Talk:Arguments for the existence of God/Archive 1

message: See also: talk:Traditionally respectable arguments for the existence of God
Removed the following due to extreme POV sermonising content Mintguy 16:53 Dec 11, 2002 (UTC)
These arguments may not prove conclusively that God is, but they do show that in order to the existence of any knowledge, thought, reason, conscience in man, we must assume that God is.
It is said of the beautiful, "It may be shown, but not proved".  So we say of the existence of God. These arguments are probable, not demonstrative. For this reason they supplement each other, and constitute a series of evidences which is cumulative in its nature.
Though taken singly, none of them can be considered absolutely decisive, they together furnish a corroboration of our primitive conviction of God's existence, which is of great practical value, and is in itself sufficient to bind the moral actions of men. A bundle of rods may not be broken even though each one separately may; the strength of the bundle is the strength of the whole. If in practical affairs we were to hesitate to act until we have absolute and demonstrable certainty, we should never begin to move at all.
Instead of doubting everything that can be doubted, let us rather doubt nothing until we are compelled to doubt.
This page should be merged with arguments against the existence of god since both generally link to the same pages.  I suggest "arguments about the existence of god." Fairandbalanced 21:20, 13 Sep 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Meditation is often helpful and is unrelated to the Abrahamic God.
I am not certain what point is trying to be made here, but it seems to me that it could be said more clearly.  Not sure who added this, but it seems to need some sort of attention.  --- Smerdis of Tlön 02:42, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Moved POV content here

message: Every other entry ends in "argument". The Anthropic argument.. the Christological argument, etc... I put it this way because it fit well with the form of the page. Jack 05:39, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I'm concerned you can list it as that. When I have some more time to research the wager in a bit more detail I anticipate doing a slight redesign of this page anyway. - snoyes 05:47, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, you'll not find alot of heat in me over this one either, reasonable people could see either way (or maybe reaasonable people would be indifferent? ;) Jack 06:05, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

text: Theres alot to do, both here and in several related articles. This is my area of expertise, so I am really going to enjoy making these articles worthy of 1.0! Jack 06:02, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pascals wager 

message: It is already stated in the article that some claim to belief in God because of personal experience, but how should the article accommodate the idea of the argument that the existence of God is continually being revealed by direct and personal experience to numerous people?  What is this argument called?  Is it one of the arguments given?  I would tentatively state the argument thus: "Because numerous people are continually telling detailed personal stories about experiences in which they discover a spiritual light and love that transcend all other reality and alertness while they are clinically dead, it is most reasonable to conceed that a spiritual realm probably exists, presumably with a God. User:Hawstom (I added the sig Sam [Spade] 21:15, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like the Bandwagon or genetic fallacy to me. Perhaps Appeal to authority? Sam [Spade] 21:13, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

text: Appeal to authority isn't necessarilly a fallacy. Your example might be unless your friend is a known expert on the subject, or if you otherwise deem him to be a good witness. Sam [Spade] 23:02, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

text: Not really. Majority argument is similar. As far as "appeal to testimony", it's synonymous w Appeal to authority as far as I know.Sam [Spade] 02:08, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

text: I think we are pretty much eye-to-eye.  You hint that Majority argument is also not quite the same as Appeal to testimony.  And you agree out that Appeal to testimony requires inductive reasoning and is tricky.  And you say that Appeal to testimony is probably not already in the article.  So, how and where to add it?  Tom 15:34, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

text: Sorry to say, I'm not convinced by your closing statement. Human witness has been shown to be the worst quality of evidence, more likely in error than any other. Thats why in the OT (and muslim law) the require 4 eye witness's or 5 confessions (I believe). One eye witness simply isn't credible for something important. Even experts are often wrong. To simplify, I would only trust my brother maybe 20% likely to be correct. He's just a stupid kid, not an expert or anything ;) Sam [Spade] 20:53, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Right.  Very right.  Appeal to witness isn't necessarily much stronger than Appeal to Authority.  But they are different.  Each has it's own dangers and possible fallacies.  As you say, Appeal to Witnesses (Testimony) is often well strengthened by requiring many witnesses, independently corroborating.  This is clarifying what we might say in the article. Tom 16:35, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, and the more I think about it, this is an important concept (particularly in american protestantism, in my experience) which had been neglected until now. One interesting area I'd point out is that the very definition of "expert" is tested in this case. Is an expert on God a man w a theology degree?  A priest? I have heard many a priest admit to doubting his faith. On the other hand there are many believers (myself included) whose personal revelation and relationship with God leaves them lacking in such doubt. So perhaps what your suggesting is that a layman who has been a personal witness is a better "expert" than a educated scholor who has not? Sam [Spade] 16:50, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah.  One is an "expert", and the other is simply a witness.  "I don't know much, but I know what I have experienced/seen."  If there are gifts of the Spirit, and visions, and there is a spiritual world, and people are experiencing all these things, then there ought to be a lot of corroborating testimony.  I have to confess I have been super impressed with the consistent core thread among dozens of death visits (NDE's) I have suddenly taken to reading in the past months.  Whether it means anything to anybody else, or to an atheist, that consistent, simple testimony of the personally experienced eternal perspective and love of God is deeply meaningful to me.  Not to mention the personal experience I too have had as I have read the testimonies.  They have opened Holy Writ to me and clarified a lot of supposed "problems" that are debated.  It became frustrating for me to see all the "experts" debating philosophy of God when it appeared He was revealing Himself directly all around us contemporaneously.  Tom 06:44, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Bear in mind though that consistency in these experiences argues for some sort of underlying common mechanism but doesn't necessarily say much about what that mechanism may be. For example it is quite common for a blow to the head to cause a person to see "stars", but that doesn't necessarily mean that those "stars" have an independent existence outside our brains; it could just mean that the visual centers of most people's brains are similarly designed and so produce similar effects under those conditions. The same sort of argument could be made for various types of common religious experiences and the necessity of ruling out these alternate explanations somehow should probably be mentioned. Bryan 07:23, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: That's true.  The argument of witness/testimony needs to account for the necessity of the witness having the experience to discern what he is seeing (see  for a good discussion).  It probably would be important to mention the need to rule out "fake" or "mistaken" experiences of God.  In the article, would it be most appropriate to present 1) what are the most impressive testimonies, 2) why they are considered most credible, and 3) why alternate explanations must be considered? Tom 18:00, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Argument of abundant testimony 

message: What about the argument from the nonexistence of actual physical (large) infinities? I've heard it expressed by Dr. William Lane Craig, but I don't know if he is the person who thought of it first (appreciate definitive source info here). Basically, there is the observation that in the physical world, actual infinities are never observed. Something that gets big always has something else happen to it rather than grow in size indefinitely. Now, if there were no god, then history would go backward and forward without end, and we would have an actual physical infinity. But since actual physical infinities are not observed, it would be preposterous to suggest that they actually exist in the first place. Hence a god must of opened and will close what we know as time, and by extension, at least one god must exist.  Nelson 3 Aug 2004
:"must of" is meaningless.  Relearn English.  This does not argue for god, or God, but for something else that may as well be similar to time and space rather than inexplicably greater than them. lysdexia 01:33, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Argument from lack of physical infinities

message: SS has just replaced the following, with the edit summary "info seemed good to me":
:Scientific arguments
:The most recent arguments actually use the scientific method and generally accepted scientific theories to prove the existence of God. Most of these arguments generally fall along the lines that God is the logical result of continued evolution or are related to Information Entropy, Maxwell's Demon and the Second Law of Thermodynamics. 
There is nothing here but a vague gesturing at unexplained arguments, with three internal links to scientific articles.  Nothing is said that tells the reader what these arguments actually are, how they're supposed to work, or what has or might be said about them.  If someone can explain what these arguments are, then they should go into the article; hand-waving doesn't constitute giving information, however. Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 14:37, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I can guess what the general flow of these arguments might be: the existence of complex structures against the pull of entropy requires the intervention of a deity.  I'm not sure how any such argument would significantly differ from the Argument from Design, though.  -- Smerdis of Tlön 15:07, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds likely, yes.  I don't know of anything like these in the philosophical literature, though they may be mentioned as aspects of a larger form of argument (and it's a booming field, so it's difficult to keep up with everything). Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 15:43, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: Good job leaving in the external links that time. Sam Spade Apply now, exciting opportunities available at Spade & Archer! 12:28, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scientific arguments 

message: Where does Descartes' Trademark argument fit in?  —Sean κ. ⇔ 15:15, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trademark