Template talk:God arguments
|WikiProject Religion||(Rated Template-class)|
I like it, but I'm afraid I should probably have discussed this somewhere first, so I won't include it in more pages. At least it looks nice... :) I might of course have missed some important argument and the order is almost completely arbitrary, but other than that, I'm very happy with it. --Merzul 23:33, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
"Arguments for and against the existence of God"
A few of these aren't arguments about whether God exists, but about whether we should believe that it does. Suggesting change to something like "Arguments for and against belief in God", which seems to cover all of them. Ilkali 13:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Some arguments, such as the ignostic argument, are not strictly against god (since the ignostic requires the words "god" to be meaningfully defined before deciding whether or not it exists), and therefore should not be placed in an "against" grouping. In other words, this nav box seemingly contradicts the content of the articles it links to, and incorrectly so. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 16:26, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Pascal's wager and Atheist's wager
- I take it you mean believe in God. The template is about reasons to believe in God. God existing or not existing would presumably be one such reason to believe or disbelieve in him (though you could still argue otherwise). Pascal's wager doesn't make any argument about whether God exists (though it assumes that there is some probability of him existing, otherwise it would be kinda pointless).
- We don't actually have an article on belief in God (should we?), but this template is for arguments about that. I might also note that it's fairly arbitrary to divide them into 'for' and 'against' arguments, as many can be both for or against (e.g. free will). But I'm not sure whether it would be better to get rid of the 'for' and 'against' categories, as they do apply to many of them to a greater or lesser degree. Richard001 (talk) 06:22, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
What about this change at the proposed teleological item?
Instead of the former one, I propose, here, the next one:
I maybe could do this correction by myself but I prefer was done by an admin. And so they're people who knows procedures like the one at the discusion pages to improve articles.
Maybe I do it here, too complicated, but it's only this: what I propose:
· Teleological · . . . . . . ( the present one ) & · Teleological (design) . . . ( the proposed one )
Near Death Experiences
I have removed near death experiences from the list as the article it leads to says virtually nothing about NDEs being used as an argument for belief in God and I am unaware of any major thinkers or figures who have used it as an argument in its own right to suggest this. I have no problem with it being reinstated, but before it is, could someone find some examples of it being used as an argument for God's existence. (This is not the first time I've removed links from this template when they lead to articles which make no mention of arguments for/against God's existence).22.214.171.124 (talk) 10:35, 19 April 2009 (UTC)