Talk:Existence of God/Archive 3

Transcendental argument
This section is poorly explained. Also it is unclear why transcendental arguments are catergorized as empirical, most, probably all, aren't.

What About Buddhism?
In this entire article arguing the existence or non-existence of God, you don't mention the Buddhist perspective, not even as a one line blurb somewhere around agnosticism. The Buddha offered a pretty unique perspective on things for his time (or our time for that matter). He said that yeah there is an un-born creator, but don't even start to talk about that, that has nothing to do with the path to happiness. He gave a parable about a man who had been struck with a poison arrow. If this man in search for help found a surgeon that could remove the arrow, but before allowing it to be removed said, "I will not allow you to remove this arrow until you tell me, who shot the arrow, what kind of person he is, (or is it a she), why was the arrow shot, what type of poison was used, and what type of bow was it was fired with". By the time all of those questions are answered that man would surely die. That’s just about how futile our search for God and meaning are, so just give it up and find happiness. Perhaps the same idea the Buddha had, has been communicated by different philosophers but The Buddha certainly deserves at least a tiny mention in all this, if for nothing else other than starting an organised religion without acknowledging a certain god as the creator. (I can accept if for that reason you would call Buddhism a philosophy, but in my experience philosophy is perhaps too narrow a word for Buddhism, and religion is too broad a word). But now I've gone off on a crazy Buddhism tangent, and the intial reason for my comment has been lost, so I'll restate: At least think about throwing in a bit of Buddhism into this existence of God argument.

~Max Lupo~


 * Yeah, you brought up a very good point. I don't know anything about this though. One of the other editors might, or if you're impatient, you could add something in yourself - this is a wiki. WP:BB :) Infinity0 talk 13:23, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I considered adding something similar, but let me give you the reasons I didn't: First of all, the relationship between Buddhism and God/gods is quite complex -- it probably deserves an article in itself (and, in fact, has been the subject of even the subject (or a major subject) of several books. That said, the Buddha (according to the Pali canon) said nothing about a creator deity at all: he neither affirmed nor denied it (in the specific passage Max Lupo has in mind, he was asked about the start of samsara, and refused to answer). That said, devas and asuras are a part of Buddhist cosmology (and the samsaric cycle). Since this page seems to be arguments for or against the existence of God/gods, I don't think this is quite the appropriate page to add something about the Buddhist view of gods. Perhaps a link should be added to God in Buddhism? Ig0774 20:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC). PS added link.


 * It should be remembered that there is not A buddhist perspective on the question of God/s' existence.

what HINDUISM? they have many deities?Angelofdeath275 21:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

More importantly, do they have any arguments for or against their existence? crazyeddie 20:19, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Deism
I think we could add a blurb and link on deism, probably to the theism section. I think it's a legitimate subset of theism.

Also I might take issue with the statement in the section on agnosticism that suggests an automatic skepticism toward religious arguments. As an example, I offer myself: I don't consider myself wholly agnostic, but I don't really have anything against religious arguments, and I'm certainly not biased against them or automatically skeptical of them (I'm pretty much non-practicing, but I still consider myself a theist). Does anyone else think this may be worth re-wording? Othersider 06:27, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with both points. Deism certainly played an important part in the arguments advanced for the existence of God. As for the Agnosticism thing, I'm not sure it actually says that agnostics are necessarily skeptical of religious arguments, but it is poorly worded. Thanks for bringing it up. Ig0774 06:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

An Argument From Evil
I think some of David Hume's arguments regarding a deity's existence would be a helpful addition to some of the arguments made in this article. In Hume's Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion he argues through the persona of Philo that it is not merely the truth of evil, but more the enormous amount of evil in the world that makes it doubtful whether or not a deity exists. Hume also argues that there is more evil than good, making the harmonizing of a belief in the existence of a God who is in control of everything. Hume appears to argue that the misery people go through is what causes them to constantly be looking forward to the future, when they hope their situation might improve. The same tendency that causes people to look forward to a better future causes them to worship, sacrifice, and pray toward some higher power than themselves. In a way people are convincing themselves that they truly believe in some higher being which can deliver them, but in reality are only believing or desiring a means of release from their despair. An all-powerful higher being, who would be capable of delivering them, would be the best possible means in answering the problem of their situation. Hume argues that what drives people to believe what they do about religion is that they are "not satisfied with life" and they are "afraid of death." Though I do not agree with Hume's conclusion on God's existence I thought his reasoning for not believing in a deity's existence was very thought provoking. Mancalf

It's what's proposed to be included in Problem of evil. User:Kenosis said he'll add something on Hume sometime, in the "history" section. -- infinity  0  00:20, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

If you want, add a paragraph in this article to:
 * The problem of evil (or theodicy) in general, and the logical and evidential arguments from evil in particular contest the existence of a god who is both omnipotent and omnibenevolent by arguing that such a god would not permit the existence of perceivable evil or suffering, which can easily be shown to exist. WAS 4.250 00:37, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

If you want, add a subsection at Problem of evil. WAS 4.250 00:37, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * So in a way it can be said that for some it becomes a Self-fulfilling prophecy? I believe we also need to find a way to seperate dogmatic religion from this as well, as often it isn't the belief in a god which ends up being discussed but the religious institution who is trying to maintain its own base of power which interjects and causes confusion on the subject. As an example, what better way to organise a structure of belief than to present a prize (entry to heaven), offer a path to reaching that prize (following their religion), indicate that the prize is highly desired above everything else (say how wonderful it is thre) and then specifically deny any means of circumventing getting there (suicide denies you the prize). Concepts of heaven, what must be done to get there, what rituals must be followed, actions taken, and "rules" for governing admission or expulsion are all based purely in dogma and have nothing at all to do with the belief in a deity. One can have belief without having dogma, yet one cannot have dogma without the belief. Enigmatical 04:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

As to the existance of both a universe with evil and God's creation of it, it has traditionally been explained as the need to maintain 'free-will'. An alternative argument might be that the universe is a kind of open 'experiment' that could only be conducted if the possibility of evil could occur. Moreover, if this universe was 'inferered with' ie to stop evil from occuring, (ie God's intervention), this would interfere with the experimental purpose of the universe. Therefore, not only is the possibility of evil occurring a part of the fabric of the universe's existance, but also the non-interferance of such 'evil'. This argument is supported by what we know of science, and partly explains the existance of evil in a universe created by God. Furthermore, this explanation is entirely consistent with the cosmological argument, although I haven;t read too many palces which advocate the 'experiment model of the universe'.Posted by Roger McEvilly


 * In belief systems with many human like gods, the gods themselves were both good and evil like humans. In ancient Hebrew thought, the Hebrew God was one of many gods - this evolved into belief in one all powerful God who lied (read about Moses) and killed (the flood) and toyed with human lives (Job) - this evolved into belief in a world divided into forces of Good versus forces of Evil (a few hundred BC to a few hundred AD) which is when the issue of "an all good God" was created causing the need for a theological solution to the latest cultural belief structures. Throw in non-Western beliefs and Modern beliefs and it really gets interesting. WAS 4.250 18:07, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * So where are you getting this info from? The dates are the most suspect, ±2 centuries from birth of Christianity? Even most minimalists give an earlier date. Can you please provide some sources for this "evolution" and its timeline?
 * Also, in terms of evil, how do we define evil vs. good?
 * Thanks.Omegarad 07:10, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

wonderfully constructed article
This is turning into a wonderfully constructed article. keep it up. Just always balance it out. - 24.197.141.33

Thanks. Please help out in whatever way you can. WAS 4.250 15:59, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Mathematical Argument
Mathematical argument redirects to Parameter. Which is not the meaning that is being referred to in this article. Either we need a disambiguation page or a different link on this page. Matt73 13:27, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I deleted the sentence because it is in a list of arguments that God exists in reality, like trees, not exists as a concept, like zero. WAS 4.250 15:12, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

POV, mathematical Platonism is very popular, I for one think that zero does not exist "as a concept". Which sentence are you refering to.


 * Maybe, but it isn't a formalised argument for the existence of God. It's just a position amongst mathematicians AFAIK which isn't supported by a proper argument. -- infinity  0  14:12, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


 * It's more a philosophical postion than a mathematical one and I'm only responding to WAS and his reason for deleting "the sentence" whatever that might be.

Flawed Premise
I am not sure exactly where such things should go, but if we are talking about defining exactly what god is and thus defining what proof or knowledge is, we should also point out the following 2 indesputable facts:


 * 1) All of this discussion is based from a humanistic point of view, one in which all humans are born (ie have a beginning), live, and die (ie have an ending). The ability for the human psyche to comprehend anything beyond a finite quantity (ie all of eternity, forever, infinite, omniscient, omnipotent, etc) is thus limited due to the point of view of the philosopher. This limited understanding would lead one to believe that there must have been a creator simply because we all have creators (our parents)... thus we have a flawed premise that just as we were created, so too must the universe. Anything which uses this premise as the basis for validation should be tempered with the understanding that there is no must involved, only that it holds true to a finitely humanistic point of view


 * 1) Use of personal experience to determine existence (ie "God spoke to me" or "I felt Gods presence"). While I am sure people are 100% completely convinced that this is true and thus by their own belief (which noone else can deny conclusively) is used as the premise for existance... it does not behaviourally exhibit any difference to someone who falsely believes in something they have personally experienced. As we are talking about the human mind, and that mind is known for a propensity to deny and modify its own "facts" for purposes of protection, any use of this premise should be tempered with the understanding that a personal experience (ie subjective) does not equate to anyone else other than that one person (ie objective). If a person swears with 100% conviction they saw a UFO we call them crazy, but if a person swears with 100% conviction they had a personal experience of God we grant them a different judgement. When the subject dictates the type of response, despite both having the same quantity and quality of validation it does indicate that the subject itself inherantly alters the point of view.

Just thought it worth noting. Enigmatical 04:17, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I am sorry, I am just curious as to what you are saying. Could you elaborate please?  I am curious to see what alternatives you offer, not that I am attacking you, you 've just piqued my curiousity.Prussian725 (talk) 23:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

No list of proofs/disproofs?
Is there not an article listing historic arguments for/against the existence of a higher power? I came across a supposed "strong argument" while reading through the 1728 Cyclopaedia (which pre-dates Darwin):
 * The Branches of Trees are observ'd, almost constantly, to shoot from the Trunk at an Angle of 45 Degrees : The Reason is, that the whole Spreading being generally confin'd within an Angle of 90 Degrees, as the most becoming and useful disposition ; that space could not be well fill'd up any other way, than by forming all the Intersections which the Shoots and Branches make, with Angles of 45 Degrees only. A strong Argument, that the Plastick Capacities of Matter, are under the Guidance of a wise Being.

If we don't have a list, I think it would be an interesting addition, especially with respect to the historic arguments for a higher being, and which ones have been disproven as a result of advances in understanding, and which ones remain unresolved, etc. --  BRIAN  0918 22:22, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I would urge caution against such a list. This could open the floodgates for thousands of "Science hasn't yet to fully explain the evolution of the eye / Bumblebee flight / whatever - therefor god MUST have designed them!" listings from evangelicals, all well sourced from the various evangelical magazines. Academically, this would turn the article into a laughing stock and detract from the article's philosophical nature. Canderra 23:19, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Please note that we are talking about historical (ie: notable) arguments, not the opinions of random people, and certainly not proofs. So, it wouldn't open the floodgates. We could even restrict it to ancient/pre-modern arguments, or arguments within historic books/documents. --  BRIAN  0918 00:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I would have to agree here. For every proof/disproof, a person who comes from the opposing side of the argument would say that they see something completely different in the same "data". Take the above example. That the Angle is 45 degrees only suggests to them that it shows guidance of a wise being... where as to a scientist it simply shows the natural laws of physics where all forms of energy seek to use the least amount of energy to maintain its form and 45 degrees is this very configuration. We would end up going back and forth forever. Quite frankly, I think the whole discussion about the existence of god is a subjective one and is most definately not an objective one. With that being the case there will never be a resolution as a person is not about to change their subjective opinion on something through any means of proof, fact, data or anything else. Its a matter of personal preference, not right and wrong. Enigmatical 23:53, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not talking about making a debate page. I am talking about historical (ie: notable) arguments, not the opinions of random people. It could even be restricted in certain ways, as I mentioned in a reply above. While it is true that certain counterarguments don't address more fundamental arguments, nor possible counter-counterarguments, that is not the point of a counterargument. --  BRIAN  0918 00:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Can you provide an example to illustrate your point. To my knowledge, there doesn't exist an historical argument which has ever been disproved. While those who disprove it believe it has, those who have the subjective opposing view believe it didn't go far enough to disprove anything. Unless of course you are talking about incredibly simplistic things like "God is the sun"... but some may argue even that cannot be disproved because we have yet to travel there and know for sure that it is what we think it is. Enigmatical 00:44, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Again, as I said, we are talking about arguments, not proofs. Such arguments can never be proven/disproven. If one person says "the Bible says X", while another person says "science shows Y", Y may be a counterargument against X, but believers of X might posit a counter-counteragument Z. The point of the article would be to list these back-and-forths arguments; of course, we would only include those arguments which are sufficiently notable, as we would with any other list on Wikipedia. --  BRIAN  0918 01:54, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * But that is my point. What you found is something you are claiming is an argument for the existence of God, yet I read that very same piece of text as being a very strong argument against the existence of God and yet it is the very same argument. Some see design as proof, while others see design as being natural and that it is only a humanistic condition to believe that any kind of structure must have come from a divine source. So how are we to list arguments for/against when we cannot even agree which is for and which is against? Its subjective, not objective. Enigmatical 02:53, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * We don't do original research. Obviously, if we are taking arguments from historical texts, the person writing the argument is going to specify whether he means it is for/against the existence of God. Whether or not you agree with that is entirely unimportant. We document; we don't interpret. --  BRIAN  0918 17:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Why not start the list here, we can look at what has been found and decide if its feasible. Enigmatical 06:12, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Is this a proof? Does it work? What category would it fit under? P: God G: Reality Assume there is no God. If there is no God, there can be no proof. If there is no proof, there can be no reality. If there is no God, there can be no proof because you can’t prove anything without making claims. You can’t claim anything without making assumptions. Assumptions are not consistent with the nature of proof. Therefore, there can be no proof. If there is no proof, there can be no reality. Einstein’s Theory of Relativity and the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics both show that reality is defined by perception. Since perception is defined by belief and belief is defined by proof, there can’t be adequate reality. Also, there can be no inadequate reality because reality is an absolute concept. Since there is reality, God must exist. If there is a God, then you can make claims without making assumptions, which means there can be proof, and therefore reality. (The definition of God is Inherent Truth. This is a good definition of God because if you prove something using an inherent Truth, all of reality is derived from that Truth, which means that the Truth is omnipotent.)

KT adds: Nit picking, but the verb "formulated" is misleading wrt the ontological argument. Anselm formulated it first, not Plantinga —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.155.16.95 (talk) 19:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Christian God only?
At a quick glance this entire (otherwise great) article seems to be written from the perspective there is only one divine concept worth discussing: the (Judeo-)Christian "God". Little acknowledgement is made of of all other religions. Such Eurocentricity made some sense centuries ago when many of these arguments were first formulated, at a time when culture (to Europeans) meant European culture; it makes considerably less sense for a 21st century global encyclopedia. It is fine for the article to discuss only the existence or nonexistence of the Christian god, if that is what the it intends to cover. But in that case there absolutely needs to be a sentence very early on (I'd say one of the two or three first sentences) to point out that that is all the article intends to cover. Alternatively, the article might want to direct itself to a broader question of the existence of "a deity or deities", "any supernatural forces", or similar, but that may distract from the clean structure of the article, since most of its source material is indeed from the European/Christian tradition. I would suggest the first option, to specify early on what concept(s) the article means to cover. Maybe even modify the title? - Mglg 22:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

After a slightly less quick glance I see that the problem isn't quite as severe as I first thought, given what's in the "What is God?" section. Sorry for the hasty comment. But even though that section acknowledges some diversity in divine concepts across religions, the "Arguments for the existence of God" section and most of the rest of the article is still written from a "God means the Christan god" perspective. There still needs to be at least some mention of this bias. Mglg 22:38, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Almost every entry in empirical arguments against god is simply evidence against the Christian God; has nothing to do a supreme being overall. ~ UBeR

Problems, please fix
This is roughly half the problems I found with the articile, it desperately needs some warning signs and a peer review.

The first paragraph doesn’t make sense, to assess the “validity of any argument” for anything we need to assess it’s characteristics, this is not “one way” of assessing the validity of arguments for the existence of god, it is a necessary competent of any assessment.

The second paragraph is original research or needs a citation.

The whole first section is confusingly written. The discussion of the use theory of meaning is superfluous.

The discussion of falsifiability is just left dangling, the excessive equation of such arguments with the philosophy of Karl Popper are likely to give a slanted view.

The claim that fine tuning arguments are based on a shrinking pool is POV. The claim that ID arguments depend on fine tuning is factually incorrect, mostly they appeal to biology, not cosmology.

The epistemology section, It's POV. The author should keep his idiosyncratic opinions about a-posteroi knowledge and relativism to himself or cite them as opinions of various philosophers. Not everyone believes that “Strictly speaking A posteriori knowledge is impossible”. Except for skeptics I don’t think any philosopher holds this. I don’t understand why he posted a link to relativism just after this, I can see several possible conceptual links, but none of these are stated or explained in the text. The claim that knowledge is belief plus justification misses the third element of the traditional triad account of knowledge, truth. The link to the sociology of knowledge article is not really relevant in this context. “Knowledge in the sense of understanding or truth” sticks out as a particularly odd quote from this section.

“Knowledge can also be described as a psychological state, since in a strict sense there can never be a posteriori knowledge proper.” As I have said earlier the claim about there being no a posteriori knowledge is a little odd to say the least. Also the link between the rejection of A posteriori knowledge and describing knowledge as a psychological state is not made clear and appears to be original research. The three questions given at the end are very weird, ambiguous and confusing. Take “does subjective experience count as evidence for objective reality” that depends on the definitions you give, in one sense all experience is “subjective” ( i.e it is experience which is experienced by a subject, a person an animal etc). The claim that different definitions of truth is a major source of conflict in the debate is not warranted by the literature, wherein philosophers atheist and theist almost always share the same conception of truth, the claim that different definitions of knowledge are responsible for the confusions is perhaps half right, debates about the meaning of knowledge and religious epistemology fill the literature however the basic idea that ( subtleties surrounding the Gettier problem put aside for a moment) that knowledge is true, justified, belief is basically accepted. Overall this section is perhaps most in need of a cleanup, not much is salvagble.

The definition given of Metaphysical arguments for the existence of god is weird, it claims that such arguments are meant to be deductively valid. One of the arguments the author lists in this section, the cosmological argument, are sometimes given as inductive arguments ( Richard Swinburne is one of the primary defenders of this approach). I’ve never seen the “Pantheistic argument” before, but that might just be my ignorance. The categories basically seem made up and arbitrary.

The empirical arguments section is weird, moral arguments for the existence of god are categorically not empirical and neither are the versions of the transcendental argument which I have seen.

The subjective arguments section is very poor, an attempt to argue from miracles is not a “subjective” argument as far as I can tell, but because no statement of what the author means by subjective ( one of the English languages most ambiguous words) is here given I wouldn’t know. All the definitions of subjective in this context I can think of either render the list either inaccurate or POV ( perhaps for example the author thinks that subjective refers to experiential arguments, arguments from religious experiences, in which case the list is inaccurate, or perhaps he means subjective in the epistemologically derogatory sense, in which case the list is POV.)

The source quoted in the first section of empirical arguments against the existence of god is confused. Deism isn’t fuzzily defined under any standard definitions of fuzzy. The text seems to present a false dilemma between creationist theistic belief and deism. The source cannot be considered reliable

It’s hard to see that Sartre’s existenalist rejection of the existence of god on the grounds that man creates his own nature is an inductive argument, it’s hard to classify but if anything it’s a deductive argument.

The no reason argument is poorly explained.

The deductive arguments section includes “The counter argument against the cosmological argument” this is not an argument against the existence of god, Christians, even those who believe the existence of god can be rationally demonstrated, might use it.

To summarize, this article is filled with inaccuracies, irrelevancies, poor use of categories, original research, points of view, overconfident interjections, poor word selection, undefined terms which appear to have an idiosyncratic meaning and a tendency to attempt to bring in major philosophers when it only confuses the discussion.


 * Dear 58.105.65.186, thanks for your insightful comments. Feel free to be bold and edit the article to help remove these problems. (By the way, on talk pages like this, please sign your posts with four tildes, which puts your username or IP and a date stamp after your post; this makes it much easier to follow arguments. Also, new sections normally go at the bottom of the page.) - Mglg 00:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

intelligent design
How is it possible for the scientific community to challenge intelligent design? I mean, they have to believe in design at least. Even Richard Dawkins does. Scorpionman 15:59, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

1) This isn't the place for such a discussion. 2) I would suspect that the problem is with intelligent design. Evolution can give rise to organisms that appear to be "designed," but evolution itself is not intelligent - it lacks intentional stance, a prequisite of intelligence. crazyeddie 23:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Scorpionman, the invariable reason people deny the existence of God or "superior spirit", (or even decide to try to believe it when they normally wouldn't, or to hold onto it under duress) is because they have an emotional reason not to. If there is no God, I can't think of a reason to abstain from sex until marriage. The idea that everything came out of 'nothing' is ridiculous. Anyone who looks at this concept with an open mind will ultimately be at least agnostic... but what percentage of people actually [i]know[/i] the Big Bang Theory/evolution?

Ok, that was a rant, and was off-topic. :)

Yoda921 03:17, 22 December 2006 (UTC)Yoda

Now firstly, you claim that if there is no god, you cannot think of a reason to abstain from pre-marital sex. Firstly, what is your point? Are you claiming that as the consquences of god not existing are unpleasant/unacceptable to you, he must exist? Secondly, whether or not there is a god, morality and ethics are still possible, whether or not you, personally, can see why. We can all consider the social implications of our actions, and even trace them back to ourselves for selfish reasons if need be.

Now you claim "The idea that everything came out of 'nothing' is ridiculous." Well I agree it is ridculous. The funny thing, however, is that no one is claiming this. You obviously have no idea of the way in which evolution functions. Even to say that as evolution/the big bang don't account for everything, it is no proof of god. Simply disproving evolution does not in anyway prove god's existence. If you are invoking a god of the gaps, you are, I believe, simply deluding yourself. Just as we cannot explain the universe, it doesn't mean we wont be able to or that, in the absence of evidence, we can simply substitute a completely irrational god or deity in its temporary place. It would seem you hold on to notions of god as it is comforting and the consquences of his not existing, would be unacceptable to you. I suggest that you consider the possibilty that god does not exist. Before you suggest I do that same, let me tell you I am more than willing to, as long as you provide with proof. Proof is, however, what god lacks and is given in the place of. I apologise for the typos and grammatical errors, but I am, very, very tired. -Tim-THobern 03:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It's funny you ask for proof for the existence of God, when, in fact, there is not any proof one DOESN'T exist. ~ UBeR 03:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The same thing goes for a 6 foot tall, pink rabbit called Harvey. Just as something can't be disproved doesn't validate it in anyway. I think your labouring under the delusion that all propositions have equal merit, which is ridiculous; a million ridiculous things cannot be disproven, that doesn't mean we should give them any consideration.-Tim-THobern 05:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I full well understand the ideas of confirmation in relation to verifiability and falsifiability. Truth is independent of verifiability. Likewise, it also independent of falsifiability. I believe, however, it is much harder (if not, basically, impossible) to falsify God (depends entirely on one's definition). ~ UBeR 05:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, that is just floppy logic. Truth is directly related to verifiability.  If you can verify something then it is true.  If you cannot, then it's truth value is not known, unless you prove it false.  You cannot verify something that is not true; that is just illogical and wrong.  The example given about the 6 foot rabbit, in logic, is called Argumentum ad Ignorantium, which is a logical fallacay by assuming something because no reproof is offered.  But if no proof is offered for something, then it hasn't been verified.  And truth is directly related to falsifiability.  If something can be proven false then it is not true; this is simple, first-year logic.  So...truth, verifiability, and falsifiability are all directly related.Prussian725 (talk) 21:22, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Euthyphro's dilemma
Just wondering why Euthyphro's dilemma is absent from this page.


 * Euthyphro's dilemma has little to do with the existence of God. At most, it might be useful as a counterargument to Argument from morality. crazyeddie 23:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Causility VS. the existence of a God
So how is the concept of causility or "cause and effect" more justifiable than the existence of God? Both cannot be empirically tested; you can not "experience" both with your five senses. I understand that one concept can be "believed in more" than the other; for example, you COULD say that you believe in cause and effect more than you believe in the existence of God. But you can't say, from an empiricist point of view; that you KNOW casualty or God exists. So what I'm asking is how can scientists (and empiricists) believe in the concept of "cause and effect" more than they believe in the existence of God? How is causility more justified (and therefore, more readily "assumeable") than the existence of God? You can't say you know they both exist according to Hume, if you are an empiricisst, but why would anyone be an atheist (not believe in God), but assume that causility exist? 165.196.139.24 21:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, first off, what is causality? IIRC, it means that one event must follow another by necessity. "Necessary" truths, in philosophical jargon, means that the truth is required to be true in all possible universes - it is impossible for this truth to be wrong in any logically consistent system. In contrast, there are "contigent" truths which are true in this particular universe, but it is possible that there are universes where this truth doesn't hold. So, in other words, if event B absolutely has to happen if event A happens, then we say that event A causes event B.


 * IIRC, Hume tied the notion of causality to the Principle of the Uniformity of Nature, which roughly states that, given a similar situation, you are going to have similar results. If we run an experiment and get different results, we start looking for the different inputs to the experiment that caused the divergence in results.


 * Hume pointed out that the Principle of the Uniformity of Nature lacks justification, for reasons too complicated to get into here. His positive view states that we come up with it out of habit - seeing many similar "experiments" yielding similar results. If he were around today, he might say that we evolved an instict for this principle, because it works in general. After all, if the PUN isn't true, then there is no reason not to play in traffic, because being hit by a car might not necessarily result in death and/or severe pain.


 * Interestingly enough, we seem to have empirical evidence that the PUN is not true in all cases - see quantum indeterminacy. Even if the environments (including the internal environments) of two different radioactively unstable nucleus are exactly the same, it is not given that they will emit radiation at the same time. We can only give probablistic predictions of such an experiment. There are also strong theoritical reasons to believe that such indeterminacy is fundamental, and not just an artifact of our ignorance, but how things are in reality. The PUN, and by extension deterministic causality, appears to be not entirely true at sub-atomic levels.


 * So, causality doesn't exist in any absolute sense. Fun, hun? But it works well enough in our everyday world, and without, there doesn't seem to be any reason not to run down the street naked and screaming, since there is no way of (absolutely) predicting the consequences. It might be that some scientists believe in causality, but that's because they're ignorant, unlike us philosophers :-) That and they might be sticking their fingers in their ears and going "LA-LA-LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!" However, I'm not sure that the fact that causality isn't true helps your case for arguing that God exits. If causality isn't absolute, then not every event requires a cause, so there is no need for a First Cause. Of course, if God is an "uncaused cause," then God Himself would be a counterexample proving that causality is bunk. Either way, the Cosmological Argument simply won't hold water. It is possible that God exists, of course, baring any convincing arguments from the Strong Atheists, but this Weak Atheist believes that the possibility is remote. crazyeddie 00:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that whoever put this post up has misinterpreted the Logical Law of Cause and Effect. For anyone that doesn't know, it states that "Every effect must have an antecedent cause". Now, using proper logic, God not having an antecedent cause does not violate this pillar because he is not defined as an effect but rather, the cause, because logically, everything that exists must have a starting point lest there be an infinite continuum of events that has no beginning and no end, which of course contradicts the law of cause and effect. If anyone would study philosophy, consider studying Logic along side it. You'd be surprised at how different the two really are.Prussian725 (talk) 19:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Pascal's Wager
While this may border more on the philosophical and psychological sides than the theological side (which this article does a great job explaining), I feel that it is missing a reasons for/against an individual person believing in God or a Supreme Being. I think that the entire section, or at least its prototype, can be molded around Pascal's Wager and Paschal's Flaw, as well as more conventional thought processes as the inherent inborn need find the truth to our existence, devoting time to what is accordingly important to either the betterment of the human species and our knowledge of science or our own personal beliefs (dictated by ones belief against or in God), etc. The section shouldn't be too long, but should probably passingly mention Voltaire, C.S. Lewis and/or Bertrand Russell. --Lord Ramco 19:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Arguments for the possibility of the non-existence of God
It seems to me that non of the arguments against the existence of God actually argue against God's existence. Rather they are arguments for the possibility of reality's existence without a need for God. Can some actual arguments against God's existence be provided? Or is that not really possible?

--chad 10:40, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The aruments are the same for invisible unicorns. WAS 4.250 18:28, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Probability?
I noticed that in this article often probability is used in arguments either directly or indirectly (e.g. Occam's razor). But how can one really ask the question "how probable is the existence of God?" I think not. The only way to answer such a question is if we could somehow say "of the 1 million realities in existence, three of them were created by a God. So the probability of God's existence in our reality is extremely low (0.0003% chance)." We can't say anything about probability here.

--chad 10:53, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The aruments are the same for invisible unicorns. WAS 4.250 18:28, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Useless comment above me. The probabily argument is used more against refuting the Big Bang Theory as well as evolution (which both had a success rate of less than 0.000001%), indicating that either the theories are incorrect, or that they were guided by an 'intelligent designer.' I'm not sure if it refers (directly) to the existence of God.

Yoda921 03:20, 22 December 2006 (UTC)Yoda921

Excuse me? From where do you get these statistics? While evolution is indeed an unguided process, there is still a driving force behind it. Even if your unsourced statistics are true, then its a case of the prosecutor's fallacy. As something unlikely has happened, it hasn't. try telling that to a lottery winner. -Tim-THobern 03:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Well one estimate comes from William Lane Craig. A basic reasoning, of philosophical nature, goes as follows: "The evidence of the Big Bang is extremely impressive. According to this theory, though, the initial conditions of our universe (~13.7 billion years ago) were inherently chaotic: From such beginnings, and with no helpful interventions from a higher power, it is mindbogglingly unlikely that a universe such as ours (an animate universe) would evolve. Craig reckons the odds at one in ten to the ten to the one-hundred-and-twenty-fourth power! Pr(universe animate/big bang + atheism) = .000...(10124 times)...1. But this otherwise unlikely result (an animate universe) is just what theism would lead one to expect: Ours is the sort of universe God would see fit to create. Pr(universe animate/big bang + theism) = 1." ~ UBeR 04:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, Craig is basing this on...? Anyone can reckon what they like, it doesn't make it any truer, especially when it flies in the face of the general scientific consensus. -Tim-THobern 05:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The general scientific consensus is against the Big Bang theory? I though just the otherwise! That's argumentum ad populum and argumentum ad verecundiam, anyway. Besides, science is not here to prove or disprove God. That is not its purpose, and it is well beyond the scope of science; it simply doesn't have the ability. ~ UBeR 06:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I was talking about a Evolution, not the big bang. Secondly for someone who has repeatedly submitted to ad ignoratum, you're awfully high and mighty. Thirdly, Wikipedia is supposed to reflect the general consensus, ad populum or not. -THobern-THobern 03:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Funny. So can you please explain to me how this theory of Evolution proves God does not exist? ~ UBeR 05:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure. Just after you quote me my having said that. I said that your statisitc (0.000001%) was both plain wrong and misleading. See prosecutor's fallacy--THobern 09:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see what this has to do with evolution. ~ UBeR 01:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I dunno, "general scientific consensus" does nt always have positive and completely agreeable connotations. I mean, the general scientific consensus 500 years ago was that contenental drift didn't exists and before that that the earth was flat. And WAY before that, it was that maggots would spontaeneously generate on meat if left out in the sun. The problem I see is that an awful lot of scientists will call theories fact,even if they haven't proven it yet, just because it's easier or just because they so desperately want it that way.Prussian725 (talk) 01:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Note that there was never a scientific consensus of a flat earth - even in ancient times, it was known the earth was curved. See Myth of the Flat Earth. Also note that theories and facts are difference concept - a theory never becomes a fact, because a theory is as good as it gets. Facts are things which happen, theories are models to explain the facts. Mdwh (talk) 11:06, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree.Prussian725 (talk) 23:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

William Hatcher's proof?
I have added an entry William Hatcher's proof in the For part of the article and provided a link. I am unsure whether we can provide external link in the article itself or should use footnotes instead; if anyone wishes to edit it, please do. Also, the "proof" itself is of decent length, but not too long; should the whole proof be presented in the article, or should it have its own article? Allan Lee 23:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Articles on William Hatcher, on his books(s), and on his theory should all exist. I suspect his theory will belong in a category of theories that we already have an article on and mention of his theory can also go there. Probably mention doesn't belong in this article, but write the article on the theory or the book descibing the theory and let's see then. Meanwhile I have noticed that the intro is too short and needs to adequately summarize the article. Maybe I'll get around to that. WAS 4.250 12:08, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * His article already exists, but only touches on his proof briefly. I do not see an article for his proof specifically, and I went through all the other articles of "For" arguements but do not see one that fits his arguement. I mean, there's not even a catagory of "Deductive" before. Perhaps I'll create a main article, then add a brief description here to link to that. Allan Lee 18:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok I did some searches, and his proof has not yet been documented in Wikipedia at all. I'll add an article, then add a new entry here afterwards. Allan Lee 18:24, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Intro tweaks
I removed "clearly logically impossible" to "apparently self-contradictory" because this is something of a disputed question. I removed "Epistemological problems such as the "problem of the supernatural" cause no end to the misunderstandings involved in arguments for and against the existence of God" because it seems rather odd to single out this as a point of confusion, when there are plenty of complex philosophical discussed on this page. Also, it is unreferenced. -- Beland 20:28, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Only way to prove it.
I don't agree with arguing over the exsistence of God. The only way to prove he does exsist is if we of course die. Anker99 00:37, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

That is Eschatological verification. 194.80.178.1 15:24, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Or if He showed himself empirically. (Thus, I say, God is verifiable, but not necessarily falsifiable.) ~ UBeR 03:55, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Even if you die and witness nothing for eternity it still doesn't "prove" that the universe was not created by an intelligent being. Sadly even dieing doesn't seem like a surefire way to "know" for sure. --Jayson Virissimo 20:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I concede. ~ UBeR 21:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Does God Exist?
True, there is a "problem of evil." Here there is a contrast. There are millions of millionaires and countless affulent people across the US and much of Europe. Then you have people who could live on five thousand dollars a year over in Third World countries. There is an imbalance in our world. What would benevolence be if we all were equal? It would put one above another. Picture if Hollywood emptied out its collective billions of dollars, the hoarding governments of this world thousands of tons of gold and the trillions and trillions of dollars they spend finding new ways to kill their enemies. Jesus once said,"What you have been given, you have been given to share." Are we doing this? And if we assume God exists, we assume all that He is said to be. And if we assume this, a "What if all of the Bible were true, if all the Cathecism of the Catholic Church said was true?" view, challenge me on my talk page. Find a contradiction. Please. Assume it is true and look for an "innocent until proven guilty."

Chris 21


 * This has nothing to do with the article. Try reading it. WAS 4.250 04:45, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I just read all the "against" arguments, and they're all pretty pathetic. The problem of "evil" ultimately comes from an abuse of free will. -Yoda —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yoda921 (talk • contribs) 09:25, 19 December 2006 (UTC).


 * This is your personal opinion, which of course you have every right to express. I hold just the opposite opinion. Mine is based on having studied philosophy, logic and philosophy of science for many a year now (privately and at university) and to state that the problem of evil is solved in favor of theism is just plain false - to each of those responses there are counter-counterarguments which refute the alleged solution and on. 84.56.110.103 16:21, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * There are multiple reasons to explain God, given by theists:
 * Evil is the absence of God, in the same way that cold is the absence of heat, and dark is the absence of light
 * The Devil — An evil entity preys upon the weak of will, winning many of the flawed to his side where they are first welcomed, then sent out to do his bidding. While God is ultimately fated to win the final battle against this adversary, until that time the entity's minions wreak havoc.
 * Free Will — God gave his children the right to make up their own minds as to who they would be, and some chose to be rotten.
 * Incomprehensibility — "Good" and "evil" are human constructs born of Mankind's limited understanding of the universe. Were people capable of seeing things through God's eyes, they would grasp the morality and rightness of all that now leaves them aghast in horror and riddled with unease at its seeming unfairness.
 * ~ UBeR


 * See my comment above... These apologetics are not particulary forceful and all refutable if you accept basic rationality as the premis of logical arguments against these alleged explanations. We could start argumenting - but I suppose everyone would still always come up with one further alleged refutation, so that would be pretty useless. All I'm saying is that what you (both) say is far from being a final, rationally acceptable solution of the problem, so don't pass it off as one. 84.56.110.103 16:21, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I have a question
According to the laws of Conservation of Energy, energy cannot be created or destroyed. How then, does anything exist in the first place? JONJONAUG 13:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * that's a problem for the science help desk. --Charlesknight 13:58, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Or a philosopher. The physicists tend to dump the whole "why is there something rather than nothing" into our lap. On the other hand, there is some speculation that if you add everything up in the universe, everything cancels out to a big huge zero. Because of this, the universe could have just sprung into being from nothing, without violating any conservation laws. This is just speculation, though. crazyeddie 19:48, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Another idea is that all universes with all possible rule sets just exist and we are just in one of them. This at first glance anyways seems just as likely as there simply being nothing or the existence of a creator. Lonjers 22:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Asking where the energy originaly came from is like asking a Christain where God came from, they will either say that it was alwayse there or leave the chat room. 58.173.8.17 04:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Or science just makes no claims because it does not know yet where as religion makes a guess from an infinity of possibilities. Lonjers 02:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * And anyway energy can be created. I plugged my rechargable battery into the wall and the wall CREATED energy in the battery.12.192.132.130 (talk) 22:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I hope you're being sarcastic.Prussian725 (talk) 16:04, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

What were the gnostics?
I refered to gnostics in the section on agnosticism. Ideally, the reference would have been followed by a parenthetical comment of the form, "(not to be confused with the Peruvian football club of that name.)"  Only they weren't a football club, I think. more like an ancient Greek religion or philosopy. So, does anybody know what they were really? Wiploc 03:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Never mind. I took care of it after looking up gnostics in Wikipedia. :)  The gnostics were a "religious movement." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wiploc (talk • contribs) 03:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC).

Problems with Empirical Arguments against God
All of the empirical arguments against God are only arguments against the Christian God. The assumption that God does not exist because you've denied the literal translation of the Bible is false. ~ UBeR 05:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Well actually the article does make mention of different definitions of God. To people who believe God is "whatever" created the universe, telling them there are flaws in the bible isn't even a valid argument. --Jayson Virissimo 20:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Should this be included in the "arguments against" list?
In the 1980 case of R. v. Davie 1980, the British Columbia Court of Appeal in Canada ruled that God is not a person. The court rendered the decision in the case of alleged arsonist Morrie Davie. In that case, a policeman had overheard Davie say: "Oh, God, let me get away with it just this once," but the appeals court ruled that a prayer is not a "private conversation between two persons," (which would be admissible evidence), because God is not a person. This ruling runs counter to the argument that Jesus is God and walked the earth as a person.[11]

Basically saying "The Canadians decided there wasn't one" is a little weak against the other points. 81.129.136.254 15:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It really shouldn't be. ~ UBeR 23:12, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, Canada recognizes "the supremacy of God" in its Charter of Human Rights. 216.16.236.133 17:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)Marc A. Belanger


 * That whole situation is ridiculous - what do you think that arsonist would do if he could freely perform his actions? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yoda921 (talk • contribs) 11:29, 22 December 2006 (UTC).

"Arguments against"... Against What?
What exactly is being argued against? The article points out in the introduction and the section Definition of God's existence that "a basic problem is that there is no universally accepted definition of God. Some definitions of God's existence are so non-specific that it is certain that something exists that meets the definition; in stark contrast, other definitions are apparently self-contradictory." So which definition(s) exactly is/are being argued against in the against section? It seems to me that arguments against all major/significant definitions of God should be presented. This would include, for example, the Christian and Muslim ideas of God, making it important that arguments against this conception of God be presented. However, UBeR maintains that the following sections should not be included. "Within the framework of scientific rationalism one arrives at the belief in the nonexistence of God, not because of certain knowledge, but because of a sliding scale of methods. At one extreme, we can confidently rebut the personal Gods of creationists on firm empirical grounds: science is sufficient to conclude beyond reasonable doubt that there never was a worldwide flood and that the evolutionary sequence of the Cosmos does not follow either of the two versions of Genesis. The more we move toward a deistic and fuzzily defined God, however, the more scientific rationalism reaches into its toolbox and shifts from empirical science to logical philosophy informed by science. Ultimately, the most convincing arguments against a deistic God are Hume's dictum and Occam's razor. These are philosophical arguments, but they also constitute the bedrock of all of science, and cannot therefore be dismissed as non-scientific. The reason we put our trust in these two principles is because their application in the empirical sciences has led to such spectacular successes throughout the last three centuries." Uber, you say that "these are arguments against a Christian God, not a higher being, per se, as the article calls for." But the article is not "Existence of a higher being."  The article is "Existence of God," and therefore discusses the concept that is encapsulated in the word God, which includes the Christian God.  D a v e R u n g e r (t)⁄(c) 05:19, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Massimo Pigliucci summarizes the forms of argument against various conceptions of God thus:
 * The argument from inconsistent revelations contests the existence of the Middle Eastern, Biblical deity called God as described in holy scriptures, such as the Jewish Tanakh, the Christian Bible, or the Muslim Qur'an, by identifying contradictions between different scriptures, contradictions within a single scripture, or contradictions between scripture and known facts.


 * I agree with Dave R, above, that arguments about a christian god should be included, but arguments based on Occam's Razor or inconsistent revelation apply to any monotheistic god, and should be included on that basis as well. Squiddy | (squirt ink?)  08:20, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The problem with atheism is that it is dependent on what your definition of God is. One cannot simply be atheist because he finds flaws in the literal translations of the Bible; one cannot simply be atheist simply because he does not follow Christianity. That is simply to be un-Christian. Same for the Torah and Judaism, or the Qur'an and Islam. To deny the Bible is not to deny a higher being. From my prospective, this article deals with the arguments for and against a higher being. Disproving claims in the Bible does not prove or disprove a higher being. If you wanted it to, then this article should henceforth be titled Arguments against the Bible or Arguments against the Christian God. This article is based on logical reasoning. To say because the Torah and the Bible do not agree in some aspects, therefore God or a higher being does not exist is, flatly, a fallacy. ~ UBeR 03:25, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Uber, why are you singling out the argument from inconsistent revelations? In order to argue against the existence of God, God must be defined somehow.  Virtually all of the other arguments against the existence of God presented in this article define God in some way; additionally, these definitions are more specific than a "higher being," which you apparently advocate as the only definition of God to be used in this article.  For example, "The problem of evil in general, and the logical and evidential arguments from evil in particular contest the existence of a god who is both omnipotent and omnibenevolent [emphasis added]."  Why don't you attack this argument as refuting a specific conception of God that not all people share?  A whole lot of the other "against" arguments in the article use a definition of God as omnipotent/omniscient/(and/or)omnibenevolent.  This argument defines God as a creator: "It is alleged that there is a logical impossibility in theism: God is defined as an extra-temporal being, but also as an active creator[emphasis added]."


 * Again, my point is that in order to argue against the existence of God, God must be defined somehow. You are saying that the article should address the idea of God as an omnipotent/omniscient/(and/or)omnibenevolent creator, but not the idea of God described in the Bible/Torah/Qur'an, even though many, many people believe in the God described by these texts?  Why are you drawing the line here?  I am arguing that the article should address criticisms of all major conceptions of God, not just more general definitions.  -- D a v e R u n g e r (t)⁄(c) 04:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Why? Because it's a perfect example of the logical fallacies presented in this article. Of course the word God has to have a definition; this is exactly what I stated. To say, however, that God can only be the God presented in the Bible or the Torah, or what have you, is completely false. Just because Christianity is dominant in the United States does not mean that God can only be defined by Christianity. For example, Massimo Pigliucci's argument, that because he does not believe a great flood occurred, there is no such thing as a God. That because he believes the Genesis lacks proof, there is scientific evidence against the existence of a God. What kind of logic is that? Faulty logic at best. Again, perhaps, if true, arguments against the Christian God, indeed. But who is to say the Christian God is God? Because a lot of people are Christians? Rubbish. ~ UBeR 07:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Edit: Furthermore, his argument that as we move away from the Christian definition of God, that Hume's Dictum and Occam's Razor are philosophical, but also scientific, arguments against God. I think just the opposite. (E.g. God is the more simpler answer.) ~ UBeR 07:25, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * UBeR, God is not a simpler answer to anything anymore than Maxwell's demon. Atheism classes all gods in the same class be it the god-of-gaps or the fire-and-damnation biblical god or any personal god. Atheists are not picky. It usually falls out of doubting the concept of a supernatural (of which gods are usually) and anchoring a worldview on the scientific method (which by definition does not allow for the supernatural). Specific religions present their revealed texts as "proof" or provide a "description" of their god and where these are provided then arguments can be specifically tuned to that implementation but it doesn't mean that the argument is flawed because you disagree with that particular faith's religious dogma. It equally doesn't mean that god suddenly exists in the minds of atheists because you postulate a god outside of the traditional faiths which atheists usually present arguments against. Unlike the "asymetrical disbelief" of religious people (whereby only their god is the right god) atheists equally doubt all gods. An undefined thing which is "supernatural" i.e. outside of nature (which you may refuse to call a god) will still never be accepted as a cause of a natural event in any scientific field of endevour without such a claim being labelled pseudoscience. Ttiotsw 10:17, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I also think the 'argument against god' should contain an argument that goes something like this: "Proponents of god fail to propose a definition of god. Because of this it is not possible to argue against the existence of god. Therefore, the conclusion that god does not exist can not be based on, and does not require, argumentation." --80.56.36.253 18:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, if you have not defined God, then you cannot arrive at a conclusion, at least a valid one, either by arguementation or otherwise. What you said, "the conclusion that God does not exist", is invalid because you have not based it on anything.  just because no one has defined God does not mean you can say anything you want and it will be true.Prussian725 (talk) 14:35, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I understand...
"Weak atheists don't believe god exists, but they also don't believe god doesn't exist. Explicit weak atheists find both theist and strong atheist arguments to be unpersuasive."

U think the first statement should be rewritten; it contradicts itself. The latter sentence sounds good enough to stay. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by M2K 2 (talk • contribs) 15:53, 27 December 2006 (UTC).

No, it makes sense. They just don't believe in either. They've never considered whether a there is a deity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.158.122.28 (talk) 10:41, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Agnosticism
I'm afraid the material on Agnosticism is not only unsourced but completelty Atheist PoV and would have every philosophical agnostic from Huxley to Kenny LOL. I can't see any way of salvaging it but in case there is some usable material I am keeping it here. It said: "There are two common definitions of agnosticism. By the first definition, agnosticism is an exact synonym for weak atheism: the agnostic neither believes that god exists nor believes that god does not exist, but rather is open to both possibilities without being persuaded of either. By the second definition, agnosticism refers to lack of knowledge rather than lack of belief. Thus, a gnostic (not to be confused with the gnostic religious moment of the early Christian era) knows whether there is a god, and an agnostic does not.  Naturally, many of these sorts of agnostics are also weak atheists: Since they don't know whether god exists, they also don't hold a belief on the topic.   But others are agnostic theists or agnostic strong atheists; they believe something they can't prove.   An agnostic theist might say that he believes on faith rather than on proof. This second type of agnosticism can be divided into strong and weak subtypes. Weak agnostics personally don't know whether god exists. Strong agnostics not only don't know themselves, they believe that no one else knows either." NBeale 18:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Consistent policy
We need to be consistent on our policy for arguments and counter-arguments. IMHO WikiPedia users should be able to find both each major argument and its major counter-arguments, but in a balanced way. So I suggest that: Consistent with this I have (with some reluctance) removed "There is also a fourth possibility that considers Jesus as myth, not an historical figure." rather than amended it to "People who dispute this generally argue that the Gospel accounts do not record Jesus's life with sufficient accuracy, either because they are distorted or becasue his was a myth and not an historical figure" since obviously the historical-but-distorted view is an additional possiblility (and unlike the "myth" suggestion is not ludicrous!) NBeale 21:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * for arguments which have their own article we just point to them with a quick summary, and users can find the counter-arguments there.
 * for arguments which don't have their own article we either
 * remove them or
 * give a quick summary of the main argument and the main counterargument.
 * This seems reasonable. I formatted your entry so it looks more formal, I hope you don't mind. --Merzul 22:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I was the editor who had added the link to the jesus myth article. Although I don't find it particularly ludicrous (perhaps you haven't read that article? doesn't matter anyway), I just thought it was due balance to the removal of the word "alleged" before "historical events" in the header, since it has a certain "proven fact" connotation when you mention it like that, so I was aiming to preserve the previous notion that it is not quite like that. Saying Jesus is historical without a counterpoint seems like omitting information. I'd also like to add that everything you said also should apply to the against articles, as the next discussion topic points out. Starghost (talk | contribs) 03:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The problem with adding words like "alleged" in cases like this is that it assumes the reader is completely incapable of judgment himself. I think it is fair to describe the argument and its context using all the assumptions that the the argument makes without having to say explicitly "Attempted arguments from alleged history of putative events and supposedly existing people". It may seem like "alleged" makes it more neutral, but it is really just condescending, I mean, if you and I are able to add the word "alleged", why do you assume the reader is not as intelligent to understand the underlying assumptions? Now, I agree that Jesus Myth is not ridiculous, nothing I personally think plausible, but it can definitely be mentioned in the Christological argument. In general, I think we should slim down the descriptions of the arguments in this article, and get to work on the articles of each argument. Many of them are in terrible shape. --Merzul 04:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * In that case you would be in agreement that all the answers for the against argument that rely on "nyah nyah, god is outside of time and is uncreated", which in most times is meaningless within or without context, and in some cases I am not even sure if they apply, with regards to the response for Sartre's existentialist argument, should be removed because it should be an underlying assumption? Starghost (talk | contribs) 18:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with most of the above. In the light of this I have (again reluctantly because I don't like removing things) removed "Massimo Pigliucci summarizes the forms of argument against various conceptions of God thus: "At one extreme, we can confidently rebut the personal Gods of creationists on firm empirical grounds: science is sufficient to conclude beyond reasonable doubt that there never was a worldwide flood and that the evolutionary sequence of the Cosmos does not follow either of the two versions of Genesis. The more we move toward a deistic and fuzzily defined God, however, the more scientific rationalism reaches into its toolbox and shifts from empirical science to logical philosophy informed by science. Ultimately, the most convincing arguments against a deistic God are Hume's dictum and Occam's razor. These are philosophical arguments, but they also constitute the bedrock of all of science and are not dismissed as non-scientific. The reason we put our trust in these two principles is because their application in the empirical sciences has led to such spectacular successes throughout the last three centuries. "
 * (a) Pigliucci is a minor figure; (b) the paper is just posted on the personal website of a Dr Ebbesen; (c) There is no comparable statement in the "for" section. NBeale 06:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I think you are misrepresenting Pigliucci here; (a) "Minor" figure - these are your personal value judgements and so are somewhat WP:OR. We need someone else notable who calls him "minor". (b) The link you provide is the first in the google search and is actually posted across many related web sites. It was originally published AFAIKS as "Personal gods, deism, & the limits of skepticism. Skeptic. 8(2): 38-45." in 2000. An intrasite search using Google on www.skeptic.com has this as http://www.skeptic.com/the_magazine/archives/vol08n02.html though thats just a contents list for the paper copy. (c)Culling content because a comparable statement isn't found in the "for" section isn't grounds for removal as neutral doesn't mean every minor view need be represented equally. If a view that would belong in the "for" section is minor and in fact cannot be found then that doesn't mean the corresponding view in the "against" section should be removed. For instance if a view against a pseudoscience theory is published and is representative of the general feeling of the majority of those in the field but a advocate of the pseudoscience theory can't find a corresponding rebuttal of that "against" view then that is not grounds to remove the "against" (i.e. the consensus) view. I vote that Pigliucci is restored. Ttiotsw 10:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I don't think this is a minor view. However, I think the argument is not quite a summary of the kind of arguments that follow it. But what argument is it? Maybe it can be framed as the first empirical argument, but the problem is that I can't find an argument like this on wikipedia. Maybe it is the Argument from the Parsimonious Explanations of Science, except there is no such argument, some related keywords are Ockham's razor, Relationship between science and religion, Rationality, and the slightly outdated Conflict thesis; but I'm not sure any of them are right place to put this argument. I think we should maybe put back the quotation, or place it here on the talk page asking if anybody knows how to classify this line of argument. When I said we should slim down this article, I meant primarily the stuff that is covered in other articles. --Merzul 12:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Embedded Counter-Arguments
Why does virtually every argument in the "Arguments against the existence of God" section have a counter-argument embedded in the presentation of the argument? For example, the "problem of evil" section includes a statement that begins, "However, many religions have provided explanations for God allowing evil..." The "Arguments for the existence of God" section does not have built-in counter-arguments. I think this is not NPOV. Johnskrb2 01:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I think the FOR section is well written. They identify the nature of the argument, and don't actually try to make an argument here. And I think the same style should be used for the against arguments that have their own articles, such as the problem of evil. I generally don't like deleting content, but the descriptions here I think are really redundant, and so I have deleted some material. I honestly think it has improved the article, but I'm okay with reverts, if anybody objects. --Merzul 03:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Indeed. What happened to those edits? As far as I can see the article is still completely asymmetric. --Denoir 05:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I did a few easy ones, e.g. the problem of evil, but then stopped for some reason I don't recall, maybe it became more difficult or I wanted to take it easy and see how people would react. It doesn't seem like anybody has objected, so we could continue cleaning up. However, don't expect me to do it, I don't have much wikipedia time currently. --Merzul 14:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Massimo Pigliucci -- deleted content
Massimo Pigliucci summarizes the forms of argument against various conceptions of God thus: Within the framework of scientific rationalism one arrives at the belief in the nonexistence of God, not because of certain knowledge, but because of a sliding scale of methods. At one extreme, we can confidently rebut the personal Gods of creationists on firm empirical grounds: science is sufficient to conclude beyond reasonable doubt that there never was a worldwide flood and that the evolutionary sequence of the Cosmos does not follow either of the two versions of Genesis. The more we move toward a deistic and fuzzily defined God, however, the more scientific rationalism reaches into its toolbox and shifts from empirical science to logical philosophy informed by science. Ultimately, the most convincing arguments against a deistic God are Hume's dictum and Occam's razor. These are philosophical arguments, but they also constitute the bedrock of all of science and are not dismissed as non-scientific. The reason we put our trust in these two principles is because their application in the empirical sciences has led to such spectacular successes throughout the last three centuries. --

So where does this belong, what argument is it, and where else in wikipedia is something similar treated? --Merzul 14:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It definitely belongs in this article, thats's for sure. "What argument is it", what does this mean? Does this mean that all arguments presented need to have a name? Or are you unsure where to categorize it? I think everything referred in the argument is treated properly in the wikilinks it refers to, pretty much in the same way the other arguments are treated outside of this page. If you must name it though, I would have no objections saying "this is an Argument from scientific rationalism, in which Massimo Pigliucci summarizes the forms of..." and so on. Starghost (talk | contribs) 18:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It definitely belongs in this article, thats's for sure. "What argument is it", what does this mean? Does this mean that all arguments presented need to have a name? Or are you unsure where to categorize it? I think everything referred in the argument is treated properly in the wikilinks it refers to, pretty much in the same way the other arguments are treated outside of this page. If you must name it though, I would have no objections saying "this is an Argument from scientific rationalism, in which Massimo Pigliucci summarizes the forms of..." and so on. Starghost (talk | contribs) 18:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I guess I would like to know where it fits, yes. I don't object to having it where it used to be, as an introduction to the against arguments, but NBeal I think removed it, and I guess he will take up the argument. --Merzul 18:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Then we'd better have a similar introduction to the for arguments NBeale 07:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Agnosts
"Agnostics generally do not believe in God, but do not call themselves Atheists." That makes no sense and should be altered. If you do not believe in a God, you are classified as an Atheist according to the same article so it should be changed. Daimanta 15:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Agnosts are essentially unsure of the existence of God. This means they are unbelievers while at the same time not quite atheists.

One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism. One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something. -Tim-THobern 02:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Think about a child being asked a complex mathematical equation. While it definitely does have an answer, the child doesn't know the answer and does not take any opinion on the answer. There can't really be any varying degrees of this. ~ UBeR 03:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't accept your analogy. While, granted, there is a hard and fast answer to the mathematical problem, the existence of god is, by definition, unprovable and therefor subject to discussion on many levels. -Tim-THobern 03:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * God is verifiable. Just thought I'd let that be known first. Second, it definitely is open for discussion, hence this article. That is not to say, however, agnosticism cannot exist, of course. ~ UBeR 04:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Let us firstly take an equation (btw, complex means something specific in maths) which is not known to have solution (say, P=NP). The believer states, "There is a solution". The atheist, "There is no solution". One of them is right, but we don't know which. The agnostic says, "There may or may not be a solution." She is right, but she is neither a believer nor atheist. "Non-believer" would be accurate, but "disbeliever" would not. There can in fact be varying degrees of this: she might think there probably is a solution, or that there probably is not (in my case, with P=NP, I'm pretty confident that P is not equal to NP, but I remain agnostic until I see a proof) --Taejo|대조 18:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

"God is verifiable"? Well thank god for that. I'm glad you sorted that out for us. I'm guessing everyone who contributed to this article is going to feel really silly now that you've brought this startling revelation to light. How on earth didn't we realise that before? -Tim-THobern 05:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Er, well you making it seem as if God wasn't. ~ UBeR 05:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Well you make it seem as if you have the correct answer to a simple yes or no question. Which, if true, would render the entire article pointless. Now would you care to share this verification with us? -Tim-THobern 15:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Well I just stating it is possible for God to be verified, not that God necessarily has been. If not, this article, too, would be moot. One common example of God being verified is the example "when you die, you'll find out." I don't necessarily like that example, because, of course, if there is no life after death, there simply would be no mind that exists to confirm it. If God, however, chose reveal Himself on Earth, do miracles (defy laws of physics, e.g.), etc., etc., and was witnessed by everyone, I very well would say God is verifiable. Falsification, however, is something I find a lot more difficult. ~ UBeR 23:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Hee. Nice point. "Unprovable", however, can be generally taken to mean "unfalsifiable".Salvar 00:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I always saw Agnostics as those did not believe in a religion, but had not decided upon a sentient creative force... (just my two cents) Raerth 08:46, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

It does no good in the context of this article (with classification being one of its very purposes), but technically every group except for atheists is agnostic. If religious faith is about BELIEVING, and agnosticism says one can't KNOW whether God exists, then even the Pope would technically be agnostic. And I say that as a deist. A religious person who says they know there's a God is either stupid or lying, because what they actually mean is that they very strongly believe. Ethereal Vega (talk) 22:01, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Using "e.g." doesn't add anything to references
I don't know why these "see eg Polkinghorne" are so prevalent in the philosophy of religion articles, but whoever is doing this, please note that no featured article uses this style. I assume that the intention is to convey the fact that there are billion other people that could be cited... but unfortunately the only impression I get is that of laziness: if there are more sources, why aren't they explicitly mentioned? It is much stronger to just add the source with as much precision as possible. And you might want to consider using citation templates, because unlike using "eg", formatting citations properly does add some credibility to the argument. --Merzul 19:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Much of Wikipedia contains statements of the form "some (scientists/philosophers/writers) suggest". A reference "see P." would imply that P. has written "some Xs suggest" - a reference "see eg P." means "P. is one example"  It is also the appropriate form when an idea is highly pervasive, and it would be inappropriate to suggest that it was in any sense original to P. NBeale 07:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * First of all, I should have thanked you for adding material of high quality instead of your own opinions. I have a contrary POV, but I think the material you add is often sensible and sourced. Thank you for improving the quality of wikipedia. About this issue of "e.g.", I will not remove any more of them, but I'm just saying that I think the material you add would be more effective if sourced by simply "Author, Book, page". Finally, it is of course not a good thing that much of wikipedia contains statements like "some Xs suggest"! In my opinion saying "Richard Swinburne has argued..." is infinitely more persuasive than saying "Many philosophers argue ..." --Merzul 12:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Plantinga's footnote...
If we let the symbols W and W* be Spain and France, and if our object x is the weather and the property P(x) is that x is rainy, then what he says is essentially if it rains in Spain, but is sunny in France, then even in France it is raining in Spain, while in Spain it isn't raining in France. It makes sense, but it's just an explanation of modal logic. I don't see how this section from Plantinga's book is demonstrative of his thinking, its just a sentence from the middle of it. If anybody has his book, would you consider picking something more self-contained, and maybe with fewer symbols and hyphens :) Thanks! --Merzul 03:04, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Arguments for the existence of God
I am suprised to note that "physical manifestation" (i.e. physical proof of the existence of God) has not been put forth as an argument. The occurences during Makarasankranti at Sabarimala (Kerala, South India) have not yet been disproved by rationalists and God is believed to be present in the form of a bright intense light on the horizon. This occurs every year. Some believe it, some don't, but I think it should still be put forth in this article. Bhakthan 23:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

references or Sources
For some reason user:UBeR tagged this on 1 Jan 07. There seem to me to be 27 refs and 17 additional sources: in addition most of the substantial arguments have articles of their own. Should we delete the tag? NBeale 07:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The page is 41 kilobytes long. 27 refs hardly covers an article half that size. Lest this article become riddle with Fact tags, which I surely would do if the template is removed, I suggest it be kept. ~ UBeR 19:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd rather see Fact tags added where they were needed than a blanket tag which isn't right and doesn't make it clear where the work is needed. What do other people think? NBeale 21:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

The Ultimate Boeing 747 Gambit (argument against)
This is the argument (against God) from improbability, which has not been documented. It could be merged with the line of though "Who designed the designer?"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_God_Delusion#Why_there_almost_certainly_is_no_God http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/dawkins06/dawkins06_index.html


 * There was an article about this but it was deleted. The argument is a truly terrible argument though, which no competent philosopher finds remotely plausible.NBeale 07:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * thats really your POV therefore it should not be excluded, but regardless of the caliber of the argument, it was made by a prominent scientist and therefore should be included so people can make there own mind up on it's validity. as a result i placed it back into the article please don't delete it again without discussion. considering that most of the arguments for god a terribly constructed i think not including this one is a biased view (1NosferatuZodd1 (talk) 11:30, 3 May 2008 (UTC))

Suggested principles for improving this article
Although there's a lot of good material in this article overall it is a bit of a mess. I suggest we consider the following principles for improving it:
 * 1) Arguments should only be mentioned if they are notable enough to have their own article.
 * 2) Such arguments should have a 1-sentence NPOV summary of the argument. All refutations, criticisms etc.. should be in the article about the argument.
 * 3) The rest of this article should be confined to statements that are supported by references or at least by references to other relevant Wikipedia articles.

What do people think? NBeale 08:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Whether an article exists for an argument is a factor of that argument's complexity as much as its notability. An article that is highly noteworthy, but also very simple and has minimal important information on it, would not need a distinct article, but could still be mentioned on this page. Articles should be mentioned only if they are notable enough period; adding a requirement for a distinct article serves no real purpose.
 * 1 sentence? That's too short, at least for the more noteworthy arguments. 1 paragraph (including the noteworthy responses) would be more reasonable. And I don't see any reason to exclude refutations and criticisms, especially since some of those refutations constitute arguments in and of themselves&mdash;for example, the argument from poor design is nothing more than a counter-argument against the argument from design.
 * Everything in this article should be confined to statements that are supported by references. Also, references to other Wikipedia articles are inadequate if that Wikipedia article doesn't cite a reliable source for its own claims. -Silence 09:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Deductive arguments (against)
I think that section contains a logical error in the part stating that the atheists' argument about God's knowledge is fallacious. Plato defined knowledge as the intersection of the set truths and the set beliefs. If God knows that something is going to happen, obviously it belongs to the truth set, and, by the generally accepted definition of truth, it is bound to happen. Free will is defined as the ability to change the future, therefore allowing one to do anything physically possible, forming a set of possible future events. If the subset future events of the set truths intersects with the set future possible events, the intersection describes obviously the future. But, assuming that no contradictory events can take place, and that there is more than one possible event, according to free will, this means only one event is possible, therefore denying one of free will. Orthologist 17:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Witness argument
The Witness argument article, which is linked from this one, has been languishing in a state of uselessness for a long time, and never seems to have been a particularly worthwhile article. As best as I could ascertain, it hasn't had more than two sentences of valid content in the last 23 months. I think it's best to redirect it to this article. Any objections? Tim Shuba 02:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Could put this in the section on free will (deductive logic), after 'However, the argument suffers from a modal fallacy, where the necessity of God’s knowledge is incorrectly transferred to necessity of the action itself. Additionally, the argument is refuted by those who state that God is above time and exists in every moment. Furthermore, simple knowledge of a person's actions would not necessarily influence how one arrived upon those actions. While many theologians maintain that God is able to control a person's actions yet allows that person to decide upon those actions, some suggest that God has deliberately limited his omniscience and omnipotence to allow freewill' sinse it shows the problem of this. If, as this statement suggests, God could kniow of an action regardless of whether or not it takes place, he would know nothing, as he would not know whether it would take place. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Larklight (talk • contribs) 20:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC).

Argument from Parsimony

 * The argument from parsimony contends that since natural (non-supernatural) theories adequately explain the development of religion and belief in god, the actual existence of such supernatural agents is superfluous and may be dismissed unless otherwise proven to be required to explain the phenomenon. Thoughts?  18 Feb 2007, Keyrok.
 * That is true, but it doesn't really solve the problem. Religion doesn't require a real live god to exist, but that does neither prove that he/she/it/hamster does exist nor that he/she/it/monorail doesn't. At best it shows that the existence of religion doesn't prove a necessity for the existence of Dog, without making an absolute statement beyond that context. Unless someone tried to use the existence of religion as proof for the existence of Ramses, it's not really helpful to the argument. &mdash; Ashmodai (talk · contribs) 11:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * An atheist is an agnostic who uses Occam's razorTwslandlord 01:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)twslandlord

Merge from Mathematics and God
Please merge relevant content, if any, from [ Mathematics and God] per Articles for deletion/Mathematics and God (third nomination). (If there is nothing to merge, just leave it as a redirect.) Thanks. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-09 09:43Z 

Argument from majority
# The Majority argument argues that the theism of people throughout most of recorded history and in many different places provides prima facie demonstration of God's existence.

It looks to be argumentum ad populum, not a valid logical argument Obscurans 06:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that the whole point of this article is to demonstrate that rules of logic have scarcely been applied to the question of deity. ˉˉanetode╦╩
 * Actually, they do. This article is just a poor example. ~ UBeR 18:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Successfully applied - that is, not breaching at least one sort of fallacy. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 20:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * A fallacious argument is also an argument. I am sure that most of the arguments in this list are already fallacious, both the pro and con arguments.--80.56.36.253 19:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I would suggest that all of you brush up on your logic before you go making statements like that.Prussian725 (talk) 03:02, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Satble refed version
Hi all: I'm sorry I can't see any merit in the most recent edits. Uber did a "minor edit" to "removed unrefed nonsense" which was in fact a point that had 2 refs and was not nonsese at all. There has also been a large insertion of WP:ESSAY material "But is that fair? (etc)" and references to non-notable websites. Could we try to justify additions rather than putting in lots of OR or removing refed material without disucssion please? NBeale 07:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * "See the SOED entry on Agnostic" and "see Kenny op cit," and proper references. They mean nothing to the reader. ~ UBeR 18:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Pascals wager isn't an argument for the Existence of God...
Pascals wager (see edit here) isn't an argument for the Existence of God but on how to game the system in your favour. It is the lazy way to heaven and god-knowing-all will know just how sincere you really are. In the end it also misses the fact that there have been many gods documented over the years. If the other gods are as selfish as the Judeo-Christian one then you have quite a few hells to choose from....or if you are secular then you can't remember your birth so you won't remember your death. Ttiotsw 09:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

==New argument against the existence of God==

What do you think of the argument against the existence of God in this thought experiment I came up all by myself (Which is probably the same thoughts some great philosopher had before, but I don’t know who)

1.0 Let’s suppose God exists.

1.1   Let’s suppose that this is the Christian God (or any other God of your choice)

1.1.1   This might mean that the Muslim God and the Jewish God don’t exist. This means Christians are right (read: are saved, go to heaven, well at least if they behaved well), the other two religions are wrong (read: are damned, go to hell, whatever).

1.1.2   However, this might also mean that the other two Gods exist in addition to the Christian God. This means all religions are right.

However, this is against the exclusivity claim of each monotheistic religion, which by definition only allows a single God. This solution is a contradiction in itself (because how can you claim that your God exists but no other Gods exist?) (Also, did the Gods form a committee to create the universe? Or was one God the boss and the others his subordinates?).

2.0 Let’s suppose God doesn’t exist.

This basically means that all religions are wrong. (wrong as in their basis as a belief system, not necessarily wrong as a tool to satisfy human need/desire to know 'the answer to life, universe and everything')

Long story cut short, it just doesn’t make sense. Which would be an argument in favour of Atheism.

Note:

For the sake of ease of argument, all non Abrahamic religions are left out of the picture as well as different denominations (like Roman Catholic Protestant, Orthodox, Anglican, Protestant, Evangelical, whatyouhavenot, also Reform and Orthodox Jews, Sunnis, Shias, Druze, Alawis,….) but the example still works the same.--Soylentyellow 22:28, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I hate to say it but this is basically a more focused version of the same thing that the article states; religions are like politics it's basically depends on wich point of view you have thus the pathetic ammount of them for example if a religious fanatic says "Jesus used Nikes" and another religious fanatic says "Hell no, he used Jordans" two more religions are born, my point here is that the quantity of religions and their views of god are only petty excuses for their different points of view, or you will tell me that Allah and Jehova aren't the same guy, I think not. The only real way to solve this is to actually create a device that could break dimensional barriers and look at every different dimension for god until then it's up to faith or logic. - 凶 22:47, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Interesting! I don't think it has relevance, of course, since it isn't a common claim, but I'd like to address why it probably doesn't work. Imagine I have a tiny bag, which has room for only one marble inside. There could be a red marble, a green marble, a swirled marble, or so on; or there could be no marble. But the existence or nonexistence of a marble is a question independent of its color; in other words, even the claim that there is a red marble inside the bag is contradicted by the claim that there is a green marble inside, that isn't relevant to the question of whether there actually is a marble. Harkenbane (talk) 00:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * See Heisenberg. There is no marble until it is observed.  It is "observed" when it has some effect on external reality.  It still has no color until it emits photons in the human visual spectrum.  Stuff that has no effect on anything else does not exist.  Indeed, ensembles of universes like ours (or perhaps virtual pairs) don't "exist" as entities since they affect nothing external to themselves. Fairandbalanced (talk) 01:33, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Um... The Jewish and Muslim God are the same God as the Christian God, (not to mention the only God) so your argument is faulty. Bad argument. Here's a few arguments for the existence of God.


 * Anything exists
 * The universe had a beginning
 * Humans have a sense of morality
 * The universe is too fine tuned for it to be all coincidence.[http://godandscience.org

Argue against all that. MalwareSmarts (talk) 21:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with your last three points but I am having trouble understanding what you are trying to say with the first. Could you elaborate?  Oh, Allah and God are not the same thing.Prussian725 (talk) 03:16, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Says who? The Qur'an itself will say that they worship the same God as Jews and Christians.  The traditional Christian churches all say the same.  The Protestant world is still divided, but mostly due to disproportionate weight from the American fundamentalists... none of the European churches support their mountains of bullshit.  And Jews and Muslims never had a problem with one another until the twentieth century and the Israel/Palestine conflict. 213.181.226.21 (talk) 15:39, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Says basic contrast of the three religions. The Jews (in Christian terminology) worship the One God; Christians worship God trhe Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit...the Trinity; Muslims worship Allah; if Muslim and Christian God were the same, then why don't we go to the same churches and follow the same doctrine?  Oh, about the Muslim/Jews conflict, Muslims have hated Jews since the inception of Islam and are worse than Nazis when it comes to the hate thereof.  If it is not a religious battle, then it is an ancestral one.  The word Palestine is derived from the name the Romans gave to the Phillistines, who have hated the Jews for thousands of years.  If not the Palestinians then the Arab nations who are descendants of Ishmael, as opposed to Jews who descended from Isaac, have always held a grudge for the Jews.  Even Jews will tell you that is true.  And about what the Qu'ran says, you're not really reading the qu'ran unless you're reading it in Arabic, so I would take that reference with a grain of salt.Prussian725 (talk) 20:41, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

All Godbots are basically the same, except some are fundy bigots and some are halfway sensible. The Muslims did generally treat Jews better than the Christians did in the Western Mediterranean, but not with full legal and practical equality. They only ascended to the position of worst religion in the world recently. Fairandbalanced (talk) 01:33, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * World opinion has nothing to do with it. The fact is that Muslims hate Jews and have hated them for centuries; their religion dictates that.  Now, as with all religions you have different groups and sects, i.e. Shi'ites and Sunnis, but basic principals are what hold them together under a common name: Islam.  Now, most secular Muslims will deny that they dislike or hate Jews, they very well may be fine with them, but their doctrine is still the same.  Muslim children in more charismatic groups are taught from childhood that jews are pigs, a very severe term in Arabic culture, and that they are good for nothing.  Oh, about the Godbots, I happen to worship Jesus Christ, so if you could please keep down the insulting descriptions that would be great.Prussian725 (talk) 02:34, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Wow!....amazingly ill-informed and offensive comments about your fellow 1 billion+ Abrahamic folk. I suggest you have another look at what you've written and examine it's factual accuracy and civility. You might also want to think about what 'in a spirit of mutual respect' means. I have to say it's really disappointing to see such things here (and I'm 100% atheist).  Sean.hoyland  - talk 05:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Which is why you could never fully understand the position of someone who has such deep-rooted hatred based on religious principles. I do not; I am a Christian and my doctrine tells me not to hate anyone.  Islam, on the other hand, says the opposite about infadels.  Muslims in Western countries do not necessarily share the same views that their middle-Eastern bretheren do.  Muslims in Western culture are quite different than Muslims that live in places like Iran or Saudi Arabia, where Sharia Law is rigidly enforced though most of the world does not know it.  Oh, I do not know what you mean by "Abrahamic".  Are you referring to Jews or Muslims, or both?  Because now that you mention Abraham, you have supported my case even more.  Have you ever heard of Isaac and Ishmael, and the intense rivalry and hatred that exists between their families now?  That is one contributing factor to the hate of Jews by everyone else in the Middle East.  Things are not as happy and giddy over there as you might like to think.  Believe me, I have a brother over there right now.  Did you know that muslim parents burn their children when they get out of line?  I don't mean incinerate, I mean burning them as a form of discipline.  That is one example of the difference in cultures.98.196.76.228 (talk) 16:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

NPOV
Is anyone surprised at how unbiased this article is? Seriously, it's pretty neutral. I'm proud of us.:) --Asderoff 02:47, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

so good im scared >.> —Preceding unsigned comment added by

I would also like to commend the same. 70.243.124.216 (talk) 18:45, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, come now. It has been a long time since I dueled with the Godbots here, but they clearly still prevail. It's built into the Wiki design; the vast majority of proper published sources are Christian, and the arbiters of Wiki correctness insist that small periodicals are not legit. For example, the Hitler article claimed he was an atheist because many sources written by Christians said so. It was not possible to correct the bigotry in any way since the guy running the show claimed to be an "atheist" and removed anything suggesting otherwise.

Why is it "Arguments against BELIEF in God" vs "Arguments for the EXISTENCE  of God"? Both sections are about existence. There are corresponding sets of arguments regarding belief, but they are not included. Why do we have the titles "Strong atheism" and "Weak atheism" instead of more descriptive titles "No god exists" and "God probably doesn't exist" or something like that. The theistic side has descriptive titles instead of semi-pejorative labels. The totally neutral stance properly belongs under "agnosticism".

And that's just the subsection titles in one section. Fairandbalanced (talk) 00:58, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Evidence
I noticed there was no reference to the lack of scientific evidence (or presence of it, depending on your viewpoint) of God. Things like God not being scientifically possible under current theories, that sort of thing. Perhaps some of that should be put in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.30.132.2 (talk • contribs) 11:17, 15 July 2007
 * There is, it's at the bottom, in the "strong atheist" subsection of conclusions. ornis 11:53, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Absence of evidence is no evidence of absence. As for "God not being scientifically possible", this is like stating "water is not vacuum". Science doesn't concern itself with God, it doesn't cover the possibility of a God at all. All it can do is say "We can explain this and that development without the need of supernatural interference". The super-natural can, by definition, only be shown to be unnecessary to the explanation of an observation. Science only investigates what is within "nature" in the widest sense. Not what is beyond it. --213.209.110.45 08:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Then, shouldn't the supernatural experiences be documented with proof for others to see? --Kaosa (talk) 16:39, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Argument from Proper Basis (concering the attempted refutation)
The section in question must be removed from the article, because it is specifically un-academic in execution, and because it contains original claims on the author's part.

It was a statement concerning the section that reads thus:

The Argument from a Proper Basis argues that belief in God is "properly basic"--that is, similar to statements such as "I see a chair" or "I feel pain." Such beliefs are non-falsifiable and, thus, neither able to be proved nor disproved; they concern perceptual beliefs or indisputable mental states.

But allow me to, as a first year Philosophy student, destroy this pathetic 'argument,' which runs as follows:

"The Argument from a Proper Basis mentioned in the "Arguments From Testimony (For)" section of this article is in itself inherently flawed. It argues that the existence of god should be accepted despite being unprovable, because statements such as "I see a chair" or "I feel pain" can also not be proven through scientific method, when in fact they can. Seeing a chair can be verified by asking the subject to point in the direction of the chair, whilst pain can be detected through sudden elevated levels of serotonin and adrenaline in the brains frontal cortices responsible for the sensation of touch and pain. Taking statements like "god exists" at face value is more comparable to accepting similarly unprovable statements without question, such as "pigs can fly"."

Following a POV statement, which assumes the argument's conclusion, the writer asserts that the Proper Basis argument's position is that "the existence of god should be accepted despite being unprovable, because statements such as "I see a chair" or "I feel pain" can also not be proven through scientific method, when in fact they can." Okay, the author has revealed his/her contention with the argument. "Seeing a chair can be verified by asking the subject to point in the direction of the chair," the author asserts. This does not address the original argument, and is in truth does not follow. The argument did not concern the subject's seeing of the chair, but rather it concerns the subject's statement concerning the perception of a chair. The writer continues "pain can be detected through sudden elevated levels of serotonin and adrenaline in the brains frontal cortices responsible for the sensation of touch and pain." This, once again, fails to see the import of the argument; the non-falsifiablility of the claim "I feel pain" does not imply that pain's effect upon the person feeling it cannot be quantified, but rather implies merely the statement itself, which concerns the subject, not the subject's brain states, of which they are not wholly comprised. Xenofan 29A 07:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. It's a terrible argument. J&#39;onn J&#39;onzz 01:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Argument from a Proper Basis only applies to statements such as "I believe there is a God", "I can sense God's existence", "I'm sure God exists", i.e. describing personal experience. It does not apply to the statement "God exists", which doesn't describe personal experience. Therefore this argument is not relevant to this article and should be removed from it.--Jestempies (talk) 11:09, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

A Brief History of Time
I'm aware that Hawking doesn't deliberately seek to disprove god, but he certainly provides a lot of evidence in that direction. I'm not sure if it's been laid out by a philosopher before, but I think another argument for the nonexistence of god should be added here--. To clarify a bit... the average christian conception of "god" involves some degree of influence--we may have free will, but many people will hasten to ascribe good things to god, and bad things to the devil, and swear to high heaven (heh) that god actually hears prayer. When considered in the context of the rational world as we know it, simple concepts like that take on an unexpected level of complexity. How does he physically manifest to "hear" prayer, even silent prayer? What language does he speak? Where did the flood's water come from, and how did he get it there, and make it fall? Where in the universe, or out of it, exists the network of neurons or somesuch which forms his thought? You can quickly see, when you think about it, that gods actions only seem simple within the framework of human psychology--in our thoughts, in other words. This is not a proof, of course, but it is certainly an argument. I think there ought to be an article about this point of view. Argument from untenable complexity, anyone? Salvar 00:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The majority of the bible is illogical when looking at the history of Earth without Christian bias. Man was not created by God. Man evolved from apes.J&#39;onn J&#39;onzz 01:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * "the fact that science nowadays explains so much that there isn't room left for a god" I would add "as described by traditional world religions" :) Raerth 08:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Correct me if I am wrong, but in that book, when Hawking discusses the beginning of the universe, doesn't he contemplate that god was the initial 'Bang' in the Big Bang theory? Donnyj (talk) 02:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)Donnyj


 * that was just Pantheism, which is basically atheism worded to make it sound less harsh, plus we didn't evolve from apes, apes and humans evolved from a common ancestor, i don't know why i brought that up but if you are going to argue against creationists someday it pays to be accurate (1NosferatuZodd1 (talk) 11:50, 3 May 2008 (UTC))

Psychological Issues
I have recently added a new section focusing on the possible universal state of the human mind that stems religious beliefs. More precisely, on the psychology of belief. My arguments come from the book mentioned in the section. Is it possible to make a strong argument describing a belief in the existence of god from a way our brains are wired? Maybe following the same logic as Morpheus, from The Matrix, outlined in the following statement: "What is 'real'? How do you define 'real'? If you are talking about what you feel, smell, taste, and see, then 'real' is merelly electrical signals interpreted by your brain." -Igoruha 22:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Shouldn't this be under the arguments against subsection? It presents an unbalanced view IMO which can be countered by a theist suggesting we were wired that way because there is a God.  Doesn't this section either need to be neutralized or shifted into the other section (my personal vote).  We don't have subsections on historical issues or such.  Perhaps if you want to argue it as being neither for or against, as instead making the whole debate inconsequential (which I'm not sure many people would agree with), it would go after the for and against?  74.230.109.165 08:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Also this is clearly an example of the genetic fallacy. If this is an argument against God/god/gods, then perhaps we should point out it's criticism either here or in the evolutionary pschology of religion main article (I have started a discussion there as well).  -Motocop (talk) 15:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Deductive from what?
It seems to me that the "deductive arguments against" mostly stem from premises few theists would accept, is that correct? Srnec 05:42, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Epochal event
Samuel Butler contended, "that if God wants us to do a thing, he should make his wishes sufficiently clear. Sensible people will wait till he has done this before paying much attention to him." Thus however unexpected, particularly for those active on either of the opposing sides in this argument, the seemingly intractable question of whether or not God exists, and if so, the further question of whether such a reality can be knowable have both been resolved by a radical change in the existing paradigm of historical 'faith'.

First published online in late 2004, the first wholly new interpretation for 2000 years of the moral teaching of Christ is now a free [1.4meg] pdf download from numerous sites., It is titled: The Final Freedoms and this new teaching has nothing whatsoever to do with any religious tradition 'known' to history. It is unique in every respect.

This is the first ever viable religious conception leading faith to observable consequences which can be tested and judged; a teaching able to demonstrate its own efficacy; the first religious claim to insight and knowledge that meets the criteria of verifiable, evidence based truth embodied in action and experience.

This is pure ethics and both describes and teaches a single moral Law, a single moral principle offering the promise of its own proof, in which the reality of God responds to an act of perfect faith with a direct, individual intervention into the natural world; correcting human nature by a change in natural law, altering biology, consciousness and human ethical perception. As such this teaching enters the public domain as a confirmed, existing reality entirely new to human history.

The terms by which history has conceived reality called God, in authority, knowledge, selfhood and time have been altered. Those able to think for themselves, who can escape their own prejudices and imagine outside the cultural box, who are willing to learn something new, can test and verify this new teaching for themselves., ,

Goliah 21:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)Goliah

The Argument from the Resurrection of Jesus
I deleted the following sentence that is ill founded and illogical.

"The claim that the resurrection would validate Christianity dates from the earliest records, and it is common ground between theists and atheists that if the resurrection occurred substantially as described in the Bible then Christianity is substantially validated as true."

Many would argue that there are no contemporaneous records. The Biblical accounts were written decades after the death of Jesus. Also, there is no common ground as asserted. Have we done a survey? What percent of atheists agree to this? If the resurrection, or any miracle as described in the Bible actually occurred, it is equally possible that the Flying Spaghetti Monster did it all to fool us. Supernatural events can have any cause - they are unconstrained. Talkingtomypocket 05:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Intro paragraph
I think most Wikipedia intro paragraphs are quite good, even if the rest of the article needs work. But this one contains the following, which is problematic.

"Some definitions of God's existence are so non-specific that it is certain that something exists that meets the definition; in stark contrast, there are suggestions that other definitions are self-contradictory."

The first part is unclear. "it is certain"? Perhaps, if the concept of God is identical with Nature. However, where supernatural beings are concerned, not much is certain. "Suggestions"? If there is no citation, this should be eliminated. --Talkingtomypocket 02:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Nature of relevant proofs
"However you cannot do experiments on God, and, if God exists, God created the laws of Physics and is not necessarily bound by them, so it will inevitably be more difficult to reason reliably about God."

I'm not sure about the phrasing of this - it seems "weaselly". For example, the existence of God does not necessitate that it created the laws of physics - there is nothing *necessarily* to deny the state of affairs that the laws of physics as they stand in our universe pre-existed in potentia any creative act by God (or perhaps there is, and I'm being foolish...) What's more, being the creator of the law of physics does *not* mean that one is not bound by them, any more than building a box around yourself means that you exist outside it. If God created the laws of physics (or, by creating, brought them about concurrently) it is as likely that it is constrained by them after this creative act. What do others think? --visualerror


 * I believe that statement refers to the fact that, for instance, a game designer can code a game without physically entering it. The laws of physics apply only to our universe, and by a few extensions to reality, and so the being which would have to originate outside of known reality in order to create it would not necessarily choose to or even be able to fully join it. I do agree that the statement only applies to a creator God that created not only Earth but reality itself, though, so I'll add that in. :)

70.149.127.82 22:24, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Conclution section
This section needs a re-write. It states that theism, atheism, and agnoticim are the 'three options' of beleif and this is wrong. Theism and atheism are complementary stances, as one is defined as the lack of anouther. Any beleif that is not theistic is by definition an atheistic beleif. No matter what other beleifs you hold you are ether a theist or an atheist - you can't hold neither stances. These are independant of agnosticm which concernes knowlage not beleif. For example you can hold the position that god existance is unknown (Agnostism) and therefore not beleive in its existance (Athiesm). Agnostism is NOT a halfway point between theism and atheism. Even if agnostism is defined as 'not having made up ones mind' then this means that they havn't yet decided that god does exist, and therefore they are still an atheist. You do not have to beleive that a god does not exist to be an atheist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.230.236.136 (talk) 05:37, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Omnipotence and omnipresence
Removed this section. The ability to destroy oneself does not contravene omnipresence, and I've so far met only one person who would claim that it does. Ilkali 15:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Roughly
I just want to point out that anything "roughly" explained in Wikipedia is incomplete, and should one day become more-than-roughly explained. Currently this article has a sentence that says "Spinoza and his philosophical followers (such as Einstein) use the term 'God' in a particular philosophical sense, to mean (roughly) the essential substance/principles of Nature." I (and other readers) would like to know what they actually mean, if it's anything more complex than the presented definition. I hope one day the definition becomes complete. A.Z. 07:20, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Anthropic Principle - isn't this an argument *against* the existence of God?
The anthropic argument is listed here as an argument in favour of the existence of God. Surely that's a mistake? As I understand it, the A.P. essentially says "The Universe is amazing, but we shouldn't feel an excessive sense of wonder [and hence infer a God], because, if it were otherwise, we wouldn't be here to wonder at it." Thus the A.P. is a rebuttal to the pro-God "argument-from-amazament". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.187.40.226 (talk) 05:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Google for "Anthropic Argument" Jok2000 17:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It's a term creationists have hijacked, look up fine tuned universe.--THobern 15:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Gendered pronouns
In almost every instance where a pronoun references God, it takes the masculine gender. That might be standard within most religions, but it's not an essential property of "a monotheistic concept of a supreme being that is unlike any other being". I propose rewording to use gender-neutral pronouns - it, its, etc. Ilkali 11:58, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I like your idea, but the practical reality is that changing any "he"s to "it"s is going to make the article a more difficult/awkward/uncomfortable read for most of the people reading this article. First, most people are used to hearing God called a "he." Second, having the qualities of "omniscience, omnipotence, and perfect benevolence" implies a personality/sentient being of some sort, and in English we usually refer to sentient beings as "he" or "she" rather than "it." So, for these reasons, I I oppose switching to "it", etc., although not particularly strongly. (Besides, it looks like God is almost always referred to as just "God" rather than with pronouns of any sort. It looks actually like there are only ~5 instances of masculine pronouns referring to God.) Dave Runger 00:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Mike Young's edits
Mike, here are the reasons I've reverted your edits:
 * 1) You've defined atheism, theism and agnosticism relative to God. This is not accurate. They are defined relative to all gods.
 * 2) The additions to the section titles make them too long, and don't convey any information not represented in the first few lines of the sections.
 * 3) You emphasise proof too much. Strong atheism does not assert that the non-existence of gods can be proven, and on the theistic side, there is a difference between a proven belief and a justified one. You are overextending their position.
 * 4) A lot of the clarification you offer is redundant. It's not necessary to explain what 'weak' and 'strong' mean, since the difference is made clear in the following sections.
 * 5) Weak atheism does not entail belief that gods are highly improbable.
 * 6) You've removed some information without giving any explanation.
 * 7) Your section on agnosticism doesn't relate any useful information not given in the 'Conclusion' section, and any further detail would probably be beyond the scope of the article.

I acknowledge your good faith, but your edits are not constructive. Ilkali 22:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

All respect. Wouldn't you rather direct than pin down a brother (or sister)? --Kaosa (talk) 16:43, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Russell and Copleston
I'd really appreciate it if someone could put in some of the themes covered in Bertrand Russell and Copleston's radio debate about God's existence, thanks. Also Doctors Greg Bahnsen and Gordon Stein's debate, which is scintillating. Not transcripts, naturally, but summaries of the points made on both sides. That would improve the article, in my view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fledgeaaron (talk • contribs) 01:42, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Argument missing?
Hi everyone. I'm not experienced enough to edit the article myself (particularly as this one obvious needs specific care and attention in its writing) but I haven't seen any reference in it to the argument that God doesn't exist because there's no reason to believe it does. This is a pretty serious argument and the most important in my opinion - why would someone believe something when nothing in all the world even suggests it might be true, let alone proves it?

If someone thinks this could be added and phrased/researched in a proper way, I think it would be good to see here. 217.154.84.2 (talk) 15:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC)dicklaurentisdead

It might be a waste of life if we all live believing what we are told without doing proper investigations? If God created us, then He created our senses and if all was made for a purpose, then, the purpose of at least some of the senses must have been to find Him. Maybe if we did we would appreciate Him more, collectively as humans... --Kaosa (talk) 16:50, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The argument isn't valid, and the premises aren't NPOV. Ilkali (talk) 18:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Although I may agree that the argument isn't valid (being a classic example of the argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy), I've come across it with some frequency, so, I think it deserves some mention alongside some of the more rigorous arguments. Harkenbane (talk) 00:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

This is an EXTREMELY important argument, and is probably so extensive that it would require it's own article. Here is a similar argument: Why, for example, do things like UFOs, Bigfoot, Ghosts, etc. have physical proof of their existence, however falsified that proof may be, yet it still exists. However, God has little if any physical proof of it's existence, but far more people believe in God or Gods of some sort, sometimes even fanatically, than they believe in UFOs and such?66.41.44.102 (talk) 10:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree in saying that the subject of the debate over the existence of God should have it's own article, because a lot of debate has occurred all over Wikipedia about this. I think that since it is such a great debate then it deserves to have it's own article with each side equally represented.Prussian725 (talk) 22:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Too Much Material
Before jumping in and editing the article myself, I'd like to point out that the article really seems much too broad in scope. The "Arguments against belief in God" section is pretty good, and represents the information I came looking for in this article. However, the real meat appears after a series of arguments for belief in God (What? If I wanted that I'd go to the appropriate article) and a lot of other information of questionable relevance. I would place "Arguments against belief in God" first, with the Psychological section merged in and rephrased as an argument. I'd follow this with "Philosophical issues," and then I'd summarily delete the rest of the article. What do other users think about this? Harkenbane (talk) 00:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * This article conforms to Summary style. Don't delete. Instead, if you must, create Arguments against belief in God as an expanded version of that section in this article. This article was originally created as a merge of two POV articles, one for and one against with the for occasionally being recreated as a POV fork rather than a proper expansion of a "higher level" article's subsection. Based on the history of the pro and con articles, I suggest that instead of them, one is better off improving articles on specific arguments. This article is designed as an explanation and introduction to the issue of god's existence and a list of specific arguments. The details are supposed to go in those other articles as per Summary style. Perhaps you can do justice to an expanded Arguments against belief in God without it turning into a POV fork; but seems unlikely as it would appear to fit the very definition of a POV fork. Content forking states Articles should not be split into multiple articles so each can advocate a different stance on the subject. WAS 4.250 (talk) 12:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You're misunderstanding content forking. The article wouldn't advocate a position; no articles are allowed to do that. Wikipedia is theoretically supposed to be value neutral (it can't be, but that's the ideal). Breaking it up into arguments for and against is perfectly fine, but we should only do that if it's the best way to deal with the subject. Richard001 (talk) 07:08, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * My mistake - I thought this article was "Arguments against belief in God!" Given that the article is actually "Existence of God," if anything, it might need expansion. Harkenbane (talk) 22:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Concerning the arguments against belief in God.
Hiya, everybody and your uncles! I just felt like bringing up Douglas Adams' theistic argument from the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy. It goes as follows (it pretty much starts off in the middle of the babelfish article):

''Now it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything so mind-bogglingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as a final and clinching proof of the non-existence of God. The argument goes something like this: "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 that you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. Q.E.D." "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 on the next zebra crossing.

The moral here I believe is that the existence of God would contradict God's existence, and just as much as I'd like to point this example out for argumentive reasons, I'd also like to ask in what argumentive category it would belong/be sorted? 217.208.26.106 (talk) 13:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, if you want to find a place to represent an arguement for a side of the debate then you need to state it that way but you will just start fights, long fights, if you keep this wording up.Prussian725 (talk) 22:58, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Belief in God
Should we have an article on belief in God? As I noted at the talk page of God Arguments, belief in God is closely related to the existence of God, but there are some subtle differences. Pascal's Wager, for example, isn't about whether God exists, but whether we should believe in him. You could also argue that we should believe in a deity even if they don't exist, perhaps from a consequentialist view for example. There's also Dan Dennett's concept of 'belief in belief', the spectrum of theistic probability etc. It seems to be a subject worthy of an article to me. Richard001 (talk) 06:49, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No: we have Theism. You are right that Pascal's wager isn't about existence of God but just a belief in God. The belief argument from getting killed, raped or pillaged also was popular a few years back but as with the psychological cruelty inflicted on Shylock in the end of The Merchant of Venice changing a religion isn't a change of stance in belief in God and Pascal's wager is the only example I know that fits this. Pascal's wager should thus just have its own article, be linked from Theism and indirectly referred to from this article. Theism is the better "Belief in God" article. Ttiotsw (talk) 08:31, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Right; I'm not too familiar with the precise meanings of some religious terms. It seems a redirect is appropriate then, as they seem to be synonymous. I seem to have also managed to neglect the fact that one has just been created since my last edit here, which will save me the effort. Richard001 (talk) 07:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It's worth mentioning that 'theism' and 'belief in God' aren't synonymous. But since the wager, in its essence, isn't specific to God, the distinction might not matter. Ilkali (talk) 08:25, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * How is it not synonymous? Perhaps a slightly more inclusive definition would say g(/G)od(s), I simply say God (as singular) because most people today tend to believe in one god instead of many. Richard001 (talk) 08:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Theism is the belief in at least one god. The term 'God' represents a small subset of possible gods. That's why they're not synonymous. Ilkali (talk) 15:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * you may be interested in the fact that we also have a Monotheism article. "Monotheism" is synonymous to "belief in a God-with-capital-G". Belief in God may be turned into a disambiguation page. Note we also have an article on religious belief, one on faith and one on creed. We should have one article per topic, not one per English word or phrase (for which approach there is Wiktionary). dab (𒁳) 08:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * "Monotheism" is synonymous to "belief in a God-with-capital-G"". I don't think so, but it probably depends on how you interpret 'God'. See, for example, Henotheism. Ilkali (talk) 09:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

If 'God' is the name of a being, then it only makes sense that it should start with a capital 'G' like all our names, even names of pets - several people could have the same names! On the other hand, if 'god' is an item or a description of status, then the lowercase 'g' fits perfectly. --Kaosa (talk) 16:56, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * so what are you suggesting? Belief in God as another article on top of God, Monotheism, Henotheism, Pantheism, Mysticism and what have you? Or just turning Belief in God into a disambiguation page instead of the present redirect? I have no objections to the latter. --dab (𒁳) 09:08, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I wasn't suggesting anything (are you confusing me with Richard001 here?), I was just commenting on the terminology. But I do think it's wrong for Belief in God to redirect to Theism, and I think your suggestion to turn it into a disambiguation page is a good one. Ilkali (talk) 10:16, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Logical Proofs for the Existence of God - Link to Hatcher
Since the logical proof for the existence of God formulated by late mathematician and logician William Hatcher is already on Wikipedia under W. Hatcher, perhaps a link to that proof could be provided also from this article.

The category of proofs "logical arguments for the existence of God" could also be added, including an explanation that most of them have been shown logically faulty. However, Hatcher's proof of God, where God is defined minimalistically as "one", "simple", "self-caused" and "universal cause", represents the first logically seamless proof of a kind of God and, as such, worthy of mention. Hatcher's proof is based on first and second order logic as well as set theory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.165.197.180 (talk) 10:26, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * There are dozens of logically valid arguments for God's existence. They're trivially easy to invent:
 * If the sky is green, God exists
 * The sky is green
 * Therefore God exists
 * On that ground, I reject your claim that Hatcher's attempt is "the first logically seamless proof". Besides, it really just seems like a flavor of the cosmological argument. Ilkali (talk) 11:03, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

That sort of arguement would not be appropriate for the existence of God. The Logical Law of Cause and Effect, however, would be.Prussian725 (talk) 14:40, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Outside of western tought
I have added a section on Vedantic views on this. The section may need to be expanded to actually arrive at NPOV. But so far article was heavy only on one side ie Western, ignoring Eastern definition of existence of God as sat of chit-ananda. Referenced additions are welcome unreferenced unsourced items will just go. Wikidās ॐ 19:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

The problem of the supernatural
The last sentence of the third paragraph of this subsection currently reads:

"However, reliance on phenomena which have not yet been resolved by natural explanations may be equated to the pejorative God of the gaps."

It seems that it would be better to place this statement in the 'arguments against belief in God' section under Empirical Arguments. The person who disagrees with this would likely need to provide similar rebuttal-type sentences to the second and fourth paragraphs, which talk about empirical methods being unable to speak to God's existence or non-existence and the logical positivist position respectively. I'll wait a day or so and if no one responds I will move it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.109.120.55 (talk) 13:00, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The entire third paragraph in that section seems out of place, and possibly the fourth as well. The God-of-the-gaps objection isn't an argument against the existence of God, though, so I would object to moving it as you suggest. I'm leaning toward saying the third paragraph should simply be deleted, since the teleological argument is already referenced in the list further down the page. Not sure about the fourth paragraph. Ilkali (talk) 20:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm starting to wonder what the purpose of this subsection is. Is it to just point out the problems of trying to make truth claims about the supernatural?  Is it to help look at all perspectives on dealing with supernatural claims (philosophical methods)?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.109.120.55 (talk) 13:06, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Strong Atheism
Please observe the way Strong Atheism is defined in the article:

"Strong atheism (or positive atheism) is the position that a god or gods do not exist. The strong atheist explicitly asserts the non-existence of gods.[31] "

It seems to me that this makes the following quote applicable:

"Atheism comes from, literally, the Greek word a-, 'the negative'; and theism, the word theos for 'god' —'negative God' or 'there is no God.' It is affirming the non-existence of God. It affirms a negative. Anyone with an introductory course in philosophy recognizes that it is a logical contradiction. It would be like me saying to you, 'There is no such thing as a white stone with black dots anywhere in all of the galaxies of this universe.' The only way I can affirm that is if I have unlimited knowledge of this universe. So to affirm an absolute negative is self-defeating, because what you are saying is, 'I have infinite knowledge in order to say to you, "There is nobody within finite knowledge".' Atheism, as a system, is self-defeating." —Dr. Ravi Zacharias

I know this is not a popular opinion, but it seems logically sound concerning Strong Atheism as defined in the article. Would it make sense to mention this logical contradiction anywhere in the article? If so, where? If not, why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.109.120.55 (talk) 13:35, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I can only assume that Zacharias has never taken an introductory course in philosophy, as there is blatantly no contradiction here. He is arguing that the belief is unverifiable, which is does not mean that it entails a contradiction. Ilkali (talk) 14:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your quick response. It seems that the following is his line of argumentation ... just as a disclaimer, I have no formal training in philosophy myself, so please forgive the sloppy syllogism (but hopefully it is still clear).


 * P1. God is defined as a being with infinite knowledge
 * P2. To affirm a negative requires infinite knowledge
 * P3. Strong Atheism denies the existence of God.
 * P4. Strong Atheism affirms a negative (there is no such being as defined in P1)
 * IF (P2&P4) THEN
 * C1. Strong Atheism requires infinite knowledge
 * IF (C1&P1) THEN
 * C2. Strong Atheism affirms the existence of God.
 * C2 = ~P3
 * C2 .:. ~P3
 * P3 & ~P3 (contradiction)


 * Is this logically sound? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.109.120.55 (talk) 15:22, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * No.
 * P2 is false on three levels. Firstly, it would not necessarily take infinite knowledge to ascertain that any given entity does not exist. Secondly, believing something that would require infinite knowledge to ascertain is not tantamount to believing that you have that knowledge. Thirdly, even if it were, that would not make it an entailment of strong atheism itself.
 * C1 and P1 do not imply C2. The closest you get is if we assume C1 has a 'Strong atheism entails there is a being with infinite knowledge' corollary, but even then, we could not say that this being is God.
 * Ilkali (talk) 16:07, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm going to take issue with your treatment of P2. Regarding your first objection: "Firstly, it would not necessarily take infinite knowledge to ascertain that any given entity does not exist." Unless it is logically impossible for something to exist, it is not possible to say that it doesn't exist.  I realize that this leads to objections involving pink unicorns and flying spaghetti monsters, but it seems necessarily true that in order to say that X is not in a set Y, you must have complete knowledge of all elements of set Y.  If Y is existence and X is God, then you must know everything in existence to know that X does not exist.  Yet a being that knows everything in Y is the very definition given to God.  So perhaps the term 'infinite knowledge' is a bit misleading and would be better suited as 'complete knowledge'.


 * Regarding your second objection to P2 "Secondly, believing something that would require infinite knowledge to ascertain is not tantamount to believing that you have that knowledge." It's not a matter of belief, it's a matter of saying that it is the case that there is no being with 'infinite knowledge' or 'complete knowledge' or what have you. This position would require 'infinite' or 'complete' knowledge.


 * Regarding your third objection to P2 "Thirdly, even if it were, that would not make it an entailment of strong atheism itself." If strong atheism requires complete knowledge of all things in existence, then it would.


 * In response to your last paragraph "#C1 and P1 do not imply C2. The closest you get is if we assume C1 has a 'Strong atheism entails there is a being with infinite knowledge' corollary, but even then, we could not say that this being is God." P1 defines God as a being with infinite knowledge, so it seems like the conclusion is logical. If P1 is valid then it seems that the conclusion is also sound.


 * Thanks for your quick replies, this is good feedback. I feel like I should mention that almost no one holds that strong atheism is true, rather most opt for weak atheism or agnosticism if they reject theism.  I don't know if your responses are affected by that or not, but I thought it worth noting that I'm almost certainly not encroaching upon your personal views on the matter.  Then again, I shouldn't presume.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.109.120.55 (talk) 17:53, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * As much as I enjoy these kinds of discussions, I have to point out that talk pages are meant solely for discussing the corresponding articles. There may be a place for this argument in the article, but I think we would need more evidence of notability. I've personally never heard it before and I imagine most apologists would be embarrassed by it. Is it supported by anyone other than Zacharias? Ilkali (talk) 18:17, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The choice of the word 'embarrassed' is a bit strong, I think. Having said that, your point regarding notability of the observation by Dr. Zacharias is a good one.  It doesn't seem to enjoy much fame in achedemia and should therefore be excluded from the wiki.  I am going to start a new thread on a different issue with this subsection.  Please let me know your thoughts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.109.120.55 (talk) 19:46, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

The last sentence of the first paragraph states "It needs to be noted that believing the qualities of a particular god to be contradictory is not the sole basis of strong atheism; many strong atheists would assert that, owing to the lack of evidence, even a god described in a manner that was not contradictory is still unlikely to exist."

Surely this is in direct contradiction to the opening statement that defines strong atheism "Strong atheism (or positive atheism) is the position that a god or gods do not exist. The strong atheist explicitly asserts the non-existence of gods.[31]"

Strong atheism is not saying that it is unlikely that God exists, strong atheism is, as defined in the article, the position that a god or gods do not exist. I suggest this last sentence be removed or moved to the weak atheism subsection. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.109.120.55 (talk) 19:46, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * There is a difference between 1) what a strong atheist is and 2) why a given person is a strong atheist. These people are strong atheists; they believe gods do not exist. They believe this because they think the existence of gods is highly improbable. There is no contradiction here. Ilkali (talk) 20:11, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * If that is the correct interpretation then I suggest we do one of two things.


 * Either 1) add the line " and therefore does not exist" to the end of the sentence, making the sentence read as follows"It needs to be noted that believing the qualities of a particular god to be contradictory is not the sole basis of strong atheism; many strong atheists would assert that, owing to the lack of evidence, even a god described in a manner that was not contradictory is still unlikely to exist and therefore does not exist."As it stands now the meaning of the sentence is ambiguous. The above proposed change would help highlight the difference between the definition of strong atheism and the reasons for an individual believing strong atheism.


 * Alternatively 2) We reform the subsection into the categories you mentioned. Namely, 1) What a strong atheist is and 2) Why a given person is a strong atheist.


 * Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.109.120.55 (talk) 20:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think there's anything wrong with the current wording. The "and therefore doesn't exist" addition is inaccurate; a person can believe B because of A without believing A entails B. Aside from that, it sounds a little labored.
 * "As it stands now the meaning of the sentence is ambiguous". I disagree. I do not see any ambiguity. Ilkali (talk) 20:41, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Please look again at the sentence"... many strong atheists would assert that, owing to the lack of evidence, even a god described in a manner that was not contradictory is still unlikely to exist"And more direct to the matter at hand "... many strong atheists would assert that ... a god described in the manner that was not contradictory is still unlikely to exist"The problem is that strong atheists are not asserting that it is unlikely, that is indeed the weak atheist position. Strong atheists are asserting that it is not the case that god/gods exist.  I submit that the sentence is inaccurate and should be altered to better reflect the strong atheist position.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.109.120.55 (talk) 21:00, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak atheism is characterised only by an absence of belief in deities. It does not require belief that deities are unlikely to exist. Additionally, being a strong atheist does not mean asserting that gods do not exist; it means believing that they don't. There is a difference. One can believe that the existence of deities is unlikely and believe that they don't exist. Ilkali (talk) 21:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that the sentence seems fine as it is, and I don't necessarily disagree with what you say here, but note that the same paragraph starts "Strong atheism (or positive atheism) is the position that a god or gods do not exist. The strong atheist explicitly asserts the non-existence of gods." Weak and strong atheism says "Strong atheism is a term generally used to describe atheists who accept as true the proposition, "gods do not exist"." Atheism only says "Atheism, as an explicit position, can be either the affirmation of the nonexistence of gods,[1] or the rejection of theism." before going onto the broader nontheism definition.


 * Perhaps it is worth raising the issue on Atheism as to whether people think there is a difference between "assert" and "believe", and if we should say the latter.


 * Actually though, I think the problem is that people who believe God's existence to be highly improbably, but without asserting his non-existence, don't fit neatly into either weak or strong atheism. So perhaps we do need to note this in the Atheism article, and whereever else is relevant - although we do go a bit into this in Atheism (e.g., "some popular atheist authors such as Richard Dawkins prefer distinguishing theist, agnostic and atheist positions by the probability assigned to the statement "God exists""). Mdwh (talk) 23:18, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * "Additionally, being a strong atheist does not mean asserting that gods do not exist; it means believing that they don't."As Mdwh pointed out, strong atheism, as defined by this article, does mean asserting that gods do not exist. This is stated in the second sentence of the subsection.  "One can believe that the existence of deities is unlikely and believe that they don't exist."You are correct.  Having said that, the article as a whole does not seem to use words like 'affirms', 'asserts', and 'believes' with a high degree of precision.  However if you want to draw the distinction between 'assert' and 'believe' then it seems clear that the subsection is dealing with assertions, not beliefs.  If that last sentence is dealing with beliefs and not assertions, then it is out of place and misleading.  We should either remove it or alter it so that it also deals with assertions.  Alternatively, if you think the distinction is small enough that it does not warrant such treatment, then the sentence becomes ambiguous and leads to the confusion over the meaning that we are having now.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.109.120.55 (talk) 12:50, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "Additionally, being a strong atheist does not mean asserting that gods do not exist; it means believing that they don't."As Mdwh pointed out, strong atheism, as defined by this article, does mean asserting that gods do not exist. This is stated in the second sentence of the subsection.  "One can believe that the existence of deities is unlikely and believe that they don't exist."You are correct.  Having said that, the article as a whole does not seem to use words like 'affirms', 'asserts', and 'believes' with a high degree of precision.  However if you want to draw the distinction between 'assert' and 'believe' then it seems clear that the subsection is dealing with assertions, not beliefs.  If that last sentence is dealing with beliefs and not assertions, then it is out of place and misleading.  We should either remove it or alter it so that it also deals with assertions.  Alternatively, if you think the distinction is small enough that it does not warrant such treatment, then the sentence becomes ambiguous and leads to the confusion over the meaning that we are having now.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.109.120.55 (talk) 12:50, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * 160.109.120.55, please sign your posts so SineBot doesn't have to do it for you. It makes the edit history a lot cleaner.
 * "strong atheism, as defined by this article, does mean asserting that gods do not exist". Yeah, the wording should probably be changed.
 * "However if you want to draw the distinction between 'assert' and 'believe' then it seems clear that the subsection is dealing with assertions, not beliefs". I'm not really sure what you mean, but this seems like a false dichotomy. Why can't it talk about both? Ilkali (talk) 13:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it is OK to talk about both, but if we do so we should make it clear that we are making a distinction between the beliefs and the assertions. The current wording does not make that distinction clear and results in confusion.
 * 160.109.120.55 (talk) 14:00, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

We've had some discussion on this in a general sense, and I think we got off on some tangent about 'believe' vs. 'assert' which no one seemed willing to quantify. Since that distinction is rather moot in light of the article's subject (asserting and believing can mean two different things, but in either case one would have to assert/believe the strong atheist position, which the article in its current form fails to represent accurately), I'd like to propose a change. The article currentlys states "Strong atheism (or positive atheism) is the position that a god or gods do not exist. The strong atheist explicitly asserts the non-existence of gods.[31] Some strong atheists further assert that the existence of some or all gods is logically impossible, for example claiming that the combination of attributes which God may be asserted to have (for example: omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, transcendence, omnibenevolence) is logically contradictory, incomprehensible, or absurd, and therefore that the non-existence of such a god is a priori true. It needs to be noted that believing the qualities of a particular god to be contradictory is not the sole basis of strong atheism; many strong atheists would assert that, owing to the lack of evidence, even a god described in a manner that was not contradictory is still unlikely to exist."And the sentence in question is "It needs to be noted that believing the qualities of a particular god to be contradictory is not the sole basis of strong atheism; many strong atheists would assert that, owing to the lack of evidence, even a god described in a manner that was not contradictory is still unlikely to exist." I propse we make one of the following changes (slight edits) The following are rewrites of the sentence: I think these changes best reflect the strong atheist position (God does not exist) as opposed to the weak atheist position (either 1) no good reasons and no credible grounds for believing that gods exist or 2) neither believe that a god or gods exists, nor believe that no gods exist). Thoughts? 160.109.120.55 (talk) 14:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) "It needs to be noted that asserting that the qualities of a particular god are contradictory is not the sole basis of strong atheism; many strong atheists would assert that, owing to the lack of evidence, even a god described in a manner that was not contradictory does not exist."
 * 2) "It needs to be noted that believing the qualities of a particular god to be contradictory is not the sole basis of strong atheism; many strong atheists would assert that, owing to the lack of evidence, even if a god were described in a manner that was not contradictory, this god would still not exist."
 * 1) "Many strong atheists assert that lack of evidence for the existence of God is a reason to believe that God does not exist."
 * 2) "Many strong atheists believe that the lack of evidence for the existence of God is a reason to believe that God does not exist."


 * While I think the existing version could be better stylistically, I see nothing wrong with the information it conveys and think your changes would worsen it. I think you are missing the distinction between weak and strong atheism, since you seem to erroneously consider "God is unlikely to exist" a weak atheistic position. Your rewrites lack mention of the fairly important topic of logical coherence. Ilkali (talk) 15:09, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The article states that strong atheism is the position that "God does not exist." However, you are saying that the strong atheist position is that "God is unlikely to exist."  These two statements convey different concepts.  So I guess the real issue is if you consider the following two statements to be the same?
 * God does not exist
 * God is unlikely to exist
 * If that is your position then I will need to hear some arguments to defend that position as it seems very obvious that they are not the same.
 * If that is not your position, then it seems you should rather want to agree with me in assuring the clarity of the article.
 * 160.109.120.55 (talk) 16:07, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * "However, you are saying that the strong atheist position is that "God is unlikely to exist."". I have never once said that.
 * This is the last time I'm going to cover this ground. A person can believe that God is unlikely to exist and that God does not exist. They can also cite the former belief as justification for the latter. That is what is happening in the article. The text about a god being unlikely to exist is not intended as a definition of strong atheism.
 * Lastly, please note that while the article may be specific to God, neither strong nor weak atheism is. Ilkali (talk) 17:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * "A person can believe that God is unlikely to exist and that God does not exist." No one disagrees with that statement.  The issue is the meaning of the sentence.  Maybe this will make it more clear.  The form of the sentence "It needs to be noted that believing the qualities of a particular god to be contradictory is not the sole basis of strong atheism; many strong atheists would assert that, owing to the lack of evidence, even a god described in a manner that was not contradictory is still unlikely to exist." reads like this: "It needs to be noted that believing [justification 1] is not the sole basis of [position 1]; [position 1] would assert that [justification 2], even if not [justification 1], is still [position 1]."
 * Position 1 must always be that god/gods do not exist. In the sentence, however, it is saying that in one place the position is "god/gods do not exist" and in a different place the position is "god/gods are unlikely to exist."
 * So it seems rather obvious when one reads the sentence, it is not using 'God is unlikely' as justification for 'God does not exist' as you say. Rather, it is using 'Not enough evidence for God' as justification for 'God is unlikely to exist.'  While perhaps unintentional, it does in fact end up equating the strong atheist position with 'God is unlikely to exist.'
 * The distinction between God and god/gods is noted. I'll make sure any changes I push for will use the term god/gods instead of God.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.109.120.55 (talk) 18:11, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * "So it seems rather obvious when one reads the sentence, it is not using 'God is unlikely' as justification for 'God does not exist' as you say". I disagree. Ilkali (talk) 18:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think we're arguing over anything more than what the sentence means when following the rules of english grammar. In that sense, it's not a matter of opinion, such that I may feel that this word best fits here and another may feel that a different word best fits.  The section defines its terms in the first sentence.  It then uses the terms throughout the article.  As I read the sentence it seems that in the last sentence it uses the term erroneously as defined in the first sentence.  I could be wrong, however, and that is why I think it would be a good idea to reach consensus before making any changes.  I'd like to suggest we escalate this matter.  What do you think?
 * 160.109.120.55 (talk) 14:35, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Also note, the sentence was added here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Existence_of_God&diff=136914686&oldid=136861239 and seems very off the cuff, no citations given, nothing to give any hint that serious thought was put into it. I'm starting to think it would be best to just remove that last sentence and avoid this whole mess.

160.109.120.55 (talk) 20:02, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Why classify by strong and weak at all?
I can't help feeling that the reason for this muddle is that we are trying to pigeon hole arguments into either being strong atheism or weak atheism. Wouldn't it be better just to list the various arguments, without labelling them strong or weak? We should be listing the arguments that atheists actually make (which does include the claim that God's existence is unlikely, for example), rather than thinking we can't say that because we aren't sure if it's "strong" or "weak".

This would also help us with finding references too. For example, Dawkins makes the claim that God's existence is unlikely - but we can't cite him here at the moment, because I don't think he identifies as a strong atheist (he avoids the strong/weak distinction, IIRC). Mdwh (talk) 22:46, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Consider the Atheism article - although strong and weak are obviously mentioned, the rest of the article is not constrained by trying to pigeon hole everything into being either strong or weak. Mdwh (talk) 22:46, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Do you suggest that perhaps we only have the definitions of strong and weak atheism and some links to their respective articles, and not have any content about why a person may be a strong atheist or weak atheist?  That would remove all but the first two sentences from the strong athesim subsection and probably the last sentence of weak atheism.
 * 160.109.120.55 (talk) 14:11, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't mean removing any content, just that we list the reasons why a person is an atheist, without pigeon-holing them as strong or weak. On the contrary, that would allow us to add content (as I say, it would be good to cite Dawkins for the claim that God's existence is unlikely, but we can't at present because he doesn't identify as a strong atheist). Mdwh (talk) 10:54, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

This section has gone way too far into WP:FORUM territory. Remember that this is Wikipedia. All we do here is intelligently summarize and juxtapose quotable sources. Editors' opinions wrt the sources they are discussing are irrelevant. Yes, the "strong vs. weak" dichotomy for some reason has a long history of being blown out of proportion at Talk:Atheism. The purpose of this article isn't the classification of various atheisms, but the presentation of various arguments pertaining to "existence" for various conceptions of "God". Note that the stance of one philosopher as to the "existence of God" may vary considerably depending on what you mean by "existence" and what you mean by "God". This is far from being a yes-or-no question. Most intelligent atheists will probably argue that "God" isn't a well-defined notion at all (except for easily debunked naive Iron Age notions), and hence the assertion of existence is "not even wrong". --dab (𒁳) 11:06, 14 August 2008 (UTC)