![]() | 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 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
Confirmation of phantom feelings as Descartes has described them far back, now that these feelings can be made stronger in terms of science by detecting contextual patterns in the brain (fMRI) connected to the very impressions by the one who has these phantom feelings.
Of course, the counter argument by the Atheists is likewise, "all fantasy, knee-jerk" generic feelings of pre-amputation feelings", but the Religious side can say along with all the rest, telepathy, "priest stories" and the Van Lommel studies. As put before, the Atheists are losing ground for good. Cheers! 109.189.67.107 ( talk) 19:00, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
The conditional ESP by telepathy, now that the standing on telepathy is still a bit unconfirmed, must be considered pro-God, in defeating the former anti-ESP-anti-God arguments.
That is, the religious win further (intellectual) ground in saying this: if telepathy exists then the credibility pro-God increases, also because Atheists are to increasing degrees found to be WRONG! This is uttered also in relating to any culture of lying among the people with the opposition, i.e., the con-God Atheists.
The argument goes, of course, by standard Modus Ponens: if telepathy then credibility for God, telepathy, conclusion: (necessary/more possible) God. I also like to refer you to former notions of ESP and God discussion. Cheers! 46.9.42.58 ( talk) 14:59, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Modus Ponens | Modus Tollens | Modus 109.189.67.107 (10 March) | |
---|---|---|---|
Premise | P → Q | P → Q | ¬P → probably ¬Q (but maybe Q) |
Premise | P | ¬Q | P |
Conclusion | Q | ¬P | * Q |
Modus Tollens | |
---|---|
Premise | P → Q |
Premise | ¬Q |
Conclusion | ¬P |
Modus Tollens further | |
---|---|
Premise | (entity ¬P) → (entity ¬Q) |
Premise | ¬(entity ¬Q) |
Conclusion | ¬(entity ¬P) |
Modus Tollens at last | |
---|---|
Premise | ¬P → ¬Q |
Premise | Q - by double negation |
Conclusion | P - by double negation |
Modus Tollens | Your Defective Modus Tollens | |
---|---|---|
Premise | P → Q | P → (Q ∨ ¬Q) |
Premise | ¬Q | ¬Q |
Conclusion | ¬P | * ¬P |
So, returning to your initial syllogism, “if telepathy then credibility for God” is a non sequitur (like I pointed out in my first reply), since existence of telepathy and existence of God are independent propositions. Since both premises were false, your initial modus ponens argument was unsound. ~ Röbin Liönheart ( talk) 12:26, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Your objection is (only) noted, Robin Lionheart.
Then the real target, sorry for being blunt and outright on "qualifying" the literature here:
1. Window To God: A Physicians Spiritual Pilgrimage -
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Window-God-Physicians-Spiritual-Pilgrimage/dp/0876045069/ .
2. The God Within Me -
http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-God-Within-Me-ebook/dp/B0042JT0I8 .
3. God : Using Psychic Ability to Find Him (How to Find God Within You) -
http://www.amazon.co.uk/God-Psychic-Ability-Within-ebook/dp/B003FMUUW8 .
4. Being Mystic: In Touch with God -
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Being-Mystic-In-Touch-God/dp/1846945283 .
5. Jose Silva's Everyday ESP: Use Your Mental Powers to Succeed in Every Aspect of Your Life -
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Jose-Silvas-Everyday-ESP-Succeed/dp/156414951X (uncertain relevance to the ESP and God).
6. Christian Prophecy: The Spiritual Gift of Psychic Ability -
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Christian-Prophecy-Spiritual-Psychic-ebook/dp/B004VF68K6 .
7. Could It Be ESP - Subt. "Thank God for the Country" -
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Could-It-Be-ESP/dp/B006P84YXA , only a song by a country-singer, probably irrelevant, but the artist may tell a story or two.
I hope you, the readers, the users, of Wikipedia find good use by this list. Cheers!
109.189.67.107 (
talk)
17:14, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
As a telepath, I find this argument unconvincing. But I will not use my ESP to melt your brain, because maybe we're all simply part of one whole, and so I would only be melting my own brain. Ergo, Pandeism. DeistCosmos ( talk) 02:44, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
There seems to be a problem with the article in the sense that when I take the opportunity in contributing to it by using the "Edit"-option displayed to me, some of the text to edit simply isn't there... What is going on? Thanks. 95.34.121.134 ( talk) 00:27, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
What do the fellow editors think about this:
This section is related to the section "Coincidences".
The logic chain is following: We have to find a starting point of everything and follow the line from that point till your existence looking at the statistical probability of such an event (your existence).
Starting point: There are two possible ways of everything (including God) to exist. Is either to be created or to be existed eternally. The first one will always raise legitimate questions:
These two questions are unanswerable, and considering that "nothing" is also "something", the second question is actually highlighting the fact that "something" has been eternally.
Our minds fail to understand how something can be eternal, but we have to accept it as a fact that results from the reasoning written above.
Now, lets move on and establish some background. Lets assume for a moment that we exist in eternal unlimited world without God. (Eternal world will include unlimited in space as well, as what can be outside of the limited space? Nothing? But nothing is something, so the same logic applies.) That means there are infinite chances for everything to happen. Lets try to apply this idea to the scientific observations of our solar system, our galaxy and our universe. So far we haven't detected any extra-terrestrial life in our proximity and haven't detected any intelligent life in our universe that would for example emit intelligent radio signals. So it seems that there isn't abundance of different forms of life on different planets and it could be possible that we are the only one. This is the first line of reasoning.
(I'll continue writing it soon). Ryanspir ( talk) 14:18, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
My understanding is that the custom of capitalising the word god is very much a Christian thing. Maybe Jewish as well. (I'm no expert on that front.) Did the ancient Greeks REALLY debate a god with a capital G? Or is this article showing a (poorly) hidden Christian bias? Otherwise, why the capital G throughout this article? HiLo48 ( talk) 11:26, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
As Universe (meta) is without bounds there should be existence of everything, including God. This statement is based on the fact that universe, our world is without bounds. The logic is simple, if the world would have bounds, what would be behind those bounds? Nothing? Noithing is something. And how those bounds would look like?
Since the Universe is infinite, everything will exist, including God. This conclusion also predisposes extra-terrestrial life, angels, ghosts, everything that we can and cannot imagine. However here is a twist, if God's will for something not to exist, it won't exist.
I would also assume, that if we are living in eternal, infinite world without God we would be surrounded by extra-terrestrial life. Why? Because prior to appearance of the life on Earth, there would be infinite time for life's creation all around the infinite space of the world. These forms of life would have infinite time to mature, advance and then to travel and migrate around the world. Ryanspir ( talk) 14:38, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
I have gave some thoughts to the previous section and decided to refine it. Here is an astonishing result.
Let's assume that we are living in a world without God. Because we have no Creator in this case, there is no first cause, so nobody has created our world and thus no point of creation. Our world is infinite, because what could possible be outside of the borders of our world? Nothing? But nothing is something. Thus our world is eternal referring to time and infinite referring to space.
Since we are existing, we can be absolutely sure, that under some circumstances life can be created. Since our world is eternal and infinite, there are infinite number of extra-terrestrial lifeforms that would come to exist because those circumstances would be repeated infinite number of times.
The extra-terrestrial lifeforms would have infinite time to mature and advance. There would be infinite number of them that would decide to migrate to other planets, galaxies and universes. Having infinite number of lifeforms migrating for infinite period of time would result in huge number of lifeforms eventually reaching our planet. We would be surrounded by extra-terrestrial life.
However, that is not happening. We haven't clearly seen even one alien, and we are absolutely not being surrounded by them, neither we have observed their existence using our scientific tools, including space telescopes.
The only logical reason is the Existence of God. This is the only clear possible cause. Thus we are logically being proven in the Existence of God. Ryanspir ( talk) 14:48, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Because we have no Creator in this case, there is no first cause, so nobody has created our world and thus no point of creation.
First of all, thank you for reviewing and criticizing my reasoning.
Let me clarify, that if we consider a universe to what came from the big bang, i refer by 'our world' to the meta universe. I assume you agree that its infinite and eternal? If you disagree please provide any reasoning of how the meta universe could have a beginning without creator, what was before creation, thats about eternal. If you disagree with that its infinite, please give any reasoning, and say at what point the border would appear, how it would look like, and more importantly, what would be beyond the border. (Quoted from my talk page.)
Since we are existing, we can be absolutely sure, that under some circumstances life can be created. Since our world is eternal and infinite, there are infinite number of extra-terrestrial lifeforms that would come to exist because those circumstances would be repeated infinite number of times.
The extra-terrestrial lifeforms would have infinite time to mature and advance. There would be infinite number of them that would decide to migrate to other planets, galaxies and universes. Having infinite number of lifeforms migrating for infinite period of time would result in huge number of lifeforms eventually reaching our planet. We would be surrounded by extra-terrestrial life.
Hmmmm.... Now, where have I heard this exact argument before? Oh yeah, Pandeism makes this argument, for it supports a Deistic (not Theistic) theological model. DeistCosmos ( talk) 17:47, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
The Privacy Argument
- nothing new from the Atheists
The Rejection of the Cardinal Sins
- that the sinful life seems repulsive and that religious ponderings seem much more engaging
Non-Dogmatic New Intelligent Design
- that NDNID defends God as possibility and that Atheism fails to prove, also with logical soundness, the impossibility for God
The ESP-God Debate
- now that, by telepathy, that we have God by our foreheads and Atheism seems more wrong than ever before, then why Atheism at all? Because the contention has been earlier that if telepathy is "realizable" then (necessarily/more conceivably) God, even by themselves
The Descartes' Phantom Feelings
- that if Descartes' description of feelings can be proven then God "more", that once again, the consistent pattern by the amputee's brain proves the Atheists wrong once more and by this fantastic revelation, that God exists also by this notion
The Van Lommel Studies
- that Van Lommel by his work has shown that the existence of the soul is a possible description for people's (common) ability to win over death and that, therefore, God "more" yet another time
Do we get it up? (Atheists to Mystics and Religions are cool after all?) ;-)
Cheers!
46.9.254.15 (
talk)
05:41, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Note: as before, ESP → More Credible God, ESP (Telepathy, not...) - Concl.: More Credible God. Standard Modus Ponens. Good? 109.189.66.179 ( talk) 13:10, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
The consequence by invoking "The Problem of Evil" as an argument doesn't mean that religions go away. No, it makes it a duty for the "Atheist" to improve the World by becoming a Humanist and from this position to prove that Humanism serves humanity "much better than any religion can do". Obviously, this is implausible to start with, also with "Atheist" Humanism being so young as life view, as life philosophy!
Note: The Problem of Evil can't justify an active Agenda of Evil simply because this destroys the entire civilisation no less than the very nukes! Conclusion: Atheism with Sociobiology is still out from the universities.
82.164.5.154 (
talk)
19:49, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
One has to ask if Nature has a ground for its existence. The question of God is greater than whether ideals exist or not. Kantian philosophy came to the conclusion that we cannot know the ultimate nature of reality since there are limits to perception. Modern quantum mechanics adopts a similar position with theories about observations being given a probabilistic interpretation. One can contrast the perspective of ancient philosophers who treated perception as a projection by the observer of qualities onto the objects ( projectivism). The appearance of the Earth (ground) played an important role in creation myths of ancient Egypt and Babylon. -- Jbergquist ( talk) 04:49, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
1. The section is dominated by Hinman's book - an obvious attempt at marketing. 2. All philosophy rests on rational warrant, it's not unique to theism, and by claiming rational warrant, it simply leapfrogs over the entire question and claims rational warrant. 3. No mention of Plantinga? An actual philosopher who has a serious book on the subject, titled Warrant? 4. "Rational Warrant" isn't a thing. It's "Warrant" full stop. By what other measure would a belief be warranted in believing? Irrational warrant? This is only used by theologians trying to wedge in rationality into something that can't be rationalized. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barnesen ( talk • contribs) 15:09, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
These two seems to be the same thing, reading from the article. I think it should either be made clearer what the two different mean or remove agnostic atheism, since I think you get the impression that they are the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.69.50.244 ( talk) 21:03, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Thats a wrong question. God doesn't belong to anyone or to any religion. It seems that you are assuming that God needs to belong to a religion. However, He is above religions. Ryanspir ( talk) 18:02, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
This article confounds the problem of evil with the problem of suffering. The problem of evil is can be straightforwardly explained by appeal to free will. The problem of suffering that isn't caused by free will - e.g. due to disease - is much harder to deal with. In my opinion, the article under question should distinguish between these (distinct!) problems, the "problem of evil" article should be shortened considerably, and a new "problem of suffering" article should be created. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.96.67.93 ( talk) 21:45, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Existence of God. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 09:46, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
[ William S. Hatcher demonstration] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.245.16.100 ( talk) 12:26, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Currently the Theism part of the conclusions section does not match the other sections in the Conclusion section. The other sections briefly describe what the conclusion is (in many varieties such as weak atheism, strong atheism, agnosticism, etc.). The Theism section is much more wordy and mentions arguments. The arguments should stay in the argument section, not the Conclusions section.
I think it is clear that the Theism part of the Conclusions section should list the variety of theist conclusions, like monotheism, pantheism, polytheism. But also Deism needs to be in the Conclusion section somewhere, this article isn't "existence of theistic gods" it is "existence of god" which can include non-theistic gods such as a deistic god. BrianPansky ( talk) 05:39, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Some of these counter arguments should at the very least be moved to a different section. In many cases it doesn't make sense to classify such arguments as a deductive proof that god does or does not exist (this would be committing the fallacy fallacy), we can only classify them (at best) as arguments which deductively prove that the opponent's argument is flawed. I would suggest either having a separate section for these kinds of counter arguments, or else only list counter arguments next to the arguments that they counter. BrianPansky ( talk) 21:40, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Exploring the idea of using history, such as Rome's use of Religion, Bible quotes, and the Canaan language and religion to offer not logic, but historical hypothesis for God. No logic required. What will pass muster? GESICC ( talk) 22:32, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
There are many problems with this article that I've found on reading it.
For one, basic philosophical facts are mistakenly worded and just plain wrong, for example, Aquinas' five-ways arguments being presented under the heading of 'Empirical arguments', when they are in fact deductive. Also, the general absurdity of this article as it delves into a plurality of isolated and obscure 'views' with no clear relevance to the problem at hand.
A reader of this article should expect an analytic, encyclopedic understanding of the problem at hand, how it relates to other problems and many approaches which have been taken to the issue.
What they are presented with, however, is an article which has an overwhelming bias towards atheist arguments that are simply bad in and of themselves, most of them resorting to the basic condition of 'not enough empirical proof'. This article is so thoroughly, jarringly novice that a first reader is justified in simply laughing and closing the tab. Due to the philosophical nature of the problem, much more work is needed from that portal, as what we have at the moment is seemingly just an echo chamber for atheist teenagers rather than anyone who actually has any training or knowledge of the subject, and way too much time to stare at their watchlists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muradgalena ( talk • contribs) 15:20, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
“A plurality of positions have been taken to this question, differing on epistemological as well as theological-metaphysical positions, for instance, fideism acknowledges that belief in the existence of God may not be amenable to demonstration or refutation (by empirical means), but is taken on faith alone.” and “Since such beliefs are metaphysical in nature (outside the scope of the senses), and hence one outside any empirical verification, the existence of God is subject to lively debate in the philosophy of religion, popular culture, and philosophy” Please double check that your edits actually make sense. Theroadislong ( talk) 15:25, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
If this makes no sense to you then I recommend you migrate to the Simple English wiki. Muradgalena ( talk) 15:28, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
'Since such beliefs are metaphysical in nature (outside the scope of the senses), and hence one outside any empirical verification, the existence of God is subject to lively debate in the philosophy of religion, popular culture, and philosophy' Sentence is grammatical incorrect. 'A plurality of positions have been taken to this question, differing on epistemological as well as theological-metaphysical positions, for instance, fideism acknowledges that belief in the existence of God may not be amenable to demonstration or refutation (by empirical means), but is taken on faith alone.' This sentence is grammatically incorrect. It is also overly long making it difficult to follow the exact meaning. For a lay reader they shouldn't have to re-read each sentence a number of times. 'The Catholic Church maintains that knowledge of the existence of God is the "natural light of human reason". Catechism of the Catholic Church, Paragraph 47; cf. Canons of the First Vatican Council, 2:2, endorsing St. Thomas Aquinas' 'four ways' theodicy, and his theology in particular as doctrine, whereas atheists deny the existence of god on a priori grounds, rejecting argumentation for the existence of God as illegitimate and inadequate for the belief in a supernatural deity.' Again an overly long sentence mixing support for God's existence with the belief of Atheists. These two points should be separate sentences. 'One of the main areas of contention for any argument for or against the existence of god is the problems that arise when attempting to conceive of god, an entity which is universally posited as a transcendent and ultimate being, and hence resisting human categories and thus also the epistemic limitations that these necessarily involve'. Grammatically incorrect and needs a citation to support the 'main claim' part of the section not just an example from Kant (although this example is good because of his status in philosophy). It is not that I, or any other editors, think the current article does not need editing - it does - but any changes should improve the article, not add to its issues. A rewrite of your material would sort out these problems. And finally it is really not acceptable to state that another editor should switch to reading a Simple English version of the article because they object to your edit. Robynthehode ( talk) 07:18, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Is there any reliable source that proves the existence of God via mathematics (and/or probability theory)?
I'll try give a few examples: For example a person takes a coin and throws it 100 times in the air, each time saying: head or tails, for tails being God exists and for head means doesn't. Suppose 100 hundred times in a row the coin will show tail, much beyond 50/50 chance, should it be considered as a prove that God exist?
Next example, let's say a person throws the coin for another matter(s), and the coin consistently shows him an intelligent way of how to act defeating any normal probability patterns.
These two examples are not to be discussed, they are merely to demonstrate a point of view. However, the talk page is not to be used for a discussion, and so, my question is: are there any reliable sources that are trying to prove God's existence via mathematics and/or probability theory? Broadly speaking, when anything happens in the Universe that wouldn't be happening would there be no intelligent force whom we call God - it should be proving His existence. Dmatteng ( talk) 09:05, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
@ Isambard Kingdom: thanks for noticing that (as I indicated in my edit summary) that "mathematecian" was a typo. Not sure why Gonzales_John failed to notice that. That being said, I completely agree that titles [such as "mathematician" or "philosopher" are not used in this section, which was the other point of my edit, which I have reimposed. It's unnecessary to note (and previous text in the section does in fact not note) that Plato, Aristotle, Anselm, ibn Rushd, and Aquinas were also philosophers, hence it's certainly unnecessary to pigeonhole Descartes, who was also a mathematician, scientist, and soldier (his first profession). Tlroche ( talk) 16:46, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
an attempt to add a minor edit to this article was undone in a mere three minutes after my original attempt. the reason given by the person who took this action was a three minute determination that it was spam and someone's favorite book. i believe this was in error. I resubmitted the edit and made the point that it would have been impossible to declare this as spam without reading the book or refuting the inductive proof, neither of which were done. this one was then undone yet again as unexplained material, not integrated into article as well as spam, however hedged. i believe this is in error also. the minor edit is explained as another example of an inductive proof but different from the others in that it is a more recent one than the others that are listed. The nature of this inductive proof is explained as well as any of the other inductive proofs in the first bullet item. i happen to think it is worthwhile to show readers that not all existence of god proofs are over 100 years old and that indeed this is not just a topic of historical interest. To the point that it is not integrated into the article, there would be no better place than to include it as an additional bullet under inductive arguments. It is a minor edit and not meant to take up a lot of real estate. It was added to show that there is ongoing work being done on this topic, published work at that. And in fact, inductive arguments is the only topic in this article that has bullets with a single bullet item, Based on symmetry and contrast to the other bullet, it is the perfect place. I see no basis to definitively call this spam or to state that it appears to be spam. A reference was supplied and the reference indeed includes as perhaps the major element of the work an inductive proof of the existence of god. It is as reliable as an inductive proof can get, and a strong one on the measurement scale for inductivity.
Additionally and even more to the point, I believe that this small edit satisfies the three main article policies outlined by Wikipedia.
No original research: "The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. By "exists", the community means that the reliable source must have been published and still exist—somewhere in the world, in any language, whether or not it is reachable online—even if no source is currently named in the article. Articles that currently name zero references of any type may be fully compliant with this policy—so long as there is a reasonable expectation that every bit of material is supported by a published, reliable source. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources."
Neutral Point of View: "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." This small edit does not upset the balanced view within the entire article concerning the existence of god. It merely identifies an additional inductive reasoning proof from modern times and strengthens that segment of the article, which lacks enough mention to inductive proof compared with other parts of the article.
Verifiability: I"n Wikipedia, verifiability means that anyone using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it."
On this basis, in my opinion the edit should remain.
I do not impinge any bad faith motives to the contributor who is deleting this edit. I notice that he is a long time contributor to this article and respect that. In this case however, it is my opinion that he might be taking a personal ownership in the content of the article which is contrary to the article policies outlined by Wikimedia. His rush to judgment in deleting my original edit within three minutes was without merit in my opinion. He continues to imply that I am acting in bad faith in entering this edit as well as now supplying additional reasons of lack of explanation and poor integration, both of which in my opinion are incorrect for the reasons I stated above. If he persists in deleting this edit, it is likely that we will have reached a point where arbitration will be necessary. Bigcityrichard ( talk) 18:16, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
It will not go unnoticed that you have now developed a fourth reason why this edit should be deleted. There was no intent in any of my articles to hide authorship and I have no expectation to sell any of these books with or without the edit or article. Whatever happened to assume good faith and avoid personal attacks. God bless you my friend. Bigcityrichard ( talk) 19:34, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
I have six ontological proofs of God. [2]
One of them is scientific i.e. it uses scientific facts as axioms. which have already been verified by experiment
therefore the third paragraph needs to be updated
from
"Scientists follow the scientific method, within which theories must be verifiable by physical experiment. On that basis the existence of god, for which evidence cannot be tested, is incompatible with science."
to "Scientists follow the scientific method, within which theories must be verifiable by physical experiment. On that basis the existence of god, for which evidence can now be tested, is compatible with science." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Subtlevirtue ( talk • contribs) 02:03, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
The new working would be:
In philosophical terms, the idea of the existence of God involves the disciplines of epistemology (the nature and scope of knowledge) and ontology (study of the nature of being, existence, or reality) and the theory of value (since concepts of perfection are connected to the idea of God).
KSci ( talk) 01:12, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
for people keen on using rational arguments and logic to discuss the existence of creation and a function of it the article has so many ignorant statements, opinions and fallacious arguments the whole of it has become a non-credible, ignorant diatribe by several non-believers. It includes nothing about the origins of belief in God, what God is (all of creation), how God speaks (noted several times in the Bible & other places as dreams and visions) or why God isn't able to be defined by religionaries or theologians (or anyone else because being all of creation it is hard to put God into an image or symbol and that defining God as a communication as a dream or vision has serious limitations too).
What God isn't is easily identified immediately on finding how God speaks to us, in other words God isn't a human or sun or any other object turned into an idol. That ignorant religionaries in the past, such as Augustine, didn't know what they were talking about isn't terribly surprising but why would anyone use him or any other opinionated source to form an argument to prove what none of the non-believers and most of the bureaucratic religionaries didn't understand? If you use the views of non-believers who don't understand that God is most often identified by the communication provided you get exactly nothing from their lame arguments and obviously crippled logic. In other words, short of rewriting the whole article, what is stated in it is so inadequate and biased as to constitute intentional fraud by its various ignorant authors because all they do is show their glee at exposing ignorance and endless amounts of their own ignorance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.47.146.69 ( talk) 14:49, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Today I re-read Wikipedia:Pro and con lists with this article in mind, and I think to avoid some of the shortcomings pointed out there, a rearrangement of this article would be helpful. I think it would be best to put the "Conclusions" section up front as "Positions", defining terms and explaining the different types of theism, atheism, agnosticism, etc. I think this makes it easier to use the terms concisely later in the article. Then I'd like to reorganize the substantive arguments by type of arguments, and put the for and against in the same section for each type. There are those that support certain supernatural phenomena, some that support the general notion of a God or gods, and some that support a specific definition of a universal God. There are also philosophical arguments like "God is necessary to create the universe" vs. specific empirical claims like "Jesus said he was God" vs. personal reasons for believing in God (like "I had a near-death experience" or "I was just raised that way") which previous comments on this talk page point out are rather missing.
A bunch of arguments for which we have entire articles are missing (see the links on Template:Philosophy of religion sidebar) so I'm adding those to the article as I go. I also have some print sources that I'm reading which will hopefully help prevent a shortage of citations to reliable sources. This restructuring will probably take me a few days or weeks to get through; just wanted to leave a note here to explain why the article might look weird while it's in transition, or in case anyone had any opinions on the matter they wanted to share. -- Beland ( talk) 19:16, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Existence of God. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:47, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
... as one of the arguments for the existence of God? 108.20.213.77 ( talk) 00:32, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Existence of God. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:19, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Richard Dawkins is described as a scientist. I am not sure that this is true. His 1967 thesis was entitled "Selective pecking in the domestic chick". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.24.109.228 ( talk) 16:58, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Argument from magic In the news today, you get images and videos that seem very probable as magic. They could be CGI and fake, of course, but not all of them, probably. UFO reports could be reports of magic. The Divine is a perquisite of the Divine magic. Per in Sweden ( talk) 00:21, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Argument from coincidences In the news today, you get report of amazing coincidences. They could be fake news, of course, but not all of them. This amazing timing hints that something Divine want to teach us something. Thus a high probability of the Divine. Per in Sweden ( talk) 00:18, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
|
Talk pages are for discussion of actionable proposals (with reliable sources) to improve the article. See WP:NOTFORUM. Johnuniq ( talk) 00:39, 27 March 2018 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Russian Quantum Physics Argument The double slit experiment is the basis. In this experiment you can for instance send electrons, one at a time through a plate with two slits and then the electrons hit a screen onto which a pattern emerges. The pattern proves that electron are waves. Even if you send one electron at a time. If you place detectors at the slits to see which one of the two slits the electron pass through, then the pattern on the screen shows that the electrons are now particles. The detectors do not really interfere with the electrons, it is the fact that an observer observes the electrons that causes the electrons to become particles. Now the interesting point is that even if no human observes the data from the detectors, then the electrons will still behave as particles. Thus this proves there exist an observer that is not human. An observer with computation, memory and senses. I.e the divine. This proof is true if you believe the laws of physics are true. Otherwise it is not a proof. Per in Sweden ( talk) 21:02, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1998/02/980227055013.htm Per in Sweden ( talk) 21:56, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
|
It's possible that the recently removed claim was in relation to The Antichrist (book) but a similar claim there also lacked a direct citation, which I tagged. There is another similar claim at Immanuel Kant#Religion Within the Limits of Reason which I also tagged for lack of a reference. There also is The Only Possible Argument in Support of a Demonstration of the Existence of God although after reading that short article I still don't see a direct relation (evil considered to justify the existence of God). Thanks, — Paleo Neonate – 03:01, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
If I understand, this is an example of claimed forknowledge in sacred texts? Other than the issues in relation to such claims, the argument appears to be synthesis (unless a reliable source does mention the relation to that particular verse). I'll therefore revert it for now. — Paleo Neonate – 17:32, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
Since We have the ability to pray, we must have been given this ability to pray to the creator to pray to it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Willisthespirit ( talk • contribs) 02:18, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
that "argument" is absurd and incomprehensible... not a valid statement — Preceding unsigned comment at dded by 2601:602:9D00:1FBF:68D8:34C:84A9:2796 ( talk) 08:53, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
unsigned IP6 comment is in turn incoherent. Per in Sweden ( talk) 01:41, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Since i have the ability to eat pasta and feel Go(o)d while eating it, therefore pastafarianism is true. Τζερόνυμο ( talk) 14:01, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
We have the ability to move and to think. These are the only things praying requires and were given to us by evolution, not a god. -- Wyrm127 ( talk) 23:37, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
Prayer is not proof Nyoung808 ( talk) 07:27, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
I noticed that under both the section for arguments for the existence of God, and the section for arguments against the existence of God, there are two different sub-sections for "Empirical arguments" and "Inductive arguments." But these sub-sections do not seem to correspond to any actual distinction among the arguments themselves. So to clean things up I'd like to combine these two sections into one, called "Empirical arguments." Are there any objections? Montgolfière ( talk) 01:18, 25 July 2019 (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 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
Confirmation of phantom feelings as Descartes has described them far back, now that these feelings can be made stronger in terms of science by detecting contextual patterns in the brain (fMRI) connected to the very impressions by the one who has these phantom feelings.
Of course, the counter argument by the Atheists is likewise, "all fantasy, knee-jerk" generic feelings of pre-amputation feelings", but the Religious side can say along with all the rest, telepathy, "priest stories" and the Van Lommel studies. As put before, the Atheists are losing ground for good. Cheers! 109.189.67.107 ( talk) 19:00, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
The conditional ESP by telepathy, now that the standing on telepathy is still a bit unconfirmed, must be considered pro-God, in defeating the former anti-ESP-anti-God arguments.
That is, the religious win further (intellectual) ground in saying this: if telepathy exists then the credibility pro-God increases, also because Atheists are to increasing degrees found to be WRONG! This is uttered also in relating to any culture of lying among the people with the opposition, i.e., the con-God Atheists.
The argument goes, of course, by standard Modus Ponens: if telepathy then credibility for God, telepathy, conclusion: (necessary/more possible) God. I also like to refer you to former notions of ESP and God discussion. Cheers! 46.9.42.58 ( talk) 14:59, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Modus Ponens | Modus Tollens | Modus 109.189.67.107 (10 March) | |
---|---|---|---|
Premise | P → Q | P → Q | ¬P → probably ¬Q (but maybe Q) |
Premise | P | ¬Q | P |
Conclusion | Q | ¬P | * Q |
Modus Tollens | |
---|---|
Premise | P → Q |
Premise | ¬Q |
Conclusion | ¬P |
Modus Tollens further | |
---|---|
Premise | (entity ¬P) → (entity ¬Q) |
Premise | ¬(entity ¬Q) |
Conclusion | ¬(entity ¬P) |
Modus Tollens at last | |
---|---|
Premise | ¬P → ¬Q |
Premise | Q - by double negation |
Conclusion | P - by double negation |
Modus Tollens | Your Defective Modus Tollens | |
---|---|---|
Premise | P → Q | P → (Q ∨ ¬Q) |
Premise | ¬Q | ¬Q |
Conclusion | ¬P | * ¬P |
So, returning to your initial syllogism, “if telepathy then credibility for God” is a non sequitur (like I pointed out in my first reply), since existence of telepathy and existence of God are independent propositions. Since both premises were false, your initial modus ponens argument was unsound. ~ Röbin Liönheart ( talk) 12:26, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Your objection is (only) noted, Robin Lionheart.
Then the real target, sorry for being blunt and outright on "qualifying" the literature here:
1. Window To God: A Physicians Spiritual Pilgrimage -
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Window-God-Physicians-Spiritual-Pilgrimage/dp/0876045069/ .
2. The God Within Me -
http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-God-Within-Me-ebook/dp/B0042JT0I8 .
3. God : Using Psychic Ability to Find Him (How to Find God Within You) -
http://www.amazon.co.uk/God-Psychic-Ability-Within-ebook/dp/B003FMUUW8 .
4. Being Mystic: In Touch with God -
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Being-Mystic-In-Touch-God/dp/1846945283 .
5. Jose Silva's Everyday ESP: Use Your Mental Powers to Succeed in Every Aspect of Your Life -
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Jose-Silvas-Everyday-ESP-Succeed/dp/156414951X (uncertain relevance to the ESP and God).
6. Christian Prophecy: The Spiritual Gift of Psychic Ability -
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Christian-Prophecy-Spiritual-Psychic-ebook/dp/B004VF68K6 .
7. Could It Be ESP - Subt. "Thank God for the Country" -
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Could-It-Be-ESP/dp/B006P84YXA , only a song by a country-singer, probably irrelevant, but the artist may tell a story or two.
I hope you, the readers, the users, of Wikipedia find good use by this list. Cheers!
109.189.67.107 (
talk)
17:14, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
As a telepath, I find this argument unconvincing. But I will not use my ESP to melt your brain, because maybe we're all simply part of one whole, and so I would only be melting my own brain. Ergo, Pandeism. DeistCosmos ( talk) 02:44, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
There seems to be a problem with the article in the sense that when I take the opportunity in contributing to it by using the "Edit"-option displayed to me, some of the text to edit simply isn't there... What is going on? Thanks. 95.34.121.134 ( talk) 00:27, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
What do the fellow editors think about this:
This section is related to the section "Coincidences".
The logic chain is following: We have to find a starting point of everything and follow the line from that point till your existence looking at the statistical probability of such an event (your existence).
Starting point: There are two possible ways of everything (including God) to exist. Is either to be created or to be existed eternally. The first one will always raise legitimate questions:
These two questions are unanswerable, and considering that "nothing" is also "something", the second question is actually highlighting the fact that "something" has been eternally.
Our minds fail to understand how something can be eternal, but we have to accept it as a fact that results from the reasoning written above.
Now, lets move on and establish some background. Lets assume for a moment that we exist in eternal unlimited world without God. (Eternal world will include unlimited in space as well, as what can be outside of the limited space? Nothing? But nothing is something, so the same logic applies.) That means there are infinite chances for everything to happen. Lets try to apply this idea to the scientific observations of our solar system, our galaxy and our universe. So far we haven't detected any extra-terrestrial life in our proximity and haven't detected any intelligent life in our universe that would for example emit intelligent radio signals. So it seems that there isn't abundance of different forms of life on different planets and it could be possible that we are the only one. This is the first line of reasoning.
(I'll continue writing it soon). Ryanspir ( talk) 14:18, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
My understanding is that the custom of capitalising the word god is very much a Christian thing. Maybe Jewish as well. (I'm no expert on that front.) Did the ancient Greeks REALLY debate a god with a capital G? Or is this article showing a (poorly) hidden Christian bias? Otherwise, why the capital G throughout this article? HiLo48 ( talk) 11:26, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
As Universe (meta) is without bounds there should be existence of everything, including God. This statement is based on the fact that universe, our world is without bounds. The logic is simple, if the world would have bounds, what would be behind those bounds? Nothing? Noithing is something. And how those bounds would look like?
Since the Universe is infinite, everything will exist, including God. This conclusion also predisposes extra-terrestrial life, angels, ghosts, everything that we can and cannot imagine. However here is a twist, if God's will for something not to exist, it won't exist.
I would also assume, that if we are living in eternal, infinite world without God we would be surrounded by extra-terrestrial life. Why? Because prior to appearance of the life on Earth, there would be infinite time for life's creation all around the infinite space of the world. These forms of life would have infinite time to mature, advance and then to travel and migrate around the world. Ryanspir ( talk) 14:38, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
I have gave some thoughts to the previous section and decided to refine it. Here is an astonishing result.
Let's assume that we are living in a world without God. Because we have no Creator in this case, there is no first cause, so nobody has created our world and thus no point of creation. Our world is infinite, because what could possible be outside of the borders of our world? Nothing? But nothing is something. Thus our world is eternal referring to time and infinite referring to space.
Since we are existing, we can be absolutely sure, that under some circumstances life can be created. Since our world is eternal and infinite, there are infinite number of extra-terrestrial lifeforms that would come to exist because those circumstances would be repeated infinite number of times.
The extra-terrestrial lifeforms would have infinite time to mature and advance. There would be infinite number of them that would decide to migrate to other planets, galaxies and universes. Having infinite number of lifeforms migrating for infinite period of time would result in huge number of lifeforms eventually reaching our planet. We would be surrounded by extra-terrestrial life.
However, that is not happening. We haven't clearly seen even one alien, and we are absolutely not being surrounded by them, neither we have observed their existence using our scientific tools, including space telescopes.
The only logical reason is the Existence of God. This is the only clear possible cause. Thus we are logically being proven in the Existence of God. Ryanspir ( talk) 14:48, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Because we have no Creator in this case, there is no first cause, so nobody has created our world and thus no point of creation.
First of all, thank you for reviewing and criticizing my reasoning.
Let me clarify, that if we consider a universe to what came from the big bang, i refer by 'our world' to the meta universe. I assume you agree that its infinite and eternal? If you disagree please provide any reasoning of how the meta universe could have a beginning without creator, what was before creation, thats about eternal. If you disagree with that its infinite, please give any reasoning, and say at what point the border would appear, how it would look like, and more importantly, what would be beyond the border. (Quoted from my talk page.)
Since we are existing, we can be absolutely sure, that under some circumstances life can be created. Since our world is eternal and infinite, there are infinite number of extra-terrestrial lifeforms that would come to exist because those circumstances would be repeated infinite number of times.
The extra-terrestrial lifeforms would have infinite time to mature and advance. There would be infinite number of them that would decide to migrate to other planets, galaxies and universes. Having infinite number of lifeforms migrating for infinite period of time would result in huge number of lifeforms eventually reaching our planet. We would be surrounded by extra-terrestrial life.
Hmmmm.... Now, where have I heard this exact argument before? Oh yeah, Pandeism makes this argument, for it supports a Deistic (not Theistic) theological model. DeistCosmos ( talk) 17:47, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
The Privacy Argument
- nothing new from the Atheists
The Rejection of the Cardinal Sins
- that the sinful life seems repulsive and that religious ponderings seem much more engaging
Non-Dogmatic New Intelligent Design
- that NDNID defends God as possibility and that Atheism fails to prove, also with logical soundness, the impossibility for God
The ESP-God Debate
- now that, by telepathy, that we have God by our foreheads and Atheism seems more wrong than ever before, then why Atheism at all? Because the contention has been earlier that if telepathy is "realizable" then (necessarily/more conceivably) God, even by themselves
The Descartes' Phantom Feelings
- that if Descartes' description of feelings can be proven then God "more", that once again, the consistent pattern by the amputee's brain proves the Atheists wrong once more and by this fantastic revelation, that God exists also by this notion
The Van Lommel Studies
- that Van Lommel by his work has shown that the existence of the soul is a possible description for people's (common) ability to win over death and that, therefore, God "more" yet another time
Do we get it up? (Atheists to Mystics and Religions are cool after all?) ;-)
Cheers!
46.9.254.15 (
talk)
05:41, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Note: as before, ESP → More Credible God, ESP (Telepathy, not...) - Concl.: More Credible God. Standard Modus Ponens. Good? 109.189.66.179 ( talk) 13:10, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
The consequence by invoking "The Problem of Evil" as an argument doesn't mean that religions go away. No, it makes it a duty for the "Atheist" to improve the World by becoming a Humanist and from this position to prove that Humanism serves humanity "much better than any religion can do". Obviously, this is implausible to start with, also with "Atheist" Humanism being so young as life view, as life philosophy!
Note: The Problem of Evil can't justify an active Agenda of Evil simply because this destroys the entire civilisation no less than the very nukes! Conclusion: Atheism with Sociobiology is still out from the universities.
82.164.5.154 (
talk)
19:49, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
One has to ask if Nature has a ground for its existence. The question of God is greater than whether ideals exist or not. Kantian philosophy came to the conclusion that we cannot know the ultimate nature of reality since there are limits to perception. Modern quantum mechanics adopts a similar position with theories about observations being given a probabilistic interpretation. One can contrast the perspective of ancient philosophers who treated perception as a projection by the observer of qualities onto the objects ( projectivism). The appearance of the Earth (ground) played an important role in creation myths of ancient Egypt and Babylon. -- Jbergquist ( talk) 04:49, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
1. The section is dominated by Hinman's book - an obvious attempt at marketing. 2. All philosophy rests on rational warrant, it's not unique to theism, and by claiming rational warrant, it simply leapfrogs over the entire question and claims rational warrant. 3. No mention of Plantinga? An actual philosopher who has a serious book on the subject, titled Warrant? 4. "Rational Warrant" isn't a thing. It's "Warrant" full stop. By what other measure would a belief be warranted in believing? Irrational warrant? This is only used by theologians trying to wedge in rationality into something that can't be rationalized. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barnesen ( talk • contribs) 15:09, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
These two seems to be the same thing, reading from the article. I think it should either be made clearer what the two different mean or remove agnostic atheism, since I think you get the impression that they are the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.69.50.244 ( talk) 21:03, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Thats a wrong question. God doesn't belong to anyone or to any religion. It seems that you are assuming that God needs to belong to a religion. However, He is above religions. Ryanspir ( talk) 18:02, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
This article confounds the problem of evil with the problem of suffering. The problem of evil is can be straightforwardly explained by appeal to free will. The problem of suffering that isn't caused by free will - e.g. due to disease - is much harder to deal with. In my opinion, the article under question should distinguish between these (distinct!) problems, the "problem of evil" article should be shortened considerably, and a new "problem of suffering" article should be created. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.96.67.93 ( talk) 21:45, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Existence of God. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 09:46, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
[ William S. Hatcher demonstration] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.245.16.100 ( talk) 12:26, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Currently the Theism part of the conclusions section does not match the other sections in the Conclusion section. The other sections briefly describe what the conclusion is (in many varieties such as weak atheism, strong atheism, agnosticism, etc.). The Theism section is much more wordy and mentions arguments. The arguments should stay in the argument section, not the Conclusions section.
I think it is clear that the Theism part of the Conclusions section should list the variety of theist conclusions, like monotheism, pantheism, polytheism. But also Deism needs to be in the Conclusion section somewhere, this article isn't "existence of theistic gods" it is "existence of god" which can include non-theistic gods such as a deistic god. BrianPansky ( talk) 05:39, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Some of these counter arguments should at the very least be moved to a different section. In many cases it doesn't make sense to classify such arguments as a deductive proof that god does or does not exist (this would be committing the fallacy fallacy), we can only classify them (at best) as arguments which deductively prove that the opponent's argument is flawed. I would suggest either having a separate section for these kinds of counter arguments, or else only list counter arguments next to the arguments that they counter. BrianPansky ( talk) 21:40, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Exploring the idea of using history, such as Rome's use of Religion, Bible quotes, and the Canaan language and religion to offer not logic, but historical hypothesis for God. No logic required. What will pass muster? GESICC ( talk) 22:32, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
There are many problems with this article that I've found on reading it.
For one, basic philosophical facts are mistakenly worded and just plain wrong, for example, Aquinas' five-ways arguments being presented under the heading of 'Empirical arguments', when they are in fact deductive. Also, the general absurdity of this article as it delves into a plurality of isolated and obscure 'views' with no clear relevance to the problem at hand.
A reader of this article should expect an analytic, encyclopedic understanding of the problem at hand, how it relates to other problems and many approaches which have been taken to the issue.
What they are presented with, however, is an article which has an overwhelming bias towards atheist arguments that are simply bad in and of themselves, most of them resorting to the basic condition of 'not enough empirical proof'. This article is so thoroughly, jarringly novice that a first reader is justified in simply laughing and closing the tab. Due to the philosophical nature of the problem, much more work is needed from that portal, as what we have at the moment is seemingly just an echo chamber for atheist teenagers rather than anyone who actually has any training or knowledge of the subject, and way too much time to stare at their watchlists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muradgalena ( talk • contribs) 15:20, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
“A plurality of positions have been taken to this question, differing on epistemological as well as theological-metaphysical positions, for instance, fideism acknowledges that belief in the existence of God may not be amenable to demonstration or refutation (by empirical means), but is taken on faith alone.” and “Since such beliefs are metaphysical in nature (outside the scope of the senses), and hence one outside any empirical verification, the existence of God is subject to lively debate in the philosophy of religion, popular culture, and philosophy” Please double check that your edits actually make sense. Theroadislong ( talk) 15:25, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
If this makes no sense to you then I recommend you migrate to the Simple English wiki. Muradgalena ( talk) 15:28, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
'Since such beliefs are metaphysical in nature (outside the scope of the senses), and hence one outside any empirical verification, the existence of God is subject to lively debate in the philosophy of religion, popular culture, and philosophy' Sentence is grammatical incorrect. 'A plurality of positions have been taken to this question, differing on epistemological as well as theological-metaphysical positions, for instance, fideism acknowledges that belief in the existence of God may not be amenable to demonstration or refutation (by empirical means), but is taken on faith alone.' This sentence is grammatically incorrect. It is also overly long making it difficult to follow the exact meaning. For a lay reader they shouldn't have to re-read each sentence a number of times. 'The Catholic Church maintains that knowledge of the existence of God is the "natural light of human reason". Catechism of the Catholic Church, Paragraph 47; cf. Canons of the First Vatican Council, 2:2, endorsing St. Thomas Aquinas' 'four ways' theodicy, and his theology in particular as doctrine, whereas atheists deny the existence of god on a priori grounds, rejecting argumentation for the existence of God as illegitimate and inadequate for the belief in a supernatural deity.' Again an overly long sentence mixing support for God's existence with the belief of Atheists. These two points should be separate sentences. 'One of the main areas of contention for any argument for or against the existence of god is the problems that arise when attempting to conceive of god, an entity which is universally posited as a transcendent and ultimate being, and hence resisting human categories and thus also the epistemic limitations that these necessarily involve'. Grammatically incorrect and needs a citation to support the 'main claim' part of the section not just an example from Kant (although this example is good because of his status in philosophy). It is not that I, or any other editors, think the current article does not need editing - it does - but any changes should improve the article, not add to its issues. A rewrite of your material would sort out these problems. And finally it is really not acceptable to state that another editor should switch to reading a Simple English version of the article because they object to your edit. Robynthehode ( talk) 07:18, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Is there any reliable source that proves the existence of God via mathematics (and/or probability theory)?
I'll try give a few examples: For example a person takes a coin and throws it 100 times in the air, each time saying: head or tails, for tails being God exists and for head means doesn't. Suppose 100 hundred times in a row the coin will show tail, much beyond 50/50 chance, should it be considered as a prove that God exist?
Next example, let's say a person throws the coin for another matter(s), and the coin consistently shows him an intelligent way of how to act defeating any normal probability patterns.
These two examples are not to be discussed, they are merely to demonstrate a point of view. However, the talk page is not to be used for a discussion, and so, my question is: are there any reliable sources that are trying to prove God's existence via mathematics and/or probability theory? Broadly speaking, when anything happens in the Universe that wouldn't be happening would there be no intelligent force whom we call God - it should be proving His existence. Dmatteng ( talk) 09:05, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
@ Isambard Kingdom: thanks for noticing that (as I indicated in my edit summary) that "mathematecian" was a typo. Not sure why Gonzales_John failed to notice that. That being said, I completely agree that titles [such as "mathematician" or "philosopher" are not used in this section, which was the other point of my edit, which I have reimposed. It's unnecessary to note (and previous text in the section does in fact not note) that Plato, Aristotle, Anselm, ibn Rushd, and Aquinas were also philosophers, hence it's certainly unnecessary to pigeonhole Descartes, who was also a mathematician, scientist, and soldier (his first profession). Tlroche ( talk) 16:46, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
an attempt to add a minor edit to this article was undone in a mere three minutes after my original attempt. the reason given by the person who took this action was a three minute determination that it was spam and someone's favorite book. i believe this was in error. I resubmitted the edit and made the point that it would have been impossible to declare this as spam without reading the book or refuting the inductive proof, neither of which were done. this one was then undone yet again as unexplained material, not integrated into article as well as spam, however hedged. i believe this is in error also. the minor edit is explained as another example of an inductive proof but different from the others in that it is a more recent one than the others that are listed. The nature of this inductive proof is explained as well as any of the other inductive proofs in the first bullet item. i happen to think it is worthwhile to show readers that not all existence of god proofs are over 100 years old and that indeed this is not just a topic of historical interest. To the point that it is not integrated into the article, there would be no better place than to include it as an additional bullet under inductive arguments. It is a minor edit and not meant to take up a lot of real estate. It was added to show that there is ongoing work being done on this topic, published work at that. And in fact, inductive arguments is the only topic in this article that has bullets with a single bullet item, Based on symmetry and contrast to the other bullet, it is the perfect place. I see no basis to definitively call this spam or to state that it appears to be spam. A reference was supplied and the reference indeed includes as perhaps the major element of the work an inductive proof of the existence of god. It is as reliable as an inductive proof can get, and a strong one on the measurement scale for inductivity.
Additionally and even more to the point, I believe that this small edit satisfies the three main article policies outlined by Wikipedia.
No original research: "The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. By "exists", the community means that the reliable source must have been published and still exist—somewhere in the world, in any language, whether or not it is reachable online—even if no source is currently named in the article. Articles that currently name zero references of any type may be fully compliant with this policy—so long as there is a reasonable expectation that every bit of material is supported by a published, reliable source. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources."
Neutral Point of View: "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." This small edit does not upset the balanced view within the entire article concerning the existence of god. It merely identifies an additional inductive reasoning proof from modern times and strengthens that segment of the article, which lacks enough mention to inductive proof compared with other parts of the article.
Verifiability: I"n Wikipedia, verifiability means that anyone using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it."
On this basis, in my opinion the edit should remain.
I do not impinge any bad faith motives to the contributor who is deleting this edit. I notice that he is a long time contributor to this article and respect that. In this case however, it is my opinion that he might be taking a personal ownership in the content of the article which is contrary to the article policies outlined by Wikimedia. His rush to judgment in deleting my original edit within three minutes was without merit in my opinion. He continues to imply that I am acting in bad faith in entering this edit as well as now supplying additional reasons of lack of explanation and poor integration, both of which in my opinion are incorrect for the reasons I stated above. If he persists in deleting this edit, it is likely that we will have reached a point where arbitration will be necessary. Bigcityrichard ( talk) 18:16, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
It will not go unnoticed that you have now developed a fourth reason why this edit should be deleted. There was no intent in any of my articles to hide authorship and I have no expectation to sell any of these books with or without the edit or article. Whatever happened to assume good faith and avoid personal attacks. God bless you my friend. Bigcityrichard ( talk) 19:34, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
I have six ontological proofs of God. [2]
One of them is scientific i.e. it uses scientific facts as axioms. which have already been verified by experiment
therefore the third paragraph needs to be updated
from
"Scientists follow the scientific method, within which theories must be verifiable by physical experiment. On that basis the existence of god, for which evidence cannot be tested, is incompatible with science."
to "Scientists follow the scientific method, within which theories must be verifiable by physical experiment. On that basis the existence of god, for which evidence can now be tested, is compatible with science." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Subtlevirtue ( talk • contribs) 02:03, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
The new working would be:
In philosophical terms, the idea of the existence of God involves the disciplines of epistemology (the nature and scope of knowledge) and ontology (study of the nature of being, existence, or reality) and the theory of value (since concepts of perfection are connected to the idea of God).
KSci ( talk) 01:12, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
for people keen on using rational arguments and logic to discuss the existence of creation and a function of it the article has so many ignorant statements, opinions and fallacious arguments the whole of it has become a non-credible, ignorant diatribe by several non-believers. It includes nothing about the origins of belief in God, what God is (all of creation), how God speaks (noted several times in the Bible & other places as dreams and visions) or why God isn't able to be defined by religionaries or theologians (or anyone else because being all of creation it is hard to put God into an image or symbol and that defining God as a communication as a dream or vision has serious limitations too).
What God isn't is easily identified immediately on finding how God speaks to us, in other words God isn't a human or sun or any other object turned into an idol. That ignorant religionaries in the past, such as Augustine, didn't know what they were talking about isn't terribly surprising but why would anyone use him or any other opinionated source to form an argument to prove what none of the non-believers and most of the bureaucratic religionaries didn't understand? If you use the views of non-believers who don't understand that God is most often identified by the communication provided you get exactly nothing from their lame arguments and obviously crippled logic. In other words, short of rewriting the whole article, what is stated in it is so inadequate and biased as to constitute intentional fraud by its various ignorant authors because all they do is show their glee at exposing ignorance and endless amounts of their own ignorance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.47.146.69 ( talk) 14:49, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Today I re-read Wikipedia:Pro and con lists with this article in mind, and I think to avoid some of the shortcomings pointed out there, a rearrangement of this article would be helpful. I think it would be best to put the "Conclusions" section up front as "Positions", defining terms and explaining the different types of theism, atheism, agnosticism, etc. I think this makes it easier to use the terms concisely later in the article. Then I'd like to reorganize the substantive arguments by type of arguments, and put the for and against in the same section for each type. There are those that support certain supernatural phenomena, some that support the general notion of a God or gods, and some that support a specific definition of a universal God. There are also philosophical arguments like "God is necessary to create the universe" vs. specific empirical claims like "Jesus said he was God" vs. personal reasons for believing in God (like "I had a near-death experience" or "I was just raised that way") which previous comments on this talk page point out are rather missing.
A bunch of arguments for which we have entire articles are missing (see the links on Template:Philosophy of religion sidebar) so I'm adding those to the article as I go. I also have some print sources that I'm reading which will hopefully help prevent a shortage of citations to reliable sources. This restructuring will probably take me a few days or weeks to get through; just wanted to leave a note here to explain why the article might look weird while it's in transition, or in case anyone had any opinions on the matter they wanted to share. -- Beland ( talk) 19:16, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Existence of God. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:47, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
... as one of the arguments for the existence of God? 108.20.213.77 ( talk) 00:32, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Existence of God. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:19, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Richard Dawkins is described as a scientist. I am not sure that this is true. His 1967 thesis was entitled "Selective pecking in the domestic chick". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.24.109.228 ( talk) 16:58, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Argument from magic In the news today, you get images and videos that seem very probable as magic. They could be CGI and fake, of course, but not all of them, probably. UFO reports could be reports of magic. The Divine is a perquisite of the Divine magic. Per in Sweden ( talk) 00:21, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Argument from coincidences In the news today, you get report of amazing coincidences. They could be fake news, of course, but not all of them. This amazing timing hints that something Divine want to teach us something. Thus a high probability of the Divine. Per in Sweden ( talk) 00:18, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
|
Talk pages are for discussion of actionable proposals (with reliable sources) to improve the article. See WP:NOTFORUM. Johnuniq ( talk) 00:39, 27 March 2018 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Russian Quantum Physics Argument The double slit experiment is the basis. In this experiment you can for instance send electrons, one at a time through a plate with two slits and then the electrons hit a screen onto which a pattern emerges. The pattern proves that electron are waves. Even if you send one electron at a time. If you place detectors at the slits to see which one of the two slits the electron pass through, then the pattern on the screen shows that the electrons are now particles. The detectors do not really interfere with the electrons, it is the fact that an observer observes the electrons that causes the electrons to become particles. Now the interesting point is that even if no human observes the data from the detectors, then the electrons will still behave as particles. Thus this proves there exist an observer that is not human. An observer with computation, memory and senses. I.e the divine. This proof is true if you believe the laws of physics are true. Otherwise it is not a proof. Per in Sweden ( talk) 21:02, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1998/02/980227055013.htm Per in Sweden ( talk) 21:56, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
|
It's possible that the recently removed claim was in relation to The Antichrist (book) but a similar claim there also lacked a direct citation, which I tagged. There is another similar claim at Immanuel Kant#Religion Within the Limits of Reason which I also tagged for lack of a reference. There also is The Only Possible Argument in Support of a Demonstration of the Existence of God although after reading that short article I still don't see a direct relation (evil considered to justify the existence of God). Thanks, — Paleo Neonate – 03:01, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
If I understand, this is an example of claimed forknowledge in sacred texts? Other than the issues in relation to such claims, the argument appears to be synthesis (unless a reliable source does mention the relation to that particular verse). I'll therefore revert it for now. — Paleo Neonate – 17:32, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
Since We have the ability to pray, we must have been given this ability to pray to the creator to pray to it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Willisthespirit ( talk • contribs) 02:18, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
that "argument" is absurd and incomprehensible... not a valid statement — Preceding unsigned comment at dded by 2601:602:9D00:1FBF:68D8:34C:84A9:2796 ( talk) 08:53, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
unsigned IP6 comment is in turn incoherent. Per in Sweden ( talk) 01:41, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Since i have the ability to eat pasta and feel Go(o)d while eating it, therefore pastafarianism is true. Τζερόνυμο ( talk) 14:01, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
We have the ability to move and to think. These are the only things praying requires and were given to us by evolution, not a god. -- Wyrm127 ( talk) 23:37, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
Prayer is not proof Nyoung808 ( talk) 07:27, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
I noticed that under both the section for arguments for the existence of God, and the section for arguments against the existence of God, there are two different sub-sections for "Empirical arguments" and "Inductive arguments." But these sub-sections do not seem to correspond to any actual distinction among the arguments themselves. So to clean things up I'd like to combine these two sections into one, called "Empirical arguments." Are there any objections? Montgolfière ( talk) 01:18, 25 July 2019 (UTC)