those in favour God (eg. the Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit). While the current classification (empirical, deductive, inductive, or subjective) is quite cozy and nice, it's much less relevant for those sorting through various arguments than a system that actually considers what the arguer was trying to propose. Just saying.
I suggest that Pascal's Wager be moved from "Arguments grounded in personal experiences" to "Arguments from historical events or personages", as, although he had a religious experience, his argument is not based on that. Darkman101 ( talk) 08:37, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Blaise Pascal (1623–1662), a French philosopher, mathematician, and co-inventor of the probability calculus, offered a well-known prudential argument for God's existence, often called the Wager Argument.
You are arguing against the atheist-existentialists that used a perfect "sentient" being with "existence precedes essence", from Sartre. But Sartre didn't mention "sentient" nor anything like the meaning of the term. And then, that "existence precedes essence" is a contradiction in terms, because God cannot be "consciousness" (your definition) and "a thing" (idem).
To suggest that Sartre's famous quotation is a contradiction in terms, you have to make it better; using Sartre's context, without the assumption of "sentient" nor your definition for "consciousness" and "a thing". Otherwise, I think you should delete that part. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.61.13.249 ( talk) 12:25, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Should this section be properly called 'Existence of Gods'?
The use of the singular presupposes that there is but one, rather than many (or none).
Most folk who have ever lived were probably pantheists.
How would a man from Mars sent to Earth to research this subject write about it? Or what would an (hypothetical)academically-minded individual from Earth who had never previously encountered religion make of it all? Would it not strike them as odd that those who now believe in 'God' are happy to disbelieve in 99.9% of the gods most people have worshipped throughout human history?
Would the man from Mars report back that there are billions of people on Earth who believe in the existence of a sort of invisible celestial tooth fairy, and would he have a good laugh with his friends at the bizarre, outlandish things primitive aliens believe and argue about?
My point of course is simply to pose the question: 'is this article objective enough?' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.5.20.25 ( talk) 15:09, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
So it presupposes that the reader understands what is meant by capitalised "god"? This seems weird to me. The capitalisation suggests it is a proper noun rather than a descriptor, which readers make presumptions about which may indeed be unfounded. The lede might be more specific about the breadth of the name I suppose. 137.111.13.200 ( talk) 03:55, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
I noticed a section titled "Hindu arguments". The article doesnot posses a section for Christian or Muslim arguments. I concur with that since this article aint Existence of God and religion. My opinion is that the section be removed. I thought of gaining a consensus before i remove an entire section. Arjun codename024 14:06, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
ps. "Outside of Western thought" already deals with some Hindu arguments. Arjun codename024 14:07, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
hi. I was wondering if this argument on the existence of God has been used before. if so, it should go into the article. Essentially, it is this: assuming that there is no physical evidence for God, then a priori we must go through all possibilities for such a being. Thus, God could be any one of an infinite number of possibilities. God could be a: rabbit, dog, insane, one being, many beings, etc. etc. etc. My point is that you don't need to look at many of these possibilities to realize that they are completely irreconcilable with any held by any human deistic religion. Thoughts? BFBbrown (talk) 21:08, 5 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bfbbrown ( talk • contribs)
"Essentially, it is this: assuming that there is no physical evidence for God, then a priori we must go through all possibilities for such a being. Thus, God could be any one of an infinite number of possibilities. God could be a: rabbit, dog, insane, one being, many beings, etc. etc. etc. My point is that you don't need to look at many of these possibilities to realize that they are completely irreconcilable with any held by any human deistic religion. Thoughts?"
I have the idea that the universe is the evidence for the existence of God Whom I define as the creator of everything in the universe and the universe itself.
The universe exists and it is certainly the evidence for a lot of things, thus we need not do away with evidence for God in the fact of the existence of the universe; I mean that there is no reason to do away with evidence for the existence of God, unless you want to do away with the universe; in which case then once you want to assume that there is no universe, you have to stop talking already, since you already consign yourself to nothingness in assuming that the universe does not exist.
Perhaps you might want to consider that the universe is just the size of the nose and even the nose [all in assumption only for the sake of a mental experiment] in the face of man is itself the universe, then you might consider that man is the creator of his nose.
Thus on this analogy which is reasonable we humans existing collectively as man can and does see it to be reasonable that a being I call God in concept the creator of everything in the universe and the universe itself, that concept of God has a corresponding entity in objective reality, namely, the existence of God.
Hope you can see that the knowledge of God's existence is reasonable and any man exercising his reason can and does come to the knowledge of the existence of God as the creator of everything in the universe and also of the universe itself.
[This edit from Pachomius2000, 011312 Fri 0716 hours, 8 hours in advance of Greenwich] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pachomius2000 ( talk • contribs) 23:16, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
My particular point, which seems obvious to me, is this: The possibilities I mentioned are mutually exclusive. It seems impossible to me that a notable philosopher, scientist, or pertinent individual has not made such an obvious observation. If such a comment has been made, then it should be mentioned somewhere in the article (and referenced, of course). BFBbrown ( talk) 02:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
In Christianity and Judaism, it is usual to capitalize God, whereas when referring to other religion one refers to god(s) (lower case). Since this is supposed to be an article about the Existence of a superior being, I submit that all references should be lower cased to "god" or "gods" in order to be religion un-specific. I also submit that the name of the article should be changed to "Existence of god or gods". -- Tim Sabin ( talk) 03:52, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
It's based on the problem of cousciousness as the "one" "thing" "as a whole" that receives information from the brain, what enlgish people usually call awareness. (in french, "la conscience" is the same word for cousciousness and awareness). Basically, there's no need to find who was the first conscient beeing, as cousciousness could not be invented by a non-conscious beeing due to it's inability to calculate and create by itself (beeig uncouscious). It's rather logical to invent uncousciousness out of cousciousness. Wich means... the creator had to be counscious. My argument is always true. God didn't invent cousciousness.... if he at all invented unawareness, it means he knows everything and is aware of everything cause he himself can't be unaware. I will repeat that...
"No intelligence", "can't create intelligence", "Intelligence", "Can create non intelligence." So everything comes from perfection, and whatever the name you call it. I call that God.
My name is Maxim Gravel, and it basically means the greatest god on earth. ^^ I am my own source, but If you tell me to write a book... well i'm just gonna put a video on youtube and it's gonna be relevant... will it justify anything more? If you tell me i'm not known... Well I'll be. Peace —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.165.196.237 ( talk) 11:35, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi Maxim Gravel, your name means "the greatest god on earth," why the lower case for God?
Basically I see your proof for the existence of God which I define as the creator of everything in the universe the one we are living in and are parts of, consists in interpolating from man, thus:
Man is conscious, intelligent, and produces things, but man has not always been around in the universe; so there is a being greater than man, more conscious, more intelligent, and more productive than man, and this greater or greatest being created man and everything in the universe where man lives in and is a part of.
And I call that entity, God, the creator of everything in the universe where man lives in and is a part of, it is the universe the one where man is living in and to man is the observable universe, this universe is also created by God -- but of course the universe is much much much greater than the part that is observable to man.
I see your proof to be reasonable and already complete for humans who are reasonable -- as being reasonable is the normal condition of man, being unreasonable is the abnormal condition of man.
The thing with humans who want to know more about God aside from knowing that He exists, is how God created and still creates everything, and keeps them existing and also manages them continuously, in a way that for man, man can still exercise his liberty to be normal or to be abnormal, i.e. unreasonable: for being and acting reasonable is the normal condition of man, and thus he cannot otherwise than come to the knowledge of God's existence, being and acting unreasonable that is the abnormal condition of man which man will adopt in order to suppress the knowledge of God's existence in his heart and mind, suppress by being and acting unreasonable, i.e. which is an abnormal condition.
[This edit from Pachomius2000, 011312 Fri 0651 hours, 8 hours in advance of Greenwich] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pachomius2000 ( talk • contribs) 22:45, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Richard Dawkins is most certainly not a "strong" atheist. He could hardly be explicit in The God Delusion that God "almost certainly" does not exist. This is quite different from asserting that God does not exist. (For Dawkins, the issue is epistemological rather than metaphysical, which is precisely why he's a "weak" atheist.) Ptorr ( talk) 00:56, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
The man does not know the distinction between God and religion, and that is because he has a grudge or several against religion, but he conflates God with religion; That goes to show that owing to his grudges against religion he cannot think anymore straight as to be reasonable thus to know that reason dictates man to come to the knowledge of God's existence, whose concept for me is creator of everything in the universe and the universe itself. [This edit from Pachomius2000] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pachomius2000 ( talk • contribs) 22:49, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Can we put a citation or at least a year on the maps? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.100.48.54 ( talk) 03:04, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
I am curious of why the section titled 'theism' excludes all mention of Judaism, Islam, theistic Hinduism, Mormonism, Baha'i, etc? And of why the encompassing section titled 'conclusions' excludes all mention of Deism or Pandeism as logically supportable alternatives to the false dichotomy of theism or atheism? DeistCosmos ( talk) 07:56, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
The article is missing a clear statement of the Anthropic argument as a case *against* a deity. The argument can basically be stated from conditional probability. "However improbable the universe might be, we humans would not be around to observe it if it didn't exist. Therefore, we have no 'right' to express surprise about the universe being as it is, and should not infer a divine cause." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.171.29 ( talk) 19:02, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
In my humble opinion this article is very biased towards accepting the view that God does exist. In an article titled "Existence of God" it should also allocate 50% of the discussion to the non-existence of God. Alternatively, it could link to an another page called "The Non-Existence of God". I don't see a link or page.
The list of External Links are all to websites that believe in the existence of God. Again, for an unbiased article 50% of such links should refer to websites that do not believe in God.
This article falls into the conventional pattern of accepting the mainstream and politically correct view of presenting a biased view towards the existence of God. Wikipedia should not be seen biasing itself towards one particular belief or set of opinions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.187.174.42 ( talk) 09:24, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
I agree. Another hint of a bias in that direction to me is that many of the arguments against the existence of God conclude with a sentence about how theists usually refute them, while the arguments for God do not have any mention of atheist refutations. Seems like an unfair asymmetry. -- 89.217.159.179 ( talk) 19:36, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
747 gambit, Atheist's Wager, Evil, Free will, Hell, Inconsistent revelations, Nonbelief, Noncognitivism, Occam's razor, Omnipotence paradox, Poor design, Russell's teapot, so that all concerns are taken care of. Best wishes. 62.16.241.158 ( talk) 06:31, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Under Europeans who believe in God: I protest, I protest! Europeans believe in God just as much as USA with ALL of its former sins! To support Godlessness abroad doesn't make USA any more religious than other parts of the World! Are the numbers politicised? *crying childishly* *buhh...* *buhhh...* Well, well... CNN has had a report on this a while ago and the Princeton professors, 3, they informed us that numbers on religious people in USA do not exist! So how can it be that USA "looks so good now"??? 62.16.241.158 ( talk) 01:04, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Do we really need a paragraph on the thoughts of Stephen Hawking in the lead section? He is a physicist, not a philosopher or theologian, and he is certainly not the most prominent or authoritative commentator on this matter, nor are his thoughts remotely original or influential except in popular culture. -- ✶ ♏ ✶ 02:19, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Arthur Rubin, you have removed content for existence for God, despite it being valuable and "significant information" as this is the possible God from meaning, ethics, description and entailment of Heaven, forcing the opposition to prove "not possible God, logically". I hold you accountable for it! LFOlsnes-Lea 05:11, 25 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LFOlsnes-Lea ( talk • contribs)
Besides, the removal by A. Rubin has taken place, 19:55 (time zone? CEST?), 24 June 2012 and the words have been (not exactly true now as one error has been corrected) under "Arguments for God", "* The argument from the 4 parts of a foundation that's based on meaning, ethics, the necessary entailment of Heaven as personal experience and finally a credible description of God, envisioning a possible God that's non-contradictory to science for remaining so. This leads to a logical possibility for God that defends it from (intellectual) attacks from all non-God beliefs because they fail to prove the (logical) impossibility for God and as such, religious people can remain in the belief of God without bothering with these "disturbances" to their faith (of religion). This defence of God can't be denied and again, it lies there on the internet as NDNID, Non-Dogmatic, i.e., non-doctrinal, New Intelligent Design." I also claim that he has refused "a significant view" to the article, one that people are likely to enjoy a lot because of its power, given that they support objective contributions to the field or that they support a belief in God only. Cheers! LFOlsnes-Lea ( talk) 09:04, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
I'd like to suggest an additional notion and this is that Atheist are by definition not credible toward a discussion of God because they have already left the idea more or less totally! Thus, they don't care if the definition of God looks this or that way. ALL they care for, is to see it removed for good, hence the continuous attacks on Scientology that is a far more tolerant religious system, but is a religion under constant attacks by "nuts", founded in this lunacy or that! LFOlsnes-Lea 17:27, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was closing as moved. The article has already been moved back to its previous title in a non-admin closure; I confirm that this appears to be the consensus in this discussion. Cúchullain t/ c 19:46, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Existence of God(s) → Existence of God – I don't see on this page any indication as to why the article was recently moved from Existence of God to Existence of God(s). Did I miss it, or did such discussion not take place? If it did not take place, which title do the rest of you think the article more clearly belongs at? My own personal choice would be for the old title, because it seems to me the article is ultimately about subjects relating to a creator god, who in almost all cases is regarded as a single individual entity. Thoughts? John Carter ( talk) 17:46, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Per Saedon's suggestion above, i propose a lowercase "G" move to "Existence of god(s)" Pass a Method talk 11:19, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
I am looking for sources for where god exists. Would anyone have a lead on this for content to add to this article? Zulu Papa 5 * ( talk) 01:16, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Where is the heading entitled: Evidence for the existence of God?
I wonder how much dispute and what kinds of disputes there have been among polytheists about divine existence. Do they tend to pantheism/ animism/ nontheism/ something else when such arguments happen? 192.12.88.46 ( talk) 16:48, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
I must say that "The argument from parsimony (using Occam's razor) contends that since natural (non-supernatural) theories adequately explain the development of religion and belief in gods,[44] the actual existence of such supernatural agents is superfluous and may be dismissed unless otherwise proven to be required to explain the phenomenon. Critics consider this argument as a genetic fallacy." is an argument from science, but that science, we now agree, has never contained religion or metaphysics. Thus this reference to Carnap, still holding. -- 109.189.228.88 ( talk) 07:23, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
And hard too, like this one: That is, the quote is: Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington, Field Marshal and all. He says, "Educate men without religion and you make of them but clever devils.". Eh.. quite good or what? LFOlsnes-Lea ( talk) 13:22, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Line 5 has, "In philosophical terms, arguments for and against the existence of God involve primarily the sub-disciplines of epistemology (theory of knowledge) and ontology (nature of god and also the theory of value, since concepts of perfection connected to notions of jordans, tattoos, snapbacks and muniez. The debate concerning the existence of Swag is one of the oldest and most discussed debates in alien history." It's been there through several revisions. I looked at a few of them and didn't find where it was added. Can someone fix it? Thanks.-- Nameshmame ( talk) 12:42, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm looking for a serious discussion on whether these Wikipedia-global criteria are valid for pages like this, or alternately a reference to the grounds on which pages like this have been made exempt from such criteria and others not.
HenrikErlandsson ( talk) 22:29, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
This section just repeats arguments, only putting them in a different wording. Could it be deleted, or at least other religious arguments added to the sections for and against the existence of God? It would make the article more neutral. Oct13 ( talk) 20:05, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
really dumb question but seeing as how this particular article has documented eveidence of vandalism as per a below talk and its single handedly the most controversal topic in the world let alone on wikipedia doesn't it stand to reason to have this particular article locked down to only moderators/admin with verifiable sources only? all you need is one heavy handed scientist/cult leader/aethist or wacko god worshiper* to make it into a pro their campaign article to really bring wikipedia into a negative light.
203.219.85.18 ( talk) 10:12, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
It says "The problem of hell is the idea that eternal damnation for actions committed in a finite existence contradicts God's omnibenevolence or omnipresence.", but the problem of hell forgets that a certain (mental) pathology would have wanted hell to defeat heaven (and God, religiousness) and as such the intentions or intention of the one going to hell is consistent with its (moral) character that certainly has not qualified for heaven. 46.9.42.58 ( talk) 10:01, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
The article says: "Knowledge in the sense of "understanding of a fact or truth" can be divided into a posteriori knowledge, based on experience or deduction (see methodology), and a priori knowledge from introspection, axioms or self-evidence. Knowledge can also be described as a psychological state, since in a strict sense there can never be a posteriori knowledge proper (see relativism)." This is clearly not the case, relativism is an academic standing that's likely to be a plausible loser, as much as you say, Paris of France and know how to get there to, or picking up your specific groceries at the supermarket, all from milk and bread to the ingredients for your dinner, not cabbage, but carrots... fx. 109.189.67.107 ( talk) 20:22, 10 March 2013 (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 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
The article requires that existence be defined to progress. This wiki existence article requires some work. To me, the most relevant definition is "the state or fact of having being especially independently of human consciousness and as contrasted with nonexistence" from [1]. It is self evident that God exists in human consciousness but how god exists independently of consciousness seems to be the subject here. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ ( talk) 16:05, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Should "God" also be defined? Or, can we just link to [ignostic]? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaronwayneodonahue ( talk • contribs) 01:50, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
I do not feel comfortable with just having an atheism group working on this. We need both sides. It's like writing an article about meat with the help of a vegetarian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.68.237.117 ( talk) 11:14, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Atheists are here to make sure that the article doesnt imply that God exists. Portillo ( talk) 07:43, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
"Tipler equates this final singularity and its state of infinite information capacity to God. Tipler proposes reversing the acceleration of the universe by annihilating the baryons in the universe, which he maintains would cancel the positive cosmological constant, thereby allowing the universe to collapse."
This whole section sounds like fringe pseudo-science to me. Does it really have any mainstream support other then in science fiction? Does it really belong with the otherwise extremely well known and debated arguments already listed?
The section saying he "proposes reversing the acceleration of the universe by annihilating the baryons in the universe" is completely unfounded and speculative.
I propose removing the entire Omega Point dot point.
I would be happy seeing it relegated to a "See Also" link at the bottom of the page. Bmgoau ( talk) 14:41, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Do you like that nice, long title that probably won't make sense until I explain it, but that will make perfect sense as soon as I'm done? Right now, we only classify arguments here as according to their basis (empirical, deductive, inductive, or subjective), rather than on what the argument is trying to accomplish, which is also very important to consider. Whereas some arguments are truly arguments against the existence of God (eg. the Omnipotence Paradox), others are arguments about who bears the burden of proof (eg. the Russel's Teapot), and yet others are counter-arguments to arguments presented by those in favour God (eg. the Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit). While the current classification (empirical, deductive, inductive, or subjective) is quite cozy and nice, it's much less relevant for those sorting through various arguments than a system that actually considers what the arguer was trying to propose. Just saying.
I suggest that Pascal's Wager be moved from "Arguments grounded in personal experiences" to "Arguments from historical events or personages", as, although he had a religious experience, his argument is not based on that. Darkman101 ( talk) 08:37, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Blaise Pascal (1623–1662), a French philosopher, mathematician, and co-inventor of the probability calculus, offered a well-known prudential argument for God's existence, often called the Wager Argument.
You are arguing against the atheist-existentialists that used a perfect "sentient" being with "existence precedes essence", from Sartre. But Sartre didn't mention "sentient" nor anything like the meaning of the term. And then, that "existence precedes essence" is a contradiction in terms, because God cannot be "consciousness" (your definition) and "a thing" (idem).
To suggest that Sartre's famous quotation is a contradiction in terms, you have to make it better; using Sartre's context, without the assumption of "sentient" nor your definition for "consciousness" and "a thing". Otherwise, I think you should delete that part. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.61.13.249 ( talk) 12:25, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Should this section be properly called 'Existence of Gods'?
The use of the singular presupposes that there is but one, rather than many (or none).
Most folk who have ever lived were probably pantheists.
How would a man from Mars sent to Earth to research this subject write about it? Or what would an (hypothetical)academically-minded individual from Earth who had never previously encountered religion make of it all? Would it not strike them as odd that those who now believe in 'God' are happy to disbelieve in 99.9% of the gods most people have worshipped throughout human history?
Would the man from Mars report back that there are billions of people on Earth who believe in the existence of a sort of invisible celestial tooth fairy, and would he have a good laugh with his friends at the bizarre, outlandish things primitive aliens believe and argue about?
My point of course is simply to pose the question: 'is this article objective enough?' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.5.20.25 ( talk) 15:09, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
So it presupposes that the reader understands what is meant by capitalised "god"? This seems weird to me. The capitalisation suggests it is a proper noun rather than a descriptor, which readers make presumptions about which may indeed be unfounded. The lede might be more specific about the breadth of the name I suppose. 137.111.13.200 ( talk) 03:55, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
I noticed a section titled "Hindu arguments". The article doesnot posses a section for Christian or Muslim arguments. I concur with that since this article aint Existence of God and religion. My opinion is that the section be removed. I thought of gaining a consensus before i remove an entire section. Arjun codename024 14:06, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
ps. "Outside of Western thought" already deals with some Hindu arguments. Arjun codename024 14:07, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
hi. I was wondering if this argument on the existence of God has been used before. if so, it should go into the article. Essentially, it is this: assuming that there is no physical evidence for God, then a priori we must go through all possibilities for such a being. Thus, God could be any one of an infinite number of possibilities. God could be a: rabbit, dog, insane, one being, many beings, etc. etc. etc. My point is that you don't need to look at many of these possibilities to realize that they are completely irreconcilable with any held by any human deistic religion. Thoughts? BFBbrown (talk) 21:08, 5 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bfbbrown ( talk • contribs)
"Essentially, it is this: assuming that there is no physical evidence for God, then a priori we must go through all possibilities for such a being. Thus, God could be any one of an infinite number of possibilities. God could be a: rabbit, dog, insane, one being, many beings, etc. etc. etc. My point is that you don't need to look at many of these possibilities to realize that they are completely irreconcilable with any held by any human deistic religion. Thoughts?"
I have the idea that the universe is the evidence for the existence of God Whom I define as the creator of everything in the universe and the universe itself.
The universe exists and it is certainly the evidence for a lot of things, thus we need not do away with evidence for God in the fact of the existence of the universe; I mean that there is no reason to do away with evidence for the existence of God, unless you want to do away with the universe; in which case then once you want to assume that there is no universe, you have to stop talking already, since you already consign yourself to nothingness in assuming that the universe does not exist.
Perhaps you might want to consider that the universe is just the size of the nose and even the nose [all in assumption only for the sake of a mental experiment] in the face of man is itself the universe, then you might consider that man is the creator of his nose.
Thus on this analogy which is reasonable we humans existing collectively as man can and does see it to be reasonable that a being I call God in concept the creator of everything in the universe and the universe itself, that concept of God has a corresponding entity in objective reality, namely, the existence of God.
Hope you can see that the knowledge of God's existence is reasonable and any man exercising his reason can and does come to the knowledge of the existence of God as the creator of everything in the universe and also of the universe itself.
[This edit from Pachomius2000, 011312 Fri 0716 hours, 8 hours in advance of Greenwich] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pachomius2000 ( talk • contribs) 23:16, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
My particular point, which seems obvious to me, is this: The possibilities I mentioned are mutually exclusive. It seems impossible to me that a notable philosopher, scientist, or pertinent individual has not made such an obvious observation. If such a comment has been made, then it should be mentioned somewhere in the article (and referenced, of course). BFBbrown ( talk) 02:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
In Christianity and Judaism, it is usual to capitalize God, whereas when referring to other religion one refers to god(s) (lower case). Since this is supposed to be an article about the Existence of a superior being, I submit that all references should be lower cased to "god" or "gods" in order to be religion un-specific. I also submit that the name of the article should be changed to "Existence of god or gods". -- Tim Sabin ( talk) 03:52, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
It's based on the problem of cousciousness as the "one" "thing" "as a whole" that receives information from the brain, what enlgish people usually call awareness. (in french, "la conscience" is the same word for cousciousness and awareness). Basically, there's no need to find who was the first conscient beeing, as cousciousness could not be invented by a non-conscious beeing due to it's inability to calculate and create by itself (beeig uncouscious). It's rather logical to invent uncousciousness out of cousciousness. Wich means... the creator had to be counscious. My argument is always true. God didn't invent cousciousness.... if he at all invented unawareness, it means he knows everything and is aware of everything cause he himself can't be unaware. I will repeat that...
"No intelligence", "can't create intelligence", "Intelligence", "Can create non intelligence." So everything comes from perfection, and whatever the name you call it. I call that God.
My name is Maxim Gravel, and it basically means the greatest god on earth. ^^ I am my own source, but If you tell me to write a book... well i'm just gonna put a video on youtube and it's gonna be relevant... will it justify anything more? If you tell me i'm not known... Well I'll be. Peace —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.165.196.237 ( talk) 11:35, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi Maxim Gravel, your name means "the greatest god on earth," why the lower case for God?
Basically I see your proof for the existence of God which I define as the creator of everything in the universe the one we are living in and are parts of, consists in interpolating from man, thus:
Man is conscious, intelligent, and produces things, but man has not always been around in the universe; so there is a being greater than man, more conscious, more intelligent, and more productive than man, and this greater or greatest being created man and everything in the universe where man lives in and is a part of.
And I call that entity, God, the creator of everything in the universe where man lives in and is a part of, it is the universe the one where man is living in and to man is the observable universe, this universe is also created by God -- but of course the universe is much much much greater than the part that is observable to man.
I see your proof to be reasonable and already complete for humans who are reasonable -- as being reasonable is the normal condition of man, being unreasonable is the abnormal condition of man.
The thing with humans who want to know more about God aside from knowing that He exists, is how God created and still creates everything, and keeps them existing and also manages them continuously, in a way that for man, man can still exercise his liberty to be normal or to be abnormal, i.e. unreasonable: for being and acting reasonable is the normal condition of man, and thus he cannot otherwise than come to the knowledge of God's existence, being and acting unreasonable that is the abnormal condition of man which man will adopt in order to suppress the knowledge of God's existence in his heart and mind, suppress by being and acting unreasonable, i.e. which is an abnormal condition.
[This edit from Pachomius2000, 011312 Fri 0651 hours, 8 hours in advance of Greenwich] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pachomius2000 ( talk • contribs) 22:45, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Richard Dawkins is most certainly not a "strong" atheist. He could hardly be explicit in The God Delusion that God "almost certainly" does not exist. This is quite different from asserting that God does not exist. (For Dawkins, the issue is epistemological rather than metaphysical, which is precisely why he's a "weak" atheist.) Ptorr ( talk) 00:56, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
The man does not know the distinction between God and religion, and that is because he has a grudge or several against religion, but he conflates God with religion; That goes to show that owing to his grudges against religion he cannot think anymore straight as to be reasonable thus to know that reason dictates man to come to the knowledge of God's existence, whose concept for me is creator of everything in the universe and the universe itself. [This edit from Pachomius2000] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pachomius2000 ( talk • contribs) 22:49, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Can we put a citation or at least a year on the maps? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.100.48.54 ( talk) 03:04, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
I am curious of why the section titled 'theism' excludes all mention of Judaism, Islam, theistic Hinduism, Mormonism, Baha'i, etc? And of why the encompassing section titled 'conclusions' excludes all mention of Deism or Pandeism as logically supportable alternatives to the false dichotomy of theism or atheism? DeistCosmos ( talk) 07:56, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
The article is missing a clear statement of the Anthropic argument as a case *against* a deity. The argument can basically be stated from conditional probability. "However improbable the universe might be, we humans would not be around to observe it if it didn't exist. Therefore, we have no 'right' to express surprise about the universe being as it is, and should not infer a divine cause." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.171.29 ( talk) 19:02, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
In my humble opinion this article is very biased towards accepting the view that God does exist. In an article titled "Existence of God" it should also allocate 50% of the discussion to the non-existence of God. Alternatively, it could link to an another page called "The Non-Existence of God". I don't see a link or page.
The list of External Links are all to websites that believe in the existence of God. Again, for an unbiased article 50% of such links should refer to websites that do not believe in God.
This article falls into the conventional pattern of accepting the mainstream and politically correct view of presenting a biased view towards the existence of God. Wikipedia should not be seen biasing itself towards one particular belief or set of opinions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.187.174.42 ( talk) 09:24, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
I agree. Another hint of a bias in that direction to me is that many of the arguments against the existence of God conclude with a sentence about how theists usually refute them, while the arguments for God do not have any mention of atheist refutations. Seems like an unfair asymmetry. -- 89.217.159.179 ( talk) 19:36, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
747 gambit, Atheist's Wager, Evil, Free will, Hell, Inconsistent revelations, Nonbelief, Noncognitivism, Occam's razor, Omnipotence paradox, Poor design, Russell's teapot, so that all concerns are taken care of. Best wishes. 62.16.241.158 ( talk) 06:31, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Under Europeans who believe in God: I protest, I protest! Europeans believe in God just as much as USA with ALL of its former sins! To support Godlessness abroad doesn't make USA any more religious than other parts of the World! Are the numbers politicised? *crying childishly* *buhh...* *buhhh...* Well, well... CNN has had a report on this a while ago and the Princeton professors, 3, they informed us that numbers on religious people in USA do not exist! So how can it be that USA "looks so good now"??? 62.16.241.158 ( talk) 01:04, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Do we really need a paragraph on the thoughts of Stephen Hawking in the lead section? He is a physicist, not a philosopher or theologian, and he is certainly not the most prominent or authoritative commentator on this matter, nor are his thoughts remotely original or influential except in popular culture. -- ✶ ♏ ✶ 02:19, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Arthur Rubin, you have removed content for existence for God, despite it being valuable and "significant information" as this is the possible God from meaning, ethics, description and entailment of Heaven, forcing the opposition to prove "not possible God, logically". I hold you accountable for it! LFOlsnes-Lea 05:11, 25 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LFOlsnes-Lea ( talk • contribs)
Besides, the removal by A. Rubin has taken place, 19:55 (time zone? CEST?), 24 June 2012 and the words have been (not exactly true now as one error has been corrected) under "Arguments for God", "* The argument from the 4 parts of a foundation that's based on meaning, ethics, the necessary entailment of Heaven as personal experience and finally a credible description of God, envisioning a possible God that's non-contradictory to science for remaining so. This leads to a logical possibility for God that defends it from (intellectual) attacks from all non-God beliefs because they fail to prove the (logical) impossibility for God and as such, religious people can remain in the belief of God without bothering with these "disturbances" to their faith (of religion). This defence of God can't be denied and again, it lies there on the internet as NDNID, Non-Dogmatic, i.e., non-doctrinal, New Intelligent Design." I also claim that he has refused "a significant view" to the article, one that people are likely to enjoy a lot because of its power, given that they support objective contributions to the field or that they support a belief in God only. Cheers! LFOlsnes-Lea ( talk) 09:04, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
I'd like to suggest an additional notion and this is that Atheist are by definition not credible toward a discussion of God because they have already left the idea more or less totally! Thus, they don't care if the definition of God looks this or that way. ALL they care for, is to see it removed for good, hence the continuous attacks on Scientology that is a far more tolerant religious system, but is a religion under constant attacks by "nuts", founded in this lunacy or that! LFOlsnes-Lea 17:27, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was closing as moved. The article has already been moved back to its previous title in a non-admin closure; I confirm that this appears to be the consensus in this discussion. Cúchullain t/ c 19:46, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Existence of God(s) → Existence of God – I don't see on this page any indication as to why the article was recently moved from Existence of God to Existence of God(s). Did I miss it, or did such discussion not take place? If it did not take place, which title do the rest of you think the article more clearly belongs at? My own personal choice would be for the old title, because it seems to me the article is ultimately about subjects relating to a creator god, who in almost all cases is regarded as a single individual entity. Thoughts? John Carter ( talk) 17:46, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Per Saedon's suggestion above, i propose a lowercase "G" move to "Existence of god(s)" Pass a Method talk 11:19, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
I am looking for sources for where god exists. Would anyone have a lead on this for content to add to this article? Zulu Papa 5 * ( talk) 01:16, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Where is the heading entitled: Evidence for the existence of God?
I wonder how much dispute and what kinds of disputes there have been among polytheists about divine existence. Do they tend to pantheism/ animism/ nontheism/ something else when such arguments happen? 192.12.88.46 ( talk) 16:48, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
I must say that "The argument from parsimony (using Occam's razor) contends that since natural (non-supernatural) theories adequately explain the development of religion and belief in gods,[44] the actual existence of such supernatural agents is superfluous and may be dismissed unless otherwise proven to be required to explain the phenomenon. Critics consider this argument as a genetic fallacy." is an argument from science, but that science, we now agree, has never contained religion or metaphysics. Thus this reference to Carnap, still holding. -- 109.189.228.88 ( talk) 07:23, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
And hard too, like this one: That is, the quote is: Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington, Field Marshal and all. He says, "Educate men without religion and you make of them but clever devils.". Eh.. quite good or what? LFOlsnes-Lea ( talk) 13:22, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Line 5 has, "In philosophical terms, arguments for and against the existence of God involve primarily the sub-disciplines of epistemology (theory of knowledge) and ontology (nature of god and also the theory of value, since concepts of perfection connected to notions of jordans, tattoos, snapbacks and muniez. The debate concerning the existence of Swag is one of the oldest and most discussed debates in alien history." It's been there through several revisions. I looked at a few of them and didn't find where it was added. Can someone fix it? Thanks.-- Nameshmame ( talk) 12:42, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm looking for a serious discussion on whether these Wikipedia-global criteria are valid for pages like this, or alternately a reference to the grounds on which pages like this have been made exempt from such criteria and others not.
HenrikErlandsson ( talk) 22:29, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
This section just repeats arguments, only putting them in a different wording. Could it be deleted, or at least other religious arguments added to the sections for and against the existence of God? It would make the article more neutral. Oct13 ( talk) 20:05, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
really dumb question but seeing as how this particular article has documented eveidence of vandalism as per a below talk and its single handedly the most controversal topic in the world let alone on wikipedia doesn't it stand to reason to have this particular article locked down to only moderators/admin with verifiable sources only? all you need is one heavy handed scientist/cult leader/aethist or wacko god worshiper* to make it into a pro their campaign article to really bring wikipedia into a negative light.
203.219.85.18 ( talk) 10:12, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
It says "The problem of hell is the idea that eternal damnation for actions committed in a finite existence contradicts God's omnibenevolence or omnipresence.", but the problem of hell forgets that a certain (mental) pathology would have wanted hell to defeat heaven (and God, religiousness) and as such the intentions or intention of the one going to hell is consistent with its (moral) character that certainly has not qualified for heaven. 46.9.42.58 ( talk) 10:01, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
The article says: "Knowledge in the sense of "understanding of a fact or truth" can be divided into a posteriori knowledge, based on experience or deduction (see methodology), and a priori knowledge from introspection, axioms or self-evidence. Knowledge can also be described as a psychological state, since in a strict sense there can never be a posteriori knowledge proper (see relativism)." This is clearly not the case, relativism is an academic standing that's likely to be a plausible loser, as much as you say, Paris of France and know how to get there to, or picking up your specific groceries at the supermarket, all from milk and bread to the ingredients for your dinner, not cabbage, but carrots... fx. 109.189.67.107 ( talk) 20:22, 10 March 2013 (UTC)