Talk:Arguments for the existence of God

message: The proposed combination begins "Many arguments for and against the existence of God have been proposed over time. This article lists some of the more common ones. In this context, the term God is used to mean the monotheistic concept of a singular Supreme Being. The common definition of God assumes omnipotence, omniscience and benevolence." which illustrates the difficulties because there are many conceptions of god, each with their own pro and anti arguments. Every believer is a disbeliever in some conceptions of god and eevery atheist would agree the "universe" exists which is the definition of God for some people who wish to emphsize a feeling of awe in themselves towards the universe. 4.250.168.37 23:28, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's an important point.  The ontological argument fits the intro., but the cosmological arguments are concerned with a first cause, explanation, mover, etc., the design argument with a designer, the argument from morality with a being who can help us to achieve the summum bonum, etc. — none of them mentioning or implying omnipotence, omniscience, or benevolence. Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 09:50, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Defining God

message: Eddie asked me to comment here, so I will.  As exists, the pair of articles is fairly NPOV because they clearly point to eachother and have very paralell structure (I made a few minor edits to make their interconnection more paralell.)  Combining them might make the article a bit long and unwieldy.  Still, I support combining the articles for the following reasons:
* It will make NPOV easier.  NPOV is harder when a topic is split by opinion, as coordination across articles is more difficult than coordination within an article.
* The agnostic arguments are currently in the "against" article, and that seems a little inaccurate.
* A combined article will allow the issue to be covered more fully than the sum of the two articles currently covers it.
* Combining the articles will aid in creating a decent definition of the topic.  Currently, the header of the "for" article states, "Many arguments for the existence of God exist," so it's not very informative.  The header of the "against" article does a little better, but it is still lacking.  Combining the articles into Arguments regarding the existence of God (or The existence of God) would allow for a more effective summerization of the topic.
The resulting article would be a bit long, but it's an important topic, and the length would not be unjustified.
-L33tminion (talk) 18:30, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
Similarity in language structure is not evidence of similarity. "I have a comb" and "I have an idea" have apparent similarity but not real similarity. So too with "The wind blows", "I blow out the candles", "She blows". Arguments against God are really not arguments against God at all, but are arguments against ANYTHING that adds nothing testable to the existing set of scientific (ie testable) data (sometimes called "theories"). Arguments for God are all dependent on "What God are you talking about?" The unknowable God? THe universe itself? The creator whatever that turns out to be ? The most powerful thing in the universe, no matter what that turns out to be? That which you worship, no matter what that is for you? The God of Abraham? What talks to you in your head? ("He lives! He lives! I know he lives today! He walks with me. He talks with me. He lives within my heart!" - Christian song) 4.250.198.57 22:27, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Back to the topic (or insert new heading here)

message: I'm guessing not. But why the heck are you bringing up this strawman argument? crazyeddie 18:00, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Do you really want to fit all this and more in one article?

message: First, why does anyone for a moment feel occums razor might justify atheism? Isn't the simplest possible answer to any question "because God wills it thus"? Every explained and unexplained phenomena can be ascribed to God w prescious little asumptions whatsoever. Just because assuming there is an omnipresent God requires an assumption doesn't mean its not a simpler explanation that essentially any other argument for any given state of affairs. For example, what is the simplest explanation for the existence of life? 
Question 2: What is all this weirdness above? I stuffed it all into a sub-page (/All this and more), hope thats ok w everybody. Sam Spade 18:49, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ockham's Razor says that one shouldn't multiply entities beyond necessity.  We already have the entities of the world (mental and physical), so unless we need to introduce other kinds of entity (gods, ghosts, fairies, chimæras, etc.) in order to explain the world, we shouldn't.  This approach is sometimes referred to as "Stratonician atheism".  Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 19:25, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: As I haven't given an argument for dualism (or indeed for anything else), I'm not sure what you're talking about.  You asked a question and I was trying to be helpful.  Silly me. Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 20:16, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: I explained the argument in response to your question as to why anyone would think that Ochkam's Razor led to atheism.  I'm not sure what you think my dualism is a byproduct of, but never mind. Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 22:00, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Two questions

message: The current draft looks promising. Its NOT putting everything in one article. And it IS addressing important issues/points of view not adequately dealt with currently. My question at this point is why not launch the draft now or when ready as a new article WITHOUT deleting the existing two, at first anyway. Wikipedia editing is about open editing on regular article pages, and this is an end run around that. Maybe there is a good reason for those choices. In any case, the quality of the draft is its best selling point; especially as it's addressing the very concerns brought up here. It's looking promising. Very promising. 4.250.201.111 07:13, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Not I.  Tom Haws 16:12, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
Okay, looks like there is a consensus for the merger both here and over on the "against" page. Merger notice going up. crazyeddie 03:44, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Current draft

message: Any objections to making Arguments for the existence of God and Arguments against the existence of God redirects to Existence of God? crazyeddie 5 July 2005 18:41 (UTC)
Clarification: Last I checked, there was a pretty clear consensus in favor of the merger. So I'm not actually asking "Is this a good idea?", but "Should we do this now or wait a bit?" crazyeddie 6 July 2005 18:27 (UTC)
(One revert later...) Okey dokey, I'll ask it again. Is there anything that still has to be done (aside from removing the links back to the original unmerged articles, which need to stay up until the merger is complete) before we make Arguments for the existence of God and Arguments against the existence of God redirects to Existence of God? crazyeddie 08:50, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I say go ahead and merge! dab (ᛏ) 09:09, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Last Call