Talk:Existence of God/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Define existence

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)

Atheism Bias

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)

I am afraid that is what we are stuck with. Since everyone has a different definition of what god is, and is atheistic towards all other definitions it would be impossible to include "both sides" as you are asking because there aren't two sides, there are millions. What good would an article titled "Existence of ___" be? --Jake4d (talk) 12:48, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Anyone is free to edit this article - the "groups" listed above are not necessarily representative of who is actually editing this article (whilst I am an atheist, I didn't find this article via the Atheism group). It's also part of WikiProject Philosophy, anyway. If another "group" wants to add this page to their project, they are free to do so. Mdwh (talk) 20:59, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

This article is on the 'Existence of God'. Atheist lack belief in a God, thus I don't see how this article is fair under the powers of an atheistic orgy?--72.74.114.109 (talk) 03:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Orgy? Why wasn't I told? ^_^ Anyway, this page is about the literature on the existence of God, so it shouldn't play a role who is editing, as long as WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:DUE are observed. Do you have any specific complaints wrt the content, the references cited, or ... ? If not, I think your best choice of course would be to ask WikiProject_Christianity why they do not appear to be interested in this article. Who knows, maybe it was a mere oversight. Paradoctor (talk) 14:32, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Oops. I think a bunch of people who don't believe in Santa Claus were caught working on that article...Quietmarc (talk) 22:22, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Atheists are here to make sure that the article doesnt imply that God exists. Portillo (talk) 07:43, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Proposed Removal of Omega Point from Arguments for the existence of God

"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)

Hi, Bmgoau.

Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point Theory has been peer-reviewed and published in a number of the world's leading physics journals. Even NASA itself has peer-reviewed his Omega Point Theory and found it correct according to the known laws of physics (see below).

The following are some of the peer-reviewed papers in physics and science journals wherein Prof. Tipler has published his Omega Point Theory:

• Frank J. Tipler, "Cosmological Limits on Computation", International Journal of Theoretical Physics, Vol. 25, No. 6 (June 1986), pp. 617-661, doi:10.1007/BF00670475, Bibcode:1986IJTP...25..617T. (First paper on the Omega Point Theory.)

Frank J. Tipler, "The Anthropic Principle: A Primer for Philosophers", PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, Vol. 1988, Volume Two: Symposia and Invited Papers (1988), pp. 27-48; published by University of Chicago Press on behalf of the Philosophy of Science Association.

Frank J. Tipler, "The Omega Point as Eschaton: Answers to Pannenberg's Questions for Scientists", Zygon: Journal of Religion & Science, Vol. 24, Issue 2 (June 1989), pp. 217-253, doi:10.1111/j.1467-9744.1989.tb01112.x. Republished as Chapter 7: "The Omega Point as Eschaton: Answers to Pannenberg's Questions to Scientists" in Carol Rausch Albright and Joel Haugen (editors), Beginning with the End: God, Science, and Wolfhart Pannenberg (Chicago, Ill.: Open Court Publishing Company, 1997), pp. 156-194, ISBN 0812693256, LCCN 97-114.

Frank J. Tipler, "The ultimate fate of life in universes which undergo inflation", Physics Letters B, Vol. 286, Issues 1-2 (July 23, 1992), pp. 36-43, doi:10.1016/0370-2693(92)90155-W, Bibcode:1992PhLB..286...36T.

Frank J. Tipler, "A New Condition Implying the Existence of a Constant Mean Curvature Foliation", Bibcode:1993dgr2.conf..306T, in B. L. Hu and T. A. Jacobson (editors), Directions in General Relativity: Proceedings of the 1,993 International Symposium, Maryland, Volume 2: Papers in Honor of Dieter Brill (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), pp. 306-315, ISBN 0521452678, Bibcode:1993dgr2.conf.....H.

Frank J. Tipler, "Ultrarelativistic Rockets and the Ultimate Future of the Universe", NASA Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Workshop Proceedings, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, January 1999, pp. 111-119; an invited paper in the proceedings of a conference held at and sponsored by NASA Lewis Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio, August 12-14, 1998; hdl:2060/19990023204. Document ID: 19990023204. Report Number: E-11429; NAS 1.55:208694; NASA/CP-1999-208694. Mirror link.

Frank J. Tipler, "The Ultimate Future of the Universe, Black Hole Event Horizon Topologies, Holography, and the Value of the Cosmological Constant", arXiv:astro-ph/0104011, April 1, 2001. Published in J. Craig Wheeler and Hugo Martel (editors), Relativistic Astrophysics: 20th Texas Symposium, Austin, TX, 10-15 December 2000 (Melville, N.Y.: American Institute of Physics, 2001), pp. 769-772, ISBN 0735400261, LCCN 2001-94694, which is AIP Conference Proceedings, Vol. 586 (October 15, 2001), doi:10.1063/1.1419654, Bibcode:2001AIPC..586.....W.

Frank J. Tipler, "Intelligent life in cosmology", International Journal of Astrobiology, Vol. 2, Issue 2 (April 2003), pp. 141-148, doi:10.1017/S1473550403001526, Bibcode:2003IJAsB...2..141T; also available here. Also at arXiv:0704.0058, March 31, 2007.

F. J. Tipler, "The structure of the world from pure numbers", Reports on Progress in Physics, Vol. 68, No. 4 (April 2005), pp. 897-964, doi:10.1088/0034-4885/68/4/R04, Bibcode:2005RPPh...68..897T. Mirror link. Also released as "Feynman-Weinberg Quantum Gravity and the Extended Standard Model as a Theory of Everything", arXiv:0704.3276, April 24, 2007.

Frank J. Tipler, Jessica Graber, Matthew McGinley, Joshua Nichols-Barrer and Christopher Staecker, "Closed Universes With Black Holes But No Event Horizons As a Solution to the Black Hole Information Problem", arXiv:gr-qc/0003082, March 20, 2000. Published in Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, Vol. 379, Issue 2 (August 2007), pp. 629-640, doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.11895.x, Bibcode:2007MNRAS.379..629T.

Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, in which the above August 2007 paper was published, is one of the world's leading peer-reviewed astrophysics journals.

Prof. Tipler's paper "Ultrarelativistic Rockets and the Ultimate Future of the Universe" was an invited paper for a conference held at and sponsored by NASA Lewis Research Center, so NASA itself has peer-reviewed Tipler's Omega Point Theory (peer-review is a standard process for published proceedings papers; and again, Tipler's said paper was an invited paper by NASA, as opposed to what are called "poster papers").

Zygon is the world's leading peer-reviewed academic journal on science and religion.

Out of 50 articles, Prof. Tipler's 2005 Reports in Progress in Physics paper--which presents the Omega Point/Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE)--was selected as one of 12 for the "Highlights of 2005" accolade as "the very best articles published in Reports on Progress in Physics in 2005 [Vol. 68]. Articles were selected by the Editorial Board for their outstanding reviews of the field. They all received the highest praise from our international referees and a high number of downloads from the journal Website." (See Richard Palmer, Publisher, "Highlights of 2005", Reports on Progress in Physics.)

Reports on Progress in Physics is the leading journal of the Institute of Physics, Britain's main professional body for physicists. Further, Reports on Progress in Physics has a higher impact factor (according to Journal Citation Reports) than Physical Review Letters, which is the most prestigious American physics journal (one, incidently, which Prof. Tipler has been published in more than once). A journal's impact factor reflects the importance the science community places in that journal in the sense of actually citing its papers in their own papers.--Jamie Michelle (talk) 03:31, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

You forgot to include the extensive criticism for balance per mandatory policy WP:NPOV. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:57, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

some of these articles do not appear to be related to the "omega point". Just different publications of his. But yes, one persons ideas, even if published are not an indicator of something that is not a fringe theory. i.e many different (published) theorems exist for the beginning of the universe (some do not require a beginning) but are not mainstream. IRWolfie- (talk) 01:53, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Tipler's theories that the Omega Point is God are definitely not supported by mainstream science and so fall under WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE. A "see also" link would be appropriate weight, IMO. Tipler's proponents can be quite persistent. Google the phrase "NASA itself has peer-reviewed Tipler's Omega Point Theory" and you'll see the extent of the problem. - LuckyLouie (talk) 02:33, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

But it's valid to point out as well, what Tipler contends he can prove is hardly what most religious traditions would call 'God.' it is, instead, something brought about by technology which is not responsible for creation of our Universe, does not necessarily exist until the very end of our Universe, and is completely oblivious to worship or indeed any sort of behaviour; it is, most simply out, a supercomputer which gives everyone eternal life. DeistCosmos (talk) 06:23, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Argument Against Existence of God vs. Argument Against Argument in Favour of God

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.

―67.180.86.254 (talk) 08:22, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Pascal's Wager

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)

And in fact Pascal's Wager is no argument for "existence" at all. Tis an argument for gambling on belief no matter whether the thing believed in exists. DeistCosmos (talk) 14:56, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree that 'Pascal's Wager' is no argument for existence of god and should be removed from this article. Abhishikt (talk) 18:38, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I disagree and I've added a reliable source to the statement to ensure its continued existence in the article. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 19:04, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

If two topics are unrelated, there is no point of reliable source. Pascal's Wager state that you do not know about Existence of God, but you can Wager your belief in God. So this wager is not about "existence" at all and this article is about arguments related to "existence"; so Pascal's Wager doesn't belong in this article. Abhishikt (talk) 19:16, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

The reference, written by Robert Arp states:

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.

Wikipedia reports what is stated in the reference, not your personal opinions. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 20:22, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

It's not my opinion, it is what wikipedia's article Pascal's Wager and some more sources states -

referece1 and reference2

These clearly tells that "The Wager is not an argument that God exists. ... Pascal's Wager is an argument that belief in God is pragramtically rational ...".

I request you read the wikipedia Pascal's Wager carefully. All the points it is trying to make is that God's existence cannot be determined or it doesn't matter whether God exists or not, you should just believe that he exists. Nowhere the wager argues that God exists. It's always just belief, gambit or wager.

You shouldn't get blinded by one source and hold on to it. Abhishikt (talk) 20:48, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

If the references that Pascal's Wager is not an argument for the existence of God, we can state in the article "Pascal's Wager is not accepted, by some philosophers, as an argument for the existence of God." We can then place the references, with the proper quotations that buttress this statement. However, we must also take into consideration that some sources, such as the one I inserted do feel that it is an argument for God, which is why the statement should remain in the article. Your personal interpretation or my personal interpretation is irrelevant per WP:OR. We must simply report what reliable sources state. I hope this helps. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 21:38, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

It clearly shows that you still didn't understand what 'Pascal's Wager' is and you still getting blinded by one source and holding on to it. (I don't know if you are doing intentionally). If you carefully read the references I provided or just the wikipedia article of Pascal's Wager, you would understand that your source is clearly got this point wrong and doesn't belong to this article.

The logic is simple your lone source say "Pascal's Wager is for Existence argument", other two sources I provided clearly say that "Pascal's Wager is NOT for Existence argument" and "Pascal's Wager is belief argument", even the wikipedia article mention that "Pascal's Wager is for belief argument".

From this the only conclusion is that your reliable sources has mistakenly written what 'Pascal's Wager' argument is for. And as 'Pascal's Wager' is argument for belief, it is not relevent to this article. In wikipedia we shouldn't be putting incorrect or irrelevent material even if it is from reliable sources. Abhishikt (talk) 22:16, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm afraid you are mistaken. According to WP:V, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." Our job here at Wikipedia is to simply report what reliable sources state, not our own thoughts on the issue. I hope this helps. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 06:00, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

So then do you suppose we ought to include something about Gobots in this article? After all the Gobots are verifiable. They are, naturally, not an 'argument for the existence of God' but that doesn't seem to matter to you. DeistCosmos (talk) 11:56, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Lets use some common sense here and shun the Wikipedia red tape. Pascal's wager in now way argues that God exist. It only argues that it is beneficial to believe God exists. After all, we are not arses here to play stenographers and include inane wordings penned by "reliable" sources. Arjun^codename024 21:27, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Arjun024 and DeistCosmos. So we have consensus here to remove 'Pascal's Wager' from this article. Abhishikt (talk) 00:27, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Inductive arguments (sentient/sartre)

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)

God or Gods?

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)

the article is more specifically about the existence of god, not the existence of gods. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:29, 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)

Hindu arguments section. Why?

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)

By [2], i have inserted "Hindu arguments" in the "against" section as well. Since the article primarily deals with western arguments, and the presence of such a section in the "for" section, this one is essential to make the article exhaustive. Arjun^codename024 21:15, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

This makes no sense, all of these are clearly arguments for there existing a God, not against. They are arguments for a different theological model, but God is a broad term, and this article is not concerned with arguments for or against specific attributes of a deity. If it is, we ought to split it into distinct articles covering for example Existence of God, generally, Existence of Abrahamic conceptions of God (not concerned with Karma or reincarnation), Existence of Hindu conceptions of God (concerned with Karma and reincarnation and such). Fulfillment of prophecy for example would be a largely Abrahamic god-concern, for the Hindu, with his many manifestations of Vishnu in lesser gods' has a million minor deities any one of which would be able to fulfill every prophecy claimed for the Abrahamic gods. DeistCosmos (talk) 06:39, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

when talking about God, you cannot simply limit that term as Abrahamic God; it's the concept of a Supreme being creator, whatever civilizational mold it may be modeled in. Plus, Are you saying that arguments like "God was a necessary metaphysical assumption demanded by circumstances" and "the existence of Ishvara cannot be proved and hence cannot be admitted to exist." are arguments for existence ??. 124.124.70.121 (talk) 03:45, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

adding to arguments

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)

Hi BFBrown, you say:

"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)

Aspects of your statements relate to everything from animism to existentialism, but you'll need a specific source if you're trying to make a particular point.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:21, 5 December 2008 (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)

Sorry if this sounds flippant, but off you go then - go and find a source on which including such an argument can be based! SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 07:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

God(s) vs. god(s)

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)

Argument of eternity

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)

No one needed to “invent” consciousness; conscious lifeforms evolved from unconscious lifeforms. ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 20:01, 14 February 2012 (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)

Strong Atheism

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)

Richard Dawkins seems very clear about the distinction between God and religion, Pachomius2000 (talk · contribs). You say your concept of God is a “creator of everything in the universe and the universe itself”. In The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins defines the God Hypothesis as “there exists a superhuman, supernatural intelligence who deliberately designed and created the universe and everything in it, including us”. Seems similar to, and more rigorous than, your definition. ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 20:29, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Maps

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)

Curious

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)

(Pan)Deism are types of Theism in this context; see first sentence of Theism. As for your first question, I would assume it's just that no one has bothered to write about them yet; such contributions should/would be welcomed. --Cybercobra (talk) 16:48, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps within the context of the first sentence of that article, but not within the context of the first sentence of this one, which speaks of a 'personal' God. But the arguments set forth are not all so clearly directed. The Cosmological and Teleological arguments for example support a deistic or pandeistic model of God, but do nothing for a personal or revelational deity. And conversely, the arguments against a God are similarly nonuniform, with the strongest such arguments, those against inconsistent revelations and the existence of unevangelized souls and arbitrary condemnations, having no weight against Deism, which has no revelation, no evangelism, and no such condemnation. Each characteristic assertedly possessed by a deity must, naturally, be independently demonstrated to be necessary. DeistCosmos (talk) 23:51, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Missing: anthropic principle

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)

Biased Article

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)

I don't think I agree with the whole 50-50 idea, that is unless, 50% of people believe in God and 50% don't and/or if there is an even allocation of information/sources on each view, which I highly doubt. I think that if (the most likely scenario), one view has a higher percentage on the factors stated earlier, then that view should control that percentage of the article; but, honestly, I don't know which view has the more support in the factors I stated but I'm sure that there's an answer to that. It's kind of like, when you go to a Wikipedia page on a famous person (maybe the 'famous' was redundant, but whatever), you don't see an even allocation of information of every aspect of his or her life; the majority of the information is focused on the more well-known/notable things. It's also kind of like, some people seriously believe that the United States never landed on the moon (and it's probably a higher number of poeple than most of you would think), but this doesn't mean that, all the information on the United States's lunar landings on Wikipedia, collectively, should give a 50-50 allocation of both viewpoints (that the United States did land on the moon and that it didn't). Now, I know a response to this might be that it is a fact about moon landing but not when it comes to the existence (or non-existence) of God. Now, the classic definition of a "fact" is "an idea that has been proven;" but define "the act of proving." Some people belief that the idea of God (existing) has been proven (I'm not going to say it the other way around, but not because I'm being biased, as like no one who doesn't believe in God would say that the idea of the non-existence of God has been proven). But, back to the point; based on everything I've said, I think the view (on whether or not God exists) which has more support in the way of believers and/or amount of information on information/sources should have higher existence in this article, that amount being the same amount they have more support in those factors.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.124.128.157 (talk) 03:58, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Under "Philosophy of Religion", you can find: Arguments against[hide]

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)

I'm not familiar with every one of those, but I am with most. And, among those, you are going against some mere traditional characteristics of God, that don't have to necessarily be true. Evil: In order for a being to have created the universe, he doesn't necessarily have to benevolent. Hell: Once again, in order for..., there doesn't necessarily have to be a hell or even an afterlife. Omnipotence paradox: In order for there to be a God, he doesn't have to be all-powerful. Free will: In order for there to be a God, it doesn't have to be the case that he is involved in what occurs in the universe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.124.128.157 (talk) 14:36, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I just realized something that needs to be said. Not are only we straying from the original purpose of this section but of the purpose of the talk page in general: to discuss ways to improve the article (not of general discussion of topic of the article). I apologize. I'll shut up now and stick to that.--99.124.128.157 (talk) 14:44, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I think this article is generally bias either way. The article shouldn't necessarily be split 50/50. Remember this is an encyclopedia not a court case or debate to see who is right. People should not be writing what they don't have a source for. This isn't a place to list all the cool arguments of which you can think. So let's try to clean up this article and fix the crap that doesn't have a source (e.g. the Empirical and Deductive arguments against God). --Polsky215 (talk) 18:53, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Under "Conclusions"

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)

Just to get the references right, it's not clear that Princeton is involved here. 2nd, ref.s are (2): http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/03/23/religion-to-go-extinct-in-9-countries-experts-predict/ by CNN and http://digitaljournal.com/article/305020 . Background: they calculate with only 100 years, probably optimal for Atheism given the new ground for this period, but you can argue that perhaps 2000 years, based on Hebrew Bible and Monotheism and more. You? LFOlsnes-Lea 21:45, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

"Stephen Hawking" paragraph

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)

I think it should be in the article but probably not in the lead. I couldn't figure out where to put it, suggestions? I certainly don't think you need to be a theologian to be in the article, and whether or not he is a philospher is an interesting question. Dougweller (talk) 05:21, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't know where it would go, if it stays. It seems to give undue weight to his opinion on the matter when literally hundreds of more qualified people have written extensively on the topic. --✶♏✶ 16:56, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

If it is to stay in the article at all, it must find a place elsewhere - according to WP:LEAD, it cannot just be in the lead and not somewhere else as well. It seems to me to be an empirical argument so, for the time being at least, I think it could be moved there (with no mention in the lead at all). ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 11:04, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I did that. --✶♏✶ 01:07, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 12:09, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Clipping my information to Wikipedia

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)

Arthur Rubin also seems to pinpoint me on specific articles and I therefore have to call on the WP:HOUNDING on him for this, regarding at least 3 articles! LFOlsnes-Lea (talk) 19:49, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

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 am not sure of all the details here, but did the material in question have a source which clearly met WP:RS and specifically supported the text as included? John Carter (talk) 16:28, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Criticism of the arguments against God

Fx. for God to create the 747 airplane all by itself in one "miracle" of nature, they never bother to check in the Bible that it says that God can create this, any less than God can create pyramids, to roll back on technology a few steps! Some people may not care too much for providing credible arguments against God because they will either way not buy the idea.

Secondly, it is a point in literature to provide "not-not-God" as much as they like to write "not-this-argument-pro-God", so the article may or should include arguments against the arguments as well. This IP also happens to think that the former contributor has withdrawn on the issue of "Deductive Arguments", still holding the position of not being exclusive to the Con-God-people! (That is, I agree with the input from this IP.) LFOlsnes-Lea (talk) 17:13, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

On top of idiot conceptions against God by non-believers

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)

By your reasoning, modern scholars would be by definition not credible toward a discussion of Zeus, because they don't believe in that ancient Greek deity. ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 13:56, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Incidentally, when you reach a high level in Scientology, they teach you that people only believe in God, Christ, Muhammad or Satan because a galactic overlord named Xenu stuffed billions of extraterrestrials in an Earth volcano, and H-bombed them, and sucked up their souls in ghost traps, and showed their souls 3D movies about Christianity, Judaism, Islam, and other religions, so now human beings have clumps of confused alien souls attached to them. You may want to find a better example of religious tolerance. ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 05:36, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

There are some people who can't separate (sci-)fiction (of science fiction) and (Scientology) facts! It's just not particularly interesting to engage in this, by the above! LFOlsnes-Lea (talk) 10:35, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Under Argument for God - NDNID

I've added: "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 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." and that this is most relevant to the article, without "pretentions"! Good? 62.16.241.158 (talk) 02:09, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Your comment is rather incoherent, but let me see if I can make head or tail of it...

...the necessary entailment of Heaven as personal experience...

I'm guessing you mean something like “people had experiences of Heaven, implying that it exists”. Something to do with NDEs, perhaps?

...a credible description of God, envisioning a possible God that's non-contradictory to science for remaining so...

You can envision a God that doesn’t contradict science and remains that way... so, a God that does not perform miracles?

...logical possibility for God that defends it from (intellectual) attacks from all non-God beliefs because they fail to prove the (non-logical) possibility for God and as such...

Sooo... A God that doesn’t have an illogical description (like being a creator outside time, or having all the omni- properties) can’t be proven illogical?

This defence of God can't be denied...

It’d have to be understood first. Maybe you should try explaining your ideas to other people, then you’ll be better prepared to express them in writing. ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 22:55, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

This "incoherency" of yours stands on you, mister. First, I don't need to provide an explanation that defeats itself, i.e., it has to be non-contradictory in both scientific and logical terms in order to be credible. Religious people can actually think too, you know. Thus, I don't want to comment your input more than this, other than to say that Heaven is an ideal after-life place and has NOTHING to do with NDEs, but perhaps NDEs are a strong interest with you! You also seem to discredit it, blindly, well-knowing it is the strongest argument around. Do you deny this??? LFOlsnes-Lea 17:34, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I do, because I can’t know if it’s the “strongest argument around” until I understand what you’re arguing.

I still don’t understand you mean by “the necessary entailment of Heaven as personal experience”. To me, that sounds like “because of (something unspecified), Heaven is necessarily a personal experience”, but I presume that wasn’t your intent.

You say your explanation “has to be non-contradictory in both scientific and logical terms in order to be credible”. Great, do you have such an explanation?

I repeat my earlier suggestion: If you try explaining your argument aloud to other people first, you’ll be better able to express it in writing. ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 18:09, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

First of all, when you blatantly deny "that you can read/understand" this argument, that has a clear logical structure and that accepts any description that can fall under it, then this is on you again, putting all your will into not understanding. (You are one person, but there are 7 Bn of us around.) Well, well...

2, non-contradictory explanation can be this, in part, such that souls obtain (by Van Lommel-studies...) and the creation of the Universe, but in ways still that are non-contradictory and in-line with scientific findings. You can make additional non-self-defeating explanation all you want, but you won't have these "easy-to-shoot-down-balloons".

It's only that Heaven must be necessarily entailed in the argument or the argument is of no value because Heaven becomes untenable! Therefore, you write it wrongly, Heaven is by the argument not necessarily a personal experience and this notion is also not even discussed!

The main trick of the argument is to shove the opposition back to where they need to prove "not possible God", logically, and this too, seems to "escape" your mind!

So, finally, this can be read by many people and you may risk to look dumber every day because some people may perceive the argument being discussed as plain, something that you, now, have obviously failed to understand. That's it for me. I can wait five years or any time. This is not primarily on me because I have what I need. Let's see what happens, despite your incapability to "understand the argument", honest or not... Cheers! LFOlsnes-Lea 22:04, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

You seem so convinced of your “clear logical structure” that you presume 7 billion other people would understand you perfectly, and suggest that my sincere incomprehension must be dishonest. If any of them can explain your argument better, I invite them to elucidate.

“non-contradictory explanation can be this, in part, such that souls obtain (by Van Lommel-studies...) and the creation of the Universe”

So, are you arguing “Some resuscitated patients reported OOBEs, therefore souls exist, therefore God exists”, and “the universe was created, therefore there’s a creator”?

“Heaven must be necessarily entailed in the argument or the argument is of no value because Heaven becomes untenable”

Does this mean “arguments for God which don’t entail Heaven are worthless, because otherwise, Heaven would not be credible”?

“The main trick of the argument is to shove the opposition back to where they need to prove "not possible God", logically”

Where and how does your argument shift the burden of proof? ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 04:26, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi, please refrain from personal attacks, and keep in mind that civility is one of Wikipedia's 5 pillars of conduct. (Jonathanfu (talk) 05:04, 26 June 2012 (UTC))

Ahh... it becomes clear! Here we have Robin Lionheart, an Atheist (and a graduate programmer) with little or no knowledge of the Bible and little care of it as well, I assume! So this must be it, it's about the above 2 people, one in ignorance and one with no sympathies for new input. I get noted for failure to civility and he gets nothing for dishonesty! You're being unfair! This is my end comment to my alleged incoherent idea from this person. LFOlsnes-Lea (talk) 05:18, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Could I just remind you both that this is not the place to discuss your own theories or opinions; the talk page exists to discuss possible improvements to the article. LFOlsnes-Lea, if you have a strong, reliable source for the argument you are discussion, please add it to the article with the source - if someone wants to challenge you, they should challenge the reliability of the source, not whether or not they like the argument. There is no point in defending the argument, as that has absolutely no bearing on whether it will be included. Jonathanfu, please avoid criticising the argument here - I know you disagree with it (that's fine), but Wikipedia is not the place to tell us that. Find a debate forum if you want to do that. The strength or weakness of an argument of an argument has no bearing on its inclusion; the only thing that will determine whether we include it is if it is covered in reliable sources - that should be the focus of your discussion. If there are no reliable sources, just drop it - Wikipedia is not the place for the argument to be posted. If there are, add them to the article, or discuss here whether they are good enough. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 09:23, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Don't worry about me, I don't know enough about this topic to be criticizing arguments. The extent of my contribution to this talk page was "Hi, please refrain from personal attacks, and keep in mind that civility is one of Wikipedia's 5 pillars of conduct." Jonathanfu (talk) 23:08, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Even if Lea can find a source for whatever their word salad signifies, their contribution has to be comprehensible too. ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 07:58, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to raise the WP:MTPPT toward the user above as the user fails to use my name properly and keeps provoking for my attention! Whose meatpuppet is it? LFOlsnes-Lea (talk) 19:24, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Article title question

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

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)

I have pinged the mover (User:Pass a Method) on their talkpage. I've also added a Requested Move template to garner wider discussion. --Cybercobra (talk) 18:29, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

• Comment – The content of the article includes discussion of polytheistic (and non-theistic) possibilities, so doesn't the current title more accurately reflect the content than the proposed one? If the article is intended to be restricted to consideration of monotheism, perhaps the title should be clarified in some other way, such as "Existence of a monotheistic god" or "Existence of a single creating god". —BarrelProof (talk) 19:31, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

• Doesn't the earlier use of the capitalized "God" itself rather clearly indicate that the monotheistic view is more or less the scope of the article. Also, in all honesty, at the very least, if the article title is to have "God(s)" or something similar, the capitalization of the G should be dropped, as that already indicates in common usage that the word is being used as a reference for one or more monotheistic creator Gods who are referred to in that way. John Carter (talk) 20:01, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - The article uses also "God(s)". Perhaps, then, one can make one "gods" page, for the polytheistic considerations (probably unpopular) and "God" for the more seriously oriented visitors. What say you? LFOlsnes-Lea (talk) 19:36, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I changed the title. The reason i kept the capital G is because some religions refer to multiple gods in a noun type of way. For example in neo-paganism or parts of Hindusim. Since this is a general article for all gods, i think there should be just on article covering both polytheism and monotheism. But im prepared to change it to a lower case G. Pass a Method talk 20:13, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with your move to the plural form but think it would make more sense to use a lower case g. While some religions may use it in the way you described, we're using it in a purely generic sense and so grammatically it should be lower case. It would also appear that we're taking the POV of the religions you described by using the capitol G, in that not all polytheistic religions would use it, if that makes sense. Sædon^talk 20:21, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

It does make sense, actually, at least to me. I also note that the article had I think been fairly stable at Existence of God for some time, and I myself have not seen how the assertion that "this is a general article for all gods" is necessary supported by a review of the article or the talk page. Perhaps, I haven't checked, reviewing the article history might indicate that the "Existence of God" might relate to the philosophical question of the existence of God, which is almost always thought of in terms of a creator god, which, in general, is also a single creator god. Much of the article as it exists seems to be about the various philosophical proofs or positions on the existence of God as the phrase is used in that way. But I do think that, at least in terms of the philosophical questions involved, the standard designation as per WP:NAME is "Existence of God", or "Proofs of the existence of God." Also, basically, I tend to believe that, if we are intending to use the article to discuss the existence of multiple, non-creator gods, that would likely be a rather more complex subject, and that might merit its own article. If there are any religions out there which posit multiple creators, that too would be a rather complex subject, and possibly meriting its own article. In any event, I am leaving messages at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Philosophy and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion about this discussion, and hope that the input of more hopefully knowledgable editors will be useful in resolving this. John Carter (talk) 20:45, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

• reply @Sædon to be honest i dont really care whether G is lower case or upper case. Pass a Method talk 21:20, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - 'God' as in one God is found in Abrahamic religions. 'Gods' are found in religions like Hinduism, Ancient Greek religion, Ancient Roman religion, Ancient Egyptian religion etc. the usage 'God(s)' is inclusive of all.117.204.80.14 (talk) 20:56, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
• Move back per WP common name. The majority of sources about the question of the existence of God or Gods use the first form and treat specifically the existence of the Abrahamic God, not the existence of Gods in polytheist religions. The existence of Gods would be an entirely different article.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:11, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

It does not make sense to move it back since this article speaks about polytheism and henotheism. The article also speaks about atheism and panthism which can both refer to god in a plural sense. Furthermore, the singular title would be discriminatory to Hindus, neopagans such as Wicca, Shinto Chinese folk religion etc. It would also trivializer historical conceptions of God which were often pluralistic. Also the singular version is a perfect example of WP:POVTITLE. Pass a Method talk 21:41, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I do not see much clear logic in the above comment. Even in polytheism and henotheism, there is still the ultimate question regarding the proofs of the existence of one or more creator Gods. And, there is nothing that I know of in Hinduism or henotheism which does not indicate that they do not themselves believe in one creator god, although admittedly in Hinduism there is a serious question as to who created Brahma, the fairly universally proximate creator God. In short, I think that there may be in some editors a bit of a misunderstanding of the intended content of this article. If that is the case, as I think it might be, it would have made more sense to enquire before the move what the essence of the article was, rather than unilaterally without discussion changing the title based on possible misconceptions. John Carter (talk) 22:01, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Hinduism is not homogenous religion. It has various denominations with different views. Its the same with many other religions who are also not homogenous. Also im not sure why you keep drifting this discussion to creationism. Are you trying to see that there cannot be multiple creators? Can you be a bit more specific? Pass a Method talk 22:44, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Basically, the prior existing content of the article was what led me to believe that, philosophically anyway, there is generally considered to be only one creator God. Now, that creator may have had creations which also created, but the essence of the proofs included in the page clearly refer to a single creator God, or a group of creators which can be philosophically interpreted, ultimately, as the equivalent of a single creator. That being the case, I believe that WP:BURDEN would indicate that it should be you, not me, to provide evidence of multiple creator gods. I do acknowledge that the Zoroastrians considered both Ahriman and Ormazd as separate creators, but, honestly, I can't honestly think of any others thereafter who have held that position. John Carter (talk) 22:37, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

• Move Back per Maunus and John Carter. Maybe one could properly write an article about the existence of gods, but the philosophical arguments covered in this article only make sense in the context of a supreme creator God. The Hindu arguments covered in this article are also against the existence of a creator God. If you look beyond the second paragraph, the article does not talk about polytheism at all. It does talk about atheism, of course, and although atheism is the rejection of all gods, the specific atheological arguments covered here, such as the problem of evil, only make sense in the context of a supreme God. As Maunus said above, The existence of Gods would be an entirely different article. Vesal (talk) 22:54, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose because this article includes Hinduism, and because we shouldn’t privilege monotheistic religions over polytheistic ones. However, if we cover only arguments for a creator deity (which’d include not only God but Brahman, Mbombo, Atum, Ometeotl, Nana Buluku, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and others), perhaps we should narrow our focus accordingly, to “Existence of a creator deity” or “Arguments for creationism”.

Or if, per Vesal, we cover only arguments for a supreme deity (blessed be his meatballs), perhaps “Existence of a supreme being” would be more appropriate. ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 01:04, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose considering the coverage of polytheistic religions in this article, the proposed title is biased. Suggest Existence of dieties instead. There's no particular reason for "God" or "Gods" to be capitalized. It might also do to split the article in two, with a subarticle for the Existence of the Abrahamic God -- 70.49.127.65 (talk) 03:57, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, “deities” would be much better than “God(s)”. ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 04:42, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

• Strong oppose, This article is not only about monotheism. Otherwise you'd have to consider a compltely different title and possibly create a new seperate article dealing with the existence of a polytheistic deity. Furthermore, the old title is a clear violation of WP:POVTITLE. Pass a Method talk 08:03, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
• Move back. Hindusim is only citing "Brahman" and has no "Gods" in it. Thus, the above IP, "117.204.80.14", is subverting, WP:HOAX, this discussion. Note also that the above IP on Hinduism is on the Oppose side. LFOlsnes-Lea (talk) 10:43, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Break

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)

• Support' per Saedon's suggestion Pass a Method talk 11:19, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
• move back, save discussion of upper vs. lower case G to another time. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:16, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

You should give a reason for a vote. Votes are considered by strength of argument, not count-number. As you have not given a reason i can suspect that your vote will not carry much weight. Pass a Method talk 12:27, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support. "Existence of God" is an idiom, an established question in philosophy. There are at least two books of this title, one by Swinburne and a classic by Salignac. No one writes about the "existence of God(s)". It is ungrammatical. If you wanted to write something about the validity of polytheism, you could use the title "existence of the gods". In any case, this article focuses on monotheism. Kauffner (talk) 14:29, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
• Singular The title should be singular, as the phrase is commonly used. Grantmidnight (talk) 15:39, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
• Move back, per Maunus, Vesal, and John Carter. If one God doesn't exist, then multiple ones don't exist either, I suppose. I agree that WP:COMMONNAME points this way. Putting parentheses in the title makes it read like we are over-thinking it. I don't feel very strongly either way about the capitalization. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:46, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
• Move back The article and question is mostly about the concept of God, so it should be singular. Even one of the arguments against, which compares the God(s) of different religions, uses those different versions of the singular God to try and show that the concept therefore doesn't exist. First Light (talk) 21:54, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
• Move back to Existence of God per COMMONNAME. ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:21, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment it's only the common name in relation to the Christian conception of God, not to the general concept of dieties. -- 76.65.131.160 (talk) 04:13, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
• Move back - ill advised. The word "god" doesn't refer to any particular god, so this plural is completely unnecessary. Greg Bard (talk) 19:36, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support Current title more accurately reflects scope of article and of topic, but makes capitalization either incorrect usage or POV. The text of the lede needs to be tweaked to reflect the new title and the overall scope of the topic, and should perhaps use "deity" alongside "god(s)" to decouple the issue from the common shorthand of the use of "God" on the assumption there is only one. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:25, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment All thirteen references and external links in the article that mention "God" in their title, without exception, refer to the singular concept "God" capitalized. None of them reference Gods, God(s), or gods. I imagine a reading of all the reliable sources that are used in the article would show a similar weighting, though perhaps not unanimous. First Light (talk) 05:14, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Comment The reason for that is because most references focus on the Christian God, ignoring all the other gods. This article on the other hand is not focused on the Christian God, therefore the title should reflect that. It would be a clear violation of WP:NPOV otherwise. Pass a Method talk 20:16, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
      • Comment Um, no. Two of the thirteen are specifically about the Islamic concept of God. One mentions "God, the Supreme Soul, Shiva....", which is one Hindu concept of God (singular). One of the references leads to this: "For example, "God" has many names. Muslims call him "Allah"; most Christians and Jews call him "God"; Jehovah's Witnesses call him "Jehovah"; Mormons call him "Heavenly Father"." Again, most of the references, and most of this article, is about the concept of God. One of the references leads to an article on God as Ishvara. All of them are about God as supreme creator/ruler/lord. Yes, the Christian view of "God" (yet again, singular) is perhaps more prominent. And my own reading of this article is also that it is about the concept of "God." Singular. First Light (talk) 20:34, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
        • Very good point. Part of the problem here is the definition of "gods". To some religions, the Judeo-Christian Saint Michael would qualify as a god. He doesn't in Abrahamic faiths, though. "God", in the singular sense, refers to that entity which is all-powerful, all-knowing, all-etc., and, in general, philosophically, that being or beings is also the initial creator. There are some religions, like Jainism, where there is no all-powerful, etc., entity, and so far as I can tell they don't discuss this matter much if at all. The only way to really display or prove being all-powerful is by being the original creator. And the capitalized "God" is, in general usage, used to denote a hypothetical omnipotent being. John Carter (talk) 20:53, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
          • John, you are making an assumption that if there is a creator it must be a singular creator. Why do you dismiss the possiblity of multiple creators? After all there is increasing credibility for a multiverse is there not? As for First Light's point. I can easily find multiple sources mentioning a plural use of gods regarding their existence, for example [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11] Pass a Method talk 21:06, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
            • I was referring to and using only references in this article, and the way that the term is used in this article. That's because this article is about the concept of the almighty, omnipotent singular "God" that appears in most major religions, just as John Carter explains. It would certainly be appropriate to have Wikipedia articles about various other deities, but even in that case, many religions such as Hinduism see the various deities only as aspects of the one God, Brahman. First Light (talk) 21:19, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

First Light in his above comment obviously shows ignorance. Firstly most major religios do not have the concept of the almighty, omnipotent singular "God", for example Chinese folk religion, African folk religion, Hindduim, Huddhism. Wicca, etc. Secondly, this article is solely about the monotheistic god, since this article obviously also speaks about polytheism. Not sure whether he has sight problems or memory problems. Pass a Method talk 22:12, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

• Move back per COMMONNAME. If a decision is made to keep a plural title, it should be "Existence of deities" rather than "Existence of God(s)" for grammar and style reasons. CRGreathouse (t | c) 12:57, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I accept the outcome of thi debate. Pass a Method talk 13:37, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Where does god exist

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)

On Kolob, if the Mormons are right. ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 17:03, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Where is the heading entitled: Evidence for the existence of God?

Polytheistic attitudes about 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)

Carnap and Religion

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)

Possible Inspirational Quotes Pro God

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)

How about no. I find that it implies people without religion are evil, which is not the case. Also, how is this relevant to the EXISTENCE of God? This is merely cheering for religion. Gerralore (talk) 21:41, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikiquote is over thataway. ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 16:14, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

This can't be right

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)

Criteria for Citation Needed and Weasel-Words

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)

Not sure exactly what you are looking for, but you might look at Wikipedia:Citation needed and WP:Weasel. Editor2020 (talk) 23:46, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

"Hindu arguments"

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)

How does the proposed law of karma (and a deity to judge it) repeat any other argument? DeistCosmos (talk) 22:32, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Because it's the transcendental argument - specifically, moral reward - in Inductive Arguments, under Other Arguments.

Oct13 (talk) 16:39, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

But Hinduism does not simply propose that morality would not make sense absent a god, but that karma-- good things in fact happening to good people, and the converse-- tangibly demonstrate such an agency at work. Even if only through reincarnation, this is an actual physical result of divine action being claimed. DeistCosmos (talk) 20:18, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Karma and reincarnation are moral rewards (since X thing happens as a result of Y behavior: good karm for good people, reincarnation for bad people, etc.) so it does repeat the transcendental argument. Oct13 (talk) 12:41, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Then we ought to promote transcendental to its own section and put all of this together within it. DeistCosmos (talk) 15:19, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

unlocked for edits???

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.

• - for all 4 examples i am not insulting believers but rather the extremists in all these areas

203.219.85.18 (talk) 10:12, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Per WP:PROTECT, we only protect articles if there is concrete evidence of frequent and ongoing vandalism or edit warring, or if the topic is particularly sensitive. Looking at the history, I don't see enough recent activity, let alone disruptive editing, to consider page protection at the moment. All edits go into a database, and old versions can be easily restored (by any user) if a wacko manages to reduce article quality. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:44, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

The Problem of Hell

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)

That doesn't really answer the objection, since it imputes the category far too broadly, and conflates the question of whether punishment is merited to the question of whether infinite punishment is merited. It may be that some people don't deserve to get into heaven (or even that nobody really does), but at the same time it is clear that whatever wrongs placed them in this position were finite, and therefore that any punishment must be finite, or the punishment itself becomes an evil on the part of whoever could stop it but fails to act. DeistCosmos (talk) 20:19, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Another explanation is that God has created human being with free-will, and someone can intentionally decide to be so evil that really does not deserve forgiveness. Kiatdd (talk) 20:43, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

But once the punishment exceeds the wrong, unforgivingness becomes purely evil. At that point the finite wrong h already been punished, and the once-wrongdoer is being punished for nothing. A being would need to be an infinitely evil scum to permit an infinite punishment for a finite wrong. Naturally, it is a compoundedly greater error to make a binary inquiry of this. Some faiths suggest a deity so basely evil that it would impose an eternal punishment on somebody who simply never came to believe in the existence of the deity in question despite living an otherwise good, even flawless life. But so far as I am given to understand, Islam avoids this error by providing that the 'sinner' retains the ability to repent and obtain forgiveness even after death, ie even while in Islamic hell. Which is the most sensible thing of all, since the infinite impossibility of such a thing would require a most sadistic elimination of free will. Simply put, if our minds continue to exist after death at all then we retain the capability to change our minds, or they are not truly our minds. That's what it means to have a mind at all. And if we are able to change out minds then people must be able to to go from a hell to a heaven or from a heaven to a hell based upon their change of mind. DeistCosmos (talk) 14:57, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

The pitfall in your argument is that when you see hell as a punishment, something that God has made to punish people in a very disproportional way…let’s see it this way: I am given free-will, and I mean free-will in its broadest and deepest concept, and I am told that if I lock a door I won’t be able to unlock it and yet I do what I’m not supposed to do, intentionally and fully aware of the consequences. In this view I have created a situation that is hell, not God and in this view God is the hope not the torturer that you described. In your mathematical terms I have cause infinite pain with a finite action, which is possible, I can give real life examples.Kiatdd (talk) 16:25, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

It is simply mathematically impossible for a finite mind to ever be "fully aware" of an infinite consequence. That is what makes infinite consequences inherently evil as applied to finite actors. And it can not be the case that the consequence is both infinite, and unfixable for the duration of that infinite period, for that would eliminate the free will from which the situation is claimed to arise. DeistCosmos (talk) 16:51, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Humans seem to have the ability to understand infinite, for example two parallel line do not intersect infinitely, we have a symbol for it,∞. Here a mortal limited actor is given unbelievable choices with everlasting consequences.Kiatdd (talk) 17:12, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

The choices may well be unbelievable but the very fact that we simply 'have a symbol for it' indicates that we cannot truly understand it as it is. The question remains: why does the least deserving condemned person remain condemned? And why would this condemnation persist even when the condemned person least deserving of condemnation fully repented after, say, one hundred billion years of torture? Why not, when the least deserving saved person is saved for all time, even if they become no more worthy of it after salvation, or even slip into thoughts meriting condemnation? DeistCosmos (talk) 19:45, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

• The problem of this discussion is that it appears to be original research, anything in articles has to come from reliable sources. The problem in relation to this article is that the topic is one of a list which links to main articles on the various topics, rather than giving sources for the statements. The Problem of Hell article does cite sources and appears to be reasonably well summarised by the brief statement here: any discussion of the wording here must be related to coverage in that article. . . . dave souza, talk 17:33, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Dave souza is right, the argument is just a line in a long list and is properly discussed in the corresponding page, an interesting comment by C.S.Lewis is given in that page about our discussion.Kiatdd (talk) 18:34, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

The misinformation on knowledge in the article

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)

The article now begins to acquire the length and corroboration that one expects from a serious article by this Wikipedia. Why not lock it so to prevent the idiot-vandalism by word-dressing we here witness, please? 109.189.67.107 (talk) 20:26, 10 March 2013 (UTC)