Talk:Existence of God

Argument of eternity

It's based on the problem of cousciousness as the "one" "thing" "as a whole" that receives information from the brain, what enlgish people usually call awareness. (in french, "la conscience" is the same word for cousciousness and awareness). Basically, there's no need to find who was the first conscient beeing, as cousciousness could not be invented by a non-conscious beeing due to it's inability to calculate and create by itself (beeig uncouscious). It's rather logical to invent uncousciousness out of cousciousness. Wich means... the creator had to be counscious. My argument is always true. God didn't invent cousciousness.... if he at all invented unawareness, it means he knows everything and is aware of everything cause he himself can't be unaware. I will repeat that...

"No intelligence", "can't create intelligence", "Intelligence", "Can create non intelligence." So everything comes from perfection, and whatever the name you call it. I call that God.

My name is Maxim Gravel, and it basically means the greatest god on earth. ^^ I am my own source, but If you tell me to write a book... well i'm just gonna put a video on youtube and it's gonna be relevant... will it justify anything more? If you tell me i'm not known... Well I'll be. Peace —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.165.196.237 (talk) 11:35, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

No one needed to “invent” consciousness; conscious lifeforms evolved from unconscious lifeforms. ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 20:01, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Maxim Gravel, your name means "the greatest god on earth," why the lower case for God?

Basically I see your proof for the existence of God which I define as the creator of everything in the universe the one we are living in and are parts of, consists in interpolating from man, thus:

Man is conscious, intelligent, and produces things, but man has not always been around in the universe; so there is a being greater than man, more conscious, more intelligent, and more productive than man, and this greater or greatest being created man and everything in the universe where man lives in and is a part of.

And I call that entity, God, the creator of everything in the universe where man lives in and is a part of, it is the universe the one where man is living in and to man is the observable universe, this universe is also created by God -- but of course the universe is much much much greater than the part that is observable to man.

I see your proof to be reasonable and already complete for humans who are reasonable -- as being reasonable is the normal condition of man, being unreasonable is the abnormal condition of man.

The thing with humans who want to know more about God aside from knowing that He exists, is how God created and still creates everything, and keeps them existing and also manages them continuously, in a way that for man, man can still exercise his liberty to be normal or to be abnormal, i.e. unreasonable: for being and acting reasonable is the normal condition of man, and thus he cannot otherwise than come to the knowledge of God's existence, being and acting unreasonable that is the abnormal condition of man which man will adopt in order to suppress the knowledge of God's existence in his heart and mind, suppress by being and acting unreasonable, i.e. which is an abnormal condition.

[This edit from Pachomius2000, 011312 Fri 0651 hours, 8 hours in advance of Greenwich] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pachomius2000 (talk • contribs) 22:45, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Strong Atheism

Richard Dawkins is most certainly not a "strong" atheist. He could hardly be explicit in The God Delusion that God "almost certainly" does not exist. This is quite different from asserting that God does not exist. (For Dawkins, the issue is epistemological rather than metaphysical, which is precisely why he's a "weak" atheist.) Ptorr (talk) 00:56, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

The man does not know the distinction between God and religion, and that is because he has a grudge or several against religion, but he conflates God with religion; That goes to show that owing to his grudges against religion he cannot think anymore straight as to be reasonable thus to know that reason dictates man to come to the knowledge of God's existence, whose concept for me is creator of everything in the universe and the universe itself. [This edit from Pachomius2000] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pachomius2000 (talk • contribs) 22:49, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Richard Dawkins seems very clear about the distinction between God and religion, Pachomius2000 (talk · contribs). You say your concept of God is a “creator of everything in the universe and the universe itself”. In The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins defines the God Hypothesis as “there exists a superhuman, supernatural intelligence who deliberately designed and created the universe and everything in it, including us”. Seems similar to, and more rigorous than, your definition. ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 20:29, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

adding to arguments

hi. I was wondering if this argument on the existence of God has been used before. if so, it should go into the article. Essentially, it is this: assuming that there is no physical evidence for God, then a priori we must go through all possibilities for such a being. Thus, God could be any one of an infinite number of possibilities. God could be a: rabbit, dog, insane, one being, many beings, etc. etc. etc. My point is that you don't need to look at many of these possibilities to realize that they are completely irreconcilable with any held by any human deistic religion. Thoughts? BFBbrown (talk) 21:08, 5 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bfbbrown (talk • contribs)

Hi BFBrown, you say:

"Essentially, it is this: assuming that there is no physical evidence for God, then a priori we must go through all possibilities for such a being. Thus, God could be any one of an infinite number of possibilities. God could be a: rabbit, dog, insane, one being, many beings, etc. etc. etc. My point is that you don't need to look at many of these possibilities to realize that they are completely irreconcilable with any held by any human deistic religion. Thoughts?"

I have the idea that the universe is the evidence for the existence of God Whom I define as the creator of everything in the universe and the universe itself.

The universe exists and it is certainly the evidence for a lot of things, thus we need not do away with evidence for God in the fact of the existence of the universe; I mean that there is no reason to do away with evidence for the existence of God, unless you want to do away with the universe; in which case then once you want to assume that there is no universe, you have to stop talking already, since you already consign yourself to nothingness in assuming that the universe does not exist.

Perhaps you might want to consider that the universe is just the size of the nose and even the nose [all in assumption only for the sake of a mental experiment] in the face of man is itself the universe, then you might consider that man is the creator of his nose.

Thus on this analogy which is reasonable we humans existing collectively as man can and does see it to be reasonable that a being I call God in concept the creator of everything in the universe and the universe itself, that concept of God has a corresponding entity in objective reality, namely, the existence of God.

Hope you can see that the knowledge of God's existence is reasonable and any man exercising his reason can and does come to the knowledge of the existence of God as the creator of everything in the universe and also of the universe itself.

[This edit from Pachomius2000, 011312 Fri 0716 hours, 8 hours in advance of Greenwich] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pachomius2000 (talk • contribs) 23:16, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Aspects of your statements relate to everything from animism to existentialism, but you'll need a specific source if you're trying to make a particular point.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:21, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

My particular point, which seems obvious to me, is this: The possibilities I mentioned are mutually exclusive. It seems impossible to me that a notable philosopher, scientist, or pertinent individual has not made such an obvious observation. If such a comment has been made, then it should be mentioned somewhere in the article (and referenced, of course). BFBbrown (talk) 02:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if this sounds flippant, but off you go then - go and find a source on which including such an argument can be based! SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 07:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Biased Article

In my humble opinion this article is very biased towards accepting the view that God does exist. In an article titled "Existence of God" it should also allocate 50% of the discussion to the non-existence of God. Alternatively, it could link to an another page called "The Non-Existence of God". I don't see a link or page.

The list of External Links are all to websites that believe in the existence of God. Again, for an unbiased article 50% of such links should refer to websites that do not believe in God.

This article falls into the conventional pattern of accepting the mainstream and politically correct view of presenting a biased view towards the existence of God. Wikipedia should not be seen biasing itself towards one particular belief or set of opinions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.187.174.42 (talk) 09:24, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

God(s) vs. god(s)

In Christianity and Judaism, it is usual to capitalize God, whereas when referring to other religion one refers to god(s) (lower case). Since this is supposed to be an article about the Existence of a superior being, I submit that all references should be lower cased to "god" or "gods" in order to be religion un-specific. I also submit that the name of the article should be changed to "Existence of god or gods". --Tim Sabin (talk) 03:52, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Maps

Can we put a citation or at least a year on the maps? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.100.48.54 (talk) 03:04, 9 February 2012 (UTC)