Talk:Existence of God/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Logical argument of positive atheists

When I encountered this page it read in the section on positive atheism:

The strong atheist explicitly asserts the non-existence of gods. Strong atheists further assert that the existence of gods is logically impossible, stating that the combination of attributes which God may be asserted to have (omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, transcendence, omnibenevolence) are logically contradictory, incomprehensible, or absurd, and therefore the existence of a god is a priori false.

Which to me is incorrect, that is not a logical argument against "gods" but rather, like the sentence goes on to say, qualities of "God" that are logically impossible, so I changed it to:

The strong atheist explicitly asserts the non-existence of gods. Strong atheists further assert that the existence of a God is logically impossible, stating that the combination of attributes which God may be asserted to have (omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, transcendence, omnibenevolence) are logically contradictory, incomprehensible, or absurd, and therefore the existence of such a god is a priori false.

Which Begoon countered with a "minor" and unsummarized edit changing it to:

The strong atheist explicitly asserts the non-existence of gods. Strong atheists further assert that the existence of a god is logically impossible, stating that the combination of attributes which a god may be asserted to have (omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, transcendence, omnibenevolence) are logically contradictory, incomprehensible, or absurd, and therefore the existence of such a god is a priori false.

Which I reverted because this doesn't make sense, "a god" is not asserted to have those traits in general, those again are traits, as the sentence was originally phrased, of God. Begoon reverted again with the edit summary:

The statement begins "a form of atheism that asserts that no deities exist." and "asserts the non-existence of gods" "the existence of a God" etc. Thus it is dealing with ANY number of deities not simply a god with a G. Reword it if you like - but you can't have your cake AND eat it...

To which I here respond that Begoon is making an error and conflating the two sentences. Strong atheists make two distinct assertions: 1) that there are no gods at all and 2) that the qualities of God are a logical impossibility. These two sentences are not about precisely the same topic. There is not an inherent logical problem with "gods" existing (at least not described here), there is an evidential problem with that, the logical problem is with the constellation of qualities attributed to God, again, as the sentence originally read. I stand by my first fix to the sentence. Also, this article is specifically about God. —DIYeditor (talk) 10:49, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

You make a good argument, and I concede that the two statements could be viewed as separate. I wouldn't object to a rewording that makes it clearer that these are two separate statements and less likely for others to also "conflate" them - perhaps making it clearer that the one is 'evidential' while the other is 'logical impossibility'. But here's the thing - we shouldn't need to be having this discussion - the article should be clearly stating what positive atheists believe, based on reliable sources. Do we have a reliable source for the two separate beliefs/positions, and their specificity or not to gods, god, a god, a God, or God - in the way those terms are understood - or is this all speculation? -- Begoon 11:05, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Well I am just going from my understanding and reasoning, I did not even check the relevant articles. I noticed that these statements were not cited and had a problem so I tried to fix it into a factual form. The way it is worded now and the way it was originally worded are not accurate on the face of it (much like God - as described - doesn't exist on the face of it :)). —DIYeditor (talk) 11:17, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Which is lovely, and you and I could have a wonderful debate about how these two positions which positive atheists supposedly adopt might be more clearly described. However if all we are doing is trying to make some unsourced speculation that pre-existed in the article on an unclear basis into some more logically consistent, unsourced speculation then it strikes me we may both be "doing it wrong". -- Begoon 11:26, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

If part of your question is why specifically to use "a God", "God" and "such a god" in that sentence it is grammatical, but no doubt there are many ways to formulate this paragraph and it should be based on reliable sources for what "strong atheism" is about. I was looking at the fix more from a language/logic standpoint, and did not think it would be controversial. —DIYeditor (talk) 12:00, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Not at all. In order to make the separate statements: [1] positive atheists assert that there are no deities due to lack of evidence, and [2] positive atheists further assert that there cannot be a single, omnipotent deity because of the inherent logical contradictions (can this deity create an object so heavy he cannot lift it? etc..) - I understand why you think your wording is an improvement. I don't personally like all the "gods, god, a god, a God, or God" stuff and think there are probably ways to improve it - my use of deity/deities earlier in this comment might be one example. Really, though, by now the bigger question to me is whether we can justify/source having these two positions as a 'mini-definition' of positive atheism at all. Strikes me it's probably all a bit too elaborate and we might be better off with just the first two existing sentences: "Positive atheism (also called "strong atheism" and "hard atheism") is a form of atheism that asserts that no deities exist.[ref][ref][ref] The strong atheist explicitly asserts the non-existence of gods." unless the rest can be sourced as also definitive. -- Begoon 12:28, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Railfan23 I would like to have a statement at that location that strong atheists consider God, as commonly understood, to be logically impossible, because the combination of the traits omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, transcendence, and omnibenevolence is logically impossible. However if we cannot agree on a wording that does not imply that the argument is that "gods" are a logical impossibility, this has to be removed until some better material can be cited and paraphrased. I made a mistake with my first edit today in that I did not implement my preferred wording above and only made one change from "god" to "God" but I was running out of reverts and wanted to make the point that the wording preferred by Railfan and Begoon is uncited and incorrect, so I went with what Begoon had suggested, just remove it. —DIYeditor (talk) 20:05, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

I strongly agree with User:DIYeditor's most recent edit. I've never heard anyone use the word "strong atheism" to refer to the extreme position that it is a priori logically impossible for gods to exist. This also contradicts at least one of the sources cited in the Strong atheism section- see http://www.religioustolerance.org/atheist4.htm, which simply defines it as "a person who asserts that no deity exists." That's the common definition. Montgolfière (talk) 20:20, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Please explicate the logical argument against any "gods" existing and provide a good citation. It is not disputed that strong atheists deny that any god exists. I left that part. The question is whether the logical argument given is against any god existing. —DIYeditor (talk) 20:27, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

@Montgolfière: I apologize! I was so intent on correcting this material that I misread what you said. Thanks for your input. —DIYeditor (talk) 21:14, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

@DIYeditor: Strong atheists do not dismiss the existence of any particular god or pantheon of gods, they reject all gods equally. So to cast the statement in terms of one particular god (for example, the Christian God) is inaccurate. See Graham Oppy (6 May 2019). A Companion to Atheism and Philosophy. John Wiley & Sons. pp. 14–. ISBN 978-1-119-11911-1. which says: "Some wish to treat atheism as a context-sensitive term: one is, or is not, an atheist relative to some contextually-defined class of gods. On this proposal... pagan Romans can strictly be said to be atheists by believers in the Christian God... it is quite clear that the standard application of the term is to those who, for every possible contextual delimitation of a class of gods, insist that there are no such gods." So to say that strong atheists do not believe in God (as opposed to any god) is inaccurate. Likewise it is inaccurate to say that only the Christian God is believed by strong atheists to suffer from a logical contradiction. The list of attributes of the specific Christian God are an example of the kinds of claims that are attributed to some gods, not a way of limiting atheism to a disbelief in that particular god. I agree this section needs better wording a proper referencing. The Oppy reference is a start, let me find some more. Railfan23 (talk) 20:29, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

There may well be citable logical (rather than empirical) arguments against any god existing, but the one given was not such, so it could not be stated, effectively, that no god exists because some combinations of traits that any particular god may or may not have are logically impossible. I did not at all say "Strong atheists [only] do not believe in God" in fact I left the text that says they deny all gods. I simply removed the example given that was stated as being against all gods because it was not. It is not in dispute that strong atheists deny all gods exist. I welcome citations and refinements of this section but think we should leave it out until we have a cited, consensus version. Thanks. —DIYeditor (talk) 20:37, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

A proposal. How about we take out anything that could be seen as an argument against a specific god and have something like: Strong atheists explicitly reject the central tenet of theism: that a god or gods exist. They believe that the arguments in favour of gods in general, or in favour of a particular god, are invalid or are incompatible with other, valid, arguments This is from the source Michael Palmer (28 February 2013). Atheism for Beginners: A Coursebook for Schools and Colleges. Lutterworth Press. p. 1. ISBN 978-0-7188-4077-8.. Railfan23 (talk) 20:46, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Sounds correct to me, thanks. —DIYeditor (talk) 20:51, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Great. I'll leave this here for the next day or so, to see if there are other opinions. Railfan23 (talk) 02:22, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Hmmm, it seems to me that Palmer's definition of strong atheism is a bit too weak. If we interpret his definition at face value, it implies that anyone who rejects the validity of the arguments and evidence presented in favor of the existence of gods counts as a strong atheist. But such a person could easily also be a "negative atheist" or a "weak atheist" in the sense that they merely lack belief in gods, and do not actively assert the proposition that there are no gods. I would prefer that we use the definition presented at http://www.religioustolerance.org/atheist4.htm, namely: "a person who asserts that no deity exists." Christine Overall in The Cambridge Companion to Atheism (cited in the negative atheism section) on page 233 similarly defines positive atheism as "the belief that there is no God." While Overall's definition invokes the more classical definition of God (omnipotence/omniscience/omnibenevolence), with all its attendant problems, the basic idea of her concept of positive atheism is the same: the belief that no god(s) exist.

If we do not define positive atheism as the belief that there are no gods, it's not clear how we can make sense of our current definition of negative atheism: "any type of atheism other than positive, wherein a person does not believe in the existence of any deities, but does not explicitly assert there to be none." It seems that there is a general agreement among writers on this subject that the basic distinction between negative and positive atheism is that negative atheism is a lack of belief in gods (not being convinced that they exist), while positive atheism is a belief that there are in fact no gods. Positive atheists may not claim absolute certainty about this, and they may have various different reasons for asserting such a proposition, so we don't need to specifically cite logical contradictions as the reason why positive atheists might believe that no god exists. Montgolfière (talk) 12:02, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

That's fair, and I think Palmer does make this point, but I haven't captured it well in my precis. How about this version: Strong atheists assert that gods do not exist, rejecting the central tenet of theism. They believe that the arguments in favour of gods in general, or in favour of a particular god, are invalid or are incompatible with other, valid, arguments? Railfan23 (talk) 15:45, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

The thinking of some strong atheists might not go beyond "gods do not exist" rather than to the extent of rejecting any other arguments. —DIYeditor (talk) 22:16, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

I would simply say "Strong atheists positively assert that gods do not exist." The rest of it is unnecessary. Weak atheists also "reject the central tenet of theism" in a certain sense, simply by being unconvinced of the claim that there are any gods. And weak atheists would also probably agree that "the arguments in favour of gods in general, or in favour of a particular god, are invalid or are incompatible with other, valid, arguments." The only distinctive thing about strong atheists is that they make the positive assertion that there are no gods. Weak atheists simply aren't convinced that there are any. It's really not that complicated. Montgolfière (talk) 03:09, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Existence of God or a deity

Please add to the article that according to science, at present, the existence of God or a deity is unknown. Somebody400 (talk) 10:20, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

What does natural science have to do with it? Is someone working on building a God detector, or amplify God rays? Elizium23 (talk) 14:16, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Statements in the lede section need no citation as long as they are adequately backed by verifiable information in the body of the article. I have repaired the {{citation needed}} requests for text that you deleted. I moved your text to the "Empirical evidence" section against the existence of God. Elizium23 (talk) 14:51, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Natural science seeks to know about the nature. Therefore, natural science has to do with the existence of God. Is the existence of God not unknown according to science? Somebody400 (talk) 07:45, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

I would have worded your second sentence as "Natural science has nothing to do with the existence of God". Science can only comment on things we have reproducible evidence for. Gods don't satisfy that requirement. HiLo48 (talk) 09:23, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

It is perhaps disingenuous not to acknowledge that Natural science has sometimes undermined arguments that were formerly used to support the idea of an omnipotent creator; but it was a mere side effect, and not the prime intent of the investigators. Charles Darwin seems to have been initially pretty disturbed by this aspect of his theories. William Avery (talk) 12:10, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Is Christopher Hitchens a philosopher?

I've never heard of him being published in any peer-reviewed philosophy journals or other philosophical works.--HalMartin (talk) 12:28, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

No. Hitchens was not a philosopher but an author, journalist, and social critic. -- Alexf^(talk) 13:55, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Proof of monism new book

https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Proof_of_monism

Hi there is a new book called Proof of monism in the wikibooks project, and it should be noted that it does not merely have arguments which seem to prove a non-physical realm like most arguments... rather it proves the full ontology; eternal, omnipresent, all-power-full, omniscient, omnibenevolent from both logic and physics.

In the future I will be editing this page to include this real proof. If you have any suggestions please pose them now. thanks HumbleBeauty (talk) 01:40, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User:HumbleBeauty — Preceding unsigned comment added by HumbleBeauty (talk • contribs) 01:43, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi HB, no, please do not edit this page to reflect your own musings in "proof on monoism" as that is not a WP:reliable source. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 09:49, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

HumbleBeauty, : I notice that every edit you have so far made to Wikipedia has immediately been reverted, by experienced editors, as WP:OR. Wikipedia does not accept Original Research, or you own interpretation of facts or events, but relies on existing, published, reliable sources only. IdreamofJeanie (talk)

both wikibooks and wikiversity accept original research HumbleBeauty (talk) 15:47, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

What they do on separate Wikipedias is irrelevant to en.WP. Their rules may or may not be different. English Wikipedia has its own set of rules. -- Alexf^(talk) 16:06, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia quotes and uses as sources wikibooks and wikiversity … HumbleBeauty (talk) 04:39, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

HumbleBeauty Please see WP:UGC to see that 'wikis' in general are not accepted as a reliable source for Wikipedia. Whether there are cases of Wikipedia using Wikibooks (which does not accept original research) or Wikiversity as a source does not mean that that source is reliable. As a collaborative project there are lots of sources in Wikipedia that have been used in articles that are not reliable. Edits including unreliable sources are often reverted quickly but some remain and their removal relies on editors to check, challenge and remove. So saying 'Wikipedia quotes and uses sources wikibooks and wikiversity' does not justify your use of unreliable sources. Robynthehode (talk) 06:53, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

your mistaken, for example, wikiversity has a publishing journal for original research specifically to edit Wikipedia pages HumbleBeauty (talk) 05:17, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Reverted addition of external link by User:WaleedAhmadAddas

The external link (An Exhibition of Existence) added by User:WaleedAhmadAddas in revision 981513900 is a British Library link to "An exhibition of existence / Dr. Waleed Addas. Waleed Addas, author. [Singapore] : Partridge, [2019]". Based on the author name of the reference, and the user name, this appears to be WP:Conflict of interest.

I removed that addition in my edit. sbb (talk) 00:34, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Belief in God statistics, from reliable source, to be included?

"One in three scientists said they believed in God compared with 83% of the general population. Just under half the scientists polled said they had no religious affiliation, compared with only 17% of the public."

(source: https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/aug/27/religion-why-is-faith-growing-and-what-happens-next ) Per in Sweden (talk) 20:59, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

The "survey" was eleven years ago in the US, a country with only 5% of the world's population. We are given no details of how that survey was conducted. Not good enough for a quality, global encyclopaedia. HiLo48 (talk) 22:49, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

HiLo48, you're just saying that because you do/don't believe in God/surveys/Western democracies. Per in Sweden, none of this is relevant whatsoever--please do not confuse Wikipedia with Facebook. Drmies (talk) 22:51, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

LOL. I do have significant doubts about God, but surveys and Western democracies can be very useful. HiLo48 (talk) 23:03, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

83% is insane. In Russia it it like 25%. 2A00:1370:812D:F205:EC14:C86C:25A2:C741 (talk) 07:03, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Not really

The Vedas doesn't present problem of evil it only says about suffering and evil the problem of evil is later presented in Brihaspati sutra by Brihaspati written later after indra tried to attack asuras the history section needs some improvement most of it looks humorous though Also please don't delete this section it is relevant if someone can give me a verse where it presents the problem of evil then i will delete this section nasadiya sukta questions god in agnostic way though 950CMR (talk) 21:03, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

You said earlier, "The Vedas gives theories from Richard dawkins text or something what??? 950CMR (talk) 21:25, 14 June 2021 (UTC)". How can the Vedas religious script (many centuries old, long before Richard Dawkins (The Blind Watchmaker is his most famous book) was born) have theories from him? Per in Sweden (talk) 21:13, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

See the history section again it says something about the Vedas sir, 950CMR (talk) 21:19, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

If you had expressed it differently, that the Vegas religious texts had preceded Richard Dawkins theories, and given some example, it would have been a different matter. To say that the Vedas have theories from Richard Dawkins does not make sense.Per in Sweden (talk) 21:26, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

The history section says exactly that 950CMR (talk) 21:26, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

:Technically you are right, since I wrote exactly that. But in the spirit of things, it could be lie of you, if you understand what I mean by that. Do you really expect users to go through hundreds of edits, to find your evidence? Per in Sweden (talk) 21:59, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

A common misconception is that theism is ancient while atheism is modern, but mankind has been making arguments for and against the existence of deities—including, with the rise of monotheism, God—since the dawn of human history. Bronze Age texts such as the Vedas present various arguments against the deities, such as the problem of evil and the Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit, as well as arguments for the deities, such as argument from morality and Pascal's wager 950CMR (talk) 21:27, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

The history section is saying that Vedas present these agruements also you haven't Cleary read the history section i never said the Vedas present these agruements the history section says that 950CMR (talk) 21:29, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Also it's called Vedas not Vegas 950CMR (talk) 21:32, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Lie i'm not sure what you mean i have given you the history section also changing a airtcle is what admin does when requested by a person this not a situation where a person like you can jump in 950CMR (talk) 22:06, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you

For deleting the history section as it was too vague 950CMR (talk) 11:43, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Related Guardian article, sows doubts into atheists

after some googling, one can find this

"It looks as if someone is watching Mel Gibson's film, The Passion of Christ, very closely indeed. Actor Jim Caviezel, who plays Jesus, has been struck by lightning. The lighting bolt, which hit Caviezel and the film's assistant director Jan Michelini, struck while the pair were apparently filming in a "remote location" a few hours from Rome. BBC entertainment news reports that it is the second Michelini has been hit by lightning during the shoot."

(source: https://www.theguardian.com/film/2003/oct/27/news1 ) Per in Sweden (talk) 19:32, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@Per in Sweden: What has this got to do with the existence of god? Robynthehode (talk) 19:38, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@Robynthehode:Well if you read between the lines, the fifth quoted word possible refers possibly to what you ask about; thereby sowing doubts about the none-existance of a divine being, which strong atheists deny by 100%.Per in Sweden (talk) 19:50, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@Per in Sweden: What nonsense. And Wikipedia is based on reliable sources WP:RS, not your personal opinion of a divine being. Talk pages are for discussing and suggesting improvements to the article not for posting personal theories WP:TALK. I have given you the benefit of the doubt but unless you have something positive to contribute on how to improve the article please refrain from posting this kind of thing on the talk page. Robynthehode (talk) 20:14, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@Robynthehode: You do not need to be so rude. Let others have an opinion about what reading between the lines means in reality in this case, I know some autistic people have trouble with that concept. If the first sentence words were "It looks as if someone [God] is watching Mel Gibson's film, The Passion of Christ, very closely indeed.", would you understand then? If someone said to you, "Someone is watching you, blink blink, nudge, nudge, wink wink.", do you understand that? Everything is not literal, symbols are everywhere, just like computer symbols. I am just trying to help, not hurt. Per in Sweden (talk) 20:32, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@Per in Sweden: Your opinion in this context is irrelevant to Wikipedia. Read the links I have given and WP:5P and WP:NPOV. As editors we do not interpret text but report what others have said in reliable secondary sources. First learn what Wikipedia is and follow the rules. Then you can make useful contributions. If you can't be bothered or don't want to follow the rules then you can start a blog for your views and interpretations of news reports or any other text. You are, of course, perfectly entitled to those views but Wikipedia is not the place for stating or discussing those. Thanks. Robynthehode (talk) 21:46, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@Robynthehode:I am well aware of reliable sources WP:RS, of which The Guardian is with 170+ million monthly readers. I am also aware of restrictions original research, which is not the case in this thread. "Nyhetsmorgon" (in English "Newsmorning") is a morning tv programme in the public channel TV4 in Sweden and with a 1 million viewership and a good reliable reputation, reported what The Guardian reported on the lightning bolts on the recording of "Passion of the Christ", AND on which the female reporter said in Swedish "Gud finns", meaning, "God exists". You can email tv4.se and ask them to verify this.Per in Sweden (talk) 22:46, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@Per in Sweden:, no one is going to email anyone in Sweden to verify whether something was said on the air or not, and at any rate any reliable medium can let a quack speak. We don't do opinions, and talk pages are not for forum posts. Drmies (talk) 22:49, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@Per in Sweden: You clearly do not understand reliable sources, original research and how that relates to notable or relevant encyclopaedic content. The Guardian report you linked to is a news report. The Guardian is a reliable source. But the news report is just a report about a (possible) lightning strike. The report says nothing about the existence of god or that the lightning strike is a sign from god and even if it did it would likely be an opinion piece specific to that journalist so again not appropriate. You are just making stuff up with your inferences (original research) and that is not relevant for an encyclopaedia. As I said before you are entitled to your opinion but Wikipedia is not the place for it. Please take your comments such as these elsewhere. Robynthehode (talk) 23:12, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Robynthehode, as I was reading this I heard gun shots: clearly a sign that you are wrong. Drmies (talk) 00:14, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

@Robynthehode:Am glad you agree with me that The Guardian is quality. Then can we both agree that the report is factual? Because if it is, it does say something. 1. Something very unusual to most humans happened, namely to personally be struck by lightning. 2. Both the man who plays Jesus, the assistant director was struck. 3. Not once but twice during the shoot, as in the case of the assistant director 4. Now that this happens at the same time that a shoot about the most famous religious person that has [possibly] walked this earth, is remarkable. 5. Thus you do not need to be a quack to utter the rather logical consequence "Gud finns". Per in Sweden (talk) 12:37, 20 October 2020 (UTC) Further, if you look at the heading, I have never claimed that the article claims that "God exists", something you try to do. I merely say that the article sows doubt into atheists, particularly strong atheists.Per in Sweden (talk) 12:55, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

@Per in Sweden:. You seem to not know or misunderstand logical inference, the nature of correlation and causation. Try starting by reading relevant articles in Wikipedia and more in depth material on these subjects. I will, for the last time, respond to your post above but (again for the last time) talk pages are not the place for a general discussion about the subject nor a specific discussion about certain elements or news reports or any other texts unless the discussion is related to the improvement of the article. First, admitting The Guardian is a reliable source merely acknowledges that the reported information has undergone a level of fact checking and editorial oversight. Second no inference can be made from the occurrences stated in the news report because they are just a report about a natural phenomenon with the appearance of something unusual. Read Correlation does not imply causation, Coincidence, and Confirmation bias. Third if you are not using this report to affirm the existence of god then why are you writing on the 'Existence of god' talk page. Finally (as though I haven't had to say this enough already) talk pages are not the place to discuss point of view opinions. Present how your information would improve this article or if you don't have suggestions present your ideas elsewhere and not in Wikipedia. Robynthehode (talk) 18:29, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

The question that would be left remaining unanswered, though, Per in Sweden, would be which someone? The most obvious option to be is Zeus (aka Jupiter, as this was in Rome). It would make a lot more sense if the chief god of Rome, who is known for throwing thunderbolts, to be throwing thunderbolts in Rome than it wound be for the god of Israel to be throwing thunderbolts in Rome. 76.201.87.86 (talk) 21:35, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Scientific evidence for the existence of God

In 2011, Chief Researcher at the Institute of Management Problems of the Russian Academy of Sciences Avtandil Anuashvili set up a scientific experiment involving a priest who was praying. At the same time, it was found that with a full-fledged prayer, the coordination of the work of the right and left hemispheres of his brain increases with each other, which reflects a more realistic and adequate perception of reality and shows the fact that if he addressed an illusory non-existent addressee, then the coordination of the work of his brain should would decrease, and since it increased, then the addressee of his appeal is real. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A03:7380:340:10:7D77:9F7D:2FB3:8C80 (talk) 15:11, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

All I see is evidence for the mental state of the praying priest. Also see WP:NOTFORUM. Regards, Just plain Bill (talk) 02:40, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree, but NOTFORUM isn't meant to be used just because you don't like a new discussion someone's started. Its scope is limited to discussions that COULD not improve an article, not merely ones that WILL not. Lots of discussions will not improve an article, but the initiator does not know that it won't. That's why discussions exist. 2600:1702:4960:1DE0:BD9C:7484:82F9:9D21 (talk) 14:32, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

References

Create both a paragraph and a page on: metaphysical personocracy: the claim that one or more persons and/or personhood itself dominate[s] over everything

• What is ontoaxiomatics/ontological axiomatic systems (quantum foundations for our universe)? Is personhood related to it?
• Can a person be a mereological simple (does it have a sole memory of only one shannon/unit of information without processing modes (emotional patterns, calculational ability, music ability, seeing, hearing, Broca's area speaking control (or the idealized informational equivalent)...
• Is God caused by his own will? Then he had a beginning. Even if we reject the notion of precosmic time, there is no omniontoaxiomatics/no single possible cosmos meeting the constructor theory criteria of substantiality/existence. If God is a natural phenomenon caused by nature, then nature is the dominant force.
• God cannot sin (the Abrahamic strong personocratic over everything god). If God can never sin due to his ontological nature, he doesn't have the full behavioral potentiality, thus he doesn't have free will. Thus God is mechanical/process-like/natural like and doesn't meet the criteria of the strong and absolute Abrahamic God. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2149:877F:4000:316D:B491:8065:3ADA (talk) 17:37, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

• God in a Abrahamic religions cannot "sin" merely as a consequence of what is sin (in those religions). God cannot sin because he's God; God certainly can do things that would be sin should anyone else other than him be the one doing them. God can certainly do evil, and the Old Testament contains several mentions of various actions of God that are described as such, as well as several instances of God intending to do some such thing and then changing his mind, either on his own or after being reasoned with by a prophet, then 'repenting' for the 'evil' he intended to do. Exodus in particular has a good deal of that (honestly, God in Exodus is pretty much portrayed as a sadistic psychopath), and that is one of the main topics of the entire book of Job (and the idea of God sinning is implicitly addressed, when God says to Job "Will you condemn me?"
• The personhood stuff is interesting, but I'm not really seeing how it is relevant here..as a concept involving God, it is pretty much restricted to Christianity, and the Jews flat out charge the Christians with making up a concept that doesn't actually even exist in order to practise polytheism while still claiming to practise monotheism (can't say I disagree with them either, though I have no dog in that fight). 2600:1702:4960:1DE0:BD9C:7484:82F9:9D21 (talk) 15:00, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Carl Jung

Should the example using Carl Jung removed in the positions section. It states that Carl Jung knows god exists. Although Carl Jung’s conception of god is more psychological than literal or physical and therefore this section seems to be missleading about his beliefs. Jung’s said himself that god wasn’t really a person or a physical thing. Krɪt̮ɪkl feɪjəɹ (talk) 17:03, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Fine tuned universe

Did not add an edit, but I am baffled why it is not mentioned. I.e cosmological constant problem where lambda is fine tuned to 10^-120. 5.173.65.38 (talk) 22:26, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

It's mentioned: Existence of God#Argument from design. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:30, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

A recommendation for a new heading (3.1.5 Unitary Argument)

Hi,

I see that none of the arguments here is a complete argument for God. For example, kalam cosmological argument claims that the universe has a cause. However, in and of itself it cannot be a sufficient argument for God, since it says nothing about the attributes of God and how that God is defined. The same is applicable to almost all arguments mentioned here.

Ender Tosun presents a unitary argument (proof) for the existence of God. In its content and structure this argument is quite different than the other arguments mentioned on this page.

So, I think the below edit will contribute to the richness of this page.

I suggest the following edit:

"3.1.5 Other arguments" is changed to "3.1.6 Other arguments" and the following part is added:

"3.1.5 Unitary argument Tosun argues that a convincing proof of God can be achieved by proving the sufficient number of the key properties of a unitary God, such as self-sufficiency, unity, all-encompassing, will power, creative power, awareness and by uniting these within the unitary essence of God. He also argues that this way it will be possible to have a clear definition of God which can be based upon empirical and logical evidence." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jutewin (talk • contribs) 17:53, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Not seeking to be mean, but Ender Tosun is a minor apologist, not a great philosopher. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:30, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate your feedback. But could you give some evidence for your conclusion?

Because the work is a very serious one and very relevant to the page. And I do not think that all of the contents of wikipedia come from "great" philosophers according to everyone. Obviously some arguments of some "great" philosophers on this page are nonsensical according to some "great" philosophers who defend some counter arguments again on this page. What "great" philosophers write are not necessarily entirely true. I think the information is more important than the authors.

So, unless you present some evidence about the "work", I do not think that your input is relevant. Jutewin (talk) 07:31, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

See WP:UNDUE. This does not mean that I'm jury, judge, and executioner, but you do need to make a case for inclusion beyond throwing some empty words. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:21, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

References

Scientific evidence and scientific domain

• "No scientific evidence (by scientists that consider the concept of God to be within the domain of science) of God's existence has been found. Therefore, the scientific consensus is that whether God exists is unknown; assuming, the concept of God is within the domain of science."

I disagree with the inclusion of the parenthetical "by scientists that consider the concept of God to be within the domain of science" on the grounds that it seems to imply scientific evidence has been found by non-scientists and/or by those those don't consider the concept of God to be within the domain of science. Unfortunately, the (accessible) provided reference ambiguously cites "we" as being those who have not found scientific evidence of God's existence, so perhaps I have the wrong interpretation.

Secondly, I find both the aforementioned and (in the second sentence) "assuming the concept of God is within the domain of science" to be redundant considering that "scientific consensus" is already mentioned in both. To me it would seem scientific consensus cannot occur outside the scientific domain by definition.

My edit includes the text "whether God exists is not falsifiable" to which I refer to the source's choice of words: "we cannot be 100% certain that atheism is true". Anderjef (talk) 00:03, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

References

God is exists in nature or not

God is exit in nature or not 110.227.50.134 (talk) 08:28, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

That's not a question we can answer. tgeorgescu (talk) 09:00, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 2 October 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:07, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

---

Existence of God → Existence of deities – This article is about the existence of deities in general, not specifically the Abrahamic God. Treetoes023 (talk) 19:53, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose The new title would suggest polytheism or paganism while Abrahamic religions assert there's only one God. A possible compromise where coverage of both Abrahamic and non-Abrahamic religions is intended would be moving to "god" with a lower-case letter. Brandmeister^talk 20:24, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

  As below I think the use of lower case "god" as a proper noun or name is incorrect. If it's being used as a proper noun it should be capitalized. —DIYeditor (talk) 21:18, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. The current title is more recognizable and natural than your proposed title. When one searches on the Internet, there are more results about the "Existence of God" than for the "existence of deities". On top of that, I'm sure that people are more familiar with the former. On the other hand, I agree with the suggestion above about moving to "god" with a lower-case letter and recommend that the article be improved instead, to include other POVs. StephenMacky1 (talk) 20:46, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

  I don't believe there is such a term as a singular (the) "god" it would have to be capitalized to indicate monotheism. It'd be akin to saying "existence of cat".—DIYeditor (talk) 21:13, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. Clearly "Existence of God" is the WP:COMMONNAME - Arjayay (talk) 21:09, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Aside from the lede which is strangely out of place, this article appears to be about the existence of a god of the universe ("God"), not deities which is a broad topic. Existence of deities could be its own article. —DIYeditor (talk) 21:16, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose I think Existence of God → Existence of God or deities would be better, the word "or" is sometimes used in wikipedia article or category names, see Category:Memorials of or with American slaves. The "existence of god" results 40 times more google search results than "existence of deities" but in academic contexts both are treated together see here. Uni3993 (talk) 04:52, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. "Existence of God" is the topic. Srnec (talk) 20:52, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Geometrical arguments

Spinoza's Ethics should certainly be mentioned again w/r/t the method of his arguments, aside from the ultimate conclusions that his conception of G-d has very little to do with the common understanding of the idea. There was an entire cottage industry in geometric proofs that doesn't seem to be discussed outside of a few of the specific arguments like the ontological proof. In MacFarlane's 1830s and 1840s Table-Talk, there's this bit in an aside on the Miscellaneous History of the Sciences:

There have been a great many attempts to apply geometry to the proof of religious assertions. The last we can find, and one of the most absurd, is "Mathematical principles of Theology, or the Existence of God geometrically demonstrated, &c. by Richard Jack, teacher of Mathematics, London 1747." Mr. Jack lays down his definitions, one of which is, "the evanescent existence of any being is the point of duration in which its existence terminates or ends;" then proceeds to his axioms, the first of which is, "nothing hath no properties," and another of which is, "no being can exert a power which it does not possess;"—and finally establishes his point in a hundred and eleven theorems. The following is a specimen.

"THEOREM XXXII. A being cannot act after its existence is terminated.

Let A be any being; I say it is impossible for the being A to act after its existence is terminated. For let B C represent any portion of time, and D the point of duration, when the existence of A is terminated, and D C that part of duration that immediately succeeds the termination of A's existence. It is impossible for A to act in any one point of the duration D C: for if it be possible, let it act in the point E. Then because (Ax. 4) any being exists in all the points of duration in which it acts, therefore the being A will exist in the point of duration E, but its existence terminated in the point of duration D; therefore A will both exist and not exist in the same point of duration E, which is absurd. Therefore, a being cannot act after its existence is terminated; which was to be demonstrated."

We shall notice one more treatise on natural theology, because it is the reverse of the preceding. On account of its shortness, and the practical good sense shown in the method of handling the subject, we shall give it entire. It was published the year after the "House that Jack built."

Gowin Knight, M. B. on Attraction and Repulsion, London, 1748, p. 3; "The most general truth that occurs to us, in contemplating the works of the creation is, that there is a Being of infinite wisdom, goodness, and power, the first cause of all things. This is a proposition to which (one would imagine) no on who had ever cast an eye on the works of nature, could deny his assent. But if any such there are, the best advice I can give them is, To look again."

Certainly the last falls under the subjective arguments already listed, but the general pattern of geometric proofs does deserve its own subsection along with its high (Spinoza) and low (Jack) points. — LlywelynII 16:34, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

"The rationality of atheism/Needs to be NPOVed" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect The rationality of atheism/Needs to be NPOVed and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 16 § The rationality of atheism/Needs to be NPOVed until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 19:55, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

"Mathematics and God" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Mathematics and God and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 16 § Mathematics and God until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 19:59, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

"Nonexistence of God" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Nonexistence of God and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 16 § Nonexistence of God until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 20:02, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

History of ideas

I don't have time to do this myself, unfortunately, but a later editor may be interested. Debates over God's existence have a definite historical shape to them, and it would be good to have a section on the historical developments of these debates. I don't know whether that requires a whole nother article, or even moving around some of the material in this already large article. Anyway, something to think about for the future. Cameron.coombe (talk) 03:37, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Proof of existence

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Existence_of_God&diff=1139889279&oldid=1139889227

Was proposed as an important addition to the article, but has not been accepted yet. Note that it is not opinion or original research needing peer review, since it meets the standards for a mathematical proof. I now propose that the article amendment be made at the first possible juncture since it contains information that is of great use to the community. Astrid-divine-empress (talk) 13:18, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Astrid-divine-empress you need to provide WP:Reliable sources where this is discussed, before your request can be considered - Arjayay (talk) 13:34, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi Arjayay, I told the editor that it's not commentary, point of view, or personal analysis since it is a proof. Mathematical proofs are considered as axiom for the purposes of publication, barring errors. Whereas the article on whole contains many items that are conjecture and only included because an historical source gave them. I hope that you see my point. Astrid-divine-empress (talk) 13:39, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

By the way I could factor the proof into pure math symbology but I thought that it would be harder for people to understand. I think for us to get the message out, it should be accessible to even 10 year olds. Astrid-divine-empress (talk) 13:41, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

In any case, I can provide the following reference:

[redcated] Astrid-divine-empress (talk) 13:45, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a publisher of original research in mathematics, or any other academic field. See WP:NOT. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:12, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi there. The proof is not research (original or otherwise), it is proof. To illustrate, research is the pursuit of evidence of things and investigation of phenomena, whereas mathematical proofs cannot be disputed because they are correct beyond any doubt. I hope that you can see the distinction there, since it is a large one. The fact that the proof involves philosophical concepts doesn't change the situation. Also, the article is already rife with conjecture & research, so it will be useful for everybody when the actual proof is included for comparison purposes. Astrid-divine-empress (talk) 03:06, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

You misunderstand original research and opinion related to Wikipedia. Read WP:OR and WP:POV. You should also read WP:5P Robynthehode (talk) 14:29, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

If you are interested in qualia or philosophy of mind those might be better articles to edit than this one. Your proof is full of things that are just assumptions and don't follow one from the next, but even if it were a valid logical proof, if it had not been published in a WP:RS for this topic (e.g. by a reputable credentialed philosopher) there would be no way to include it. —DIYeditor (talk) 15:56, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi there. The point of this though is that it is not in any way related to reputation, who discovered or who wrote the proof, in this context. But rather that the proof is complete, correct and internally and externally consistent. If you think that it is full of things that are just assumptions then please point out those things you believe to be assumptions, and I will demonstrate that they are not. Astrid-divine-empress (talk) 03:03, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

User:DIYeditor made the point that perhaps the source document should not be hosted on Google Drive. I'm open to ideas, as long as those are easy to implement (i.e. accessible). Thanks ! Astrid-divine-empress (talk) 04:55, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Please see the latest revision. I've added some more hyperlinks and a new citation. I'm firmly of the belief that the new edit can stay, since it doesn't have any logical errors and is based only on things already known to be true, so it can't be disputed. But if anyone wants to talk about it I will answer any and all questions. Astrid-divine-empress (talk) 05:30, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Someone sent me a message:

" You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Existence of God. Ppt91 (talk) 05:45, 18 February 2023 (UTC) "

This shall be discussed here. I explained that I was making another revision to the page. Now, the person involved did not consult me before removing the revision and sending me an accusation of vandalism. I do not need to explain myself, and furthermore, anybody who wishes to prevent publication of the proof needs to explain themselves and justify their attempts to conceal and suppress the proof. Astrid-divine-empress (talk) 06:39, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Here is the full text of the new addition:

Logical proof

Currently, there is one known complete, incontrovertible and logical proof of the existence of God.

The proof uses the concept of qualia, whereupon conscious entities receive information that they can process to understand the world. To understand the proof, the reader must first be familiar with the concept of qualia (a concept that is abstract and difficult to grasp for some, although it is ubiquitous to all animals).

Consider that the universe had a beginning. Each animal (including humans) can use at least one category of qualia and usually several. And naturally there was some conscious entity that sensed an example of each base quale first, before any other. He/She sensed them during the design process of qualia, and in fact qualia must have been designed rather than an emergent property. Then it follows that This Entity is God.

The design requirement is important and can be arrived at by considering that qualia elements are axiomatic and pre-existing for use by observers, for example, the colour Blue. The quale (specific experience) of seeing a blue thing could not have arrived by chance, spontaneous creation or combination. This is because qualia are needed by consciousnesses and were made specifically for use by consciousnesses, and could only have been created by (or copied from) some original consciousness. Only Someone capable of residing outside the Universe has the ability to create new basic things to be used inside the Universe (for example colours, physical laws), whereas entities restricted to living inside the Universe may only permute a subset of pre-existing elements within the Universe.

So the proof is complete. ∎^[1]

Other arguments may add ideas and perspectives, but this proof in itself is sufficient to show conclusively that God exists. Astrid-divine-empress (talk) 06:40, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

You have not established that qualia "must have been designed rather than an emergent property". You haven't ruled out, for instance, Brendan Lalor's qualia interactivism, according to which, "perceptual qualia are emergent properties of organism-environment interactivity, and depend especially on the fine-grained information-theoretic properties of perceptual systems, such as a system’s ability to discriminate different properties in the world, and when those properties are determinable, to make informational distinctions. In the form of a motto: ‘Same cognitively accessible informational properties, same qualia; different cognitively accessible informational properties, different qualia.’" (Lalor, "Intentionality and Qualia", Synthese 121, 249-289, 1999). ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 05:16, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Suggestion for removing the speration between arguments for and against god's existance

God is a claim, and arguments must be presented with counter arguments, the sepration of arguments for/against God is a mistake, and does not provide for valuable information. Ryanxastron (talk) 19:02, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

No, this separation has been traditional, representing two major schools of thoughts and is present in many reliable sources. As for counter arguments, see WP:IMPARTIAL. Brandmeister^talk 19:15, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

But don't you think providing counter-arguments would make it more impartial? as users can add counter-counter.... arguments for each argument presented(albeit with proper sources). the other reason is belief or lack there of strongly has to do with the opponants' arguments, for example Atheism is defined as lack of belief in god or rejection of such claim, but rejection only comes from battling arguments with counter-arguments, therefore one side will not have much arguments in hand to present. as for it being this way traditinally, i have to say this doesn't make it right or impartial. What say you? Ryanxastron (talk) 19:25, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

There's no need for a counter-argument against every argument for, otherwise the article becomes too large and a WP:SOAPBOX. The existing structure of arguments for and against is sufficient in my opinion. Brandmeister^talk 19:35, 7 June 2023 (UTC)