Talk:Existence of God/Archive 2

message: Why are there 4 anti links, one parody & counter parody, one agnostic and only one pro link in the revision I'm reading?  I wouldn't mention this but when I went to look at balancing them out a little, I see an admin removing one of the few pro links as "linkspam" and then absolutely no discussion of it on here, unless I'm just blind (which is possible).  What's up with that?  12.106.14.203 18:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: New talk page issues usually go at the bottom of the page. --The1exile 18:27, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Balance

message: Not mentioned as a position/argument against the existence of God is the ontological argument.
Ontology raises for instance  the question as to "why is there something, rather then nothing?" (this question is also known as the fundamental question of philosophy).
It can be shown that there can be no real answer to this question, since anything we might want to propose, would rereaise the same question. (Suppose we propose to answer this question with the answer: "because X exist", this then reraises the question, as we could ask then, "why is there X, instead of nothing").
So, the position or argument, raised by theology, that God would be a sufficient answer to that question, since it states that:
a. God exists
b. God "created" the universe (all that exists)
So, it would (at first) seem to fit as an answer to the fundamental question, it would suggest that God is a sufficient answer to explain existence. But it isn't, since we still could ask then: why does God exist? (why is there, or was there, God, instead of nothing). In the same way, answering schemes as which explain the existing universe at the basis of being caused by super/meta universes or similar approaches, do not explain and answer the question, since they all fall in the answering scheme: because X exists.
I think a reference to this position/argument by ontology (since it is not mentioned on the page) should be included.
PS.
Off topic, but maybe interesting, is to find how ontology tries to answer this seemingly unanswerable question. The short answer to that is, that there has to exist somehow a maximal consistent world, and a non-existing world is not to be considered a maximal consistent world.
The explenation itself, the built up to that answer, is significantly longer, but has no bearing on this topic.
Heusdens 00:19, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Ontology (agument against)

message: I don't know if agnosticism is an 'ontological' position, but it is certainly a position. Even one that may be defended with conviction. Maybe it is fallacious to mention a "default" position anyway, since the theists can argue with quite some justification, that theism or animism is obviously the default position, anthropologically, since that's how the human brain works. It may not be the default position of a purely logical artificial intelligence, but that is an artificial assumption anyway. I maintain that agnosticism is more 'basic' a position (if not identical to) than 'weak atheism', but I wouldn't be sad to see the "default position"  discussion gone altogether. dab (ᛏ) 06:55, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: agnosticism

message: WAS had a go at me for deleting the history of meta args list.
I don't think it belongs in this article; the title is "Existence of God" and a history should be separate from the actual subject.
How about starting a new article under the name "History of Metaphysical Arguments"? Infinity0 2005-09-10
:I have no trouble, in principle, with a section dealing with the history of attempts to prove or disprove the existence of God. I think there is ample examples of "History" sections in other articles. I support the removal of the timeline because it is rather boring. Furthermore, if we do have a timeline or a history section, it should deal with the debate as a whole, not just metaphysical arguments. If we did spin the timeline off into a seperate article, we would have to call it something else, "History of Metaphysical Arguments" wouldn't work. So, my advice is, go ahead and leave out the timeline. If anybody feels like it, we can start a section called "History", dealing with the history of the debate. If it gets too long, we can always spin it off later. crazyeddie 05:44, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I completely agree. Sam Spade 12:24, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

text: I think starting a new section called History would be good... though we would need more content. That way we can separate the history from the actual arguments themselves, which has more to do with the title of this article. Infinity0 15:53:47, 2005-09-12 (UTC)
1884: 	Frege, Foundations of Arithmetic.
1941: 	Hartshorne, Man's Vision of God.''
WAS, how is the above even remotely informative? It's just a list of what books some people wrote on what date. It gives no content or background. If you are going to put a historical section into the article at least make it say something interesting.
Also, I think a summary of what a "metaphysical argument" actually is should be added.
Infinity0 18:38, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of Metaphysical arguments 

message: I don't know who keeps adding counter-arguments to the atheist arguments, but I'm going to keep deleting them. We haven't posted any counters to your arguments, so give us the same courtesy. Any attempt at encroachement from either side of the debate should be vetoed immediately. Franc28 21:56, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Keep counter-arguments to their own half 

message: Well, I made the categories and put the arguments in them. Distinct advantages over the other proposition are : 1. the categories make sense, 2. it's more organized and 3. it's inspired by an already-existing classification. Franc28 21:17, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Franc's Fork

message: Dear sirs,
I would like that particular article to be removed and here is one reason why...and it is purely within the bounds of logical reason and the probability of the margin of error...
...In the essay, there is a statement of a "contradictary" Bible verse that Jesus said that no one was good except God...the author of the essay states that there was a "contradiction" in that verse and proceded to state a verse in 1 Tim. 4:4a "...every creature of God is good."
Normally, this really does look like a contradiction; however, the comparison fell through when I read the previous verses above it...what did I discover? St. Paul is talking to Timothy about people who were COMMANDING others to stay away from meat...and then? Verse four: "Every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving." 
The dude is talking about FOOOD!! NOT people!
...Now...there is NO REASON for this kind of error to happen; all he had to do was read the previous three verses...and wa-laa, he would have kept it out of his essay...
...A...very bad blunder.
--jfritzyb
If we delinked a linked webpage just because it contained an error, then we would never link to any webpage. Now if you are saying that the webpage as a whole is nothing but a tissue of lies and mistakes, etc., you might have something. Even so, I think the main criteria is if it is relevant to the topic at hand. If it is, I would support linking to it, even if it is nothing but a tissue of lies and mistakes, etc. crazyeddie 03:17, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please remove "An Essay on Biblical Innaccuracies"... 

message: Moved to User_talk:Infinity0/Philosophy. Infinity0 15:47, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  A little debate on morality 

message: Whoever wrote the section on nontheist use of Occam's Razor is unclear on the concept, or, worse, a vandal.
Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate.  That's all Occam's Razor says:  "do not multiply entities beyond what is needful."  It is a heuristic and it says nothing whatsoever about the plausibility of a given hypothesis.  It only says that when we have multiple possible explanations, we should begin our investigation with the simplest one:  which is to say, the one that assumes the existence of the smallest number of things not already known to exist.
As it is used by nontheists, Occam's Razor cuts away gods and the supernatural, because naturalistic, materialistic explanations have equal or greater explanatory power and equal or greater predictive power, without requiring us to assume the existence of the supernatural.
:IMO it's not that bad atm, but your version sounds more accurate. Go ahead and edit it :) Infinity0 23:21, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gross misstatement of Occam's Razor 

message: Which page should this go on, and if it does go anywhere, where should a link to it be?
In human culture, the question of the existence of God has been long disputed, and has lead to parodies such as this one from The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy:
"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."
"But," says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED."
"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.
"Oh, that was easy," says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed at the next zebra crossing.
Most leading theologians claim that this argument is a load of dingo's kidneys, but that didn't stop Oolon Colluphid making a small fortune when he used it as the central theme of his best-selling book, 'Well That About Wraps It Up for God.'
Kmill 22:33, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That seems more like a parody than a serious philosophical viewpoint. You could try starting a parodies article, like Parodies of existence of God arguments, and link to it from this article. Infinity0 16:47, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Notable examples of the question of God's existence in human culture

message: Can someone please explain the difference between "deductive" arguments and "inductive" arguments? I'm pretty sure that the categorisation of the "arguments against" is inconsistent for these two types. Infinity0 ( talk | contribs ) 17:56, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deductive Inductive difference? 

message: I have heard the following argument against the existence of God:  If God is omnipotent can he create a stone too heavy for him to move?  If yes, then God is not omnipotent because he cannot move the heavy stone; if no, then God is not omnipotent because he cannot create the stone.  Hence, no God.  How does this relate or get classified or is it just logical twisting? Inquiring minds.... Carlossuarez46 00:43, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Basically it boils down to this: Whether "God" exists or not it is impossible to prove or disprove. The omnipotence paradox proves this theory; if we could prove the existence of God it would solve many questions but raise many more. --The1exile 16:40, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In an empirical sense, I agree it's impossible to prove.  I think the only other way would be divine revelation (God proves his existence), but of course, that would only prove the affirmative.  So, basically, it may be possible to prove God exists, but I don't think it's possible to prove that God doesn't exist.  Othersider 03:36, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Argument Classification 

message: How do you people feel about a conclusion (of sorts) to this article - perhaps a summary or something, maybe a mention of the fact that the evidence is debatable from both sides, that the debate has been ongoing since ancient times (and will likely continue for a long time), and so on? Othersider 03:49, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A conclusion would be good, but it would have to be carefully worded to avoid violation of NPOV. After all, with so many peoples different views, its going to be a difficult task to please them all. --The1exile 16:21, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

text: You're right, maybe it's not such a great idea. Othersider 06:54, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A funny thing happened while summarizing the structure of the article. It turns out we already had a conclusion section. It was named "positions" and placed before the arguments section. As if anyone would take a position in order to make an argument rather than examine the arguments and draw a conclusion. Who would ever do a thing like that? :) WAS 4.250 17:47, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Conclusion?

message: Coming at this article from the outside I agree with the merge proposal, looks like you're ready to blank and redirect.  Excellent article on a possibly contentious topipc, by the way.  Kudos to all. Thatcher131 22:39, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Merge proposal?? What? Infinity0 talk 22:48, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a merge proposal over at Arguments for the existence of God that it be merged into Existence of God.  It looks from the history that most of the work was finished by crazyeddie in July 2005.  A current comparison shows that everything in AfEoG is also in EoG.  EoG also looks much more alive and is being worked on actively.  All that is left to do is blank out AfEoG and post a redirect page.  Nothing needs to happen to this page since the work was already done in 2005.  I don't why there is no merge notice here. Thatcher131 23:17, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The merge happened last year... someone must have reverted the page. I'll go turn it back into a redirect. Infinity0 talk 23:19, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge proposal