Talk:Arguments for the existence of God/Archive 1

Moved POV content here
See also: talk:Traditionally respectable arguments for the existence of God

Removed the following due to extreme POV sermonising content Mintguy 16:53 Dec 11, 2002 (UTC)

These arguments may not prove conclusively that God is, but they do show that in order to the existence of any knowledge, thought, reason, conscience in man, we must assume that God is.

''It is said of the beautiful, "It may be shown, but not proved". So we say of the existence of God. These arguments are probable, not demonstrative. For this reason they supplement each other, and constitute a series of evidences which is cumulative in its nature.''

''Though taken singly, none of them can be considered absolutely decisive, they together furnish a corroboration of our primitive conviction of God's existence, which is of great practical value, and is in itself sufficient to bind the moral actions of men. A bundle of rods may not be broken even though each one separately may; the strength of the bundle is the strength of the whole. If in practical affairs we were to hesitate to act until we have absolute and demonstrable certainty, we should never begin to move at all.''

Instead of doubting everything that can be doubted, let us rather doubt nothing until we are compelled to doubt.

This page should be merged with arguments against the existence of god since both generally link to the same pages. I suggest "arguments about the existence of god." Fairandbalanced 21:20, 13 Sep 2003 (UTC)

''What we mean by the proof of God's existence is simply that there are necessary acts of thought by which we rise from the finite to the infinite, from the caused to the uncaused, from the contingent to the necessary, from the reason involved in the structure of the universe to a universal and eternal reason, which is the ground of all, from morality in conscience to a moral Lawgiver and Judge. In this connection the theoretical proofs constitute an inseparable unity -- constitute together but the undulations of a single wave, which wave is but a natural rise and ascent to God, on the part of man's own thought, with man's own experience and consciousness as the object before him.''

''Religion was not produced by proofs of God's existence, and will not be destroyed by its insufficiency to some minds. Religion existed before argument; in fact, it is the preciousness of religion that leads to the seeking for all possible confirmations of the reality of God.''

- I'd like to add a link from this page to Christological argument if no-one objects. Samw 02:55 Apr 29, 2003 (UTC)


 * Meditation is often helpful and is unrelated to the Abrahamic God.

I am not certain what point is trying to be made here, but it seems to me that it could be said more clearly. Not sure who added this, but it seems to need some sort of attention. --- Smerdis of Tlön 02:42, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Pascals wager
Every other entry ends in "argument". The Anthropic argument.. the Christological argument, etc... I put it this way because it fit well with the form of the page. Jack 05:39, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * As far as I'm concerned you can list it as that. When I have some more time to research the wager in a bit more detail I anticipate doing a slight redesign of this page anyway. - snoyes 05:47, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Yeah, you'll not find alot of heat in me over this one either, reasonable people could see either way (or maybe reaasonable people would be indifferent? ;) Jack 06:05, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * Theres alot to do, both here and in several related articles. This is my area of expertise, so I am really going to enjoy making these articles worthy of 1.0! Jack 06:02, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

It is an appeal to the stick or Appeal to consequences. Besides, an argument for the belief in God is plenty close enough to warrant inclusion, but if you are pragmatic, you will see how utility creates reality ;) Sam Spade 18:50, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Argument of abundant testimony
It is already stated in the article that some claim to belief in God because of personal experience, but how should the article accommodate the idea of the argument that the existence of God is continually being revealed by direct and personal experience to numerous people? What is this argument called? Is it one of the arguments given? I would tentatively state the argument thus: "Because numerous people are continually telling detailed personal stories about experiences in which they discover a spiritual light and love that transcend all other reality and alertness while they are clinically dead, it is most reasonable to conceed that a spiritual realm probably exists, presumably with a God. User:Hawstom (I added the sig Sam [Spade] 21:15, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC))


 * Sounds like the Bandwagon or genetic fallacy to me. Perhaps Appeal to authority? Sam [Spade] 21:13, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I don't think it is the Bandwagon argument by any stretch. The ones telling the stories, though they are numerous, are relatively a small minority. But I may be misunderstanding the application of the Bandwagon fallacy here. The Appeal to authority is a closer approximation, so I need to clarify just where the fallacy in Appeal to Authority is said to lie. Is the fallacy in appealing to spurious authority? Is it a fallacy for me to believe there are penguins in Argentina because my trustworthy friend John told me he saw them there? Tom 22:58, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Appeal to authority isn't necessarilly a fallacy. Your example might be unless your friend is a known expert on the subject, or if you otherwise deem him to be a good witness. Sam [Spade] 23:02, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The Appeal to authority is a close approximation, but doesn't really fit either; what we are dealing with is an Appeal to Testimony, rather than an Appeal to authority. Of course appealing to spurious testimony would be a fallacy, and appealing to testimony is problematic. But appealing to testimony is a mainstay of intelligent decision-making, as in the courts of law. Is there a formal name for appeal to testimony as separate from appeal to authority? And is it one of the arguments given here already? Tom 22:58, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Not really. Majority argument is similar. As far as "appeal to testimony", it's synonymous w Appeal to authority as far as I know.Sam [Spade] 02:08, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Here&rsquo;s a link. To simplify, accepting testimony, even that of an expert, necessarily requires inductive reasoning, and thus is fallible. Sam [Spade] 02:18, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * I think we are pretty much eye-to-eye. You hint that Majority argument is also not quite the same as Appeal to testimony.  And you agree out that Appeal to testimony requires inductive reasoning and is tricky.  And you say that Appeal to testimony is probably not already in the article.  So, how and where to add it?  Tom 15:34, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Have a look. Let me know what you think, pro or con. If your willing to accept appeal to authority, how about just listening to your parents, or a local church leader? Really anyone who is spiritual could be seen as a valid witness. The trouble w this is that its unconvincing to atheists, who are generally nihilistic and dismiss the testimony of "experts" who disagree w them. They also tend to deny the historical accuracy of religious teachings. When it comes to converting non-believers (and really in all matters where it is possible) I personally favor deductive reasoning. Sam [Spade] 17:58, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hmm. I think it misses in that it likens appeal to testimony to appeal to authority, when they are in reality quite different. In court, for example, the detailed account from a victim or credible witness is not an authoritative or expert testimony. Witness testimony is quite different in concept from expert testimony. A religious leader may or may not be a personal witness of anything I am interested in learning from, and a personal witness to something I am interested in learning from may or may not be a religious or other kind of leader, expert, or authority. In fact, an eye-witness may not even be willing or able to testify, while experts, authorities, and leaders are always more than willing to opine. Does that make any sense? Suppose your big brother told you he saw your mother bring your Christmas Crossman BB gun home in a Sears shopping bag. If your mother had the bad taste to claim Santa brought the gift, and you appealled to the testimony of your brother, that would be an appeal to testimony. You would say "He saw," not "He claims" or "He teaches" The only assumption necessary is the credibility of your brother to report such a witness. It is important that this appeal to witnesses not be confused with appeal to authorities, because, to me at least they are worlds apart in their value where God is concerned. Tom 20:15, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Here is an interesting idea: Credible witnesses commonly say, "I have seen/experienced such and such, and here is how you can verify it yourself." For example, Jesus said, "The pure in heart shall see God." Now, if I say that I have personally seen a certain ancient ruin in Tibet, and you can too, you may not want to pay the price to see it, but that doesn't mean it isn't verifiable personally by you. And if Jesus says the pure in heart shall see God, and I am not willing to find out what that means, that doesn't mean God is unverifiable. It just means I choose not to verify Him. So we rely on witnesses. But of course if there are no witnesses at all, that gives one cause to doubt. Appeal to authority in the case of God amounts to hearsay, but appeal to Witness is much stronger. Tom 20:31, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Sorry to say, I'm not convinced by your closing statement. Human witness has been shown to be the worst quality of evidence, more likely in error than any other. Thats why in the OT (and muslim law) the require 4 eye witness's or 5 confessions (I believe). One eye witness simply isn't credible for something important. Even experts are often wrong. To simplify, I would only trust my brother maybe 20% likely to be correct. He's just a stupid kid, not an expert or anything ;) Sam [Spade] 20:53, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Right. Very right.  Appeal to witness isn't necessarily much stronger than Appeal to Authority.  But they are different.  Each has it's own dangers and possible fallacies.  As you say, Appeal to Witnesses (Testimony) is often well strengthened by requiring many witnesses, independently corroborating.  This is clarifying what we might say in the article. Tom 16:35, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree, and the more I think about it, this is an important concept (particularly in american protestantism, in my experience) which had been neglected until now. One interesting area I'd point out is that the very definition of "expert" is tested in this case. Is an expert on God a man w a theology degree? A priest? I have heard many a priest admit to doubting his faith. On the other hand there are many believers (myself included) whose personal revelation and relationship with God leaves them lacking in such doubt. So perhaps what your suggesting is that a layman who has been a personal witness is a better "expert" than a educated scholor who has not? Sam [Spade] 16:50, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Yeah. One is an "expert", and the other is simply a witness.  "I don't know much, but I know what I have experienced/seen."  If there are gifts of the Spirit, and visions, and there is a spiritual world, and people are experiencing all these things, then there ought to be a lot of corroborating testimony.  I have to confess I have been super impressed with the consistent core thread among dozens of death visits (NDE's) I have suddenly taken to reading in the past months.  Whether it means anything to anybody else, or to an atheist, that consistent, simple testimony of the personally experienced eternal perspective and love of God is deeply meaningful to me.  Not to mention the personal experience I too have had as I have read the testimonies.  They have opened Holy Writ to me and clarified a lot of supposed "problems" that are debated.  It became frustrating for me to see all the "experts" debating philosophy of God when it appeared He was revealing Himself directly all around us contemporaneously.  Tom 06:44, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Bear in mind though that consistency in these experiences argues for some sort of underlying common mechanism but doesn't necessarily say much about what that mechanism may be. For example it is quite common for a blow to the head to cause a person to see "stars", but that doesn't necessarily mean that those "stars" have an independent existence outside our brains; it could just mean that the visual centers of most people's brains are similarly designed and so produce similar effects under those conditions. The same sort of argument could be made for various types of common religious experiences and the necessity of ruling out these alternate explanations somehow should probably be mentioned. Bryan 07:23, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * That's true. The argument of witness/testimony needs to account for the necessity of the witness having the experience to discern what he is seeing (see  for a good discussion).  It probably would be important to mention the need to rule out "fake" or "mistaken" experiences of God.  In the article, would it be most appropriate to present 1) what are the most impressive testimonies, 2) why they are considered most credible, and 3) why alternate explanations must be considered? Tom 18:00, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

From what I have run across, I would say the most impressive testimonies describe and entail The most impressive testimonies are impressive because their sheer reality, by any measure, leaves no room for alternate interpretation other than that all existince is but an illusion. Mixing less powerful arguments and testimonies with the most impressive ones clouds the import of the most impressive ones and, yes, does leave a lot of room for question, fallacy, and alternate explanation. I'm not sure how to include that in the article, but I don't think it is there at present. Tom 18:00, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * transcendent awareness, as though the participant had awakened from a long dream
 * transcendent knowlege and understanding, as though the participant suddenly understood everything and all the philosophical and theological questions of the ages were suddenly resolved
 * transcendent perceptions, with seeing, hearing, feeling, loving all raised to a higher reality
 * transcendent perspective, including transcendent empathy, memory, modesty, and humility
 * transcendent meaning, whereby the witnessed reality becomes the definitive focus of the participant's subsequent life

Argument from lack of physical infinities
What about the argument from the nonexistence of actual physical (large) infinities? I've heard it expressed by Dr. William Lane Craig, but I don't know if he is the person who thought of it first (appreciate definitive source info here). Basically, there is the observation that in the physical world, actual infinities are never observed. Something that gets big always has something else happen to it rather than grow in size indefinitely. Now, if there were no god, then history would go backward and forward without end, and we would have an actual physical infinity. But since actual physical infinities are not observed, it would be preposterous to suggest that they actually exist in the first place. Hence a god must of opened and will close what we know as time, and by extension, at least one god must exist. Nelson 3 Aug 2004
 * "must of" is meaningless. Relearn English.  This does not argue for god, or God, but for something else that may as well be similar to time and space rather than inexplicably greater than them. lysdexia 01:33, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Is this Inheriently POV?
This article seems like only half of a POV article. I think that to be NPOV, this fact should be made clear (and a link to the other half provided) early in the article instead of at the end. --L33tminion | (talk) 05:48, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)

Link suggestions
An automated Wikipedia link suggester has some possible wiki link suggestions for the Arguments_for_the_existence_of_God article, and they have been placed on this page for your convenience. Tip: Some people find it helpful if these suggestions are shown on this talk page, rather than on another page. To do this, just add to this page. &mdash; LinkBot 10:41, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

--

This article is substandard beyond comprehension. The agenda behind this article is clear, let us separate arguments for and against and hope that people only see one. The arguments are flawed some evidently so, why aren't the counter arguments presented in the same place? Because this is a page for? Is that an explanation? This article is a biased by construction. What's next an article with the arguments for the opinion that the holocaust never existed, an article for the earth is flat and an article for all subject where total universal agreement lacks? I propose to join the two articles but still keep some structure in the following way

Arguments concerning the existence of God

arguments often waged for

argument 1 counter arguments to argument 1 counter arguments "counter arguments to argument 1"

argument 2 etc.

argument often waged against

argument 1 etc.

/TheBigD


 * I think that could easily spin out of control and inflate the article hugely considering how much intricate argumentation has been done on this topic throughout history. The current structure isn't so bad at the beginning; each argument has a two or three line summary of what it's about and a link to an article (Cosmological argument, Absolute Infinite, etc.) that's about that argument in detail. Inflating those articles hugely isn't such a big deal since they're much more focused. Later on this article doesn't have as many links to more-specific pages, though; it could probably use more of those. I'll add a few. Bryan 02:59, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

- I still don't see the point of the division of for and against in two articles. Why should that division take place in this issue but not in others? If it's ok in this article why not acupuncture, holocaust etc...?

/TheBigD

What the BigD proposes is absolutely correct, and should be done if workable. We can't avoid doing so in the fear of a shouting match. If you want more comment, I can ask a few seasoned editors to come and opine. But I am quite comfortable that BigD is correct. All we have to do now is act. Or we can put a little poll below to gather consensus opinion first if anybody objects to immediate action. Tom Haws 20:34, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree that merging the two "arguments for/against" articles is probably the correct thing to do from an NPOV perspective, but I still think the resulting article should be largely a collection of several-line summaries with links to articles covering the sort of detail BigD is proposing. I'm not worried about the article turning into a shouting match, I'm mainly just worried that it'll turn into a multi-hundred-kilobyte monster once all those details start getting added. I would rather give each argument its own article with all the space for detail that it needs rather than try to distill it all down into one massive omnibus article. The two articles already take up 21 kilobytes between them with the summaries as brief as they are. Bryan 00:56, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * You bet. Good thinking.  Tom Haws 06:30, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

Scientific arguments
SS has just replaced the following, with the edit summary "info seemed good to me":


 * Scientific arguments
 * The most recent arguments actually use the scientific method and generally accepted scientific theories to prove the existence of God. Most of these arguments generally fall along the lines that God is the logical result of continued evolution or are related to Information Entropy, Maxwell's Demon and the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

There is nothing here but a vague gesturing at unexplained arguments, with three internal links to scientific articles. Nothing is said that tells the reader what these arguments actually are, how they're supposed to work, or what has or might be said about them. If someone can explain what these arguments are, then they should go into the article; hand-waving doesn't constitute giving information, however. Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 14:37, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I can guess what the general flow of these arguments might be: the existence of complex structures against the pull of entropy requires the intervention of a deity. I'm not sure how any such argument would significantly differ from the Argument from Design, though.  -- Smerdis of Tlön 15:07, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * That sounds likely, yes. I don't know of anything like these in the philosophical literature, though they may be mentioned as aspects of a larger form of argument (and it's a booming field, so it's difficult to keep up with everything). Mel Etitis  ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 15:43, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

SS reverted my edit, not having the courtesy to join in the discussion here, but saying in his edit summary, in his usual aggressive way, that I should look at the links. An article should not wave its hands vaguely at a set of arguments, and rely upon external links (unmentioned in the text, incidentally) to do the actual work. If somone wants to follow those links, see what the arguments are, and actually write about them in the article, that's fine; telling the reader to do her own research is not. Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 12:24, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Good job leaving in the external links that time. Sam Spade Apply now, exciting opportunities available at Spade & Archer! 12:28, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Trademark
Where does Descartes' Trademark argument fit in? &mdash;Sean &kappa;. &#x21D4; 15:15, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Weell, first, that's Cottingham's name for it, and extremely inaccurate I think. Secondly, it's an interesting version of the cosmological argument and one that certainly deserves to be explained and discussed somewhere. If no-one beats me to it (and if it isn't already in existence somewhere) I'll produce something myself. Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 17:32, 11 May 2005 (UTC)