Talk:Existence of God/Archive 6

The Missing Argument - Phantom Feelings by fMRI
Confirmation of phantom feelings as Descartes has described them far back, now that these feelings can be made stronger in terms of science by detecting contextual patterns in the brain (fMRI) connected to the very impressions by the one who has these phantom feelings. Of course, the counter argument by the Atheists is likewise, "all fantasy, knee-jerk" generic feelings of pre-amputation feelings", but the Religious side can say along with all the rest, telepathy, "priest stories" and the Van Lommel studies. As put before, the Atheists are losing ground for good. Cheers! 109.189.67.107 (talk) 19:00, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

The Conditional Notions of Defeating the Anti-God by Counter-ESP Arguments
The conditional ESP by telepathy, now that the standing on telepathy is still a bit unconfirmed, must be considered pro-God, in defeating the former anti-ESP-anti-God arguments. That is, the religious win further (intellectual) ground in saying this: if telepathy exists then the credibility pro-God increases, also because Atheists are to increasing degrees found to be WRONG! This is uttered also in relating to any culture of lying among the people with the opposition, i.e., the con-God Atheists. The argument goes, of course, by standard Modus Ponens: if telepathy then credibility for God, telepathy, conclusion: (necessary/more possible) God. I also like to refer you to former notions of ESP and God discussion. Cheers! 46.9.42.58 (talk) 14:59, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Your ‘argument’ is merely a series of non sequiturs. If telepathy were proven real, this would not actually show atheism wrong about anything, because atheism takes no position on telepathy. Believers in paranormal phenomena can be atheists — in fact, I know an atheist who believes in psychic woo-woo. And unless you use ESP to read God's mind, ESP provides no evidence either way about God. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 16:38, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * To my knowledge, the classic position of the Atheist has always been the physicalist/realist. Secondly, I challenge you on existing, respected (well established) literature. Thirdly, you can't simply pull an argument "out of your nose" and think that you (re-)define the entire Atheism-Religions debate. Also, as last, your use of "non sequiturs" is wrong and suggests two facts, 1. you have read very little here, 2. your own use of this is a "non sequitur"! Bye! 109.189.67.107 (talk)‎ 03:29, 10 March 2013‎
 * 1. You are mistaken. Physicalism can lead one to atheism, but not all atheists are physicalists. 2. You did not cite any literature. It's not enough to claim to have reliable sources, you have to actually name them. 3. What do you mean? 4. My first response explained why your arguments were non sequiturs. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 05:45, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The logics, in which I have more stature that you, just to kill this non sequitur by your name right now: 1. If not (most likely) God then not ESP (Telepathy). Prem. 2. ESP (Telepathy) P. 3. (most likely) God - Conclusion. This is a a form of Modus Tollens. This is only one answer from you, very typically. Now EAT your non sequitur, non-reader, non-logician, Robin Lionheart... (Hah-hah-hah) 109.189.67.107 (talk) 12:17, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * That's neither modus tollens, nor modus ponens. You described an invalid logical form  [ ed. 15:47, 11 March 2013 (UTC): before you rewrote it after I explained your errors in logic] :
 * 1. You are mistaken. Physicalism can lead one to atheism, but not all atheists are physicalists. 2. You did not cite any literature. It's not enough to claim to have reliable sources, you have to actually name them. 3. What do you mean? 4. My first response explained why your arguments were non sequiturs. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 05:45, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The logics, in which I have more stature that you, just to kill this non sequitur by your name right now: 1. If not (most likely) God then not ESP (Telepathy). Prem. 2. ESP (Telepathy) P. 3. (most likely) God - Conclusion. This is a a form of Modus Tollens. This is only one answer from you, very typically. Now EAT your non sequitur, non-reader, non-logician, Robin Lionheart... (Hah-hah-hah) 109.189.67.107 (talk) 12:17, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * That's neither modus tollens, nor modus ponens. You described an invalid logical form  [ ed. 15:47, 11 March 2013 (UTC): before you rewrote it after I explained your errors in logic] :
 * That's neither modus tollens, nor modus ponens. You described an invalid logical form  [ ed. 15:47, 11 March 2013 (UTC): before you rewrote it after I explained your errors in logic] :
 * That's neither modus tollens, nor modus ponens. You described an invalid logical form  [ ed. 15:47, 11 March 2013 (UTC): before you rewrote it after I explained your errors in logic] :

! Modus Ponens ! Modus Tollens ! Modus 109.189.67.107 (10 March)  ! Premise ! Premise ! Conclusion
 * P → Q
 * P → Q
 * ¬P → probably ¬Q (but maybe Q)
 * P
 * ¬Q
 * P
 * Q
 * ¬P
 *  * Q 
 * }
 * Modus tollens works on an if-then, not an if-probably-then:
 * If I throw a pair of dice, then I will most likely roll a 7.
 * I did not roll a 7.
 * * Therefore, I did not throw a pair of dice.
 * (I could have rolled a 3, for example.) So you can keep your proffered humble pie, anonymous poster. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 21:38, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * (I've folded by the above. I've come to switch the positions of God and Telepathy, no big thing, but the thing is of course, that I've been right from the start, but**.) To bad for the beginner in logics that he doesn't see that a version of Modus Tollens is exactly as I've written by the following,
 * (I've folded by the above. I've come to switch the positions of God and Telepathy, no big thing, but the thing is of course, that I've been right from the start, but**.) To bad for the beginner in logics that he doesn't see that a version of Modus Tollens is exactly as I've written by the following,

! Modus Tollens ! Premise ! Premise ! Conclusion
 * P → Q
 * ¬Q
 *  ¬P 
 * }

! Modus Tollens further ! Premise ! Premise ! Conclusion
 * (entity ¬P) → (entity ¬Q)
 * ¬(entity ¬Q)
 *  ¬(entity ¬P) 
 * }

! Modus Tollens at last ! Premise ! Premise ! Conclusion
 * ¬P → ¬Q
 * Q - by double negation
 *  P - by double negation 
 * }
 * , that *fantastic nature* → *fantastic God*, and whelpie squawks about in his nest again! Bye, beginner in logics! 109.189.67.107 (talk) 12:15, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You say that "Modus tollens works on an if-then, not an if-probably-then", but you seem ignorant/to hide (from the readers) that I merely need to extend the entity to "if "P" - then "probably-Q""... 109.189.67.107 (talk) 13:27, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Modus tollens does not work on "if ... probably then ...". I speak as an expert in mathematical logic.  Modus ponus (approximately) works on "if ... probably then ...".  In your "notation", "¬Q" does not imply "¬probably-Q".  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 14:17, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No, you fail at logic again, 109. You can't use modus tollens with “P → (probably Q but maybe ¬Q)” because ¬Q gets you nowhere:
 * Modus tollens does not work on "if ... probably then ...". I speak as an expert in mathematical logic.  Modus ponus (approximately) works on "if ... probably then ...".  In your "notation", "¬Q" does not imply "¬probably-Q".  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 14:17, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No, you fail at logic again, 109. You can't use modus tollens with “P → (probably Q but maybe ¬Q)” because ¬Q gets you nowhere:
 * No, you fail at logic again, 109. You can't use modus tollens with “P → (probably Q but maybe ¬Q)” because ¬Q gets you nowhere:

! Modus Tollens ! Your Defective Modus Tollens ! Premise ! Premise ! Conclusion So, returning to your initial syllogism, “if telepathy then credibility for God” is a non sequitur (like I pointed out in my first reply), since existence of telepathy and existence of God are independent propositions. Since both premises were false, your initial modus ponens argument was unsound. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 12:26, 12 March 2013 (UTC) Your objection is (only) noted, Robin Lionheart. Then the real target, sorry for being blunt and outright on "qualifying" the literature here: 1. Window To God: A Physicians Spiritual Pilgrimage - http://www.amazon.co.uk/Window-God-Physicians-Spiritual-Pilgrimage/dp/0876045069/. 2. The God Within Me - http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-God-Within-Me-ebook/dp/B0042JT0I8. 3. God : Using Psychic Ability to Find Him (How to Find God Within You) - http://www.amazon.co.uk/God-Psychic-Ability-Within-ebook/dp/B003FMUUW8. 4. Being Mystic: In Touch with God - http://www.amazon.co.uk/Being-Mystic-In-Touch-God/dp/1846945283. 5. Jose Silva's Everyday ESP: Use Your Mental Powers to Succeed in Every Aspect of Your Life - http://www.amazon.co.uk/Jose-Silvas-Everyday-ESP-Succeed/dp/156414951X (uncertain relevance to the ESP and God). 6. Christian Prophecy: The Spiritual Gift of Psychic Ability - http://www.amazon.co.uk/Christian-Prophecy-Spiritual-Psychic-ebook/dp/B004VF68K6. 7. Could It Be ESP - Subt. "Thank God for the Country" - http://www.amazon.co.uk/Could-It-Be-ESP/dp/B006P84YXA, only a song by a country-singer, probably irrelevant, but the artist may tell a story or two. I hope you, the readers, the users, of Wikipedia find good use by this list. Cheers! 109.189.67.107 (talk) 17:14, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * P → Q
 * P → (Q ∨ ¬Q)
 * ¬Q
 * ¬Q
 * ¬P
 *  * ¬P 
 * }
 * Your Q is independent of the truth-value of P. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 17:10, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No, you simply fail to understand that when I write Q I intend for it to say "probably-Q" as is the convention with sentential logic, that it represents units of sentences!!! It's therefore plain for me to write 1. P → Q Prem. 2. ¬Q Prem. 3. ¬P - Conclusion. 109.189.67.107 (talk) 19:04, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * And when Q is a statement of probability, so is ¬Q. For example:
 * If (P) thoughts are transmitted to bodies, then (Q) it is probable (but maybe false) that ((R)) telepaths receive other people's thoughts.
 * (¬Q) It is not probable (but maybe true) that ((R)) telepaths receive other people's thoughts.
 * Therefore, (¬P) thoughts are not transmitted to bodies.
 * So you instead have mushy premises about probability-of-R to prove, because R cannot determine whether P is true or false. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 19:54, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I do not enter the ill-conceived cognition by the above. I can stick with the first text written under the title of this section. I don't have time for this. Also, be careful to look up sentential logic elsewhere on the internet. The Wikipedia article looks unnecessarily "academic". Also, corrections to some structure of my argument has been made so it looks more pleasant to read. Cheers! 109.189.67.107 (talk) 21:19, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * So you instead have mushy premises about probability-of-R to prove, because R cannot determine whether P is true or false. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 19:54, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I do not enter the ill-conceived cognition by the above. I can stick with the first text written under the title of this section. I don't have time for this. Also, be careful to look up sentential logic elsewhere on the internet. The Wikipedia article looks unnecessarily "academic". Also, corrections to some structure of my argument has been made so it looks more pleasant to read. Cheers! 109.189.67.107 (talk) 21:19, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I do not enter the ill-conceived cognition by the above. I can stick with the first text written under the title of this section. I don't have time for this. Also, be careful to look up sentential logic elsewhere on the internet. The Wikipedia article looks unnecessarily "academic". Also, corrections to some structure of my argument has been made so it looks more pleasant to read. Cheers! 109.189.67.107 (talk) 21:19, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Wow. I confess I was skeptical that you had any reliable sources to cite. But you, 109, have amazed me with a source so incredible, so unbelievable, that I couldn’t help but smile to myself: a country/western song about a man who has a recurring dream about a lady, and then he meets her in a bar. How can I argue with evidence like that? There's just no point. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 02:15, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, Jane's Review, a well-respected defence and intelligence magazine, and Blackwater, security firm, have had their precursors from truck drivers and there is something about the common word also in this, that how stupid are people supposed to get when the investigators can't relate to matters at hand, such as primary literature. This is to be the readers' call, either way. 109.189.228.145 (talk) 10:01, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Naturally, not a one of these sources supports the theological model you assert. DeistCosmos (talk) 15:42, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Here's another top book reference by Dean Radin, url from Amazon, http://www.amazon.com/Conscious-Universe-Scientific-Psychic-Phenomena/dp/0061778990, and with this creditation from NY Times too, "Recently profiled in the NY Times Magazine, Dean Radin is perhaps the most respected parapsychologist in the country. An articulate, engaging communicator, he wields impeccable credentials, a healthy skepticism & a meticulous scientific method to put psi phenomona like ...", that he's not a rural rat Wikipedian in any sense of the meaning. I think this now looks SET. Cheers! 95.34.141.237 (talk) 22:49, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * From over at the "Transcendental argument", by Kant, most importantly, we find this logical parallel to the above, also set in a form of Modus Tollens:
 * If there is no god (most often the entity God, defined as the god of the Christian Bible), knowledge is not possible.
 * Knowledge is possible (or some other statement pertaining to logic or morality).
 * Therefore a god exists.
 * — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.34.121.134 (talk) 08:06, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * If there is no god (most often the entity God, defined as the god of the Christian Bible), knowledge is not possible.
 * Knowledge is possible (or some other statement pertaining to logic or morality).
 * Therefore a god exists.
 * — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.34.121.134 (talk) 08:06, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

As a telepath, I find this argument unconvincing. But I will not use my ESP to melt your brain, because maybe we're all simply part of one whole, and so I would only be melting my own brain. Ergo, Pandeism. DeistCosmos (talk) 02:44, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Heh. If only you had an inverse ability to firm up brains. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 13:00, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * But then we would lose all of this entertainment value. Sadly, though, the above explanation is invalid for its failure to account for bigfoot. DeistCosmos (talk) 17:57, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Notice - Problem with the editing of article mode
There seems to be a problem with the article in the sense that when I take the opportunity in contributing to it by using the "Edit"-option displayed to me, some of the text to edit simply isn't there... What is going on? Thanks. 95.34.121.134 (talk) 00:27, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * When you click on an "[edit]" link beside a subheading, you open a subsection to edit instead of the whole article. Doing so helps you avoid collisions when, for example, you and another editor both check in edits to different subsections. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 02:15, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Coincidences
What do the fellow editors think about this:


 * Should it be mentioned that some people view signs and 'coincidences' that are viewed as signs as a prove of Existance of God? For example, a person A met his long forgotten friend B in Chicago for the first time in 3 years. He said hello and went to New York and have met him again a few days since the first meeting. Then he went to Italy and week later met his friend in Milan. And fourth time he met him in Thailand after two weeks.
 * Every such consecutive meeting makes it look less and less probable to happen. So some people think that such happenings can prove the existance of God logically and mathematically, because it comes that the total probability of all the meetings (events) is or close to 1/infinity (one divided by infinity).
 * I'm talking about the total probability of all such events in the whole of the world population since the time of the humanity's creation. And, perhaps that could be expanded even further to the all probability of all the events since the Big Bang leading towards appearance of solar system, the Earth, life and humans. And, it could be expanded even further, past Big Bang to the moment of the creation of everything. And, in case there wasn't a point of creation but everything is eternal than its definitely and absolutely one divided by infinity. Ryanspir (talk) 15:36, 10 March 2013 (UTC)


 * No even one reply? Ryanspir (talk) 15:07, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Reliable third party sources?Theroadislong (talk) 15:23, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Something along http://community321.com/faith/messages/gods-coincidences/ "God just loves coincidences. He seems to thrive on creating circumstances that cause people to say, “Wow, that was too amazing to be just chance.” He places these mind-teasers along our pathway just to entice us into thinking about him." I think more reliable sources than that can be found. There is a big number of people mentioning signs and coincidences in relation to Existence of God. Please not to be confused with revelations, as these are "signs that got interpreted". The reasoning is following: In a world without God, there are no signs and regarding coincidences they are within the mathematically proven statistic probability. Therefore even one sign proves there is a God. And if there is a coincidence that can be proven by math to be impossible, or nearly impossible would strongly suggest existence of God. I would also like to propose "Ultimate Coincidence" and will discuss it in a separate section. Ryanspir (talk) 13:52, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Ultimate coincidence
This section is related to the section "Coincidences".

The logic chain is following: We have to find a starting point of everything and follow the line from that point till your existence looking at the statistical probability of such an event (your existence).

Starting point: There are two possible ways of everything (including God) to exist. Is either to be created or to be existed eternally. The first one will always raise legitimate questions:
 * a) Who created?
 * b) How is something can be created from nothing?

These two questions are unanswerable, and considering that "nothing" is also "something", the second question is actually highlighting the fact that "something" has been eternally.

Our minds fail to understand how something can be eternal, but we have to accept it as a fact that results from the reasoning written above.

Now, lets move on and establish some background. Lets assume for a moment that we exist in eternal unlimited world without God. (Eternal world will include unlimited in space as well, as what can be outside of the limited space? Nothing? But nothing is something, so the same logic applies.) That means there are infinite chances for everything to happen. Lets try to apply this idea to the scientific observations of our solar system, our galaxy and our universe. So far we haven't detected any extra-terrestrial life in our proximity and haven't detected any intelligent life in our universe that would for example emit intelligent radio signals. So it seems that there isn't abundance of different forms of life on different planets and it could be possible that we are the only one. This is the first line of reasoning.

(I'll continue writing it soon). Ryanspir (talk) 14:18, 7 April 2013 (UTC)


 * In the nut shell: God exist, because the number of events that lead to your creation starting from the ultimate source particle is infinitely big, going back in eternity. If even one of the events wouldn't be as it was, you wouldn't exists as you know yourself. Therefore, from your point of you, all events have been coincidental leading to your creation. (Therefore your ability to think, and your presence, are the evidences of God's existence.) Ryanspir (talk) 12:56, 13 April 2013 (UTC)


 * It's egocentric to think that because you think you're special, there must have been a grand design to produce you.
 * You could apply your egocentric argument to anything in the universe: Take a rock, any rock. The Crafter of All Rocks exists, because the number of events that led to that unique rock's creation is infinitely big, going back in eternity. If even one of those events were different, that rock wouldn't exist as we know it. Therefore, with respect to that rock, all events in the history of the universe have been leading up to that rock's creation. Therefore, this rock's presence is the evidence of the Crafter of All Rocks's existence.~ ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 14:15, 13 April 2013 (UTC)


 * You are right. The thing is, we may not be absolutely sure that the rock actually exists. But everyone of us is absolutely sure that he exists. "I think therefore I exist". Who said that :)? However your input is right and I should reflect it. Therefore creation of everything in the way it is, going back in eternity is the statistical prove that God exists. - is a much better representation of what I'm saying. To express it mathematically applying statistical analysis to the likelihood is the goal. Ryanspir (talk) 14:37, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Naturally this proof can only go so far as to support a Deistic or Pandeistic Creator -- it is no good for a Theistic deity who must intervene in the operations of its Creatio in order for things to come about as they are intended. DeistCosmos (talk) 03:26, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Capital G
My understanding is that the custom of capitalising the word god is very much a Christian thing. Maybe Jewish as well. (I'm no expert on that front.) Did the ancient Greeks REALLY debate a god with a capital G? Or is this article showing a (poorly) hidden Christian bias? Otherwise, why the capital G throughout this article? HiLo48 (talk) 11:26, 22 April 2013 (UTC)


 * God is a proper noun in the context of this article. Arzel (talk) 17:54, 24 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Which god? HiLo48 (talk) 22:51, 24 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Obviously if it's "God with a Capital G" then it's a Gansta God, throwing signs and spittin' lines. DeistCosmos (talk) 17:59, 25 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Lol. Ryanspir (talk) 10:33, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Existence of everything
As Universe (meta) is without bounds there should be existence of everything, including God. This statement is based on the fact that universe, our world is without bounds. The logic is simple, if the world would have bounds, what would be behind those bounds? Nothing? Noithing is something. And how those bounds would look like?

Since the Universe is infinite, everything will exist, including God. This conclusion also predisposes extra-terrestrial life, angels, ghosts, everything that we can and cannot imagine. However here is a twist, if God's will for something not to exist, it won't exist.

I would also assume, that if we are living in eternal, infinite world without God we would be surrounded by extra-terrestrial life. Why? Because prior to appearance of the life on Earth, there would be infinite time for life's creation all around the infinite space of the world. These forms of life would have infinite time to mature, advance and then to travel and migrate around the world. Ryanspir (talk) 14:38, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * But by this argument, if I define "Throg" as "a being greater than God," then Throg must exist as well, and much be even greater than God. DeistCosmos (talk) 02:59, 19 April 2013 (UTC)


 * No, you would be simply using different word for God in that case. Ryanspir (talk) 13:56, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * No, it would not be God, by definition. It would be something greater. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 16:59, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * My apologies, I'm failing to understand. If you will define Throg "a being greater than God, but we are living in a world where God exists and actively participating in our life's, than he would disallow for him to arise. Please refer to my "twist" sentence.
 * Another point, if we are considering (and I do) that God is infinite and eternal, there couldn't be a greater entity. Because infinity+1 still equals infinity, as well as infinity+100000. :)
 * I'm also interesting, are there any reliable sources that have tried to prove Existence of God that are similar to what I have written? Ryanspir (talk) 07:32, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Since the universe has a beginning your thoery falls apart. This is not to say that it was not created by God, but it precludes your argument for ET's.  Also, even though the universe is infinate in space and time, it is not infinate in what that space and time can contain.   Arzel (talk) 18:09, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * /even though/even if/. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 19:59, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes I suppose that has not been proven. Arzel (talk) 20:03, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Prove of Existence of God via absence of extra-terrestrial life while assuming that our World is eternal and infinite
I have gave some thoughts to the previous section and decided to refine it. Here is an astonishing result.

Let's assume that we are living in a world without God. Because we have no Creator in this case, there is no first cause, so nobody has created our world and thus no point of creation. Our world is infinite, because what could possible be outside of the borders of our world? Nothing? But nothing is something. Thus our world is eternal referring to time and infinite referring to space.

Since we are existing, we can be absolutely sure, that under some circumstances life can be created. Since our world is eternal and infinite, there are infinite number of extra-terrestrial lifeforms that would come to exist because those circumstances would be repeated infinite number of times.

The extra-terrestrial lifeforms would have infinite time to mature and advance. There would be infinite number of them that would decide to migrate to other planets, galaxies and universes. Having infinite number of lifeforms migrating for infinite period of time would result in huge number of lifeforms eventually reaching our planet. We would be surrounded by extra-terrestrial life.

However, that is not happening. We haven't clearly seen even one alien, and we are absolutely not being surrounded by them, neither we have observed their existence using our scientific tools, including space telescopes. The only logical reason is the Existence of God. This is the only clear possible cause. Thus we are logically being proven in the Existence of God. Ryanspir (talk) 14:48, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * This is based on an unjustified assumption, that for anything to exist it must be conciously created. The non-existence of a creator of the universe (what I presume you mean by "our world") ≠ there being no first cause for the universe. Unless you can justify this assumption, your entire argument falls apart at this point. (In any case, if the universe not being infinite automatically proves the existence of god, then all the scientific evidence that the universe is finite temporally and spatially should be enough for you to make this argument without needing to bring extra-terrestrials into the mix.) Albertonian (talk) 15:19, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * This is based on an unjustified assumption, that for anything to exist it must be conciously created. The non-existence of a creator of the universe (what I presume you mean by "our world") ≠ there being no first cause for the universe. Unless you can justify this assumption, your entire argument falls apart at this point. (In any case, if the universe not being infinite automatically proves the existence of god, then all the scientific evidence that the universe is finite temporally and spatially should be enough for you to make this argument without needing to bring extra-terrestrials into the mix.) Albertonian (talk) 15:19, 20 April 2013 (UTC)


 * No, that's backward. If a god had designed our universe to sustain life, then we should expect to see extraterrestrial life everywhere. Life on the Moon, life on Mercury, even life on the Sun... but the universe is actually 99.99999% inhospitable to life.
 * Contrariwise, if life happened not by design but in spite of millions-to-one odds against it, then when we look out upon the universe, we should expect to see one planet with life amid a million lifeless rocks.
 * The universe is how we would expect it to be, if there were no gods, and not as we would expect it to be, if there were. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 17:10, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

(Quoted from my talk page.)
 * Ok, so you are referring to the multiverse, and not just this universe. The multiverse, by definition, is everything which exists; it might only refer to this universe (if this universe is all that exists), more likely it refers to this universe plus a whole lot of other universes. Now, the thing is, we do not know anything about what may lie beyond the universe we are in, so I cannot say anything about the nature of the multiverse. I am therefore agnostic on the questions of whether the multiverse is infinite or finite (both terms referring to both space and time), whether travel between different universes is even possible, or if it is, whether we would be able to perceive a being or object from another universe at all, and so on. I cannot make any inferences about the multiverse because I only know anything about one universe within it. Even to say that it must have a first cause if it is not infinite would be to unjustly assume that the laws of logic apply throughout all of existence in the same manner as in this universe.


 * This conception does, however, raise problems for your earlier line of reasoning. For example:
 * This inference is valid, if and only if either this universe is infinite, or we know that the conditions which apply in this universe which allowed life to arise on earth also apply in other universes. We know this universe is not infinite, and we do not know at all what conditions apply in other universes. This inference is based on a further unjustified assumption.
 * If, however, we assume that the same conditions which apply in this universe also apply in others, we still know nothing about whether it would be possible to travel between universes. With this universe finite, that would need to be possible for it to be as full of extra-terrestrial life as you make out it would be if there was no god. So, an alternate inference, assuming the same conditions apply in other universes, would simply be that travel between universes is impossible. I do not know if that is the case, but it can be inferred from the same assumptions without bringing god into the picture. Albertonian (talk) 17:52, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * If, however, we assume that the same conditions which apply in this universe also apply in others, we still know nothing about whether it would be possible to travel between universes. With this universe finite, that would need to be possible for it to be as full of extra-terrestrial life as you make out it would be if there was no god. So, an alternate inference, assuming the same conditions apply in other universes, would simply be that travel between universes is impossible. I do not know if that is the case, but it can be inferred from the same assumptions without bringing god into the picture. Albertonian (talk) 17:52, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * If, however, we assume that the same conditions which apply in this universe also apply in others, we still know nothing about whether it would be possible to travel between universes. With this universe finite, that would need to be possible for it to be as full of extra-terrestrial life as you make out it would be if there was no god. So, an alternate inference, assuming the same conditions apply in other universes, would simply be that travel between universes is impossible. I do not know if that is the case, but it can be inferred from the same assumptions without bringing god into the picture. Albertonian (talk) 17:52, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Hmmmm.... Now, where have I heard this exact argument before? Oh yeah, Pandeism makes this argument, for it supports a Deistic (not Theistic) theological model. DeistCosmos (talk) 17:47, 25 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not entering into theology or religions. Ryanspir (talk) 18:57, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

The Defences for God - New Section or Suggestion for You here of a New Article
The Privacy Argument - nothing new from the Atheists The Rejection of the Cardinal Sins - that the sinful life seems repulsive and that religious ponderings seem much more engaging Non-Dogmatic New Intelligent Design - that NDNID defends God as possibility and that Atheism fails to prove, also with logical soundness, the impossibility for God The ESP-God Debate - now that, by telepathy, that we have God by our foreheads and Atheism seems more wrong than ever before, then why Atheism at all? Because the contention has been earlier that if telepathy is "realizable" then (necessarily/more conceivably) God, even by themselves The Descartes' Phantom Feelings - that if Descartes' description of feelings can be proven then God "more", that once again, the consistent pattern by the amputee's brain proves the Atheists wrong once more and by this fantastic revelation, that God exists also by this notion The Van Lommel Studies - that Van Lommel by his work has shown that the existence of the soul is a possible description for people's (common) ability to win over death and that, therefore, God "more" yet another time Do we get it up? (Atheists to Mystics and Religions are cool after all?) ;-) Cheers! 46.9.254.15 (talk) 05:41, 12 April 2013 (UTC) Note: as before, ESP → More Credible God, ESP (Telepathy, not...) - Concl.: More Credible God. Standard Modus Ponens. Good? 109.189.66.179 (talk) 13:10, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * There's another one too, with similar structure: if some aspects more prove true, in addition to the above, by the "priest stories" then God further... But this is one is for the moment dicy or more dicy than the telepathy argument... 46.9.254.15 (talk) 05:49, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Fascinating. How about this: The Argument From Homosexuality. Since homosexuality can not serve a reproductive purpose, its existence can best be explained by it having been created by a homosexual-loving God who wishes for people to be homosexual and delights in acts of homosexual sex. DeistCosmos (talk) 22:55, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * But about this 'rejection of the cardinal sins' notion, well let us see. Working on the Sabbath is listed as a the top sin in the Abrahamic faiths, but it is clear that there is no natural sense against this, or else folks might have some unease with professional football. So insofar as this proposition is true, we have now proved that no Abrahamic faith is the true faith. And further, moral human beings are strongly repulsed by rape and slavery, so any religion not listing these two amongst its cardinal sins is similarly proved false. Again, fascinating. DeistCosmos (talk) 23:05, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * For one who isn't Christian/Modern Christian, the Argument from Homosexuality stands (directly) on you, DeistCosmos. Also, the 4th Commandment is about keeping the day holy and this can have several interpretations. Why don't you read the scriptures more? Secondly, the rest of the comments from DeistCosmos goes to other people than myself. Also note the difference between the slob-two-comments above vs. the honest and well-intended 6 arguments at the start. Cheers! 109.189.66.216 (talk) 11:34, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * "The Argument from Homosexuality" for people who are of this sexual orientation runs very well with Gödel's ontological argument, that starts like this, roughly, "Definition 1: x is God-like if and only if x has as essential properties those and only those properties which are positive", and that can be simplified/split up with a number of smaller deductions. Check it out yourself... 95.34.55.180 (talk) 18:28, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Since none of the arguments presented support Christianity, but only at most a Deistic/Pandeistic Creator, it doesn't really make sense to suppose the Argument from Homosexuality addresses any different of a deity than any of the others -- surely none of which support the illogical cave-man God's invent by the Abrahamics. Naturally this is especially true through the frame of knowledge of those who understand how Pandeism supersedes all theistic theological models, since theistic models inherently require a deity which is not powerful enough to have created our Universe pandeistically. But it is sad and unfortunate that you deem the beliefs that rape and slavery are morally wrong are for other people than yourself. But I gathered already that you belong to a faith which falsely holds rape and slavery as morally better things than failing to keep an arbitrary day meaninglessly and arbitrarily 'holy'.... DeistCosmos (talk) 18:55, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Again, DeistCosmos, your words seem incoherent and do not belong here! 95.34.55.167 (talk) 06:47, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * "The Argument from Homosexuality" for people who are of this sexual orientation runs very well with Gödel's ontological argument, that starts like this, roughly, "Definition 1: x is God-like if and only if x has as essential properties those and only those properties which are positive", and that can be simplified/split up with a number of smaller deductions. Check it out yourself... 95.34.55.180 (talk) 18:28, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Since none of the arguments presented support Christianity, but only at most a Deistic/Pandeistic Creator, it doesn't really make sense to suppose the Argument from Homosexuality addresses any different of a deity than any of the others -- surely none of which support the illogical cave-man God's invent by the Abrahamics. Naturally this is especially true through the frame of knowledge of those who understand how Pandeism supersedes all theistic theological models, since theistic models inherently require a deity which is not powerful enough to have created our Universe pandeistically. But it is sad and unfortunate that you deem the beliefs that rape and slavery are morally wrong are for other people than yourself. But I gathered already that you belong to a faith which falsely holds rape and slavery as morally better things than failing to keep an arbitrary day meaninglessly and arbitrarily 'holy'.... DeistCosmos (talk) 18:55, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Again, DeistCosmos, your words seem incoherent and do not belong here! 95.34.55.167 (talk) 06:47, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Again, DeistCosmos, your words seem incoherent and do not belong here! 95.34.55.167 (talk) 06:47, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Again, DeistCosmos, your words seem incoherent and do not belong here! 95.34.55.167 (talk) 06:47, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * And also like we discussed before, 109, your logic is defective. ESP provides no evidence either way about God. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 16:05, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

The Problem of Evil - The Practical Side
The consequence by invoking "The Problem of Evil" as an argument doesn't mean that religions go away. No, it makes it a duty for the "Atheist" to improve the World by becoming a Humanist and from this position to prove that Humanism serves humanity "much better than any religion can do". Obviously, this is implausible to start with, also with "Atheist" Humanism being so young as life view, as life philosophy! Note: The Problem of Evil can't justify an active Agenda of Evil simply because this destroys the entire civilisation no less than the very nukes! Conclusion: Atheism with Sociobiology is still out from the universities. 82.164.5.154 (talk) 19:49, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * This talk page is for discussing ways to improve this article, not a forum for expressing your moral opinions. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 13:23, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

A Ground for Existence?
One has to ask if Nature has a ground for its existence. The question of God is greater than whether ideals exist or not. Kantian philosophy came to the conclusion that we cannot know the ultimate nature of reality since there are limits to perception. Modern quantum mechanics adopts a similar position with theories about observations being given a probabilistic interpretation. One can contrast the perspective of ancient philosophers who treated perception as a projection by the observer of qualities onto the objects (projectivism). The appearance of the Earth (ground) played an important role in creation myths of ancient Egypt and Babylon. --Jbergquist (talk) 04:49, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

rational warrant
1. The section is dominated by Hinman's book - an obvious attempt at marketing. 2. All philosophy rests on rational warrant, it's not unique to theism, and by claiming rational warrant, it simply leapfrogs over the entire question and claims rational warrant. 3. No mention of Plantinga? An actual philosopher who has a serious book on the subject, titled Warrant? 4. "Rational Warrant" isn't a thing. It's "Warrant" full stop. By what other measure would a belief be warranted in believing? Irrational warrant? This is only used by theologians trying to wedge in rationality into something that can't be rationalized. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barnesen (talk • contribs) 15:09, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Negative Atheism vs Agnostic Atheism
These two seems to be the same thing, reading from the article. I think it should either be made clearer what the two different mean or remove agnostic atheism, since I think you get the impression that they are the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.69.50.244 (talk) 21:03, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

which God
Thats a wrong question. God doesn't belong to anyone or to any religion. It seems that you are assuming that God needs to belong to a religion. However, He is above religions. Ryanspir (talk) 18:02, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The better question would be, "what sort of God?" A pantheistic one which is identical to our Universe? A deistic one, which sets forth our Universe and thereafter does not need to intervene in its affairs for it to function properly? A pandeistic one, which accomplishes both things? A Greek or Norse type pantheonistic being which behaves like an inflated human, with petty vanities and jealousies? Or even a maleficent deity which watches our suffering and does not intervene because it is pleased by pain and war and the odor of burning flesh? DeistCosmos (talk) 18:39, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * If God exists our attempts to define him are likely to be futile. That's why I have proposed the most inclusive definition. Ryanspir (talk) 10:40, 26 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm Australian and have spent some time with some of our Aboriginal people. They helped me learn a lot more about the Dreamtime, when ancestral totemic spirit beings created the world. I keep wondering how questions like Ryanspir's apply to belief systems like that. HiLo48 (talk) 07:08, 26 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, I myself stayed with about ten indigenous tribes in Eastern Africa, such as Masai and Samburu. Learned Kiswahili to understand them better. What do you mean, how do they apply? I haven't stayed with Aboriginal australian people, though would be excited to do so. I would assume they don't believe in God? They have totemic spirit beings as you have said. So, interestingly, what would they answer to a question who has created the totemic spirits and Dreamtime? Ryanspir (talk) 10:40, 26 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I think you just missed my point entirely. And as soon as you ask "I would assume they don't believe in God?" I simply ask in return "Which god?" Getting the picture yet? HiLo48 (talk) 11:55, 26 April 2013 (UTC)


 * As soon as I'm offered to drink water, I'm asking: "What water"? :) Water is a water. Do you need a molecular analysis? Or on atomic level? On on a quark level? For the purpose of your example with aborigines, God would be the entity that has created Dreamtime and ancestral totemic spirits. If you want a generic definition of God without inclusion of religions, consider to open a new topic and lets have the discussion :). Ryanspir (talk) 18:53, 27 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I truly have no idea what you're talking about. "As soon as I'm offered to drink water, I'm asking: "What water"?" is nonsensical. As is inventing a role for your idea of "God", whatever that is, in the Aboriginal Dreamtime. HiLo48 (talk) 19:04, 27 April 2013 (UTC)


 * In the context of this article there is only one God, just like there is only one HiLo48 in this conversation. God is its name.  Don't confuse with the small g gods, like Zeus and Hades.  Arzel (talk) 18:01, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * In other words, this article is about the existence of a god named God, not about the existence of other gods. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 20:01, 26 April 2013 (UTC)


 * OK, I'll ask my question again. Did Aristotle and Plato really just discuss a god name God, as the article suggests, or did they perhaps have broader minds? Should the lead of the article tell readers that it's only about a god named God? HiLo48 (talk) 21:40, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Indeed -- for the Christian god is named Yahweh, the Islamic god is Allah, the Hindu (ultimate) god is Vishnu, so God as a name is perhaps exclusive of all of them, a superentity before whom all the revelational gods bow. But as a name, "God" could be of a concept, like "Logic" or "Destiny" or "Karma" or "Nature." Naturally we do not usually capitalize the others except when discussing them as personifications. DeistCosmos (talk) 17:20, 27 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Yahweh is actually Jewish name for a God, not a christian one I guess. All the listed names however refer to the same God. You may also consider that Christianity and Islam has branched from Judaism. Ryanspir (talk) 18:53, 27 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Why did you use a capital G in "Yahweh is actually Jewish name for a God..." It's grammatically incorrect, and really demonstrates confusion. HiLo48 (talk) 19:04, 27 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, if He has indeed created us, the least I can do is to write his name with a capital "G". :) As a sign of respect, as I have said on a prior occasion. Ryanspir (talk) 16:37, 28 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty sure there's no article here in Wikipedia declaring, with reliable sources, that God created us. It seems you're off on the Conservapedia tangent. HiLo48 (talk) 09:49, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I have just stated my personal opinion. I didn't participate in the editing of the article. Ryanspir (talk) 17:08, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * And I pointed out how your personal opinion is distorting this discussion. Pretty sure our manual of style doesn't tell us to capitalize pronouns "as a sign of respect". HiLo48 (talk) 21:06, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yahweh is actualy the Jewish name for God. God is a proper name in the context of this article.  Arzel (talk) 02:59, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's true, but "he" is just a common or garden pronoun. When Ryanspir capitalised it at 16:37, 28 April 2013 (UTC) he showed his true colours. HiLo48 (talk) 08:24, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * God in the context of this article is a proper name and proper names are capitalized. What exactly is your problem with this distinction?  Arzel (talk) 14:48, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Well there's a question there, isn't there? As to whether we are speaking of a very large and powerful person named 'God' or of a philosophical concept of a powerful entity which is not a person. If the concept is to be capitalized then we must convey, for example, that Zeus was a God of the Greeks, and that He threw lightning from mountaintops to show His anger at those who made inadequate sacrifices to Him, in precisely the same way that Yahweh is the God of the Jews, inherited by Christians, who cast His own lightning bolts at those whose sacrifices were not satisfying to Him. This same issue drives the use of pronouns -- why is the concept of a creator entity referred to as a 'He' except for decidedly misogynistic tradition? Does 'He' have a penis and testicles, and does 'He' impregnate women by entering their vagina with His turgidly erect penis, veins throbbing, thrusting t hereinto until His prostate vivulates, His sweat-drenched anus involuntarily clenches, and He has an orgasm wherein He ejaculates semen from His testicles? For all of these things are necessarily wrapped up in the testicular pronoun, 'He.' But are we not speaking of something which is greater than a 'He,' something which transcends penis genderification? Or is the notion of 'God' somehow inexorably wedded to the bigotry and the chauvinism of the woman-enslavers and rape-enablers of the past? DeistCosmos (talk) 15:58, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Zeus was a god of the Greeks. The greeks had many gods and the word god in the sense is part of a group and non-singular.  Yahweh was a Hebrew name for God.  I think I will ignore the rest of your insulting commentary.  You don't have to believe in the concept of a singular God or anything, but you don't have to be a jerk about it at the same time.  Arzel (talk) 16:35, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * My commentary was only 'insulting' towards hopelessly anthromorphised pensified deity models. It can not rationally be doubted that a deity which can be referred to as 'He' (capitalized or no) is thereby and by its own allowance limited to being a being which fails at the transcendence of gender. But as to the polytheistic model, is it not then proper to propose that Allah is the God of Muslims, Ahuru Mazda the God of Zoroastrans, and the Deus the God of Deists and Pandeists? DeistCosmos (talk) 17:52, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * And why on Earth would you presume to know anything about my belief in the concept of a singular deity? Rejecting lame characterizations of an aspect of a notion is hardly the same as rejecting virile aspects of that notion. DeistCosmos (talk) 18:02, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I should have written “one of the various gods called God”. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 19:44, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * If the 'Christian' deity and the 'Jewish' deity are the same deity (Jesus seems to have thought they were) then its name is Yahweh -- I see no name change announced. It is unlikely that it is Vishnu or Marduk. But when we speak of the god envisioned by the philosophers, by Plato and Aristotle and perhaps even by Eriugena and Bruno and Spinoza, we speak of a different entity altogether from any spoken of in man's mythohistoric texts, for there is a distinction between that which is pass down in stories and that which is arrived at through logical contemplation of our Universe. If an entity is responsible for creating us, all we can properly know of it is that it had the power to create us, and some reason which made such creation seem a useful thing to do. Anything beyond that is guesswork, and can not logically be assigned to any being. But as to the name of such thing -- well, looking to Alan Dawe's The God Franchise and Bernard Haisch's The God Theory and Paul Davies' The Mind of God, there seems to be at the least a 'let's call it God' sort of sensibility amongst those who speak of a creator-entity, even if such is quite sharply divorced from any of the mythic creatures. DeistCosmos (talk) 03:34, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The God or as you call it deity might be the same, however they use different names to call it. Also, even Jewish use different names for God. However, in English, we say God. Ryanspir (talk) 17:08, 29 April 2013 (UTC)


 * In English, God is word used to call various gods. Article talks about existence of God, not any exact god, but common god, not any exact example. I think this discussion must end here before this turns into Edit Warring and article may be frozen on Wrong Version. --Volksjäger (talk) 15:27, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Wrong. In English "God" (capital G) is singular and refers to the supreme being and the creator of the universe, if you believe.  Small g "god" refers to the gods of ancient Greece, Egypt, etc.  If you have a problem with that take it up with M-W or any of the other dictionary makers.  Arzel (talk) 02:23, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Volksjäger is right, “God” can refer to various gods: Yahweh, Allah, Ahura Mazda, Brahman, &c. Monotheistic religions often refer to their god as “God”. (Some duotheistic religions, too, call their male god “God”.) But here we’re using it generically to refer to any monotheistic creator deity, not a particular god called “God”. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk)
 * You are wrong as well. Those are all the same word for God.  Same entity, diferent word to describe that entity.  It is quite easy.  God for the singular entity, gods for those like Zeus and Venus.  Don't make it more difficult than it is.  Arzel (talk) 13:57, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * This article is about common God, which created universe and not Zeus or Poseidon like gods. --Volksjäger (talk) 14:18, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I used Zeus and Venus as examples of lower case "god". Arzel (talk) 21:10, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Don’t be overly simplistic. Brahman has rather different properties than Allah, which has different properties from Ahura Mazda. They’re essentially different deities, not just different words for the same deity. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 00:57, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Don't be overly complex. You are simply wrong and there does not seem to be anyway to show you that you are wrong.  Arzel (talk) 21:10, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I could enumerate differences between those deities, but I doubt that would persuade you. And since you admit you cannot justify your opinion, we shall have to agree to disagree. Röbin Liönheart (talk) 13:40, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It seems like this should be retitled "Existence of god(s)", or "Existence of the Divine", or something along those lines. I admit it's difficult to frame in a concise English phrase, but the word God has too much Christian and monotheistic baggage to work as a suitable generic term for any arbitrary god or gods that are being discussed.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.43.247.29 (talk) 00:39, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

The problem of evil is distinct from the problem of suffering
This article confounds the problem of evil with the problem of suffering. The problem of evil is can be straightforwardly explained by appeal to free will. The problem of suffering that isn't caused by free will - e.g. due to disease - is much harder to deal with. In my opinion, the article under question should distinguish between these (distinct!) problems, the "problem of evil" article should be shortened considerably, and a new "problem of suffering" article should be created. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.96.67.93 (talk) 21:45, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Existence of God. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110725102100/http://brahmakumaris.org/about-us/history/60.html to http://brahmakumaris.org/about-us/history/60.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 09:46, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

God existance logical proof
[|See William S. Hatcher demonstration] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.245.16.100 (talk) 12:26, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * If valid, this would be a proof of Deism or Pandeism. But.... I have found an error in it. On page 47, he makes an implicit assumption that Time is linear. Per Albert Einstein/Stephen Hawking, it is not. Pandeist (talk) 05:13, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The link doesn't work for me. Anyways, if people want to share reading suggestions on this topic, I recommend Dr. Richard Carrier's writings on the subject, they are the best I've ever seen.  BrianPansky (talk) 05:18, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

The Theist Conclusions Section
Currently the Theism part of the conclusions section does not match the other sections in the Conclusion section. The other sections briefly describe what the conclusion is (in many varieties such as weak atheism, strong atheism, agnosticism, etc.). The Theism section is much more wordy and mentions arguments. The arguments should stay in the argument section, not the Conclusions section.

I think it is clear that the Theism part of the Conclusions section should list the variety of theist conclusions, like monotheism, pantheism, polytheism. But also Deism needs to be in the Conclusion section somewhere, this article isn't "existence of theistic gods" it is "existence of god" which can include non-theistic gods such as a deistic god. BrianPansky (talk) 05:39, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

How Should We Organize Counter-Arguments?
Some of these counter arguments should at the very least be moved to a different section. In many cases it doesn't make sense to classify such arguments as a deductive proof that god does or does not exist (this would be committing the fallacy fallacy), we can only classify them (at best) as arguments which deductively prove that the opponent's argument is flawed. I would suggest either having a separate section for these kinds of counter arguments, or else only list counter arguments next to the arguments that they counter. BrianPansky (talk) 21:40, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Rival Hypothesis
Exploring the idea of using history, such as Rome's use of Religion, Bible quotes, and the Canaan language and religion to offer not logic, but historical hypothesis for God. No logic required. What will pass muster?GESICC (talk) 22:32, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

the problems with this article
There are many problems with this article that I've found on reading it.

For one, basic philosophical facts are mistakenly worded and just plain wrong, for example, Aquinas' five-ways arguments being presented under the heading of 'Empirical arguments', when they are in fact deductive. Also, the general absurdity of this article as it delves into a plurality of isolated and obscure 'views' with no clear relevance to the problem at hand.

A reader of this article should expect an analytic, encyclopedic understanding of the problem at hand, how it relates to other problems and many approaches which have been taken to the issue.

What they are presented with, however, is an article which has an overwhelming bias towards atheist arguments that are simply bad in and of themselves, most of them resorting to the basic condition of 'not enough empirical proof'. This article is so thoroughly, jarringly novice that a first reader is justified in simply laughing and closing the tab. Due to the philosophical nature of the problem, much more work is needed from that portal, as what we have at the moment is seemingly just an echo chamber for atheist teenagers rather than anyone who actually has any training or knowledge of the subject, and way too much time to stare at their watchlists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muradgalena (talk • contribs) 15:20, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Muradgalena is edit warring to include grammatically incorrect edits such as..

“A plurality of positions have been taken to this question, differing on epistemological as well as theological-metaphysical positions, for instance, fideism acknowledges that belief in the existence of God may not be amenable to demonstration or refutation (by empirical means), but is taken on faith alone.” and “Since such beliefs are metaphysical in nature (outside the scope of the senses), and hence one outside any empirical verification, the existence of God is subject to lively debate in the philosophy of religion, popular culture, and philosophy” Please double check that your edits actually make sense.Theroadislong (talk) 15:25, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

If this makes no sense to you then I recommend you migrate to the Simple English wiki.Muradgalena (talk) 15:28, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * While it seems perfectly correct to me too, it is sort of verging on jargon overload. I agree with Muradgalena about the state of the article, but we need to keep in mind that the article should be readable and accessible by ordinary laymen. Elizium23 (talk) 03:50, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I am an ordinary layman... the partial sentence "A plurality of positions have been taken to this question" would this be better put as "A plurality of positions have been taken with regard to this question" Theroadislong (talk) 11:56, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I reverted the original edit because, as I stated, it didn't make sense to the layman. Here is a more detailed look at why I said this. Taking examples from the edit:

'Since such beliefs are metaphysical in nature (outside the scope of the senses), and hence one outside any empirical verification, the existence of God is subject to lively debate in the philosophy of religion, popular culture, and philosophy' Sentence is grammatical incorrect. 'A plurality of positions have been taken to this question, differing on epistemological as well as theological-metaphysical positions, for instance, fideism acknowledges that belief in the existence of God may not be amenable to demonstration or refutation (by empirical means), but is taken on faith alone.' This sentence is grammatically incorrect. It is also overly long making it difficult to follow the exact meaning. For a lay reader they shouldn't have to re-read each sentence a number of times. 'The Catholic Church maintains that knowledge of the existence of God is the "natural light of human reason". Catechism of the Catholic Church, Paragraph 47; cf. Canons of the First Vatican Council, 2:2, endorsing St. Thomas Aquinas' 'four ways' theodicy, and his theology in particular as doctrine, whereas atheists deny the existence of god on a priori grounds, rejecting argumentation for the existence of God as illegitimate and inadequate for the belief in a supernatural deity.' Again an overly long sentence mixing support for God's existence with the belief of Atheists. These two points should be separate sentences. 'One of the main areas of contention for any argument for or against the existence of god is the problems that arise when attempting to conceive of god, an entity which is universally posited as a transcendent and ultimate being, and hence resisting human categories and thus also the epistemic limitations that these necessarily involve'. Grammatically incorrect and needs a citation to support the 'main claim' part of the section not just an example from Kant (although this example is good because of his status in philosophy). It is not that I, or any other editors, think the current article does not need editing - it does - but any changes should improve the article, not add to its issues. A rewrite of your material would sort out these problems. And finally it is really not acceptable to state that another editor should switch to reading a Simple English version of the article because they object to your edit. Robynthehode (talk) 07:18, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Mathematical proof
Is there any reliable source that proves the existence of God via mathematics (and/or probability theory)?

I'll try give a few examples: For example a person takes a coin and throws it 100 times in the air, each time saying: head or tails, for tails being God exists and for head means doesn't. Suppose 100 hundred times in a row the coin will show tail, much beyond 50/50 chance, should it be considered as a prove that God exist?

Next example, let's say a person throws the coin for another matter(s), and the coin consistently shows him an intelligent way of how to act defeating any normal probability patterns.

These two examples are not to be discussed, they are merely to demonstrate a point of view. However, the talk page is not to be used for a discussion, and so, my question is: are there any reliable sources that are trying to prove God's existence via mathematics and/or probability theory? Broadly speaking, when anything happens in the Universe that wouldn't be happening would there be no intelligent force whom we call God - it should be proving His existence. Dmatteng (talk) 09:05, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * See, for example A probability problem in the fine-tuning argument. Brandmeistertalk  08:41, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I wonder, is the essay is a reliable source, and/or the sources that it uses? If yes, we should probably incorporate it in some form to the article. Dmatteng (talk) 10:10, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

re Descartes and typos
@Isambard Kingdom: thanks for noticing that (as I indicated in my edit summary) that "mathematecian" was a typo. Not sure why Gonzales_John failed to notice that. That being said, I completely agree that titles [such as "mathematician" or "philosopher" are not used in this section, which was the other point of my edit, which I have reimposed. It's unnecessary to note (and previous text in the section does in fact not note) that Plato, Aristotle, Anselm, ibn Rushd, and Aquinas were also philosophers, hence it's certainly unnecessary to pigeonhole Descartes, who was also a mathematician, scientist, and soldier (his first profession). Tlroche (talk) 16:46, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

re Inductive arguments
an attempt to add a minor edit to this article was undone in a mere three minutes after my original attempt. the reason given by the person who took this action was a three minute determination that it was spam and someone's favorite book. i believe this was in error. I resubmitted the edit and made the point that it would have been impossible to declare this as spam without reading the book or refuting the inductive proof, neither of which were done. this one was then undone yet again as unexplained material, not integrated into article as well as spam, however hedged. i believe this is in error also. the minor edit is explained as another example of an inductive proof but different from the others in that it is a more recent one than the others that are listed. The nature of this inductive proof is explained as well as any of the other inductive proofs in the first bullet item. i happen to think it is worthwhile to show readers that not all existence of god proofs are over 100 years old and that indeed this is not just a topic of historical interest. To the point that it is not integrated into the article, there would be no better place than to include it as an additional bullet under inductive arguments. It is a minor edit and not meant to take up a lot of real estate. It was added to show that there is ongoing work being done on this topic, published work at that. And in fact, inductive arguments is the only topic in this article that has bullets with a single bullet item, Based on symmetry and contrast to the other bullet, it is the perfect place. I see no basis to definitively call this spam or to state that it appears to be spam. A reference was supplied and the reference indeed includes as perhaps the major element of the work an inductive proof of the existence of god. It is as reliable as an inductive proof can get, and a strong one on the measurement scale for inductivity.

Additionally and even more to the point, I believe that this small edit satisfies the three main article policies outlined by Wikipedia.

No original research: "The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. By "exists", the community means that the reliable source must have been published and still exist—somewhere in the world, in any language, whether or not it is reachable online—even if no source is currently named in the article. Articles that currently name zero references of any type may be fully compliant with this policy—so long as there is a reasonable expectation that every bit of material is supported by a published, reliable source. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources."

Neutral Point of View: "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." This small edit does not upset the balanced view within the entire article concerning the existence of god. It merely identifies an additional inductive reasoning proof from modern times and strengthens that segment of the article, which lacks enough mention to inductive proof compared with other parts of the article.

Verifiability: I"n Wikipedia, verifiability means that anyone using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it."

On this basis, in my opinion the edit should remain.

I do not impinge any bad faith motives to the contributor who is deleting this edit. I notice that he is a long time contributor to this article and respect that. In this case however, it is my opinion that he might be taking a personal ownership in the content of the article which is contrary to the article policies outlined by Wikimedia. His rush to judgment in deleting my original edit within three minutes was without merit in my opinion. He continues to imply that I am acting in bad faith in entering this edit as well as now supplying additional reasons of lack of explanation and poor integration, both of which in my opinion are incorrect for the reasons I stated above. If he persists in deleting this edit, it is likely that we will have reached a point where arbitration will be necessary. Bigcityrichard (talk) 18:16, 10 September 2016 (UTC)


 * This editor is apparently very familiar with the book "The World Trade Center Stories: 15th Anniversary Edition", and perhaps this is why he cites it in this article. I have nominated the article about this book for deletion: . Isambard Kingdom (talk) 19:07, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

It will not go unnoticed that you have now developed a fourth reason why this edit should be deleted. There was no intent in any of my articles to hide authorship and I have no expectation to sell any of these books with or without the edit or article. Whatever happened to assume good faith and avoid personal attacks. God bless you my friend.Bigcityrichard (talk) 19:34, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Proofs of God
I have six ontological proofs of God. 

One of them is scientific i.e. it uses scientific facts as axioms. which have already been verified by experiment

therefore the third paragraph needs to be updated

from "Scientists follow the scientific method, within which theories must be verifiable by physical experiment. On that basis the existence of god, for which evidence cannot be tested, is incompatible with science."

to "Scientists follow the scientific method, within which theories must be verifiable by physical experiment. On that basis the existence of god, for which evidence can now be tested, is compatible with science." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Subtlevirtue (talk • contribs) 02:03, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * --As sure as you have the proof, the general scientific community doesn't possess the same.Cheerio! And the wikiersity material is superbly fantastic!But don't confuse Wikipedia with Wikiversity Winged Blades Godric 15:25, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Propose to change word "notion" to the neutral word "idea", which is consistent with academic practices
The new working would be:

"In philosophical terms, the idea of the existence of God involves the disciplines of epistemology (the nature and scope of knowledge) and ontology (study of the nature of being, existence, or reality) and the theory of value (since concepts of perfection are connected to the idea of God)."

KSci (talk) 01:12, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I reworded the sentence in question, but rather differently. -- Beland (talk) 06:58, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

more problems with this article
for people keen on using rational arguments and logic to discuss the existence of creation and a function of it the article has so many ignorant statements, opinions and fallacious arguments the whole of it has become a non-credible, ignorant diatribe by several non-believers. It includes nothing about the origins of belief in God, what God is (all of creation), how God speaks (noted several times in the Bible & other places as dreams and visions) or why God isn't able to be defined by religionaries or theologians (or anyone else because being all of creation it is hard to put God into an image or symbol and that defining God as a communication as a dream or vision has serious limitations too).

What God isn't is easily identified immediately on finding how God speaks to us, in other words God isn't a human or sun or any other object turned into an idol. That ignorant religionaries in the past, such as Augustine, didn't know what they were talking about isn't terribly surprising but why would anyone use him or any other opinionated source to form an argument to prove what none of the non-believers and most of the bureaucratic religionaries didn't understand? If you use the views of non-believers who don't understand that God is most often identified by the communication provided you get exactly nothing from their lame arguments and obviously crippled logic. In other words, short of rewriting the whole article, what is stated in it is so inadequate and biased as to constitute intentional fraud by its various ignorant authors because all they do is show their glee at exposing ignorance and endless amounts of their own ignorance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.47.146.69 (talk) 14:49, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, you raise several points:
 * Not covering origin of belief in God -
 * If you mean historically for a given society in general, that might be better covered in-depth at development of religion or history of theology or in a linked article somewhere (maybe separately for each specific religion?). Though this article does explain that the fact that we can see that religions developed historically and that they conflict with each other (and most people consider most religions other than their own to be untrue) are used as arguments against the existence of God.
 * If you mean for individual people, that's an interesting question. Not sure it should be covered here or at belief in God or somewhere more specific, but it would be very interesting to see survey results that give explanations from the believer's point of view.  For example, how many followers of Islam would say they were simply raised believing, they studied the Quran and found it persuasive, they find the religious explanations of how the world was created make sense, they feel religion is necessary for morality, they can't deal with the idea that there is no afterlife, they had a personal experience that convinced them, they heard about the religion from a missionary, etc.  I can't put my finger on that data, I only see lists of reasons why non-believers think believers are fooled into believing.  If anyone can find this sort of info, point me at it and I'll be happy to incorporate it.
 * Not covering problems of defining God - the section "Definition of God" goes into this, though I just made some improvements which I hope clarify the range of options.
 * Not mentioning God is defined as a communication partner - this is a good point, and I added some material about how God is defined as the entity that answers prayers or communicated with certain people historically or wrote certain texts.
 * General ignorance of the article - I'm not sure why you think the whole article should be thrown out. Other than the points I listed above, are there specific things in the article you think are wrong or lacking context or otherwise have actionable problems?
 * -- Beland (talk) 07:41, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Restructuring
Today I re-read Pro and con lists with this article in mind, and I think to avoid some of the shortcomings pointed out there, a rearrangement of this article would be helpful. I think it would be best to put the "Conclusions" section up front as "Positions", defining terms and explaining the different types of theism, atheism, agnosticism, etc. I think this makes it easier to use the terms concisely later in the article. Then I'd like to reorganize the substantive arguments by type of arguments, and put the for and against in the same section for each type. There are those that support certain supernatural phenomena, some that support the general notion of a God or gods, and some that support a specific definition of a universal God. There are also philosophical arguments like "God is necessary to create the universe" vs. specific empirical claims like "Jesus said he was God" vs. personal reasons for believing in God (like "I had a near-death experience" or "I was just raised that way") which previous comments on this talk page point out are rather missing.

A bunch of arguments for which we have entire articles are missing (see the links on Template:Philosophy of religion sidebar) so I'm adding those to the article as I go. I also have some print sources that I'm reading which will hopefully help prevent a shortage of citations to reliable sources. This restructuring will probably take me a few days or weeks to get through; just wanted to leave a note here to explain why the article might look weird while it's in transition, or in case anyone had any opinions on the matter they wanted to share. -- Beland (talk) 19:16, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Existence of God. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051012172554/http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/flew01.htm to http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/flew01.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:47, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Is there a reason the teleological argument is not listed ...
... as one of the arguments for the existence of God? 108.20.213.77 (talk) 00:32, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Because you didn't notice it? See under Existence of God . . dave souza, talk 01:29, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Existence of God. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130314123846/http://mind.ucsd.edu/syllabi/02-03/01w/readings/plantinga.html to http://mind.ucsd.edu/syllabi/02-03/01w/readings/plantinga.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:19, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Dawkins
Richard Dawkins is described as a scientist. I am not sure that this is true. His 1967 thesis was entitled "Selective pecking in the domestic chick". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.24.109.228 (talk) 16:58, 27 June 2017 (UTC)


 * He qualifies somewhat as holder of PhD, but really he does not do science, he is a science advocate and an anti-religious speaker and author. He is co-author of Oxford Illustrated Science Encycopedia but is better knwon for many popular books ranting about religion as evil and offering a bit of scientism.  Markbassett (talk) 00:20, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Dawkins is a scientist. A Ph.D. in science does not qualify someone "somewhat"; it qualifies them (by definition - it is why we call it a "qualification").  He may be better known for other things; that has no bearing on "questions" about whether or not he is a scientist.  A linguist who tap-dances is no less a linguist for tap-dancing.  Cpaaoi (talk) 11:50, 28 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Zoologist, evolutionary biologist, educator, author, advocate of critical thinking (and atheism), critic of creationism, but also very notable (so are his works), which is why they are commonly discussed or quoted (especially in articles on relevant topics). — Paleo  Neonate  – 01:08, 20 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia has a list of Dawkins's academic papers. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 06:36, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Further Arguments that need to be discussed
Argument from magic In the news today, you get images and videos that seem very probable as magic. They could be CGI and fake, of course, but not all of them, probably. UFO reports could be reports of magic. The Divine is a perquisite of the Divine magic. Per in Sweden (talk) 00:21, 21 March 2018 (UTC)


 * For a weak example, look at this video http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5523581/Remarkable-moment-feisty-rodent-turns-table-cat-scares-him.html Per in Sweden (talk) 14:57, 21 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Regarding above video, the cat is a symbol for the Devil, throughout medieval history in Europe. Of course, the cat and the rat are opposites, just like the Devil and God.Per in Sweden (talk) 15:19, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Argument from coincidences In the news today, you get report of amazing coincidences. They could be fake news, of course, but not all of them. This amazing timing hints that something Divine want to teach us something. Thus a high probability of the Divine. Per in Sweden (talk) 00:18, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) The first part of your argument is totally irrelevant, because God and magic are completely unrelated things. There is every reason why God could exist and not magic or vice versa. (Indeed, most orthodox Christians today would contend that belief in magic is incompatible with a Biblical worldview.) 2) I can only assume that the second part of your argument is yet another joke, because I do not think any serious person has ever tried to use an internet cat video as evidence for the existence of God, or for any other philosophical question for that matter. 3) This is still original research. All information on Wikipedia must be cited to a reliable source. We cannot just write whatever we feel like. Please refrain from wasting our time with non-serious proposals. There is real work that needs to be done here. --Katolophyromai (talk) 20:19, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Deductive Argument that needs to be discussed
Russian Quantum Physics Argument

The double slit experiment is the basis. In this experiment you can for instance send electrons, one at a time through a plate with two slits and then the electrons hit a screen onto which a pattern emerges. The pattern proves that electron are waves. Even if you send one electron at a time. If you place detectors at the slits to see which one of the two slits the electron pass through, then the pattern on the screen shows that the electrons are now particles. The detectors do not really interfere with the electrons, it is the fact that an observer observes the electrons that causes the electrons to become particles. Now the interesting point is that even if no human observes the data from the detectors, then the electrons will still behave as particles. Thus this proves there exist an observer that is not human. An observer with computation, memory and senses. I.e the divine. This proof is true if you believe the laws of physics are true. Otherwise it is not a proof. Per in Sweden (talk) 21:02, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Unless you can provide reliable, academic sources making this argument, all your statements above qualify as original research, which is strictly forbidden here at Wikipedia. --Katolophyromai (talk) 20:08, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Physics links related to double slit experiment (which proves the validity of the physics involved, the rest is just logic)

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2015/may/26/do-atoms-going-through-a-double-slit-know-if-they-are-being-observed

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1998/02/980227055013.htm Per in Sweden (talk) 21:56, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Neither of these are reliable sources. Furthermore, the source must make the same argument that you are trying to make. We do not allow any kinds of leaps of logic in our articles; if the source does not explicitly say something in the most direct way, we cannot include it here. In any case, we want academic sources, so, in this instance, we need scholarly sources written by reputable theologians. --Katolophyromai (talk) 22:09, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Not reliable sources? What are you talking about? Peer reviewed quantum physics papers are as reliable as you can get. You want theologians to write science papers? Do not joke, either.Per in Sweden (talk) 22:14, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * These are both science magazines, not academic journals, and I am fairly certain that neither of them are peer-reviewed. In any case, that does not matter, because, even if they are reliable, neither of them say anything at all about the existence of God, which is the subject of this article. (In fact, the word "God" itself does not occur in either of the articles at all.) We need sources explicitly dealing with the subject of God's existence, not just sources you think could be used to argue for his existence.
 * Regarding your comment about "theologians writing science papers," the existence of God is not a scientific question; it is a philosophical one. Science deals with subjects that can be empirically verified through tests and observation; whereas philosophy deals with more abstract issues, such as "What is truth?", "Is it better to be good or evil?", or "Is there a God?" Theology is a branch of philosophy dealing with the study of the Divine. Naturally, therefore, arguments for the existence of God are going to come from philosophers and theologians, not from scientists, unless the scientist in question happens to also be a philosopher or a theologian. --Katolophyromai (talk) 22:52, 26 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Are you paranoid? Do you not trust those papers written by reputable authors, in a reputable academic science site. I do not know your background, but for you to doubt these papers is just laughable.


 * That there exist an observer that is not a human is self-evident from the physics involved and the Russian Quantum Physics Argument. That is not a leap of logic. Then if you call that observer "God", "The very evil Devil" or whatever, does not really matter. The self-evident fact is that there exist an observer that is not human. An observer must have computational powers, memory and senses, that is self-evident from the very essence of what an observer is.Per in Sweden (talk) 23:07, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Kant
It's possible that the recently removed claim was in relation to The Antichrist (book) but a similar claim there also lacked a direct citation, which I tagged. There is another similar claim at Immanuel Kant which I also tagged for lack of a reference. There also is The Only Possible Argument in Support of a Demonstration of the Existence of God although after reading that short article I still don't see a direct relation (evil considered to justify the existence of God). Thanks, — Paleo Neonate  – 03:01, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Vomeronasal
If I understand, this is an example of claimed forknowledge in sacred texts? Other than the issues in relation to such claims, the argument appears to be synthesis (unless a reliable source does mention the relation to that particular verse). I'll therefore revert it for now. — Paleo Neonate  – 17:32, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Prayer is the logical proof
Since We have the ability to pray, we must have been given this ability to pray to the creator to pray to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Willisthespirit (talk • contribs) 02:18, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * So by your "logic", Odin must have given Norsemen the ability to pray to Odin?~ Brahma must have given Hindus the ability to pray to Brahma?~ The Flying Spaghetti Monster must have given Pastafarians the ability to pray to the FSM?~ I think that silly argument is insufficiently notable to join the others in 'Arguments for the existence of God'. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 14:05, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

that "argument" is absurd and incomprehensible... not a valid statement — Preceding unsigned comment at dded by 2601:602:9D00:1FBF:68D8:34C:84A9:2796 (talk) 08:53, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

unsigned IP6 comment is in turn incoherent. Per in Sweden (talk) 01:41, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Since i have the ability to eat pasta and feel Go(o)d while eating it, therefore pastafarianism is true. Τζερόνυμο (talk) 14:01, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

We have the ability to move and to think. These are the only things praying requires and were given to us by evolution, not a god. --Wyrm127 (talk) 23:37, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Prayer is not proof Nyoung808 (talk) 07:27, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Aren't "empirical arguments" and "inductive arguments" basically the same thing?
I noticed that under both the section for arguments for the existence of God, and the section for arguments against the existence of God, there are two different sub-sections for "Empirical arguments" and "Inductive arguments." But these sub-sections do not seem to correspond to any actual distinction among the arguments themselves. So to clean things up I'd like to combine these two sections into one, called "Empirical arguments." Are there any objections? Montgolfière (talk) 01:18, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Induction is a type of logical process, while empiricism requires real-world evidence. Some empirical arguments are made using inductive methods, but some inductive arguments are primarily based on hypothetical premises. I would keep these categorizations separate. Rememberlands (talk) 19:07, 29 July 2019 (UTC)