Talk:God/Archive 20

message: No philosopher takes Kant seriously anymore.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.126.246.122 (talk • contribs) 
:Nonsense. Str1977 (smile back) 10:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Undue weight to Kant? 

message: This doesn't belong in this article: "Alternative positions include atheism, which denies the existence of any such being, agnosticism, which questions its existence, polytheism, which claims that there are multiple deities rather than one supreme one, and pantheism, which ascribes the divine properties of God or gods with the Universe itself or parts thereof." •Jim62sch• 18:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why doesn't it?  --Janus Shadowsong | contribs 19:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What has it to do with the intro?  It's pretty clearly stated that the capitalised "God" refers to the deity of monotheism.  Maybe further down in the article it might be OK, but don't see what it adds to the intro. •Jim62sch• 19:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The paragraph is a result of a NPOV dispute.  We're talking about the God of monotheism, yes, but these positions also have something to say about that God.  Roccondil 22:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is about God, so the lead should talk about that. The material in question has nothing to do with God; the intro isn't a religion vs. atheism debate, or about various other kinds of beliefs. Jayjg (talk) 23:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. It's out of place in the lead. ElinorD (talk) 23:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I wouldn't go so far as to say the question wasn't applicable, but per the style guidelines the intro is supposed to summarize the content of the article. The lengthy material on the existential debate that was removed was all out of proportion both to what properly being should be in this article (considering that we have a whole separate article on it) and what actually is in the article. It's worth a brief description, nothing more. For myself, I have no problem with including the one sentence under discussion, probably at the end of the intro, but the near-essay Jayjg removed plainly didn't belong there. TCC (talk) (contribs) 05:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not applicable here

message: Who defines great?  This could become a disputed statement simply as it incluses what is arguably a POV qualifier. •Jim62sch• 13:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor quibble - All the great vs Many prominent 

message: I've reverted Jayng again.  This is the intro he keeps trying to insert:
:God is the deity believed by monotheists to be the supreme reality. He is believed by some to be the creator, or at least the sustainer, of the universe. Swinburne, R.G. "God" in Honderich, Ted. (ed)The Oxford Companion to Philosophy, Oxford University Press, 1995.
:Theologians have ascribed various attributes to God, including omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, perfect goodness, divine simplicity, and eternal and necessary existence. He has been described as incorporeal, a personal being, the source of all moral obligation, and the greatest conceivable existent.  These attributes were all supported to varying degrees by the early Jewish, Christian and Muslim scholars, including St Augustine, Edwards, Paul. "God and the philosophers" in Honderich, Ted. (ed)The Oxford Companion to Philosophy, Oxford University Press, 1995. Al-Ghazali, Platinga, Alvin. "God, Arguments for the Existence of," Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Routledge, 2000. and Maimonides.  Freud regarded this view of God as wish fulfillment for the perfect father figure,  while Marxist writers see it as rooted in the powerlessness experienced by people in oppressive societies.
:All the great medieval philosophers developed arguments for the existence of God,  attempting to wrestle with the contradictions God's attributes seem to imply. For example, God's omniscience implies that he knows how free agents will choose to act: if he does know this, their apparent free will is illusory, and if he does not know it, he is not omniscient. Wierenga, Edward R. "Divine foreknowledge" in Audi, Robert. The Cambridge Companion to Philosophy. Cambridge University Press, 2001. Similar difficulties follow from the proposition that God is the source of all moral obligation: if nothing would be right or wrong without God's commands, then his commands appear arbitrary, but if they are based on fundamental principles that even he cannot change, then he is not omnipotent. See Quinn, Philip L. "Divine command ethics" in Audi, Robert. The Cambridge Companion to Philosophy. Cambridge University Press, 2001.
:The last few hundred years of philosophy have seen sustained attacks on arguments for God's existence. Against these, theists argue that faith is not a product of reason, but requires risk. There would be no risk, they say, if the arguments for God's existence were as solid as the laws of logic, a position famously summed up by Pascal as: "The heart has reasons which reason knows not of."
Is there anyone besides Jayng who supports this over the current wording?  The current (what appears to be consensus supported) wording is:
:In monotheistic, and some henotheistic and monolatrist religions, God is the object of worship. In many of these religions, God is claimed to be the divine being responsible for the existence of the universe.Swinburne, R.G. "God". in Honderich, Ted (ed)The Oxford Companion to Philosophy, Oxford University Press, 1995.
:A majority of human beings are classified as adherents of monotheistic religions.  While the two largest of these, Christianity and Islam, differ in their description of this deity, they usually hold it to be the same as the God of Judaism.
:Tradition and theology have ascribed certain attributes to God, including omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, omnibenevolence, divine simplicity, and eternal and necessary existence. God has further been described as incorporeal, a personal being, a source of moral obligation, and the "greatest" conceivable being.Swinburne, R.G. "God" in Honderich, Ted. (ed)The Oxford Companion to Philosophy, Oxford University Press, 1995. "Most philosophical theologians have tried to say something about what God is like. In so doing, they have generally regarded him as a personal being, bodiless, omnipresent, creator and sustainer of any universe there may be, perfectly free, omnipotent, omniscient, perfectly good, and a source of moral obligation; who exists eternally and necessarily, and has essentially the divine properties which I have listed. Many philosophers (influenced by Anselm) have seen these properties as deriving from the property of being the greatest conceivable being." These attributes were supported to varying degrees by the early Christian, Muslim, and Jewish scholars, including St Augustine,Edwards, Paul. "God and the philosophers" in Honderich, Ted. (ed)The Oxford Companion to Philosophy, Oxford University Press, 1995. Al-Ghazali,Plantinga, Alvin. "God, Arguments for the Existence of," Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Routledge, 2000. and Maimonides, respectively.
:Some of these qualities imply a number of contradictions, and raise many questions in the philosophy of religion. Many notable medieval philosophers developed arguments for and against the existence of God, attempting to wrestle with these contradiction. The last few hundred years of philosophy have seen many questions regarding some of the arguments for God's existence raised by such philosophers as Immanuel Kant, David Hume and Antony Flew, although Kant held that the argument from morality for the existence of God was valid. The theist response has been either to contend, like Alvin Plantinga, that faith is "properly basic"; or to accept, like Richard Swinburne, the evidentialist position.  No argument has thus far been put forward which conclusively affirms or denies God's existence, although they can tell us what attributes God could not have.
:The belief that God does not exist is termed atheism; those which conclude that the answer to the question of God's existence is unknown or unknowable are variants of agnosticism. Alternative religious positions to belief in this deity include polytheism, which claims that there are multiple deities rather than one supreme one, and pantheism, which ascribes the divine properties of God or gods to the Universe itself or parts of it.
The current version has been evolving over several weeks now, and Jayng is attempting to make a wholesale change that undoes the work of many collaborating editors. --Serge 17:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there anyone besides Jayng who supports this over the current wording? That must be a rhetorical question, since at least two other editors have reverted to it. Jayjg (talk) 20:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I posted here yesterday, saying that the stuff about atheism etc. shouldn't be in the lead in an article about God. I put the same thing in my edit summary. ElinorD (talk) 20:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, it shouldn't be. •Jim62sch• 22:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is there consensus, or not? 

message: Okay, let's deal with the first sentence, which is currently:
:God is the deity believed by monotheists to be the supreme reality.
As noted above, and not addressed by anyone, the wording of the first sentence implies that the deity exists and the only question is whether he is the (meaningless) "supreme reality" or not.  This violates NPOV.
How about this?
:Monotheists most commonly refer to the deity in which they believe as God.
--Serge 18:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm certainly willing to discuss potential changes to the intro, once you restore the properly written one. Regarding this introduction, it is all wrong; it is not about the terms "monotheists" use, but rather "God" is, in fact, the English term or name for that deity. Moreover, most monotheists do not refer to that deity as "God". Some English speaking ones do, but Muslims would say "Allah", Jews would say "Hashem" or "Adonai", and Christians would often say "The Lord" or "Jesus Christ". And that's just English speakers. Jayjg (talk) 20:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I think that "the deity that they believe and often claim exists" sounds rather inelegant. Also, the word "claims" should be avoided. ElinorD (talk) 20:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, the wording, which was once readable and elegant, has deteriorated significantly, which was one of the reasons for restoring an earlier version. It suffered from the usual Wikientropy; people of various POVs keep trying to force their own agenda into the lead, and in the back and forth tussle, the once readable prose turns into a serious of poorly connected arguments. Jayjg (talk) 20:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fix it anyway you like. All I've changed is the first sentence. My only strong objection is to the meaningless "supreme reality" term.  So feel free to make incremental changes to the current version, but please do not revert to the "supreme reality" language.  Perhaps it makes sense in some context where "supreme reality" is defined, but not as opening sentence or paragraph of an article.  It explains nothing and simply raises more question.  supreme reality. --Serge 21:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

text: God commonly refers to the only deity that monotheists believe, and often claim, exists.
--Serge 22:46, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Middle ground: just as bad. •Jim62sch• 22:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you be more specific?  What's the problem?  How can it be improved? --Serge 22:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

text: It's hardly NPOV, is it? As Elinor noted, "claim" needs to go. •Jim62sch• 22:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

text: God most commonly refers to the deity worshipped by monotheistic and monolatrist religions, believed to be the creator of the universe. 
Seems acceptable to me, except that religions don't worship, people do.  --Serge 23:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Oops.  Should be OK now.  •Jim62sch• 00:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

text: So maybe we should distinguish the monolatrist from the monotheist position. Str1977 (smile back) 12:19, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do we really need "ruler and creator"?  The lede would be better without it, in my opinion.  semper fictilis 12:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I think so. It is quite an important part of most beliefs in God. Str1977 (smile back) 17:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is one of the things that distinguishes the god of a monotheistic religion from the gods of polytheistic religions.  In the case of polytheism the various godly attributes are divided up (and there is usually a hierarchy).  In other words, Str is correct. •Jim62sch• 18:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So for the purposes of this article we're distinguishing "God" as meant by Christians, Jews, and Muslims from "God" as meant by, say, Mormons? TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  First sentence 

message: I don't know much about  Al-Ghazali and Maimonides, but the word "scholar" is not the best term for Augustine.  In my mind, the word scholar is about someone whose work involves working on someone else's ideas.  Augustine is a thinker, intellectual, philosopher, etc.  How well does this fit for A-G and Maimonides?   semper fictilis 12:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It isn't a good term for any of them.  They are really theologian philosophers (hyphenated, probably). •Jim62sch• 18:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you guys seriously contending theologians and philosophers are not scholars?  Augustine for instance worked on other people's ideas, Jesus' for instance. Roy Brumback 05:11, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The word "scholar" implies a formal education, derived as it is from the Latin for school. It's quite possible to be a philosopher or theologian without that. That most philosophers and theologians are scholars simply suggests that education either provides useful habits of thought for those pursuits, or that a certain amount of learning is beneficial for them, but there's no need to say that either is a scholar per se. TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: scholar

message: I see that after much debate and work on the intro a fairly good new version was pretty much replaced with a version from a couple of months ago that had several theological arguments in it when they belong in the theology section.  An intro should simply state there are several arguments for and against the existence of God and leave the details to the appropriate section or article.  And the fact that the majority of people believe in the monotheistic God of the article seems germane to an intro of the subject.
I see Marx and Freud have crept back in despite the fact that I pointed out months ago that their arguments against God are simply an Appeal to motive and cited Alister McGrath pointing out that many philosophers feel that they are begging the question as they implicitly assume that God does not exist in order to reach the conclusion that belief in God is based on something other that the truth.
As for Harris et. al's arguments against God based on what they feel are religion's bad effects, these are simply an Appeal to consequence and also a logical fallacy.  I suppose they can be reinserted in the theology section with the logical fallacy counters but that seems a little pointless. Roy Brumback 05:24, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Intro ''again''?

message: Is the photo at the top of the page included as that of God? Is that appropriate? -- Amit 18:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you mean Michaelangelo's Sistine Chapel?  Yes, in fact, we have argued this endlessly, I'm afraid.  Looking through the article now, I see that the only representations of God are by Michaelangelo; at some point, other traditions were better represented.  I would be happy to see more images from other traditions included.  Note that the topmost image is not part of the article proper but from the  template.  Given that the Sistine Chapel God appears in that chunk, I don't see a good reason to use the same image later in the article.  bikeable (talk) 18:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And I just removed it from the template. It seemed patently wrong to place an image in a template like  when most monotheists don't believe that any such image can meaningfully depict him. TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just a question 

message: I view this page once in a while because my article "the god particle" has been referenced as an external site for several years (www.freewebs.com/thegodparticle).  Today I noticed that my name - Joel Schlecht - was still mentioned but my articles link disappeared. As I do not edit this article or any other on wikipedia, I was wondering if someone would put it back.  This is only because I think it is a mistake.  If the article does not belong here that is another story.  However my article was used as part of an answer for google answers.
Thank You,
Joel Schlecht 24.209.156.169 23:56, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  My reference is incorrect.