Talk:Existence of God/Archive 1

The Concept of God in Other Cultures
[copy-and-pasted by crazyeddie 03:54, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)]

...the current article focuses a lot on Christian and Western theology and philosophy. A lot of these may be irrelevant for Eastern gods: The ontological argument, for instance, that God is perfect, is irrelevant in Hinduism, since Hinduistic gods are not all perfect. Also, those same Hindus perceive time as being circular - which might again have implications on whether gods can or cannot be proved to exist (the current discussion focuses too much on linear time and causality). I think this is something we should keep in mind in case we merge the articles, if we want to have an article that has validity beyond the judeo-christian sphere. Luis rib 21:14, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Not true.

Hindus all believe in One God. The two primary differences in Hinduism is those who conceive of God as Shiva and those who conceive of God as Vishnu. God is considered perfect, and sinless.

Christians, Jews, and Muslims all say they believe in the same God but differ in their conceptions of Him.

In the two largest branches of Hinduism, Shaivism and Vaishnavism, it is believed that God, whether in the form of Shiva or Vishnu has six attributes. However, the actual number of auspicious qualities of God, are countless, with the following six qualities being the most important.
 * The number six is invariably given, but the individual attributes listed vary.
 * One set of attributes (and their common interpretations) are
 * Jnana (Omniscience), defined as the power to know about all beings simultaneously;
 * Aishvarya (Sovereignty), which consists in unchallenged rule over all;
 * Shakti (Energy), or power, which is the capacity to make the impossible possible;
 * Bala (Strength), which is the capacity to support everything by will and without any fatigue;
 * Virya (Vigour), or valour which indicates the power to retain immateriality as the supreme being in spite of being the material cause of mutable creations; and
 * Tejas (Splendour), which expresses his self-sufficiency and the capacity to overpower everything by his spiritual effulgence.; cited from Bhakti Schools of Vedanta, by Swami Tapasyananda.
 * A second set of six characteristics are
 * Jnana (Omniscience),
 * Vairagya (Detachment),
 * Yasas (Fame),
 * Aisvarya (Sovereignty),
 * Sri (Glory) and
 * Dharma (Righteousness).


 * Other important qualities attributed to God are Gambhirya (grandeur), Audarya (generosity), and Karunya (compassion).

Raj2004 14:56, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Renaming the Article
[copy-and-pasted by crazyeddie 03:54, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)]

...I think "Arguments about the existence of god" is perhaps a better title, because the focus is about the arguments (or controversy)... Zashaw 20:24, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Zashaw that the current name of the combined article is sub-optimal. crazyeddie 08:44, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I propose that the title should be "Arguments regarding the existence of God" or possibly "Arguments for or against the existence of God." Using a lowercase "g" would not make any sense, for all the reasons I give in the section above. ... Johnstone 01:42, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Arguments regarding the existence of God


 * Arguments for or against the existence of God


 * Existence of God

I strongly prefer Existence of God, our goal needs to be making the title something a reader might concievably type in to the search bar. Think of the readers, and what title will best assist them. Anyways, I tried to list the proposed titles above. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 01:26, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * With any of the proposed titles for the combined article, a reader who types "Existence of God" into the search bar will find it, since that is a phrase contained in all proposed titles. Having said that, I do agree that brevity is preferred, I just think that "Existence of God" is slightly misleading, where "Arguments about the existence of God" is not.  Overall not a big deal for me, though.  Zashaw 01:59, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[end of copy-and-paste]

What is "God" infused into the structure
The problem with this article lies in its structure. Just referring to “God” through the whole article, making sporadic mentions of what that entails for a particular argument is, in my opinion, not necessarily the best way to go about it. Arguments against the existence of god/s tend to be stronger the more detailed the definition of those gods is and arguments for god/s existence stronger the vaguer the definition is. Argument using specific attributes cannot be used when they are missing from the required definition but often those attributes are stackable, e.g. the attribute that god created all implies the weaker attribute that he had a part of the creation which implies that he intervenes etc. Even when an attribute doesn’t by necessity follow another they most often do since that’s the way they are found in religions. The structure of the article could reflect that by ordering the argument according to attributes and clustering them when appropriate (since arguments most often utilize several attributes at once). E.g.:

II less detailed description of god (e.g. omnipotent, intervening and omnipresent): a. arguments for the existence of god/s b. arguments against the existence of god/s

III detailed description of god (e.g. omnipotent, intervening and omnipresent): (does the attribute of being omnipresent change anything, what new argument are there) a. arguments for the existence of god/s b. arguments against the existence of god/s

A lot of work would be required but I think it would be very neat. It would also be easier to find argumentations that you deem worthy of consideration since you would be likely to dismiss all argument that falls of one side once you found one you disagree with. What do you think?

/TheBigD


 * I agree. Good thinking.  Tom Haws July 3, 2005 20:20 (UTC)

Last Call
Any objections to making Arguments for the existence of God and Arguments against the existence of God redirects to Existence of God? crazyeddie 5 July 2005 18:41 (UTC)

Clarification: Last I checked, there was a pretty clear consensus in favor of the merger. So I'm not actually asking "Is this a good idea?", but "Should we do this now or wait a bit?" crazyeddie 6 July 2005 18:27 (UTC)

go for it!

(One revert later...) Okey dokey, I'll ask it again. Is there anything that still has to be done (aside from removing the links back to the original unmerged articles, which need to stay up until the merger is complete) before we make Arguments for the existence of God and Arguments against the existence of God redirects to Existence of God? crazyeddie 08:48, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Looking over the diffs
I'm looking over the edits made to the two parent articles for edits that have been made since I cut-and-pasted the original verison of this daughter article. Here's what I've found:

This one would go somewhere in the "against" section, not sure which one. I'm actually against adding it. Is anybody in favor? crazyeddie 17:55, 20 July 2005 (UTC)


 * The conception anthropocentric of gods, which would influence the daily life and give arbitrary answers to various issues as death, justice, and the more global issue that is the meaning of life, is invalidate by the fact that humans have no particular importance in the universe, as complexity of cosmos and Evolution of species demonstrate.

This is for a section that I decided not to include in the merged draft:


 * On the other hand, some Christians hold a contrary position. These believers note that the Christian faith teaches salvation is by faith, [...]


 * On the other hand, some Christians hold a contrary position. These believers claim the Christian faith teaches salvation is by faith, and that faith is reliance upon the faithfulness of God, [...]

External links added:


 * Morris R. Cohen, "The Dark Side of Religion," Religion Today, a Challenging Enigma, ed. Arthur L. Swift, Jr. (1933). Revised version in Morris Cohen, The Faith of a Liberal (1946).


 * C. D. Broad, "Arguments for the Existence of God," Journal of Theological Studies 40 (1939): 16-30; 156-67.

Any objections to adding these links? crazyeddie 17:55, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

External links removed:


 * Talks with God - Revelation by Vladimir Antonov

This removal appears to be justified, it doesn't look like it has much to do with proving whether or not God exists. crazyeddie 17:55, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

CrazyEddie, I reverted the redirects a few days ago because of a few things that made me question (lack faith in) the merge. For example: the existence of the for and against articles in the see also section. For example: references (sources?) in the parent two lacking in the daughter artice. YOU wanted this merge. Do it right! (Please? Pretty please?) Please review the preredirect versions, not just the diffs. Things can get lost in the shuffle. Thanks. 4.250.33.49 08:03, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Okay, missed the links in the see also section, I think I got the ones in the sections, but I'll check. I think the two references you are talking about are listed above. Anything else? I think I got everything, but it doesn't hurt to doublecheck. crazyeddie 08:20, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Okay, removed the links back to the parent articles. Added the two external links. Incidentally, any reason why that last section is called "Sources" and not "External links"? crazyeddie 08:24, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a very big problem with content that can be trusted, because too much data is unverifyable because there are too few references and sources tied to the data. One thing to do is add the verify tag where no sources at all are listed. When there are external links such that some are sources, saying some are sources in that subheading is one step in the direction of providing verifyablility. Seperating sources from nonsource external links is better. And actually tying the data to the source with a referencing mechanism (several are available and used on wikipedia) is best. WAS 4.250 16:20, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Finally, a List?
Is this a "complete" (as in, attempting to record all or most of the important/popular arguments) list of arguments for and against he existence of God; or is there another list in another article that is perhaps more complete, or a list that is similar in terms of subject? Is there another article with a set of arguments for and against something related to creationism & evolution / atheist & non atheist controversy? Basically, I am looking for all the lists of arguments for and against the existence of god, evolution, creationism, religion, theology, theism, etc., etc. I had a very hard time even looking for this article; and finally found it --- there needs to be some directory of articles for the type of people (agnostic or skeptical) who wouild like to view both sides of views; a directory full of articles with lists of in depth arguments, like this article, all dealing with related subjects. -unsigned

Feel free to read this article and its sources and contribute to the article if you find it lacking. Citing references is a good thing, even if this article is lacking in tying data to the sources. WAS 4.250 16:34, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Existence of God
I can not understand how God can exist. The whole concept of God is full of holes, clearly it can be realised that God is a man made idea. If it is a man made idea, then it must be fault as all truth asserts itself. - AyoyoAyoyo

God is Santa Claus for scared adults who want a daddy in the sky; a government lie to get people to fight to the death; an anthropomoriphication of nature (the sun is trying to make me hot), and a social institution with a useful social role for a superstitious species. WAS 4.250 16:40, 25 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Thats absurd, God is a synonym for existence, the foundation of being, the breath of life, the absolute infinite. See monism, pantheism, brahman, etc... Why did you feel a need to say this here tho? ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 16:44, 25 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Whatever are you talking about ? God is invisible, unlimited, non-material, uncaused, unknowable, subjective, unscientific, transcendent... just like non-existence. Franc28 18:07, August 25, 2005 (UTC)


 * Typical atheist strawman, as soon as we let you define God, he ceases to exist... funny that ;) ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 18:17, 25 August 2005 (UTC)


 * What do you mean, "let you define God" ? I didn't define "God", I'm not the one making the claim. I use the commonly used Christian definitions of "God". What are you, a "personal relationship" Christian ? Also, your sig is retarded. Franc28 20:24, August 25, 2005 (UTC)


 * You seem to be a less than scintillating debate partner. Perhaps you'd like to edit an encyclopedia instead of pestering the religious w logical fallacies? ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 22:02, 25 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Hey Sammy, how about you name one logical fallacy I've committed ? Franc28 02:15, August 26, 2005 (UTC)


 * As opposed to pestering the irreligious with logical fallacies? FeloniousMonk 23:36, 25 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Get behind me, deceiver. Tasks you can do 23:50, 25 August 2005 (UTC) Posted by User: Sam Spade


 * LOL. FeloniousMonk 00:04, 26 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Agree with Franc regarding Sam's sig. --goethean &#2384; 22:13, 25 August 2005 (UTC)


 * OK then, now can we discuss the article? Tasks you can do 22:30, 25 August 2005 (UTC) Posted by User:Sam Spade

I get the strange feeling Sam and Franc are saying exactly the same thing. As a Weak Atheist, I say let them fight it out - it's kinda like watching two wrongs make a right :-p :-) crazyeddie 04:01, 26 August 2005 (UTC)


 * You think atheism and theism are both wrong ? Apparently you don't understand a little something called the law of excluded middle. Franc28 08:56, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Actually he's right, see strawman. I reject your caricature of my God just like you do. Tasks you can do 15:38, 26 August 2005 (UTC) Posted by User: Sam Spade


 * "caricature" ? So you believe what ? That God is visible ? Limited ? Caused ? Material ? Scientifically studied ? How is it a "caricature" when these attributes are given to us by Christians ? Franc28 18:45, August 26, 2005 (UTC)


 * God is in the machine! No, wait!  God is dead!  No, wait...  Exploding Boy 16:41, August 26, 2005 (UTC)


 * It's a fine line between caricature and a description that struggles with depicting the ineffable. We need to be careful with our characterizations. One man's "strawman" can be another man's dogma. FeloniousMonk 17:58, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I have heard about a little thing called the law of excluded middle. But I also think logic is overrated. It has its uses, don't get me wrong, but it has it limitations too. Over-reliance on labels is one of them. I'm a Weak Atheist, which means that I admit the possibility that there might be a God, but I think that the probability that God exists is so low that I'm justified in acting under the assumption that He doesn't exist. Franc has said in the past that he is a Strong Atheist, which means that he thinks that theism is provably wrong. Sam is a Theistic Rationalist, which means that he thinks theism is provably right. So, yes, I think they are both wrong. I'm here in the non-excluded middle, along with agnostics and faith-based theists. The entire reason I pushed for merging this article is because Strong Atheism and Theistic Rationalism are not the only possible stances on this topic. The non-excluded middle needs a voice too. They might also come in handy to work as peace-brokers. crazyeddie 04:22, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Does that mean if i someone comes up with a theory say there is a giant, horned, invisible, pink, spikey, homosexual, double-headed penguin which can not in anyway be detected and thus its existence can not be proved wrong. This penguin exists because it can not be proved not to. Simply, the fragment of the insanity that is the belief of an existence of clearly man-fabricated concept: god, is as stupid and irrational as the existence of said penguin. Seriouisly what has god's supposed existence done to humanity, not much. What has existence of rationality done to us, well, i wont be typing on a free encyclopedia had someone not decided to wave a coil around a magnet, something which would be inexorably deemed witch-like by an organisation bent on controlling the populace thru this illusion of god. Evidently ending by the inventor being combusted alive. I wont even typr god with a big g, why is he special. -AyoyoAyoyo


 * I would say that the existence of a giant, horned, spikey, homosexual, double-headed penguin (whose existence has not yet been detected, but, is, in prinicple, detectable) is highly improbable but within the real of the possible. Such a penguin that is both pink and invisible is within the realm of the impossible, because it is a logical contradiction. Some definitions of God are within the realm of the impossible because they contain logical contradicitions. Other definitions of God don't contain such logical contradicitions, so can't be ruled out a priori - that is to say "from first principles", by reason alone.


 * The existence of God might, in theory, be "proven" (science doesn't prove anything, actually, only logic and math prove things). Evidence might crop up that can only be explained by the existence of God (or rather, that the simplest explanation of the evidence is that God exists). I don't believe that has happened yet. Some people do. Some also think that the existence of God can be proven by reason alone. I think both classes of people are wrong.


 * Because science, to date, has been able to explain the universe without complicating things by invoking God, Occam's Razor suggest that it is unlikely that God exists. But "unlikely" is not the same as "impossible", although in this case, the difference is pretty close to academic.


 * Some theists are faith-based - they agree it isn't certain that God exists, and may even agree that it is improbable that God exists, but they believe anyway because they have faith. I don't agree with them, but I respect them.


 * There is a distinct difference between a God and a god. A God is usually understood to refer to a being that is both omnipotent and omnipresent. A god, by contrast, is merely immortal (or at least long-lived) and arbitrarily powerful. A god is neither omnipotent or omnipresent, and is essentially just a turbo-charged human. crazyeddie 20:52, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that I am a weak atheist. Obviously, I'm not against atheists in general. I would say that I am against anti-Christian or anti-theist bigotry carried out in the name of atheism, just as many Christians are against any sort of bigotry carried out in the name of their religion. I'm also deeply interested in evolutionary theory. I understand that much of the anger shown on this talk page is ultimately directed against Creationists. But please remember that Creationists are a minority even among Christians. If you want to defend evolution, it isn't going to help your cause to alienate the mainstream Chrisitians. In case you haven't noticed, Christians are in the majority in the US. crazyeddie 20:57, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Ah! The American. The world starts and stops at their door step. -AyoyoAyoyo


 * Americans think they're "the free world". How insulting. And Christianity is one of the stupidest religions ever made, in my opinion. Franc28 20:06, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

Yes. Yes it does. Effectively anyway. If you think we're bad about that, wait until the Chinese take our place (which they look setup to do). At least us here in the American Empire have been known to feel the occasional twinge of guilt.

At any rate, America is probably the country that contributes to scientific research the most. If it isn't, then it is certainly in the position to. Any move that might cause America to slip that much closer to a new Dark Ages is a cause for concern for any scientist, even if they happen to be from Outer Elbonia.

Alienating mainstream Christians while engaged in the defense of evolution is just such a move.

If Creationism isn't your only bone to pick with the Godites, what is? Keep in mind the distinction between "some" and "all" - or even "most". Not keeping that distinction in mind leads to bigotry. crazyeddie 15:06, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Interesting fact to point out. Christians are the majority in the world really. Yet, thousands of years ago when Romans were the majority of their "known" world and Christians are being fed to lions for the enjoyment of the "civilised", they did not give up their religion. That was a great example of standing up for your belief. They soon proved triumphant and it's ironic that I want to follow the path of the people I am against. -AyoyoAyoyo


 * I'll admit that you caught me out with the America==free world bit. My bad. But still. Franc, you say that Christanity is one of the stupidest religions ever made. Firstly, what does Christanity have to do with the existence of God? Other religions than Christianity have a belief in God, and one could imagine a God (or Goddess!) that is absolutely like nothing described by any religion. Secondly, I'm sure there are far stupider religions out there somewhere. Granted, Christian doctrine has some dooseys in places, but that's just the sort of thing that crops up in any dogmatic tradition, given time.


 * AyoyoAyoyo, what "interesting fact" are you talking about? Christians aren't a majority in absolute terms - worldwide, I think they're a minority. They're only a majority in sociological terms - they are a dominant force worldwide, because they are a majority in the most powerful countries.


 * And by following in the footsteps of the Christians, do you mean "having a misplaced martyr complex"? The Roman persecution of Christians is overrated. A few hundred people were killed. Thousands more were pressured to recant their beliefs. That was pretty much it. Most of the killings were done by commoners, usually in the wake of natural disasters, which they interpreted as the gods' wrath over the presence of infidels. Offical persecutions occasionally happened, true, but they were few, and not too efficiently carried out.


 * Christian persecution of pagans is fairly overrated too. The early Christians converted people through debate, not conquest. The first example of conversion by conquest was when Charlemagne went after the Balts. Or at least this is what my Early Modern Civ prof is teaching us.


 * So you want to emulate the early Christians? Stand by your beliefs in the face of persecution - check. (And, at least in my country, atheists do face some minor persecution - 52% of Americans say they wouldn't vote for a presidential candidate who is an atheist, no matter how well qualified they are. Can't say I remember when the last time an atheist was killed for their beliefs though.) Convert the unbelievers by debate... well, unless you call the moral equivalent of "stupid doodoo head" debate, I think you have a ways to go.


 * Remind me again, why do we atheists want converts? I mean, the Christians at least have a reason to convert people - if nothing else, to save them from hell! But, while it would be nice to do something about people who are bigots in the polling booths and push for their religious dogmas to be taught in science classes, why do we care about the non-bigotted Christians who pray silently in school cafeterias? Sure, they're nuts, by our standards, but at least they're quiet nuts. And in this world, I'd say that's about the best we can hope for. crazyeddie 01:24, 10 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I doubt that there are stupider religions out there, but I'll trust you on that one. Either way, Christianity is the religion of America, and Christianity is one of the most evil and stupid religions there is. That's just how I see it. Islam does beat it in terms of sheer retardation - a holy book that clearly advocates the killing of infidels black on white just can't be beat in that respect. Franc28 04:45, September 10, 2005 (UTC)


 * Atheists want converts to spread the truth. That's what conversion is about. However, unlike religious people, our version of the truth is actually logical. Infinity0 11:21:15, 2005-09-10 (UTC)


 * BTW Chrisitians are not the majority, Atheism is. Remember there are 1 billion atheists in China (estimate; Chinese total population is 1.3billion), and plenty more in other countries :D Infinity0 11:21:15, 2005-09-10 (UTC)


 * That's 1 billion offically. Unoffically, I'd say that the vast majority of Chinese are a mixture of Confucian, Taoist, and Buddhist (usually the same person practicing all three), despite what the Chinese government would like us to think. I don't know if you can call them theists, but I'm also not sure if you can call them atheists.


 * Not many Chinese people are actually Buddhist - certainly 300million is a high enough estimate (I think) for all religious people in China. Also, Confucianism is not a religion, since it does not involve belief of the supernatural. Infinity0 09:59:29, 2005-09-11 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's worth trying to play that semantic game. First, while "religion" connotes some supernaturalism, colloquial use of the term has certainly broadened beyond that. Second (and I'm no expert here), while the Confucian Analects may be pretty thoroughly non-supernatural, the later philosophies grafted onto "Confucianism" certainly have their supernatural elements, even if they are phrased in "natural" terms. See Zhu Xi, for example. When you throw in the fact that Confucianism, Taoism, and Buddhism have historically all mixed together to some extent in China, it seems even more meaningless to say that Confucianism is not a religion. "Philosphy" might go over better, but I don't think it's fundamentally more accurate. &mdash; HorsePunchKid &rarr; &#x9F9C;  19:21, 11 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Whatever. Those are all small details. I have not studied Chinese religion and I don't claim to be an expert on it. I'm just giving you my word as a Chinese person (having been born there and having many contacts there) that at least 80-90% of all Han Chinese inside China don't seriously believe in a god. I could be slightly off, but atheism is definitely a majority of Chinese. Infinity0 21:36:36, 2005-09-11 (UTC)


 * Sure, spreading the truth is good. But I'm not sure saying that God is impossible is anymore logical than saying that He exists. It's highly likely that He doesn't, but I don't know about impossible. My point is this - if somebody believes with all their heart that the sky is pink, why should I go to extreme efforts to convince them otherwise? crazyeddie 06:15, 11 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Of course, belief itself is harmless. But how many people *only* believe, and not let their beliefs affect their actions? GWB thinks God is on his side, and that's partly why he went to war with Iraq. "God is impossible" depends on your definition. But most atheists say "Your God does not exist because...", which is hugely different. Infinity0 09:59:29, 2005-09-11 (UTC)

Just off the top of my head, the Pythagoreans reportedly killed a member of their cult for revealing the existence of irrational numbers to outsiders. Remember this the next time you use the value of pi: many Bothan spies died to get us this information!

I'll say it again - what does Christanity have to do with God? Christanity doesn't equal theism, anymore than America equals the free world. crazyeddie 05:02, 10 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I beg to differ that this is stupider. At least irrational numbers exist. Christians kill for things that don't exist. Secondly, I never said Christianity equaled theism, I just said it was one of the stupidest religions, and it's the religion of America. Draw your own conclusions. Franc28 07:26, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the reason they killed the guy is that the existence of irrational numbers went against their most basic doctrines - the Pythagoreans saw the world in terms of simple ratios. So it's kind of like if the Catholics killed someone because they had proof that Mary wasn't a virgin when Jesus was born. Or, to make the parallel more exact, because he stole this proof straight out of the Vatican archives.

So the Pythagoreans are killing each other over a concept which doesn't exist in the real world. Have you ever seen a free-range three roaming around? What color was it? How about imaginary numbers, do they exist? Might be a good idea to look over the foundations of mathematics article.

Back to the point: what makes the Christians stupid and evil? Is it a belief in God? Then are the Jews stupid and evil also? (Since we have apparently already established that Muslims are stupid and evil, might as well go for the trifecta.) How about Discordians, who believe in a Goddess? (Well, the old Grecco-Roman Eris was a god, but I could make a case for the Discordian version being a God.) If it were possible to make the Christians stop being stupid and evil, but we had to leave their belief in God intact, should we do it? Are all Christians stupid and evil? What is the difference between stupid and evil Christians and ones that are non-evil, possibly non-stupid, but still nuts?

And as long as you're dissing my beloved country (which is still pretty freakin' awesome, despite the best efforts of our current leadership to screw it up), how about telling me what yours is, so I can return the favor :-) I'm the first one to agree that Americans are idiots, but they're my idiots. crazyeddie 06:04, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

It seems to me that you may have given an answer to my essential question: Christians are stupid and evil because they kill people over an imaginary concept. So how about Quakers, who are pacifistic Christians. Are they stupid and evil? Or Sufis, who are Muslim and pacifistic (I think). What if I killed someone because they believed in God, would this be stupid and evil? crazyeddie 06:22, 11 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, it depends on the specific reason. If you killed someone for being a Christian, that would be stupid and pointless, since being a Christian by itself does not harm anybody. However if you killed someone because they were trying to spread the faith, then in my eyes, in some cases that could be justified. Infinity0 09:52:04, 2005-09-11 (UTC)

I see from your userpage that you live in the UK. You might want to brush up on the local laws, it might prevent any .... misunderstandings that might result if a pair of Mormon missionaries come knocking on your door. At any rate, theists could use the same argument against people who are trying to spread atheism. After all, in the eyes of theists, theism is logical. What cases in particular do you have in mind? crazyeddie 04:34, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Things like the Crusades and Inquisition (technically not jihads because they are supposed to be defensive); also some missionaries who insist on converting a different culture to their own belief system. I'm reasonable, I'm not a psychopath! ¬.¬ My views are that nobody has the right to influence somebody else's opinions unless they can fully justify them. Something is either logical or not logical, and by attacking its logic further and further it's possible to determine if it's correct or not. If something is not logical but someone thinks it is, then quite simply they are wrong. I realise this is an idealistic way of putting things, but meh. Infinity0 19:48, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

I think we can discard the Crusades. Armed opposition to an invasion is justifible, regardless of the invasion's motives. The Inquisition was not intended to spread the faith - it was designed to root out heterodoxies among the faithful. You say that is alright to kill some missionaries who insist on converting a different culture to their own belief systems. Now we are getting somewhere!

First off, what exactly do you mean by "some"? Secondly, it could be said that Christians, especially Creationists, are members of a different culture than most atheists. This is true, even though many of them are my countrymen, and I am an atheist. By attempting to spread atheism, are we not trying to convert a different culture to our own belief system? As you say, the best way to defeat missionaries is through debate and logic. Do you have so little faith in your own ability to reason, and the ability of people in other cultures to reason, that you have to resort to force of arms? crazyeddie 15:07, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

The Crusades were an unprovoked attack to "recapture" the "holy land". I have no idea what I mean by "some": I'd have to look at the specific situation. When your opponent cannot see reason because they are so blinded (eg fundamentalists), then death is the quickest option. There are better people to argue with than being bogged down by a fundamentalist. Infinity0 21:12, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Evolution
So would evolution belong in any of the argument sections of this article; maybe against the existence of God? I think there are also arguments for the existence of God that have to do with the history of the bible and how accurate it is in describing it's surroundings in such a large lifespan. There is also an author, Lee Strobel, known for his strong arguments for the existence of god. I'm not sure if the arguments he has brung up in his books have all been listed here, but that would be a great place to look to find more arguments to include. Also, are there any other articles I could read, knowing that I am skeptical and choose no sides yet and that I like to read about arguments for and against the existence of god? I mean, articles like this one, or the evolution v.s. creationism article... What else is there that I could read? -unsigned

Try reading this or this or this. WAS 4.250 14:47, 29 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Evolutionary theory, or science for that matter, takes no position on the existence of God. There are many theists who believe in both the existence of God and the validity of the theory of evolution, many Catholics for example. The previous Pope issued a Vatican position statement that the two are not mutually exclusive, and that God was acting through evolution (the new Pope likely has a very different opinion, based on recent statements).


 * Evangelical Protestants OTOH almost exclusively believe that the two are mutually exclusive, with some making the (artificial) distinction between "macro" and "micro" evolution, the latter at least having the possibility of being fact in their view. Adding evolution as a contradistinction to arguments for the existence of God adds little value to the article but a lot of overhead IMO. FeloniousMonk 16:47, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Some conceptions of God are consistent with evolution. WAS 4.250 21:37, 29 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I read a recent Washington Times article about it, how most scientists believe that God and evolution are compatible, or at least not incompatible, I certainly believe they are compatible. Derktar 02:36, August 30, 2005 (UTC).

To the extent the concept of God is scientifically testable, God is not an hypothosis that adds any ability to predict to any current ability to predict. In short, God is not a useful scientific hypothosis. Many scientists find God to be a useful nonscientific belief/hypothosis. Especially in countries where atheism is illegal or discriminated against. Others find belief in God to provide emotional satisfaction, and science is doing what works - so why not "believe in God" if that makes you happier? People lie to themselves and others every day for numerous reasons. WAS 4.250 13:48, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Evolution and God are, in principle, compatible. According to current scientific theory, God is not the simplest theory that's consistent with known evidence (therefore sliced out by Occam's Razor), but He is within the realm of the possible. So current scientific theory is either weakly atheistic or agnostic, take your pick. Evolution itself doesn't belong on this page, but there are two related arguments that do: "Argument from Intelligent Design", which says that there are aspects of life which can only be explained by an "Intelligent Designer" (with the strong implication that this Designer is God). There is also "Argument from Poor Design", which states that there are many examples of very poor design in organisms, so that God would have to be an idiot to have designed them that way. These examples of poor design are easily explained by evolution, which can be limited by such things as historical constraint. I've noticed that a lot of the arguments for and against God are in equal and opposite pairs... crazyeddie 04:32, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Any argument for or against the existance of God or any school of thought on the epistemology of the ontology of God (how do we know if he exists or not) that is by an expert worthy of being quoted by an encyclopedia and properly sourced so we can verify that fact, has a place in this encyclopedia. WAS 4.250 05:04, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I suppose so, but I really can't think of anything evolutionary theory has to do with the existence of God, other than the two arguments I just mentioned. I suppose evolutionary theory might be invoked to explain why so many people believe in God (assuming that no evidence that God actually exists is out there)... But that sort of thing could get real messy real quick. crazyeddie 05:57, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

My point is that "can't think of" or "can think of" is NOT RELEVANT to what goes in the article. What is relevant is what encyclopedic quality sources say ... messy or not. WAS 4.250 14:33, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Then I think we are in agreement. If you can show me any sources who say that evolution has some bearing on the existence of God other than by the two arguments I just mentioned, then, by all means, let's put them in the article. Or if they past an initial stink test, even, let's put them in on a probationary basis, until such time as source for them can be found. crazyeddie 21:00, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

"God exists" is too poorly defined to be either true or false. WAS 4.250 00:39, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

My personal definition of God: a person with complete and absolute control over all events that take place in this universe and complete and absolute knowledge of all events that take place in the universe. crazyeddie 04:13, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

To be adequately defined so we can perform experiments to decide the question that definition would have to be further refined: What is a "person"? How can we tell if he has "absolute control"? How can we tell if he has "absolute knowledge?" If an entity simply had sufficient control (e.g. hypnotic control) of enough human minds he could make us BELIEVE he had control and knowledge over all the universe; so I conclude that WE CAN NOT KNOW EVEN IN PRINCIPLE if such a god exists because a finite local powerful nongod that can sufficiently influence our minds is indistinguishable from an entity with even more power. We can and DO KNOW that God is not a useful scientific hypothosis. WAS 4.250 17:44, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
 * God in this wide sense is certainly no scientific hypothesis. It is rather hypothesis of faith. Any intelligent theist would admit that. Of course no "person" can have "absolute control" over the Universe, as long as that person is part of the Universe, since this "persons" mechanism of exerting control would need be part of the Universe. Such a "person" would need to be outside the Universe, unaffected by it but able to affect it. On such a "person", any intelligence contained within the Universe will never be able to carry out measurements, and therefore, there can never be evidence for that "person"'s existence. Positing this sort of God is really a null statement. But this is not the only definition of God; God can also be imagined as part of the Universe (e.g., can be affected by prayer; therefore, a statistically significant beneficient effect of theologically correct prayer (as opposed to prayers to false idols) would need to be measurable. Say people who pray to Shiva are statistically significantly more successful than people who pray to Thor. This would prove the existence of Shiva, if the experiment can be repeated blindly (i.e. take random people off the street and ask them to pray to one or the other god). Needless to say, no such effect was ever observed. God can also be imagined as identical with the universe, in which case a proof is hardly necessary, since for all sensible definitions of "existence" the Universe does, in fact, exist. dab (&#5839;) 18:54, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

An excellent point, WAS, one I hadn't considered. However, I think if we had proof/evidence that somebody existed that had sufficent mojo to trick me into thinking that He had absolute power, I'd probably just throw in the towel and call Him (or Her, or It, or Whatever) God, my definition notwithstanding. Hell, if such a god had the ability and motivation to override my so-called Free Will, I wouldn't have much of a choice, would I?


 * P.S.: Let's say we have a person in the possession of an arbitrarily large amount of power. It is not currently known what the maximum limit of this power is. Which would be simpler to assume: that there is no effective limit to this power (other than the limits suggested by a priori reasoning, such as "Can God make a rock so large that He can't move it?"), or that there is some finite limit? crazyeddie 03:01, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Dbachman, I stated my definition of God the way I did ("absolute power over this universe") because a truly "universal" God (or multiversal, omniversal, whatever) would also have omniscience over their own actions. This would cause determinism to set in, and create a limit on God's power. (Free Will (or at least the illusion of it) is, I believe, the result of ignorance of the future.) Therefore, my definition does imply that God exists outside of this universe, but is able to interact with it (since He has absolute power over events that take place in this universe). God would obviously be affected by events in our universe - How else could He observe them?

While we're on the subject, my personal definition of a "person" is that it is simply an entity that posses self-awareness.

Completely ruling out the possibility of such a God existing would be well-nigh impossible. God is not falsifible, but that doesn't matter, since God is not the simplest explanation that is in accordance with known evidence. However, the interactions of God with the universe might cause certain inconsistences that could only be explained by the existence of God. Presumably, in order for God to became the simplest explanation that is in accordance with known evidence, all simpler explanations would have to be falsified first.

However, I am not advancing God as a scientific theory. I'll leave that to the Theistic Rationalists. I'm proposing it as a philosophical possibility. Is it with in the realm of the possible that God exists? I'm fairly certain that "God exists" is either true or false. The question is if we can prove it one way or the other. (Or science's equivalent of "prove".)

You might compare this view of God with brane cosmology. AFAICT, if brane cosmology is right, then our universe is a brane. There might be other branes floating around out there, and we might be able to detect them because they would (in theory) interact with our home brane gravitationally. Substitute "God" - a person that exists outside of our universe, and is able to interact with our universe - for "brane" - an inanimate object that exists outside of our universe, and is able to interact with our universe (and might contain persons inside it!).

I see a possible objection coming: if our universe can interact with God, might we be able to interact with God in a way He doesn't like, and prevent Him from carrying out certain actions (thus denying Him omnipotence)? In my conception of God, God experiences time along an axis orthogonal to ours - He perceives our 4-D space-time as spatial dimenisions. If we attempted to take an action that would interact with Him unfavorably, He could take action to preempt any such attempt. I don't know that this conception of God follows necessarily from my definition of God, but I am aware of it as a possibility. crazyeddie 02:54, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Magical thinking
The most common argument among theists, even though it's not uttered openly, is that there is a god since they want it to be. It's an argument I think should be presented in the article even though it's often just implied. It can be seen in the kind of question they ask an atheist though. Often something like this:
 * Theist- "But if there is no god then there is no point!" (assuming that there must be a point,)
 * Atheist- "Right, there is no point of existence."
 * Theist- "Why don't you just kill yourself then?" (believeing he has won the argument, by drawing attention to you still being alive) - unsigned
 * what a strange conclusion that the non-existence of a god implies the non-existence of a "point". That sounds like a classical logical fallacy: If there is a god, I suppose we can safely assume there is a "point". From this does not follow logically that if there is no god, there also cannot be a "point", so your atheist is quite a weak example of his species to concede even that much. A nihilist, really. Many atheists do not think the concept of "God" is even semantically valid, so they certainly wouldn't draw any conclusions from the non-existence of an oxymoron. dab (&#5839;) 18:43, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

not to say that there are no atheists that think there could be a "point" but I'd say if something is deemed to have a point it is neccessary for a conscious mind to perceive it as such. Taking the "point of existence" an atheist would say there was no mind before existence (after enough iterations of course), hence there is no point to existence. Causality is the explanation, not purpose.


 * How does God lend life a point? Sure, God presumably had a plan for my life, but what if I disagree with that plan? Whose plan is more valid, mine or God's? Who's to say? It could be said that evolution lends life a point - to survive and have as many kiddies as possible (or more to the point, grandchildren...). Existence precedes essence - the point of life is what we say it is. crazyeddie 03:07, 4 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Oh, and I don't think this line of reasoning (while erroneous, IMO) could be classified as magical thinking. That means something else, something very specific. Although I could be wrong... crazyeddie 03:14, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

If you disagree w God's plan, you are probably a satanist, or amalek, w/o a very optimistic future. Listen to deicide (band) some time. Sam Spade 01:29, 12 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Most Christians already disagree with God's plan - they all think the hurricane is a disaster, even if they believe God did it. I can't decide if your disgusting post was a joke or not. If it's not... I'm sorry for you. Franc28 01:36, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

There is no polite way to respond which occurs to me. Sam Spade 01:41, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Just because a person disagrees with God doesn't necessarily make them a Satanist, or someone who doesn't like God. It could be that God, while all-powerful and all-knowing, isn't necessarily all-wise or all-good. Keep in mind that this doesn't mean that God isn't basically wise or good - it just mean that He, too, can make mistakes. A Creationist friend of mine pointed out a passage where Abraham bargins with God, and works out a plan different than what God had originally intended. I'd give you chapter-and-verse, but, hey, I'm lazy.

Personally, I find Satanists to be just as objectionable as Creationists. I'm not sure, but I think that band of yours passed a Christian Rock band coming the other way :-) (Christian Rock played a small, but not negligible, role in my becoming an agnostic. Call it an "argument from crappy music" - if God existed, would He let bands use His name in such sucky songs?)

Franc does raise a good point, even if (s)he does it crudely. By my definition of God, if God exists, it doesn't necessarily follow that He caused Hurricane Katrina, but at the very least, He allowed it to happen. This general problem is known as the Problem of Evil. Is it possible, given that our universe was created by an all-powerful and all-knowing God (yeah, I know, it's a big if. get over it.), that this God is good? Not omnibenevolent, just good.

Franc, if it was my post that you can't decide whether it is a joke or not, then the answer is "yes". It is both a joke and not a joke. In addition to being an atheist, I'm also a Discordian - and Discordianism is a religion disguised as a joke disguised as a religion. Sam once said that, in the lack of proof that God exists, the default position should be a reverant agnosticism. I say that, even if God exists, perhaps it is best to worship Him through irreverance! crazyeddie 04:28, 15 September 2005 (UTC)


 * You bring up some substantive issues regarding the nature of God. All-powerful, all-knowing, all-wise, all-good, etc... Be aware that different denominations (and different people) define each of these things differently. I for one don't think God created anything "Ex nihilo", we've always been, and in fact we are him, or the "dust" of our inner light. As with all deep discussions, etymology is important. There is a fantastic amount of diversity in theology.


 * In the east, for example, the Problem of Evil is resolved by karma. Many agree that everything is fair. That hurricane made me angry...


 * Not at God, but at those disgusting, godless people who fired weapons at helicopters and rescuers, and who raped women already suffering from the floods. I read a story about a guy who fatally shot his sister in the head, arguing over a bag of ice.


 * Thats very different from me and mine, who look for ways to help. Sam Spade 22:05, 15 September 2005 (UTC)


 * The fact that you have moral principles and are revolted at what "God" made and permitted proves that you don't really believe in God. That's a very good and human thing. Franc28 23:30, 15 September 2005 (UTC)


 * As before, I have some things to say to you, but they wouldn't be appropriate here. Sam Spade 00:49, 16 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Nature is not well mannered
 * It watches creatures be born and die without comment
 * Nor is the taoist well mannered
 * People are born and they die, and that's as it should be


 * One man, hearing of the way, will strive to follow it
 * Another will practice it sometimes, and not others
 * A third will hear of it, and laugh at how useless it sounds
 * And that's as it should be. crazyeddie 14:56, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Hitchhiker's Guide
What about the "proof" that god does not exist from the Hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy. It says something about god disproving himself, therefore he couldn't exist. Just a thought... :-) --Kmill 19:10, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
 * we could mention it as a notable parody of proofs of God. dab (&#5839;) 19:15, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Put it in a section about "Notable examples of the question of God's existence in human culture" called something shorter than that if you must. But consider all the stuff people will want in there. Eventually, of course, it will be broken off into it's own article. Wikipedia is self-healing like that. WAS 4.250 23:45, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I have no objection to including it, as long as it is clear that it's a parody - nobody should take it seriously, even for a second. crazyeddie 03:19, 4 September 2005 (UTC)