Talk:Existence of God/Archive 2

Balance
Why are there 4 anti links, one parody & counter parody, one agnostic and only one pro link in the revision I'm reading? I wouldn't mention this but when I went to look at balancing them out a little, I see an admin removing one of the few pro links as "linkspam" and then absolutely no discussion of it on here, unless I'm just blind (which is possible). What's up with that? 12.106.14.203 18:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * New talk page issues usually go at the bottom of the page. --The1exile 18:27, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I think Christian Cadre was removed because it Apollo.ws was basically the same thing - christian arguments. What we need is theist but non-christian arguments. Infinity0 talk 20:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Sure, but four atheist ones among so few others? That feels too POV. I agree to the need for more diversity, however. Speaking of which, the Apollos.ws link doesn't work, anyhow: "Page Not Found The page /online-articles/ could not be located on this website."

So I'm going to remove this non-functional link & replace the one that was removed. I still don't see why it's "link spam" though--there aren't any advertisements on the cadre page at all? But maybe I'm just too new to this and you use some definition for spam that bears no resemblance to what I'm used to in fighting UBE/UCE. If so, by all means, please explain.

12.106.14.203 00:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Ontology (agument against)
Not mentioned as a position/argument against the existence of God is the ontological argument. Ontology raises for instance the question as to "why is there something, rather then nothing?" (this question is also known as the fundamental question of philosophy). It can be shown that there can be no real answer to this question, since anything we might want to propose, would rereaise the same question. (Suppose we propose to answer this question with the answer: "because X exist", this then reraises the question, as we could ask then, "why is there X, instead of nothing"). So, the position or argument, raised by theology, that God would be a sufficient answer to that question, since it states that: a. God exists b. God "created" the universe (all that exists) So, it would (at first) seem to fit as an answer to the fundamental question, it would suggest that God is a sufficient answer to explain existence. But it isn't, since we still could ask then: why does God exist? (why is there, or was there, God, instead of nothing). In the same way, answering schemes as which explain the existing universe at the basis of being caused by super/meta universes or similar approaches, do not explain and answer the question, since they all fall in the answering scheme: because X exists.

I think a reference to this position/argument by ontology (since it is not mentioned on the page) should be included.

PS. Off topic, but maybe interesting, is to find how ontology tries to answer this seemingly unanswerable question. The short answer to that is, that there has to exist somehow a maximal consistent world, and a non-existing world is not to be considered a maximal consistent world. The explenation itself, the built up to that answer, is significantly longer, but has no bearing on this topic.

Heusdens 00:19, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

agnosticism
I don't know if agnosticism is an 'ontological' position, but it is certainly a position. Even one that may be defended with conviction. Maybe it is fallacious to mention a "default" position anyway, since the theists can argue with quite some justification, that theism or animism is obviously the default position, anthropologically, since that's how the human brain works. It may not be the default position of a purely logical artificial intelligence, but that is an artificial assumption anyway. I maintain that agnosticism is more 'basic' a position (if not identical to) than 'weak atheism', but I wouldn't be sad to see the "default position" discussion gone altogether. dab (&#5839;) 06:55, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

I would hate to put words in theists' mouths. I think most Theistic Rationalists would be highly offended at the mere suggestion that their belief in God is the result of their biology, not their logic. I think it might be better to say that, "Many weak atheists and agnositcs see their position as a default position.... " (or something to that effect). Keep it NPOV, you know? crazyeddie 03:11, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

History of Metaphysical arguments
WAS had a go at me for deleting the history of meta args list.

I don't think it belongs in this article; the title is "Existence of God" and a history should be separate from the actual subject.

How about starting a new article under the name "History of Metaphysical Arguments"? Infinity0 2005-09-10


 * I have no trouble, in principle, with a section dealing with the history of attempts to prove or disprove the existence of God. I think there is ample examples of "History" sections in other articles. I support the removal of the timeline because it is rather boring. Furthermore, if we do have a timeline or a history section, it should deal with the debate as a whole, not just metaphysical arguments. If we did spin the timeline off into a seperate article, we would have to call it something else, "History of Metaphysical Arguments" wouldn't work. So, my advice is, go ahead and leave out the timeline. If anybody feels like it, we can start a section called "History", dealing with the history of the debate. If it gets too long, we can always spin it off later. crazyeddie 05:44, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

I've always seen it as part of the process of Wikipedia to expand articles to the point where parts become seperate articles. Examine the history of the Hurricane Katrina. Stifling interesting branches of a subject only hurts wikipedia. WAS 4.250 05:47, 12 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I completely agree. Sam Spade 12:24, 12 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I think starting a new section called History would be good... though we would need more content. That way we can separate the history from the actual arguments themselves, which has more to do with the title of this article. Infinity0 15:53:47, 2005-09-12 (UTC)

''1884: 	Frege, Foundations of Arithmetic.

1941: 	Hartshorne, Man's Vision of God.''

WAS, how is the above even remotely informative? It's just a list of what books some people wrote on what date. It gives no content or background. If you are going to put a historical section into the article at least make it say something interesting.

Also, I think a summary of what a "metaphysical argument" actually is should be added. Infinity0 18:38, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

People who know the subject better than you or I together approved that list. As a list it is not subject to copyright (I deleted good stuff that might be copyrightable). Don't be a know-it-all and claim you know more than the editors who came up with the list (not me). The point of the list is initially to give readers something to google for more data, and eventually to provide something for wiki editors to add to. Again, don't mistake a lack of data on our parts for a misjudgement on the part of the editors that I quoted in creating the list. WAS 4.250 02:27, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I claimed nothing. But what's wrong with giving readers the link only? The article has that list in anyway, with all the background info, so no googling is needed. That list by itself doesn't really tell anything. Infinity0 19:10, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

To google and to add on to. I supply ABC. Someone adds on and its A123BC45. Some else adds on and we have BssssA123c45gggggg which is now too long so it becomes another article referenced by this one. And so on. Surely you get this, you're smart. WAS 4.250 00:43, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

This list is taken out of context, and because of this, doesn't really give enough information to build on to. This especially true if we use it as a initial stub for a "history" section, as opposed to a "history of ontological arguments" section. Just because we can legally use something here doesn't mean we should. My advice would be for WAS to save the list locally to his/her harddrive, and then use it to create an initial stub for the history section. Until then, we can just leave the link. crazyeddie 03:49, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Empirical or Subjective?
I'm confused... Aren't these arguments subjective?


 * Witness argument gives credibility to personal witnesses, contemporary and throughout the ages.
 * The religious or Christological argument is specific to religions such as Christianity, and asserts that for example Jesus' life as written in the New Testament establishes his credibility, so we can believe in the truth of his statements about God.
 * The Majority argument argues that people in all times and in different places have believed in God, so it is unlikely that he does not exist.

Infinity0 16:01:28, 2005-09-12 (UTC)


 * Well, yeah... it's religion... of course it's subjective. Why are you confused by this ? Religion has always been subjective and based on emotional appeal. Franc28 01:20, September 13, 2005 (UTC)


 * I've found the HISTORY of the arguments for and against the existence of god to be revealing and informative in this and other areas. WAS 4.250 04:22, 13 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Look, we've agreed it's a good thing! Go add a History section if you want, or even better, start a new article. What I dislike however is just a list of dates you've copied and pasted off some webpage. A list of dates doesn't really give that much information... Infinity0 15:43, 13 September 2005 (UTC)


 * There is a separate section for specifically subjective arguments. What I meant was that these arguments should belong there, since the data from experiences isn't reproducible or verifiable and therefore not empirical in the stricter sense. By the way, some "for" arguments do try to be objective, like the Cosmo and Theleo Args. Infinity0 15:43, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

You start off this section admiting you are confused; meaning you're halfway to a solution (knowing you are confused is half the battle). First you must understand that math, logic, and 100% proofs are all in the realm of what-if. That is they all are IF thus and so THEN thus and so. ANYTHING known for sure (except "I exist") is such a conditional. OBJECTIVE refers to stuff others agree they also perceive: sun, moon, gravity, and so forth. SUBJECTIVE refers to stuff you claim to perceive (a voice in your head) that others don't perceive and may or may not agree exists. Data about experiences is objective to the extent others also HAVE THAT SAME EXPERIENCE UNDER THE SAME CONDITIONS. I can experience seeing a rainbow too - objective. I don't hear that voice in your head - subjective. We both experience "conciousness" - objective? subjective? no consensus. WAS 4.250 02:43, 14 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes I know all that. But what are you saying? Do those arguments belong in the subjective or empirical sections? Religious experiences aren't objective in that people don't all have the same experience under the same conditions. Infinity0 19:10, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Do we put grey in the black or white or red section? Squeeze it in somewhere or change the categories! WAS 4.250 00:47, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

So let's open up the floor to changing how the subsections are named and arranged. For starters, do we really need subsections? Is there any reasons why we shouldn't just have all of the "for" arguments in one mega-section, all the "against" arguments in another? Not that I'm proposing this necessarily, mind, I'm just brainstorming here. crazyeddie 03:55, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

I recommend first gathering content. Whole books have been writen on parts of this subject that are not even given a single sentence here. Organizing the data is better after the data is gathered. And that gathering is not helped by deletionists. WAS 4.250 11:59, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

One argument at a time, WAS. If you want to beef about the timeline, the proper section to do so is above. We already have a fair amount of content, and we need to figure out how to organize it now. More content will only add to the problem. So does anybody see any problems with organizing-by-not-organizing, just throw everything into two piles? crazyeddie 14:43, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

No, i think the current way of organising things is pretty good. However, there needs to be a definition summary of what the word actually means, I mean, I don't know what the hell "Inductive" means and if it's subjective or not. I was just suggesting that the above 3 don't belong in the "empirical" section. Infinity0 21:20, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Sorry if anyone disagrees, but I've moved those arguments to "subjective". I think they're more in line with the arguments there than the other "empirical args". By the way, you people do realise that double-spacing sentences is pointless, because in HTML that shrinks down to one space? Just checking :P Infinity0 15:57, 23 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Once again, I fail to understand why there is a difference. All theistic arguments are subjective and based on feeling, doctrine, or unquestioned beliefs. Franc28 19:25, 23 September 2005 (UTC)


 * There are arguments which don't make use of any subjective evidence, like the metaphysical ones. (But that doesn't mean they are valid.) There was already section for arguments which are specifically subjective, and I just moved those three there. Infinity0 19:50, 23 September 2005 (UTC)


 * No... there are no theistic arguments that don't make use of subjective evidence. I defy you to find any. Franc28 20:34, 23 September 2005 (UTC)


 * The Cosmological argument, which argues that God must have been around at the start of things in order to be the "first cause". crazyeddie 22:08, 23 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Okay, now explain how the assumption that "God" must be the "first cause" is objective. Franc28 22:20, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Frankly, I can think of many other ways to pass my time, but since you insist:

1) All events in the universe have a cause.
 * This premise is backed up by inductive logic. Inductive logic is a class of non-deductive logic. Deductive logic is when the conclusion follows by necessity from the premises, non-deductive logic is when the conclusion probably, but not necessarily, follows the premises. Inductive logic is logic which generalizes from a sample to the entire class. 80% of the survey respondants were drunk drivers, therefore 80% of drivers are drunk drivers. All observed events have a cause, therefore all events have a cause. "All events in the univese have a cause" can be falsified by observing one counter-example of a causeless event. This counter-example would be objective. Until then, "All events in tue universe have a cause" is an objective statement.

2) The universe began a finite time ago.
 * Objection: it has not been determined that the universe is non-infinite, or at least bounded, in duration. The Big Bang is not the beginning of the universe, it's only the point where our physical theories shrug and give up. Nevertheless, it is conceivable that it could be demonstrated that the universe is temporally finite, and that this would be an objective fact.

3) Therefore, there must have been an uncaused cause that caused the whole shebang.
 * Objection: this would be a counter-example to premise 1), which means that we can only say that "Some events in the universe have a cause, some don't." There is no reason to assume that the universe itself, as a whole, is not a member of the second class. To the credit of the people who first came up with this "proof", they didn't try to pawn off "God" as being this uncaused cause by necessity - they only saw it as proof that something was out there, and that something may very well be God. So, to that extent, it's subjective. But, on the whole, the whole thing is wrong, but at least it's objectively wrong.

A better example would be "argument from intelligent design". If there truly were aspects of the biology of Earth's organisms that couldn't be explained by evolution and could only be explained by intelligent design, then that would be objective evidence that something approximately godlike had been around. Of course, to date, the "evidence" for this tends not to hold up under scrutiny, but there is always next week. So, again, (to date), argument from intelligent design is wrong, but at least it's objectively wrong.

Now, I enjoy discussing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin as much as the next guy, but perhaps we could return to the objective discussion of how to organize this article? It seems to me that the subcategories break down into roughly this: "rationalistic" arguments that seek to prove that God is a logical (im)possiblity in any self-consistent universe, and "empirical" arguments that just seek to prove that God does (not) exist in this particular universe, but might (not) exist in another universe. Assuming we can agree on that, we also need to figure out what to call these subcategories. "Inductive", "Metaphysical", "Empirical", etc., are all very well in good, but we have to pick labels that our target audience is going to understand, and that were aren't going to screw up and make ourselves look stupid. crazyeddie 23:09, 23 September 2005 (UTC)


 * So, a list of things to do:
 * Add a summary to "Args for"
 * Extend summary of "Args against" (I don't think its wording is very good)
 * Extend the summary definition of "metaphysical"
 * Extend the summary defitinion of "empirical"
 * Add a definition of "inductive" and "deductive"
 * I think most people know what "subjective" means, but if we have space maybe clarification is good.
 * Infinity0 23:43, 23 September 2005 (UTC)


 * So you can't answer the question, but you'll assume you're right anyway ? And now you're assuming there are rationalist arguments ? Unless you're a dualist, that makes no sense... and you should know that rationalism has been over for a while now. What is this, Ancient Greece ? Did you notice we're in 2005 ? Be serious now. I propose we use the classification I use on strongatheism.net (semantic, materialist, incoherency and evidential arguments). At least that adapts an already existing system (Christian apologetics). What is your system based on ? Franc28 00:22, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

What's the question again? Furthermore, rationalism is not dead, it's just sleeping - in case you haven't noticed, one quarter of this entire discussion calls itself "theistic rationalist". Strong atheism, since it says that God is a logical impossibility, seems to be a rationalist doctrine too. If you can show me how your particular organization will work here, I might actually agree. As for me, my personal system is based on the seat of my pants. I rather suspect the existing system is the same way.

Here's the existing system:


 * 4 Arguments for the existence of God
 * 4.1 Metaphysical arguments
 * 4.2 Empirical arguments
 * 4.3 Subjective arguments
 * 4.3.1 Inductive arguments
 * 4.3.2 Arguments grounded in personal experience


 * 5 Arguments against the existence of God
 * 5.1 Deductive arguments
 * 5.1.1 Arguments which point out definitive contradictions
 * 5.2 Empirical arguments

I think we need to rename 4.1, "Metaphysical arguments". I don't think these arguments qualify as "metaphysical". I could be wrong. I think "rationlist arguments" might be a better term. 4.2 seems to more or less adequately named. Seems to me that 4.3.1 and 4.3.2 could be renamed to something involving "group experience" and "personal experience". I don't see why 5.1.1 needs to be broken off from 5.1 - it seems like a general description of the entire 5.1 category. What do you think, Infin? crazyeddie 01:08, 24 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Rationalism is outdated nonsense. My question is : why do you want to adopt an outdated, ridiculous scheme for the page, instead of my scheme which is based on an already-existing one ? Franc28 03:54, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

 Since the concept of God is, in your opinion, outdated and ridiculous, then it only seems appropriate that we use an outdated and ridiculous scheme to organize this page...  Seriously, though, show me how your organizational structure applies here. Write up a fork of the article using your system. If we like it, we'll use it. If we don't like it, we won't use it. Simple as that. crazyeddie 04:05, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Also, I myself am not a rationalist. However, I am aware that there are some rationalists still around even in this day and age. And many of these arguments (which I find, on the whole, outdated and ridiculous) can be construed as rationalist. Just because I disagree with the philosophical school doesn't mean I think that we shouldn't report on it. crazyeddie 04:05, 24 September 2005 (UTC)


 * What the hell is a fork of an article ? Are you talking about spaghetti ? I don't know what a fork of an article is. I divide positive atheistic arguments in four categories - semantic (based on the meaninglessness of religious language), materialist (based on the contradiction between human cognition and divine causality - an extension of Michael Martin's TANG), incoherency (contradictions within the properties of the god-concept, or contadictions between properties of the god-concept and facts of reality) and evidential (arguments based on science or morality). As I said, this system is an adaptation of Christian apologetics, which is : Classical, Evidential, Presuppositional, Reformed Epistemology, and Cumulative (or sometimes Post-Modernist).
 * See this page for a list of arguments for each atheistic category : http://www.strongatheism.net/library/atheology/ Franc28 04:14, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Existence of God/Franc's Fork Here you go, your very own fork. Edit it however you want. I'll make a note of what version of the main article I use to start this fork. When you get done with whatever rearranging suites you, we'll take a look at it. If the consensus is that this is a direction we want to take, we'll merge it back into the main article. If not, then I'll guess we'll get an administrator to delete it. Forks do tend to come in handy on controversial articles like this.

From the sounds of it, I don't think that your system will work here - you might be able to use it yourself, but if nobody else can understand it, it won't do us much good. But who knows, maybe I'll be surprised... crazyeddie 06:13, 24 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Fine, I'll do that. You might criticize it, but I don<t see you proposing anything better. Rationalist vs empirical ? Give me a break. Franc28 06:24, 24 September 2005 (UTC)


 * All right, how's that ? All I did was put in the categories and put the arguments we already had in those categories. I added one for evidential, since we didn't have any yet. Franc28 06:49, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Franc, stop deleting all the counter-arguments. Things like "However, some theists would try to argue that a god entirely transcends logic and that logical discourse about him is meaningless." is useful because it gives information on why theists don't accept the argument against. Infinity0 11:08, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Franc, while you're at it, reorganize the theistic arguments section too. I'll withhold judgement until others have had a chance to look at it. Let's move the counterargument discussion down to the appropriate section. crazyeddie 14:50, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Infin, while Franc is working on that, let's continue banging on Plan B. This discussion section is getting rather long, let's start a new one. crazyeddie 15:31, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

The link for the "witness argument" at the top of the list simply pointed to an article about witnesses in general, as in a court of law. This would be like a "Lawnmower argument for the existence of God" pointing to the article on lawmowers. Tried to fix it up a bit. Endomion 17:04, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

One more proof
-- if you want to put it here somehow, you have to rewrite it's argumentation in good english and make clear thereof; contains some discussions and answers.

Keep counter-arguments to their own half
I don't know who keeps adding counter-arguments to the atheist arguments, but I'm going to keep deleting them. We haven't posted any counters to your arguments, so give us the same courtesy. Any attempt at encroachement from either side of the debate should be vetoed immediately. Franc28 21:56, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

I personally think that some amount of counter-arguments would be helpful, if kept within reason. The key words there are, of course within reason! In particular, I can't help but notice that many of the theistic and atheistic arguments come in pairs - the cosmological argument and the chicken-and-the-egg argument. I think it would be useful to point out these pairings. crazyeddie 15:33, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Franc's Fork
Well, I made the categories and put the arguments in them. Distinct advantages over the other proposition are : 1. the categories make sense, 2. it's more organized and 3. it's inspired by an already-existing classification. Franc28 21:17, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Reorg Plan B
To recap:


 * So, a list of things to do:
 * Add a summary to "Args for"
 * Extend summary of "Args against" (I don't think its wording is very good)
 * Extend the summary definition of "metaphysical"
 * Extend the summary defitinion of "empirical"
 * Add a definition of "inductive" and "deductive"
 * I think most people know what "subjective" means, but if we have space maybe clarification is good.
 * Infinity0 23:43, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Here's the existing system:


 * 4 Arguments for the existence of God
 * 4.1 Metaphysical arguments
 * 4.2 Empirical arguments
 * 4.3 Subjective arguments
 * 4.3.1 Inductive arguments
 * 4.3.2 Arguments grounded in personal experience


 * 5 Arguments against the existence of God
 * 5.1 Deductive arguments
 * 5.1.1 Arguments which point out definitive contradictions
 * 5.2 Empirical arguments

I think we need to rename 4.1, "Metaphysical arguments". I don't think these arguments qualify as "metaphysical". I could be wrong. I think "rationlist arguments" might be a better term. 4.2 seems to more or less adequately named. Seems to me that 4.3.1 and 4.3.2 could be renamed to something involving "group experience" and "personal experience". I don't see why 5.1.1 needs to be broken off from 5.1 - it seems like a general description of the entire 5.1 category. What do you think, Infin? crazyeddie 01:08, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

I think we ought to hold off any any new summaries until we have worked out how to organize the subsections. Infin, what do you think about my comments above? crazyeddie 15:36, 24 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Sorry, my browser must have not reloaded this page or seomthing, because when I came on this morning I didn't see this section. Anyways, I think the basic categorisation is fine, tho Franc's new way is looking good. However, there's a fundamentally different way between this one and Franc's - this one organises the arguments into commonly accepted types; Franc's is just applying arbitrary adjectives to his/her categories. I think the current categories is better, but it needs further subdividing. Which is where Franc's comes in. Eg, "materialist" can be put under "empirical" and "incoherency" can be put under "deductive" (I think)


 * As for the metaphysical/rationalist thing, I don't realy know what rationalist means (i'll go look it up in a sec), but I think those arguments are fine in the metaphysical section, since they don't make use of any physical evidence and try to argue their points using abstract concepts.


 * I originally broke 5.1.1 off from 5.1 hoping that it would eventually be extended to its own specific section; but at the moment it looks like re-merging is probably a good idea. Infinity0 15:46, 24 September 2005 (UTC)


 * "Rationalism, also known as the rationalist movement, is a philosophical doctrine that asserts that the truth can best be discovered by reason and factual analysis, rather than faith, dogma or religious teaching. " Sounds like a contradiction to me... faith is one of the fundamental parts of religion.


 * * The Moral argument argues that morality cannot exist without God.
 * I'm not sure where this goes. It's definitely not empirical, but it might be metaphysical. The other alternative would be to put it under "subjective". Any ideas? Infinity0 16:00, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Rationalism, or Continetal Rationalism to put it more specifically, is the attempt to prove something by reason alone - without reference to external observations. As Franc says, it's pretty much been declared a dead end, aside from Descartes' Truth. However, many of the theistic arguments predate the "death" of Rationalism. In fact, the cosmological argument goes back to at least Aquinas, so it could be said the predate at least formal Rationalism. Plus, there is always the armchair philosophers who didn't get the memo.

Rationalism (both in the specific and general sense) is not entirely incompatible with faith. Theistic Rationalists seek to prove/demonstrate that God exists by reason and/or evidence in order to supplement their faith. For example, Thomas Aquinas was an early Theistic Rationalist, who sought to rehabilitate the "pagan" philosophers by showing that reason and logic only serve to reaffirm the doctrines of Christianity. IIRC, this lead to the Catholic Church "creating" (discovering?) a new section of the afterlife for "virtuous pagans" - pagans that lived before Christ, or never had the opportunity to convert, but lived good lifes.

I would say that argument from morality belongs in empirical. I see the breakdown like this: what we're calling "metaphysical" should be renamed "rationalistic", and consists of arguments that use reason alone - that is to say, that seek to prove that only universes where God exists are logically self-consistent. "Empirical" would refer to arguments that are based on "objective" evidence - that is to say, evidence that both theists and atheists are likely to agree on, even if their interpretations of that evidence differ. The essential premise behind the morality argument is that morality exists. This is, more-or-less, an objective fact, one that both theists and atheists are likely to agree to. Subjective arguments are arguments that rely on evidence that only theists are likely to agree to, and can be further broken down into evidence that is perceivable by theists as a whole, and evidence that is perceivable by individual believers. crazyeddie 16:14, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I see your point. I just read up on some stuff and apparently "rationalist" and "empirical" contrast each other. Go ahead :) Infinity0 17:14, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Your arguments are incomplete
http://www.theobjectiveobserver.com

Read Proof of God section.

At a minimum, there should be some mention of "Maxwell's Demon".


 * Are you referring to this? If so, I will just make two comments. The first, and (I think) easiest to address, is that the quality and tone of the writing will need to improve in order to fit into this article. Secondly, the hypothesis sounds like it is unlikely to garner much support here. Starting from a false premise ("The existence of a macroscopic cycle that decreases in entropy"), you can prove anything you like, including the existance of a god. That said, I think any contribution made here will be taken seriously if it takes itself seriously. Be bold and add anything that you feel this article is missing. &mdash; HorsePunchKid &rarr; &#x9F9C;  04:10, 28 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Eh, maybe I'll "be bold"; load of crap that is, but more than likely I will simply point out that you lack a scientific proof of God. This is exactly what Maxwell's demon is, it is a scientifically testable hypothesis about the existence of God based on entropy of an isolated system. There is lots and lots and lots of literature on it. You quote or mention none of it. In fact, your discussion demonstrates a disposition that nobody believes such an argument exists. It does, it is called Maxwell's Demon. Get a clue. And yes, Maxwell's Demon IS about a macroscopic cycle that decreases in entropy. That is not a false premise, it is a hypothesis about whether or not such a cycle exists and how it might be possible. It ties into information entropy, yadda yadda. In short, Maxwell's Demon is a scientific hypothesis about the existence of a "demon" or "God" that could potentially decrease a macroscopic thermodynamic cycle in an ISOLATED thermodynamic system. If such a cycle exists, it would lend credence to the existence of this "demon" or "God". Current arguments against Maxwell's demon focus on the entropy loss of storing data and that data would have to be erased. The Objective Observer points out that the existence of DNA shows those arguments to be bunk.

The argument against Maxwell's demon still stands. DNA is just one way of storing information. Unless Maxwell's Demon has access to an infinite amount of DNA, then it would still eventually run out of storage space, be forced to erase some data in order to record more, thus increasing the entropy of the system. (For reasons that are way, way, way beyond me, writing data doesn't necessarily lead to entropic increase, but erasing data does.) Although a rather large amount of information is currently stored in the genomes of every single living cell, the total amount of DNA in the biosphere is limited by access to the raw materials needed to construct this DNA. And both the construction and the destruction (erasure) of DNA lead to an increase in entropy.

Nevertheless, just because a particular argument for or against the existence of God is bunk, that is insufficient reason for not listing in this article. Anybody want to take a swing turning this jazz into a workable entry? crazyeddie 05:56, 8 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Not to be overly negative, but a scientific argument based on a hypothesis (existence of a macroscopic, entropy-decreasing process) that is almost universally believed to be false by scientists is unlikely to stay in the article for very long. &mdash; HorsePunchKid &rarr; &#x9F9C;  06:16, 8 October 2005 (UTC)


 * From where I sit, all of the thestic arguments and at least half of the atheistic arguments are provably-false, and that doesn't stop them from staying put. Dropping the "scientific" label might be a good place to start. If I RTFA right, I think the guy is trying to say that, not only does DNA show that Maxwell's Demon is possible, but that DNA itself is a macroscopic entropy reversal. Of course, that's about the point where the blood started coming out of my ears, so don't take my word for it... crazyeddie 06:43, 8 October 2005 (UTC)


 * It might be wise to drop the Maxwell's Demon part of the argument, and focus only on the macroscopic entropy reversal side. Perhaps list alledged entropy reversals? crazyeddie 06:52, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

If anything, if Maxwell's Demon was possible, then it would mean that a certain possible proof/evidence of God would no longer work. If a macroscopic entropy reversal were observed (and none, to date, have been, to the best of my knowledge), then it would indicate that our universe is not an isolated system. If our universe is not an isolated system, then that means there is something out there that is influencing our universe. Maybe that something is God, maybe not. So perhaps it is just as well for the theistic POV that Maxwell's Demon is impossible. crazyeddie 06:06, 8 October 2005 (UTC)


 * If we found a Maxwell's-Demon-like process, it would mean that the physical laws produced by science are flawed and that our knowledge of the workings of the universe is incomplete. But there are already clear gaps in our knowledge, and I don't think this would bring scientists any closer to concluding that God exists. (I'm thinking of the God of the gaps argument, but couldn't work it into that sentence anywhere. :-) &mdash; HorsePunchKid &rarr; &#x9F9C;  06:16, 8 October 2005 (UTC)


 * To put it another way, if there is "something out there that is influencing our universe", the next step will be to try to figure out how those influences work, not to worship them. ;) &mdash; HorsePunchKid &rarr; &#x9F9C;  06:18, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Dear Christ, man, you almost sound sane! What the heck are you doing here? (seriously, though, hang around!) crazyeddie 06:35, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm not saying that this hypothetical "something" is God, only that it might, in theory, be something God-like. (And even if it is God, why should we worship Him instead of trying to figure out how He works?) Of course, the simplest possible explanation, even if a macroscopic entropy reversal (or some other such gap in our knowledge) were discovered, is that the gap will eventually be explained by something purely naturalistic. Further evidence would have to be gathered before we could conclude that this whatchamacallit is anything like what we would call God. But a lot of the existing theistic arguments are like that - the "First Cause" argument for example. crazyeddie 06:50, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

You guys talk a lot but don't really say that much. Let me clear this up for you.

1. Maxwell's Demon is a thought problem about God. http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/cgi-local/DHI/dhi.cgi?id=dv1-79

Hence, it is an argument about the existence of God, which this page is supposed to be about. Furthermore, it is a scientifically testable theory about the existence of God. If a macroscopic process is found to exist that can be reduced in entropy it could only be done by such a demon...God. This is exactly why so many people over so many years have tried to disprove it. And they have all failed...repeatedly. You do not have scientifically testable theories about God on this page. That is an oversight. Such theories do exist. And remember, everyone thought the 2nd law of thermodynamics was absolute until they observed microscopic processes that reduced in entropy. Hence, fluctuation theorem to resolve the paradox. So, there IS a scientific test for God, it is a macroscopic cycle that decreases in entropy. Why is it that if a macroscopic cycle was found to decrease in entropy would that prove that our universe was not isolated? That makes no logical sense. That *could* be the case, or there could be some odd phenomenon INTERNAL to the system that allows it, something we don't understand or currently comprehend. Your bias AGAINST anything that you can't explain is obvious.

2. DNA is essentially composed of N, H and O. C yadda yadda. Look at the basic components of DNA, guanine, cytosine, etc. Thus, what you are talking about is an information storage system that is effectively limited only by how many N, H, O and C there is in the entire universe. Sounds like it would be enough storage space to influence a macroscopic cycle before any would have to be erased. The issue then is whether the RATE of entropy decrease caused by the demon's actions is greater than, equal to or less than the RATE at which the demon has to erase information once it had used up all of the N, H, O and C in the ENTIRE UNIVERSE. That would seem to me to be akin to "steady state". Also, one of the arguments against Maxwell's Demon seeks involves expending external energy to collect information. DNA does not have to do this, it can mutate all by itself.

3. One of the points I think that the objective observer tries to make in some of the writings is to point out that mass extinctions preserve the information about species even though the species disappear. This would indicate that the RATE of information gathered about species is growing FASTER than the number of species, because 90% of the species are wiped out. Thus, the life cycle itself appears to be a macroscopic cycle that decreases in entropy. To account for it being otherwise requires life to instantly pop into existence somewhere elsewhere in the universe at the exact moment an asteroid is wiping out life on Earth. Believing in God is probably more likely than that one.


 * What decrease in entropy? Are you going to cite a source for this? Entropy only decreases in a self-closed system. The total entropy in the universe has increased because the universe is self-closed, ie isolated system (a physically open universe is still self-closed because it's not affected by things outside the universe). Most likely you've read some bullshit creation """"""""science"""""""" paper, and the system under test was not closed. See Thermodynamics, Evolution and Creationism.


 * First, "Entropy only decreases in a self-closed system" and "entropy in the universe has increased because the universe is self-closed". Is this supposed to be intelligent? You directly contradict yourself. Do you argue with yourself often? There is nothing to "cite" it is a hypothesis that IF a macroscopic cycle could be found that decreases in entropy then this would provide scientific evidence in support of the existence of "god". It is a hypothesis. It has a long history as the "Maxwell's Demon" thought problem. It was couched as a reasoning argument in order to not draw the direct wrath of those in the scientific community. This is well established. I believe that such a storied argument about the existence of god deserves mention in a page that is purportedly ABOUT arguments for the existence of god. Call me crazy.


 * Whoops, only increases. Got confused there. IF a macroscopic cycle could be found that decreases in entropy then this would provide scientific evidence in support of the existence of "god". - yes, only if the system is isolated, and the decrease in entropy was consistent. See below for details. Basically, you don't know what you're talking about - the 2ndLaw is different from what you have been led to believe it is. Infinity0 00:40, 6 November 2005 (UTC)


 * DNA does not have to do this, it can mutate all by itself.  - No, it doesn't. Radiation causes mutations. Wrong ions which happen to be in the right places also cause it. But an piece of DNA in an isolated closed container does not mutate. Thus, the life cycle itself appears to be a macroscopic cycle that decreases in entropy.  - the earth is not a closed system, the sun shines on it, etc. Infinity0 21:25, 23 October 2005 (UTC)


 * >sigh< So what about the other 2 points, just going to complain about one of them, huh? OK, I'll play along. What TOO is talking about is the life cycle decreasing in entropy within the isolated system of the universe. Not the universe decreasing in entropy or anything else. Granted, this is; by far, the weakest of the arguments presented but it interesting none-the-less. Basically, it is saying that the life cycle within the isolated system of the universe is decreasing in entropy. But, more important than that, what scientific proof do you have that the universe is, in fact, increasing in entropy? Give me some measurements. Your proof is that "it's supposed to"?? What a joke. Yeah, before fluctuation theorem, all microscopic cycles were "supposed to" increase in entropy as well. Oops. Why not the possibility that super macroscopic cycles might decrease in entropy? I mean, star and planet formation would seem to be a very curious phenomenon in a universe that is supposed to only increase entropy. That's a lot of energy coalescing, not dispersing, where is the energy dispersal that balances that out?


 * Granted, all of this is stuff that can't be answered, but the main point in all this is that a scientific argument for the existence of god exists. It is called Maxwell's Demon. It has a long and storied history. The concept of Maxwell's demon deserves mention on a page that purports to contain ENCYCLOPEDIC knowledge about the existence of god.

No, it isn't. Maxwell's Demon does not prove the existence of god, and I wonder why you think so. It has nothing to do with god. You don't even know what the second law of thermodynamics is. It's JUST A GUIDE. It does not absolutely say that entropy must increase - only that it's most likely to. As time tends towards infinity, entropy tends towards infinity. "The second law of thermodynamics is a tendency" - It's not a smooth curve; it varies.

You will understand that if you actually know how the law is derived - through statistics. The 2ndLaw is common sense, to be honest, so I understand why you think it's wrong, because you have been led to believe it says something totally different. Somehow you and every other creationist has corrupted the second law to read "entropy decreases, without exception" which is foolish, as you are dealing with a random process. Particles moving randomly tend towards regularity, this is mathematics. But nowhere is it claimed by scientists or mathematicians that it will reach complete regularity, or will always approach regularity (ie, never become less regular). The uncertainty of quantum physics even explicitly says this. Infinity0 00:40, 6 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Look, dude, you are smoking crack. I certainly understand the 2nd law of thermodynamics and YOUR OWN FREAKING WIKI HAS A DIRECT REFERENCE TO MAXWELL'S DEMON UNDER the 2nd law of thermodynamics. It says "Maxwell's Demon". In addition, I did not say that Maxwell's Demon proves the existence of God, TOO seems to indicated that, not I. And Maxwell's Demon is fairly commonly understood to be a thought problem that is basically an allegorical argument about the existence of God couched in scientific lingo to make it "tolerable" to be discussed in the scientific community. I already provided the references. Iti is highly convenient how you keep dropping argument threads that you lose and mis-quote the rest. With people like you editing this wiki, it is surely doomed.


 * Chill out. Maxwell's Demon has been answered, as you will find in that article. I fail to see its relevance to God's existence. If you feel I "drop argument threads that [I] lose" then why don't you bring them back up again? And how have I misquoted anything? Infinity0 talk 16:19, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

God has not been shown to exist
This category needs to be made to conform to the rest of the list. The appropriate title is "God does not exist, and this cannot be proven". Agnosticism can be discussed, but elsewhere, its something different from this, which amounts to weak atheism. Sam Spade 10:20, 29 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I wonder why God requires such special proof, as opposed to say... a Collossal Squid. We have loads of relics and whatnot, as well as plenty of physical evidence (like us for example), but for some reason God doesn't get a Scientific classification on his article... Think how many God "sightings" we have, as opposed to Collossal Squid sightings, after all ;) Sam Spade 10:55, 29 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Because people don't start wars based on a sighting of a Colossal Squid :) Infinity0 15:23, 29 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty sure people start wars because of $, temporal power, and aggression, not because of something God told them to do.


 * When you think "WWJD?, is your thought "Jesus would unload w two barrels of whup-ass, and nuke the $#!^ outta them foriegn bastards!!!" ;) Sam Spade 23:58, 29 September 2005 (UTC)


 * No, I think Akhenaten, Crusades, Inquisition, Conquistadors, Colonial Imperialism (which was based on the pretext of spreading faith), WTC, Iraq, etc, etc, etc. Infinity0 17:17, 30 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Thats what Jesus would do, eh? He'd tie some lady on the rack and torture her till she confessed... or maybe cut the head off an infidel? Frankly I don't think muhhamed, jesus or buddha would want to do those sorts of things. They never struck me as that type... Sam Spade 00:23, 1 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I was answering your original point on why religious people are asked for evidence supporting their beliefs - because many religious people do crazy things based on those beliefs. Infinity0 11:15, 1 October 2005 (UTC)


 * And my point is that the crazy things arn't based on the beliefs. Instead the beliefs are sometimes used as an excuse for the crazy things people do anyways. An easy example is secular states, like communist china and the soviet union. Would you say their opposition to religion has resulted in greater human rights? ;) Sam Spade 13:16, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

What are the crazy things based on then? The crime rate in the USA is soaring, would you say that's because of the religious freedoms allowed? Infinity0 19:52, 1 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Not at all. As a psyche major w a great deal of interest in sociology and history, I'd say that people in general are crazy as hell, mainly based on bad parenting and culture (a pervasive and profound lack of effectual behavior modification and life skills ;). The weird thing (from an evolutionary psychology POV) is how successful mankind is. By most humanist or theological measures however, humanity is doing rather badly. Guys like Jesus and Krishna and Muhammad on the other hand... they did a pretty good job by most standards. Sam Spade 20:31, 1 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Right then, religion isn't directly related to social crime, just as religious restrictions isn't directly related to human rights abuses. I don't care about the original founders. Your point was that god has been subject to more scientific scrutiny than giant squids. My answer to that was because religious people do crazy things, so their reasons for doing them (ie "divine" revelations) must be carefully analysed and destroyed. Infinity0 12:27, 2 October 2005 (UTC)


 * And my point is that religious people are no more inclined to be horrible than non-religious. Indeed I'd argue that the truely pious are VASTLY more moral than the truely godless. Sam Spade 17:38, 2 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Nope. Religion is unrelated to morality. In fact, if you need the fear of god to make you act nice towards others then there is something wrong with you. I'm not saying all religous people are like that though. Infinity0 21:00, 2 October 2005 (UTC)


 * "Right then, religion isn't directly related to social crime, just as religious restrictions isn't directly related to human rights abuses." -- Yes they are. Franc28 15:54, 2 October 2005 (UTC)


 * No it isn't. You just said so yourself that crime is based on psychological and social factors, even though in the USA a disproportionately high percentage of criminals have a religion. By the same logic, human rights abuses are not a result of religious restriction. Infinity0 21:00, 2 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I have never said that "crime is based on psychological and social factors". Although obviously I agree that these have a great importance, they are mediated by our morality (and by extension, by our religion). Someone who believes in the afterlife will have the incentive of becoming a suicide bomber or a murderer, because his values are unimportant compared to the infinite incentive of a pleasant afterlife.  Christians who worship the Christian virtues of moral irresponsibility and anti-secularism will be more likely to be criminals. Pretty simple. Religion has been proven time and time again to be a motivator of crime in the individual, and now this study shows it in aggregates. No big difference there. Ultimately the only thing it has shown, thanks to people's reactions, is that many people are too inane to see the writing on the wall, and prefer to ignore reality, whether they are Christians or atheists. Franc28 06:47, 3 October 2005 (UTC)


 * The problem is people isn't it? Not class or religion, race or background, but their genes. I've never claimed that religion causes evil, merely that many religious people do crazy things, explaining why their beliefs has to be intensely scrutinised (unlike giant squid sightings) Infinity0 18:33, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

While it is sometimes nice to discuss the topic of the article, this talk page really exists to discuss the article itself. Sam, please remember a certain quote your friend TDC has on his userpage :-). Sam brought up a point about the article, which does need to be addressed. Should agnosticism be discussed under the "God does not exist, and this cannot be proven" header? I could go either way, but I'm leaning towards leaving it where it is. Speaking as a former agnostic, present weak atheist, the difference between agnosticism and weak atheism is a quantitative one, not a qualitative one. I would argue that even an agnostic doesn't believe that it is probable that God exists. The main difference is that a weak atheist believes that the existence of God is so improbable that they are justified in assuming that He doesn't. An agnostic does not believe that they are justified in this assumption.

Infin, in defense of my beloved country, I challenge your remark that "crime rates in America are soaring". Politicians often use this claim in their campaigns, but there generally isn't much truth in it. What generally happens is that crime rates are so low that the slightest bit of flux leads to an increase - there just isn't that much room for decrease. And Franc, what is this "study" of which you speak? Infin, if convicts in America are disproportionately religious (i.e., Christian), there could be other explanations, such as socio-economic ones. In America, atheists/agnostics/non-religious people tend to be in higher socio-economic classes. Correlation is not causation. crazyeddie 15:12, 3 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't know, it's just the general impression I got. The crime rates in the UK are rising so I assumed it is too in the USA, sorry about that. I would go and find a source but the truth is I don't care too much right now (unless I'm completely wrong and crime rate in the USA has actually FALLEN). Also, I wasn't trying to argue that religion makes you commit crime. I was just countering Franc's point that religious restrictions causes human rights abuses. Infinity0 18:33, 3 October 2005 (UTC)


 * In actual (and irrelevant) fact, the *violent* crime rate in America has been dropping steadily for at least 15 years now, and is currently at or near a 30-year low. :) 24.1.146.24 21:57, 5 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Source? Infinity0 19:51, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Ahahahahahaha! Go back are re-read the names! Talk about etymological misunderstandings, nobody even knew who they were talking to... ;) Sam Spade 18:39, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with the discussion at hand, but I just found this: Hahahaha! What a brilliant way to win an argument - "your sig is retarded" LMAO Infinity0 18:53, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * What are you, a "personal relationship" Christian ? Also, your sig is retarded. Franc28 20:24, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Heh... In conclusion, I insist that Jesus was more moral than Stalin... ;) Sam Spade 21:01, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

... your point? Infinity0 15:27, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

<>

I challenge this too, for the same reasons that I challenged the claim that crime rates in America are rising. I don't know for sure what the actual crime statistics are in the UK (just as I don't happen to have them memorized for the US), but I'm betting that this perception is the result of a bug in the human conceptual system. Here's what generally is happening when somebody says "crime rates are soaring!": Let's say that a particular crime - yak smuggling - is at an all-time low, say, 1 case per year per 100,000 population. The next year, just by sheer chance, as a result of flux, there are 2 cases per 100,000. This is still very, very low. But does everybody say "look how low the rate of yak-smuggling is, it's the second lowest year on record"? No, they tend to say "OMG!!!1!! Yak-smuggling went up 200%!" And this hits the front page of the Outer Elbonian Times. The next year, the rate goes down to 0.5 cases per 100,000. This doesn't even make it to Page 8 - good news just doesn't sell. So, the overall trend is a decrease in yak-smuggling, but the perception among the general populace is that yak-smuggling is going through the roof.

Behold the power of Eris. crazyeddie 19:56, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

That's what happens when you're not educated about statistics. Please, I know enough maths not to make that mistake. But I live here, and I can safely say there are a lot more dickheads here than there were five years ago. And total(dickheads) &#x221D; rate(crime). :P Infinity0 21:41, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps. But how big of a sample are you working with? Maybe it's only bad in your area - or perhaps how you look at the world has changed. What are the actual statistics? crazyeddie 23:43, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I know people from everywhere around my whole city - my school friends, their friends, etc. During my trips to and from school I see people from other place on the bus. Also, the things I hear about on TV and the newspapers (I'm pretty confident that UK media is a lot more unbiased than US media, but please don't press me for statistics because I haven't got the time or motivation to research this) confirm my own experiences. But of course, I could be wrong, I'm just one person and I haven't looked at or provided any scientific studies on this. It's just a conclusion I drew from my own experiences. Infinity0 21:27, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

So you are basing your belief, that crime in the UK is rising, on two things. Firstly, that, in your subjective experience, the amount of dickheadedness is rising. Secondly, the impression you get from the media. As for the first, consider: you are 16 now (unless you need to update your userpage...). Five years ago, you were 11. Is it possible that, five years ago, you had a slightly more sheltered existence, and, therefore, were not exposed to so much dickheadedness, although it did exist? Also, is it possible, that you have become more jaded, that only nostalgia makes the people of the past seem more kind? Since I agree that more dickheadedness equals more crime, a look at the actual crime statistics might well tend to restore some of your faith in humanity.

As for the second, by contributing to the Fox News article, I have come to know more about media bias than I ever wanted to know. If reporting in the UK has an advantage over reporting in the US, it is that the UK doesn't confuse bias with bad reporting to the same extent that the US does. It is possible for a news source to be biased, but still be a good source of news. This confusion between bias and bad reporting has lead to a center-left bias (relative to America's political spectrum, that is) in American media. 17 out of 20 major American news sources are between the average American and the average Democratic member of Congress on the political spectrum, according to one scientific study which I trust. (Fox News does have a rightist bias, but it is still the fifth closest to the center out of the 20. My main beef with them is that they don't acknowledge this bias, and that they also do bad reporting.)

At any rate, the effect I mentioned has nothing to do with media bias. It has to do with the human preference for bad news over good, despite their political affiliations. There have been attempts at good news programs. They failed. I'd imagine even the BBC worries about attracting eyeballs. As long as that is true, then the BBC well place greater emphasis on bad news than good.

Why am I going on about this? The point is that, despite your obvious intelligence and knowledge, you are not immune to the numerous bugs in the human brain. I am not immune either. A great deal of what we call "wisdom" comes down to this: Be always mindful of the possibility that you are being a fool. We both agree that a belief in God is a false belief. But how is this false belief any different from your (persumably) false belief that crime in the UK is rising? At most, the difference is only one of degree. If you are always aware that you, too, are human, with all the good and bad that comes with it, you will be more compassionate towards your fellow mutated chimpanzees. And compassion, if you will recall, is the greatest of the four Confucian virtues. crazyeddie 14:53, 9 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I suppose. Thanks for pointing that out. I did think most people were good when I was a kid. I guess I resent the fact that so many people hold positions of power and abuse it; and also that adults who are morally worse than a child demand respect from them.


 * I'm not confucious, please... I understand that compassion is a good thing. I'm sort of extreme on both sides. I treat good or normal people with compassion, that other people might normally mock; but I really hate people who have done bad things.


 * I know that we're all humans, but that shouldn't automatically mean that that's a valid reason for doing bad things. Part of being a person is being able to progress and understand our actions.  "Human" is just a word to describe our physical genetic structure. But our minds can go wherever we choose them to. That's what distinguishes people from animals. Infinity0 16:57, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually there isn't any widely agreed upon difference between humans and animals. See Human ;) I, myself, am an animal. When we die, me and my cat Tater will go to heaven and remember what we were doing down here. Until then, we'll just keep doing the best we can to love and to learn, to learn to love, and to love to learn. Sam Spade 22:29, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Please remove "An Essay on Biblical Innaccuracies"...
Dear sirs,

I would like that particular article to be removed and here is one reason why...and it is purely within the bounds of logical reason and the probability of the margin of error...

...In the essay, there is a statement of a "contradictary" Bible verse that Jesus said that no one was good except God...the author of the essay states that there was a "contradiction" in that verse and proceded to state a verse in 1 Tim. 4:4a "...every creature of God is good."

Normally, this really does look like a contradiction; however, the comparison fell through when I read the previous verses above it...what did I discover? St. Paul is talking to Timothy about people who were COMMANDING others to stay away from meat...and then? Verse four: "Every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving."

The dude is talking about FOOOD!! NOT people!

...Now...there is NO REASON for this kind of error to happen; all he had to do was read the previous three verses...and wa-laa, he would have kept it out of his essay...

...A...very bad blunder.

--jfritzyb

If we delinked a linked webpage just because it contained an error, then we would never link to any webpage. Now if you are saying that the webpage as a whole is nothing but a tissue of lies and mistakes, etc., you might have something. Even so, I think the main criteria is if it is relevant to the topic at hand. If it is, I would support linking to it, even if it is nothing but a tissue of lies and mistakes, etc. crazyeddie 03:17, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Here is an alternate article for bible contradictions: I actually think it's better because it's a lot more structured. Infinity0 10:15, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Looks good. Go for it. crazyeddie 14:43, 10 October 2005 (UTC)



Sir...Do you realize what you just finished telling me (concerning that link)?

"Oh...so long as the content relates to the topic at hand, no matter how many mistakes are in it, it just HAS to stay."

...Is that a logical conclusion, Ed? Is it?

...What if I added a link to an essay on the errors of Atheists--that was riddled with out-of-text quotes--be it from the founders or the books that serve as the main foundation of Atheism?

And what would I tell you if you asked me to remove the link to it?

"...So long as it relates to the topic, no matter how many errors it has, we just HAVE to let it stay...."

...That's not right, Ed, and you know it...

...And Ed, that's not the ONLY scripture taken out of context...there are several others--some, where you have to apply Biblical symantics in order to understand the full context of a verse....

I'll give you a "for-instance" when I address your second reply...

You seem to think that the Bible says that it's ok to sin--so long as you're "saved by grace", you can do what you want....

...Well, there's Biblical semantics involved here...

1. Is the verse you're claiming to make the above statement, IN CONTEXT with the chapter??? 2. What else does the Bible say on this issue?

I can tell you right now....Christ AND John the Baptist preached REPENTANCE as well--that's the idea that you need to totally turn from those things that displease God. (That is PART of getting saved--totally turning from your "old ways" and relying on Christ, just as you rely on a parachute before jumping.)

...And THAT'S what I mean when I say that you're quoting "out-of-context" scripture. (The essay does the same thing.)

For further information on Christianity, please check out www.wayofthemaster.com

Thank you.

--JJ



Ok, chill out. You could have written the above in about three sentences. The article has been changed already; your complaint is out of date. Perhaps you want to scrutinise the current link? Giving an article with a few flaws in is better than asserting a whole book is from God, without logic or evidence. Infinity0 23:40, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, that was a cheap shot. But the fact still stands that you managed to point out only one flaw in the previous article, which was about 20 scrolls long if I recall correctly. Infinity0 23:42, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

On a seperate point, what does contradicitions in the Bible have to do with the existence of God? Even if the Bible is false, that does not necessarily imply that God doesn't exist. Granted, if the Bible is true, then that would mean that God exists, but it is possible for a text to be self-consistent, but not describe reality. Perhaps we should delink the new link anyway? crazyeddie 19:21, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, good point. But it seems such a shame to waste a good link, maybe you can find another article to put it? Infinity0 21:00, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

A little debate on morality
Moved to User_talk:Infinity0/Philosophy. Infinity0 15:47, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Gross misstatement of Occam's Razor
Whoever wrote the section on nontheist use of Occam's Razor is unclear on the concept, or, worse, a vandal.

Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate. That's all Occam's Razor says: "do not multiply entities beyond what is needful." It is a heuristic and it says nothing whatsoever about the plausibility of a given hypothesis. It only says that when we have multiple possible explanations, we should begin our investigation with the simplest one: which is to say, the one that assumes the existence of the smallest number of things not already known to exist.

As it is used by nontheists, Occam's Razor cuts away gods and the supernatural, because naturalistic, materialistic explanations have equal or greater explanatory power and equal or greater predictive power, without requiring us to assume the existence of the supernatural.


 * IMO it's not that bad atm, but your version sounds more accurate. Go ahead and edit it :) Infinity0 23:21, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Notable examples of the question of God's existence in human culture
Which page should this go on, and if it does go anywhere, where should a link to it be?

In human culture, the question of the existence of God has been long disputed, and has lead to parodies such as this one from The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy:

"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."

"But," says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED."

"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.

"Oh, that was easy," says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed at the next zebra crossing.

Most leading theologians claim that this argument is a load of dingo's kidneys, but that didn't stop Oolon Colluphid making a small fortune when he used it as the central theme of his best-selling book, 'Well That About Wraps It Up for God.' Kmill 22:33, 27 November 2005 (UTC)


 * That seems more like a parody than a serious philosophical viewpoint. You could try starting a parodies article, like Parodies of existence of God arguments, and link to it from this article. Infinity0 16:47, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Deductive Inductive difference?
Can someone please explain the difference between "deductive" arguments and "inductive" arguments? I'm pretty sure that the categorisation of the "arguments against" is inconsistent for these two types. Infinity0 ( talk | contribs ) 17:56, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Proof
God can't be shown or proven it is all down to faith. You belive in air, garvity, yet you choose to question this. You think if you saw Gad it would help yet many have seen men on the moon and yet people still don't belive it so leave it with the idea of belive or don't but come on stop questioning.


 * OK, you keep thinking that. Some of us actually want to use our brains. Infinity0 talk 20:40, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I would like to bring something that doesn't have a definite answer but perhaps could arouse some kind of suggestion or even an idea as to the fact that before any creation, there was simply God and not too much else was going about. For others such as myself who struggle just finding understanding here, is it simply a faith factor, in which I have no choice but to enter blindly yet boldly knowing that perhaps I may not know nor ever find the true understanding. Isaiah the Prophet did say that God's ways and thoughts are higher than ours, providing the fact that we may just not be able to understand such a awesome concept. God is and always will be the Alpha and Omega to me. The Mule
 * You can have proofs and evidence for God's existence that support your faith without negating the fact that ultimately it is a matter of grace and faith. God's ways are indeed higher than ours, but we are also created in His image with the power to think and communicate rationally.  --Jjhake 03:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Whatever you believe, you have no right to force subjective opinions on others. TBH, who cares what that guy in the corner thinks, as long as he doesn't declare holy war on me? Infinity0 talk 16:26, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Argument Classification
I have heard the following argument against the existence of God: If God is omnipotent can he create a stone too heavy for him to move? If yes, then God is not omnipotent because he cannot move the heavy stone; if no, then God is not omnipotent because he cannot create the stone. Hence, no God. How does this relate or get classified or is it just logical twisting? Inquiring minds.... Carlossuarez46 00:43, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Basically it boils down to this: Whether "God" exists or not it is impossible to prove or disprove. The omnipotence paradox proves this theory; if we could prove the existence of God it would solve many questions but raise many more. --The1exile 16:40, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * In an empirical sense, I agree it's impossible to prove. I think the only other way would be divine revelation (God proves his existence), but of course, that would only prove the affirmative.  So, basically, it may be possible to prove God exists, but I don't think it's possible to prove that God doesn't exist.  Othersider 03:36, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Conclusion?
How do you people feel about a conclusion (of sorts) to this article - perhaps a summary or something, maybe a mention of the fact that the evidence is debatable from both sides, that the debate has been ongoing since ancient times (and will likely continue for a long time), and so on? Othersider 03:49, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * A conclusion would be good, but it would have to be carefully worded to avoid violation of NPOV. After all, with so many peoples different views, its going to be a difficult task to please them all. --The1exile 16:21, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't think there should be a conclusion, as there is no conclusion. There's no point in writing a conclusion which would only say something corny about respecting others' beliefs. A conclusion is supposed to give a push towards a right answer, and that would by definition violate NPOV here. Infinity0 talk 16:29, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * You're right, maybe it's not such a great idea. Othersider 06:54, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * A funny thing happened while summarizing the structure of the article. It turns out we already had a conclusion section. It was named "positions" and placed before the arguments section. As if anyone would take a position in order to make an argument rather than examine the arguments and draw a conclusion. Who would ever do a thing like that? :) WAS 4.250 17:47, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Merge proposal
Coming at this article from the outside I agree with the merge proposal, looks like you're ready to blank and redirect. Excellent article on a possibly contentious topipc, by the way. Kudos to all. Thatcher131 22:39, 15 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Merge proposal?? What? Infinity0 talk 22:48, 15 February 2006 (UTC)


 * There is a merge proposal over at Arguments for the existence of God that it be merged into Existence of God. It looks from the history that most of the work was finished by crazyeddie in July 2005.  A current comparison shows that everything in AfEoG is also in EoG.  EoG also looks much more alive and is being worked on actively.  All that is left to do is blank out AfEoG and post a redirect page.  Nothing needs to happen to this page since the work was already done in 2005.  I don't why there is no merge notice here. Thatcher131 23:17, 15 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The merge happened last year... someone must have reverted the page. I'll go turn it back into a redirect. Infinity0 talk 23:19, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Article has neutrality issues
This article (particularly the introductory and “How do we know?” paragraphs) reads like the existence of God has been pretty much proven. Obviously this is not the case and it needs to be made prominent that vast majority of the "proofs" here are hypothesise which are not scientifically grounded and (in the majority of cases) are not even verifiable using reason or logic. Canderra 03:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Could you be more specific? As far as I can tell, the introduction does not imply that God has been proven, but only that proofs have been offered (and the logical distance between those two is, in fact, what makes any debate on the Existence of God relevant...). The question "How do we know?" might be easily mistaken for "How do we know God exists?" rather than what I take to be the intended question "What are the conditions that must be meant for us to claim that God exists?", but that is waaaay to long to be a decent heading.
 * Besides which, the claim that "[the] vast majority of the 'proofs' here are [hypotheses] which are not scientifically grounded and... are not even verifiable using reason or logic" is one of the more blatant examples of POV I've seen. It is true that none of these arguments have succeeded in offering final, lasting proof of God's existence that has been accepted by everyone (otherwise, we probably wouldn't even have this article). But this is also not the place to make evaluative judgements about these arguments &mdash; especially given the controversial nature of the topic.
 * Of course, the arguments considered are (by and large) arguments within the Western Christian tradition (i.e. Roman Catholic and Protestant) &mdash; even ignoring some other Western viewpoints (e.g. Deism, and Spinoza's pantheism, where God exists, no counter-argument possible). On the Atheist side, one might argue that the only function of God is to provide an explanatory role, a role that science has now taken over (this works equally well if you substitute "my fairy god-mother" for science, though I know of no advocates of Fairy Godmotherism -- NB: this is not a crack about science, but just intended to make a point about the evaluation of arguments on this page). Ig0774 05:51, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The topic of theological and philosophical arguments for and against God's existence are not "proofs" in the sense that I can prove it's raining by going outside without an umbrella and getting wet, but they have a long history in the history of religion and philosophy. The heading "How do we know" could also be called "How do we know anything?" or "What is knowledge?."  I think "How do we know" is cleaner and more literary, and is is clear from reading the section that it is talking about the existence of knowledge, not the existence of God.  Other than that the article looks to me like a farily well balanced catalog of arguments. Thatcher131 12:26, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with you completely about the section on knowledge. As for the proof thing: if by saying this, you mean that God is not an empirically provable hypothesis, then I agree with you. On the other hand, many of the people who offered these arguments clearly believed that the statement "God exists" is as true as the statement "It is raining" is when it is, in fact, raining. Whether or not any of these arguments have been advanced as "proofs" depends highly on which author and which argument we are talking about (e.g. Aquinas does not attempt a "proof" of God; Kant does). You are right, however, that the usage is inaccurate. Ig0774 13:59, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I boldly changed the section title to "Can we know whether God exists?" This might yet be improved, but I think it answers the main issue, which was that the wording "How do we know?" was not meant to imply that God does exist, but might be read that way.  Smerdis of Tlön 15:09, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Certainly many of the people who advanced these proofs believed the results (both the theist and atheist sides). Getting back to Canderra's original concern, what I was trying to convey could also be described by this analogy: explaining how a telescope could be used to investigate the Big Bang theory is not the same as asserting that the Big Bang theory has been proved. Thatcher131 15:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, that is much better. I had taken the "How do we know?" section to mean literally "how do we know god exists?" which I feel was quite an easy misinterpretation given the article’s title and was a large reason for my dispute of the article’s neutrality.

Reading through the entire article properly does give quite a neutral, albeit bit complicated (probably to be expected, it is a philosophy article after all!) account of the subject. I think my concern was raised due to only properly reading the first few sections and then skimming the rest. The philosophical arguments for are presented before the arguments against (which is fair enough I suppose) so one does really need to read the entire article to understand the subject but I guess that is inherent to such a complex topic. Canderra 15:43, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

When I (an atheist thus clearly not biased towards the proposition that God exists) wrote the stub for the subsection in question I gave it the title of How do we know? meaning how do we know anything refering to the Epistemology aspect of the question of god's existence, distinguishing it from the Ontology aspect of the question of god's existence, as is clearly indicated by the "See main article" comment suggesting this subsection dealt with an issue in a limited way and go there for a more extensive treatment. The entire content of the subsection when I created it was "One can not be said to "know" something just because one believes it. Knowledge is distinguished from belief by justification." The subsection has been filled out in a way entirely appropriate to the original intent of the subsection. Whether the current subtitle is better or worse for covering the Epistemology aspect of the question of god's existence is in my mind the relevant question. WAS 4.250 05:11, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I hate the title I reverted to. Its long and its hideously complex. Nevertheless, it seems the only way to appropriately qualify the section ("How do we know" is too ambiguous and "How do we know anything" just sounds way off topic). The topic "how can we know anything" is clearly epistemological, but it doesn't belong on a page about the existence of God. This section and this page should, ideally deal only with the posibility of knowing the existence of God, and not knowledge in general. Ig0774 05:29, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

This article is about "In philosophical terminology, this article introduces schools of thought on the epistemology of the ontology of God." The subsection in question is about epistemology as it concern the issue. I originally tried to give a more accessable title, but if you prefer the less accessable title of epistemology, that is not a problem. The other title of "can..." changes the meaning. WAS 4.250 05:39, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I am not really all that partial to the less accessible title, but I do see your point. On the other hand, I am not so sure that the "Can..." title changes the meaning of this section, at least as it is relevant to this article, but I'll leave it alone. If you want to go back to the "How..." title, I won't object either. Ig0774 06:17, 28 February 2006 (UTC)