Talk:Existence of God

Archive

• /Archive 1
• /Archive 2
• /Archive 3

Argument from Physics

I don't feel this belongs here. The information in this section is speculation about a future event, not an argument for the current existence of "God". 216.96.150.36 (talk) 00:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

That statement is incorrect, and it demonstrates that you're forming conclusions without understanding the subject you are speaking about. According to Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point Theory, the universe is brought into being by the Omega Point. That is, the end-state of the universe causally brings about the beginning state, i.e., the Big Bang singularity--since in physics it's just as accurate to say that causation goes from future to past events: viz., the principle of least action; and unitarity. Another way of stating it is that in Prof. Tipler's Omega Point Theory, the Omega Point is the fundamental existential and mathematical entity, from which all of reality derives. Indeed, within Prof. Tipler's Omega Point Theory, the Big Bang singularity and the Omega Point singularity are actually just different functions of the same singularity.--74.4.222.208 (talk) 04:39, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I've read this before, but I still haven't seen any indication that it's much more than a single person's pet fantasy. It's certainly not a genuine "argument from physics" - it presupposes far more than the logical consequences of the laws of physics. Ilkali (talk) 17:12, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

That statement is incorrect, and it demonstrates that you are quite unfamiliar with the subject you are speaking about. Of which there is no excuse for such a false statement on your part, since even in the section pertaining to it in the "Existence of God" article, information is provided on Prof. David Deutsch (inventor of the quantum computer) endorsing the physics of the Omega Point. As well, in the hyperlinked "Omega Point (Tipler)" article, information is provided regarding the many peer-reviewed science journals that Prof. Tipler's Omega Point Theory has been published in, including some of the world's leading physics journals, such as Reports on Progress in Physics and Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society (one of the world's leading astrophysics journals).

Out of 50 articles, Prof. Tipler's 2005 Reports on Progress in Physics paper (F. J. Tipler, "The structure of the world from pure numbers," Vol. 68, No. 4 [April 2005], pp. 897-964) was selected as one of 12 for the "Highlights of 2005" accolade as "the very best articles published in Reports on Progress in Physics in 2005 [Vol. 68]. Articles were selected by the Editorial Board for their outstanding reviews of the field. They all received the highest praise from our international referees and a high number of downloads from the journal Website." (See Richard Palmer, Publisher, "Highlights of 2005," Reports on Progress in Physics.)

Reports on Progress in Physics is the leading journal of the Institute of Physics, Britain's main professional body for physicists. Further, Reports on Progress in Physics has a higher impact factor (according to Journal Citation Reports) than Physical Review Letters, which is the most prestigious American physics journal (one, incidently, which Prof. Tipler has been published in more than once). A journal's impact factor reflects the importance the science community places in that journal in the sense of actually citing its papers in their own papers.

All the above information is available via the "Omega Point (Tipler)" Wikipedia article which is hyperlinked from the "Existence of God" article. Additionally, regarding your comment on the laws of physics, Prof. Tipler demonstrates in his 2005 Reports on Progress in Physics paper that the Omega Point is an unavoidable consequence if the known laws of physics (i.e., the second law of thermodynamics, general relativity, quantum mechanics, and the Standard Model of particle physics) are correct.--74.4.222.208 (talk) 18:02, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

It has exposure because it applies physics in an interesting way. But it is nowhere near being consensus among scientists. This is not like string theory, which has hundreds of advocates and widespread, ongoing research. It's fringe science. A single person's speculation backed by a handful of partial endorsements. I could more or less accept it as an argument from physics, but presenting it as the argument from physics gives the impression of it being far more mainstream than it really is. Ilkali (talk) 18:39, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Within the Wikipedia articles, they are careful to make statements along the lines of "According to Prof. Tipler ..." So your above charge is false and has no relevancy to the Wikipedia entries. And as I demonstrated above, there is nothing fringe about the physics of the Omega Point Theory: it's been published in many peer-reviewed science journals, including a number of the world's leading physics journals (see my previous post above for more details on that); and it is based on the known laws of physics (i.e., the second law of thermodynamics, general relativity, quantum mechanics, and the Standard Model of particle physics), of which have been repeatedly confirmed by every experiment conducted to date. You above demonstrated an appalling ignorance on this issue and made false statements regarding the subject despite the fact that the information pertaining to the matters to which you spoke was readily at hand within the Wikipedia articles on this subject. While lacking knowledge about a subject is not itself an error, what is completely unsound is to have vociferous opinions on an issue while remaining in that state of ignorance.

Regarding string theory, it has no experimental support whatsoever and it violates the known laws of physics (e.g., in general relativity, singularities are unavoidable with realistic energy conditions [for the Hawking-Penrose singularity theorems, see S. W. Hawking and R. Penrose, "The Singularities of Gravitational Collapse and Cosmology," Proceedings of the Royal Society of London; Series A, Mathematical and Physical Sciences, Vol. 314, No. 1519 (January 27, 1970), pp. 529-548], whereas singularities do not occur in string theory), yet the known laws of physics have been repeatedly confirmed by every experiment to date. Right now, string theory isn't even science, since it makes no predictions that can be tested, i.e., it's currently completely non-empirical. To date, string theory is nothing more than mathematical omphaloskepsis.--74.4.222.208 (talk) 19:43, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not here to debate the relative merits of different scientific theories, especially with someone who clearly has axes to grind on the topic. What I'm focusing on is which of "Omega Point theory" and "Argument from physics" is the most appropriate header. I argue that the former is more descriptive and less controversial; we can all agree that it is accurate. What is your argument for the latter? Ilkali (talk) 20:19, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

You have been the one who has so extensively ground your ax within this thread to the degree that you have repeatedly demonstrated an appalling ignorance on this issue while making false statements regarding the subject despite the fact that the information pertaining to the matters to which you spoke was readily at hand within the Wikipedia articles on this subject. As I said previously regarding your unbecoming behavior within this thread: while lacking knowledge about a subject is not itself an error, what is completely unsound is to have vociferous opinions on an issue while remaining in that state of ignorance. Your behavior in that regard within this thread has been scandalous.

Now with your false charge regarding the grinding of axes cleared up, in answer to the question you posed: the subsection title "Argument from physics" is correct because it's describing where the argument is coming from, of which is in keeping with the format for the rest of these subsection titles, as well as with the format of the subsection titles in the "Arguments against belief in God" section. To entitle this subsection "Omega Point Theory" would be breaking with this format of subsection titles. As well, your contention that people could be misled by this title can just as well be applied to the other subsection titles, e.g., one could just as well use the logic of your argument to contend that the title "Arguments from testimony" could mislead people into thinking that the testimony referred to therein represents a consensus regarding reliability. In both titles' cases, such a contention is absurd, since at any rate, if one simply reads further into the body of the subsection, then one will see more precisely regarding the sources of information. Additionaly, the title "Omega Point Theory" is non-descriptive, since (1) it's the name of the physical theory itself rather than describing where the argument for the existence of God is coming from (i.e., as with the rest of these subsection titles), and (2) the name "Omega Point Theory" doesn't mean anything unless one already has at least some passing knowledge of the Omega Point Theory. Regarding point No. 2, this could cause people who would otherwise read the subsection entitled "Argument from physics" to pass it over due to not realizing what its relevance or significance is. Further, these subsection titles are simply factual descriptions of where the argument is coming from, not an agreement that the arguments are correct, so your dispute is without basis.--74.4.222.208 (talk) 21:30, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Tipler's theory is not an established theory accepted by physicists in general. If it is to be mentioned at all in this article, it should be made clear that it is one person's theory, not an argument from physics. Whether or not the scientific aspects of Omega Point theory have any merit (though indeed they do not appear to have a lot of endorsement from any great body of physicists - and articles appearing in science journals does not automatically mean acceptance), Tipler's attempts to correlate his theory with Christian theology read much more like a very poor sci-fi plot than science. Unless and until Tipler's views (including his theological views) are recognised by a significnat amount of scientific peer review, labelling the section as an argument from physics is a violation of Wikipedia's fringe theories guideline. See also Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Pseudoscience--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:09, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Nowhere did I imply that Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point Theory is accepted by physicists in general (for indeed, not even the known laws of physics are accepted by physicists in general, hence the specialization by many physicists in string theory), and as I already clearly explained in my previous post above, the factually correct descriptive title "Argument from physics" does not imply that either. Hence, your above comments are nihil ad rem and a non sequitur. Additionally, I already identified in my previous post above the logical fallacy contained in your foregoing contention: the notion that people could be misled by this title can just as well be applied to the other subsection titles, e.g., one could just as well use the logic of this notion to contend that the title "Arguments from historical events or personages" could mislead people into thinking that the history or people referred to therein represents a consensus regarding reliability. In both titles' cases, such a contention is without merit, since at any rate, if one simply reads further into the body of the subsection, then one will see more precisely regarding the sources of information.

As well, you are here violating your own stated criteria. You wrote, "Unless and until Tipler's views (including his theological views) are recognised by a significnat amount of scientific peer review ..." As I above demonstrated, Prof. Tipler's Omega Point Theory has been publish in many peer-reviewed science journals, including a number of the leading physics journals. The Wikipedia article on the Omega Point Theory lists seven different scientific journals in which said theory has been published. That is quite a significant amount. Regarding theology, one of the world's leading theologians, Prof. Wolfhart Pannenberg, has defended the theology of the Omega Point Theory, and Prof. Tipler has published regarding the Omega Point Theory's theology in the academic peer-reviewed literature.

Your statement that "Tipler's attempts to correlate his theory with Christian theology read much more like a very poor sci-fi plot than science" demonstrates your prejudiced bias. That statement shows that you're acting out of a distaste for the idea that God can be explained via a physical theory.

Additionaly, the title "Omega Point Theory" is non-descriptive, since (1) it's the name of the physical theory itself rather than describing where the argument for the existence of God is coming from (i.e., as with the rest of these subsection titles), and (2) the name "Omega Point Theory" doesn't mean anything unless one already has at least some passing knowledge of the Omega Point Theory. Regarding point No. 2, this could cause people who would otherwise read the subsection entitled "Argument from physics" to pass it over due to not realizing what its relevance or significance is. Further, these subsection titles are simply factual descriptions of where the argument is coming from, not an agreement that the arguments are correct, so your dispute is without basis.

Due to the foregoing reasons, as well as the other reasons given in my previous post above, the proper title of this subsection remains "Argument from physics."--74.4.222.208 (talk) 00:18, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

"You have been the one who has so...", "...demonstrated an appalling...", "...your unbecoming behavior...", "...been scandalous", etc, etc): Tedious. Not interested.

"the subsection title "Argument from physics" is correct because it's describing where the argument is coming from, of which is in keeping with the format for the rest of these subsection titles, as well as with the format of the subsection titles in the "Arguments against belief in God" section". At a glance, it seems those sections all comprise lists of arguments. Their headers need to be general because the listed arguments don't share many common factors. That's not the case for the Omega Point section, so there's no reason to name it the same way.

Here's another issue: Omega Point currently has four paragraphs of text describing it, while most of the arguments mentioned above it have little more than a sentence. Is there some reason it warrants this relatively extensive discussion? How about this: We rename the 'Argument from Physics' section to something like 'Arguments from scientific principles', then include a single bullet point with a brief (1-3 sentences) summary of Omega Point and a link to the appropriate article. Ilkali (talk) 23:43, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your second paragraph above, the subsections within the sections "Arguments for the existence of God" and "Arguments against belief in God" do provide explanations regarding what the claims are and their relevancy to the subject of the article. The reason they appear in list formats is because multiple different subsets of arguments are being given, whereas there exists no other peer-reviewed modern physical theory which is claimed to be a proof of God's existence, hence the reason the title of this subsection is given in the singular as "Argument from physics," instead of the plural "Arguments from physics" as with the other said subsections.

Pertaining to your third paragraph above, the amount of space taken up by the "Argument from physics" subsection is less than or about the same as most the other subsections within this and the "Arguments against belief in God" sections. The subsection gives a quick statement regarding the main points of the theory which are relevant to this article. Given how novel the theory is (in the sense of confronting its reader with ideas with which they are likely unfamiliar), the depth of the theory, and its importance (whether one agrees with it or not), that its length is smaller than or about the same size as most of the other said subsections is rather remarkable (i.e., since explaining what the other claims are and their relevancy to the subject of the article is much easier due to them being based on much more familiar concepts), and therefore certainly cannot be a source of legitimate complaint. The title "Arguments from scientific principles" is arcane and roundabout--hence liable to cause confusion rather than comprehension--and it's open to the same logically fallacious objection that "Argument from physics" is. Again, these subsection titles are simply factual descriptions of where the argument is coming from, not an agreement that the arguments are correct.--74.4.222.208 (talk) 01:03, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

"The reason they appear in list formats is because multiple different subsets of arguments are being given, whereas there exists no other peer-reviewed modern physical theory which is claimed to be a proof of God's existence". I don't think you're listening. Your argument was that X should be treated as Z because Y is. It's an argument by analogy, and it only holds if X and Y are contextually equivalent. They're not. I repeat: The list sections need general titles. That is why they have general titles. The Omega Point section, as it stands, does not need a general title.

"the amount of space taken up by the "Argument from physics" subsection is less than or about the same as most the other subsections within this and the "Arguments against belief in God" sections". That's not how it works. Space isn't divided between sections, it's divided between arguments. Sections are just there to provide logical groupings for easier reading. The Omega Point argument has far less prominence, popularity and historical significance than many of the other arguments. The article has lacked mention of it for years before you (whose sole purpose on Wikipedia seems to be to create and edit content on Omega Point) created the section. Your opinions on how "novel" or "important" the theory are do not factor into this.

We've reached the point where I have to ask: How do you see this panning out? Assuming it remains the case that most involved editors are opposed in some way to the section, is there some point where you will acquiesce to the majority opinion? Ilkali (talk) 01:33, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your first paragraph's claim, these subsection titles are simply factual descriptions of where the argument is coming from, not an agreement that the arguments are correct. Hence, the entire dispute on this matter, from pillar to post, is without basis.

Concerning your second paragraph's claims, the subsection gives a quick statement regarding the main points of the theory which are relevant to this article. Given how novel the theory is (in the sense of confronting its reader with ideas with which they are likely unfamiliar), the depth of the theory, and its importance (whether one agrees with it or not), that its length is smaller than or about the same size as most of the other said subsections is rather remarkable (i.e., since explaining what the other claims are and their relevancy to the subject of the article is much easier due to them being based on much more familiar concepts), and therefore certainly cannot be a source of legitimate complaint. Yes, the other subsections are dvided into smaller lists, but the ideas they trade in are far more familiar and hence it's much easier to describe what claim is being made and its relevancy to the subject of the article. You wrote "Your opinions on how 'novel' or 'important' the theory are do not factor into this." Those aren't merely my opinions. Prof. John A. Wheeler (the father of most relativity research in the U.S.), Prof. David Deutsch (the inventor of the quantum computer), and Prof. Wolfhart Pannenberg (one of the world's leading theologians) have said similar things regarding Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point Theory. If that's a concern of yours, I can add references in the subsection to them.

You also wrote that my "sole purpose on Wikipedia seems to be to create and edit content on Omega Point," which is another false claim by you. One which, again, is quite easily disprovable for anyone who wants to bother.

Pertaining to the queries you posed in your third paragraph above, I'm not a crystal-ball gazer. Quite unlike you, I simply stick with the facts, whereas you have been quite scandalous in your behavior within this thread in repeatedly making false statements for which there is no excuse given that the information concerning said statements by you was readily at hand within the Wikipedia articles regarding the subject. Nor do I regard you as representing majority opinion.--74.4.222.208 (talk) 02:12, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Repeatedly copy-and-pasting earlier text doesn't help anything, especially when it addresses arguments the other person hasn't made. I'm not sure there's any progress to be made here, because you don't seem willing to consider your fellow editors as anything more than obstacles. You need to understand that Wikipedia doesn't dance to the tune of any single editor, no matter how much he thinks he's right. It's a collaborative effort. Winning arguments is worthless if you don't persuade anybody, and treating people with contempt is only going to discourage them from listening to you. Ilkali (talk) 02:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous editor, your entire argument is a violation of WP:FRINGE. Your very reasoning that a more notable heading 'should' be used is exactly why it should not. You are trying to ascribe more notability to this theory than it actually has by lending it a more credible heading. Many theories get 'published'; that does not automatically make them notable with regard to acceptance in the scientific community. Your position also raises issues with Wikipedia's notability, scientific concensus and WP:Undue Weight policies.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:51, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Jeffro77, it was clearly demonstrated above that your claims regarding "fringe" are false. And here again you're demonstrating your prejudiced bias and what your agenda is with your title change: as your foregoing remarks reveal, the title "Argument from physics" is actually descriptive of the content (in keeping with the rest of the subsection titles in question), whereas the name "Omega Point Theory" doesn't mean anything to most people. As revealed by your remarks, your intent with the title change is to obfuscate the meaning in the hope that people will pay the subsection no heed.

By simply maintaining the title format of all the other subsection titles within the "Arguments for the existence of God" and "Arguments against belief in God" sections, one is not thereby giving this subsection undue weight: rather, one is merely treating this subsection's title the same as all the other said subsections' titles. So this is an utterly bizarre claim for you to make, and it further shows your irrational bias regarding this matter.

You have repeatedly made false statements demonstrating an appalling ignorance on this issue despite the fact that the information pertaining to the matters to which you spoke was readily at hand within the Wikipedia articles on this subject. As I said elsewhere concerning similar unbecoming behavior on the part of another: while lacking knowledge about a subject is not itself an error, what is completely unsound is to have vociferous opinions on an issue while remaining in that state of ignorance. Your behavior in that regard within this thread has been scandalous.

Regarding your claim pertaining to consensus, nowhere is it implied in the article that Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point Theory is accepted by physicists in general (for indeed, not even the known laws of physics are accepted by physicists in general, hence the specialization by many physicists in string theory), and as I already clearly explained in my previous post above, the factually correct descriptive title "Argument from physics" does not imply that either. Hence, your above comments are nihil ad rem and a non sequitur. Additionally, I already identified in my previous post above the logical fallacy contained in your foregoing contention: the notion that people could be misled by this title can just as well be applied to the other subsection titles, e.g., one could just as well use the logic of this notion to contend that the title "Arguments from historical events or personages" could mislead people into thinking that the history or people referred to therein represents a consensus regarding reliability. In both titles' cases, such a contention is without merit, since at any rate, if one simply reads further into the body of the subsection, then one will see more precisely regarding the sources of information.

But most importantly, these subsection titles are simply factual descriptions of where the argument is coming from, not an agreement that the arguments are correct, so your dispute is without basis.--74.4.222.208 (talk) 01:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, "the specialization by many physicists in string theory" stands in stark contrast to this single person with their pet theory that attempts to combine theology with physics. In fact, the misleading heading is not the only problem; the amount of text devoted to this theory in the article at all is in fact a violation of WP:FRINGE. The article would more properly be relegated to a link in the See Also section, and it is quite a concession to leave it in at all.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:42, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

---

One again, Jeffro77, you are making false statements. As I above demonstrated, Prof. Tipler's Omega Point Theory has been publish in many peer-reviewed science journals, including a number of the leading physics journals. The Wikipedia article on the Omega Point Theory lists seven different scientific journals in which said theory has been published. That is quite a significant amount.

There is no excuse for such a false statements on your part, since even in the section pertaining to it in "Existence of God" article, information is provided on Prof. David Deutsch (inventor of the quantum computer) endorsing the physics of the Omega Point. As well, in the hyperlinked "Omega Point (Tipler)" article, information is provided regarding the many peer-reviewed science journals that Prof. Tipler's Omega Point Theory has been published in, including some of the world's leading physics journals, such as Reports on Progress in Physics and Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society (one of the world's leading astrophysics journals).

Out of 50 articles, Prof. Tipler's 2005 Reports on Progress in Physics paper (F. J. Tipler, "The structure of the world from pure numbers," Vol. 68, No. 4 [April 2005], pp. 897-964) was selected as one of 12 for the "Highlights of 2005" accolade as "the very best articles published in Reports on Progress in Physics in 2005 [Vol. 68]. Articles were selected by the Editorial Board for their outstanding reviews of the field. They all received the highest praise from our international referees and a high number of downloads from the journal Website." (See Richard Palmer, Publisher, "Highlights of 2005," Reports on Progress in Physics.)

Reports on Progress in Physics is the leading journal of the Institute of Physics, Britain's main professional body for physicists. Further, Reports on Progress in Physics has a higher impact factor (according to Journal Citation Reports) than Physical Review Letters, which is the most prestigious American physics journal (one, incidently, which Prof. Tipler has been published in more than once). A journal's impact factor reflects the importance the science community places in that journal in the sense of actually citing its papers in their own papers.

Regarding string theory, it has no experimental support whatsoever and it violates the known laws of physics (e.g., in general relativity, singularities are unavoidable with realistic energy conditions [for the Hawking-Penrose singularity theorems, see S. W. Hawking and R. Penrose, "The Singularities of Gravitational Collapse and Cosmology," Proceedings of the Royal Society of London; Series A, Mathematical and Physical Sciences, Vol. 314, No. 1519 (January 27, 1970), pp. 529-548], whereas singularities do not occur in string theory), yet the known laws of physics have been repeatedly confirmed by every experiment to date. Right now, string theory isn't even science, since it makes no predictions that can be tested, i.e., it's currently completely non-empirical. To date, string theory is nothing more than mathematical omphaloskepsis.--74.4.222.208 (talk) 02:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Deutsch's endorsement of the physics has no bearing on Tipler's theological opinions, nor does the appearance of his scientific articles in journals. There is no evidence that any peer review has lended any credibility at all to Tipler's theory that his Omega Point model proves the existence of God.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:57, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Once again, that's another false statement by you. Below is the abstract to Frank J. Tipler, "The Omega Point as Eschaton: Answers to Pannenberg's Questions for Scientists," Zygon: Journal of Religion & Science, Vol. 24, Issue 2 (June 1989), pp. 217-253:

I present an outline of the Omega Point theory, which is a model for an omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent, evolving, personal God who is both transcendent to spacetime and immanent in it, and who exists necessarily. The model is a falsifiable physical theory, deriving its key concepts not from any religious tradition but from modern physical cosmology and computer science; from scientific materialism rather than revelation. Four testable predictions of the model are given. The theory assumes that thinking is a purely physical process of the brain, and that personality dies with the brain. Nevertheless, I show that the Omega Point theory suggests a future universal resurrection of the dead very similar to the one predicted in the Judeo-Christian-Islamic tradition. The notions of "grace" and the "beatific vision" appear naturally in the model.

Zygon is a peer-reviewed academic journal on religion and science.--74.4.222.208 (talk) 03:14, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I suppose I could have looked into this Deutsch fellow a bit deeper, but it is rather late. Of course, it serves your argument very little indeed to point out that this proponent of Tipler's theory is writing in a journal "of Religion & Science" (rather than a purely scientific journal) would would unsurprisingly back a fringe theory in the interests of religion. Any endorsements from scientists who don't have a strong bias?--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:33, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, on consideration of Deutsch's quote, he isn't actually endorsing the theory anyway, just presenting it.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:52, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Your reading-comprehension is deplorable; but then that's in keeping with your typical handling of factual concerns as pertains to the matters discussed in this thread. It's quite clearly stated above that the article is by Prof. Frank J. Tipler. And your accusations of Prof. David Deutsch being biased are absurd. He's not gaining anything by endorsing the physics of the Omega Point Theory. Indeed, he regards himself as an atheist, so if anything his bias would be against the Omega Point Theory.--74.4.222.208 (talk) 03:49, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Dealt with in the edit I was making at the same time, above. And of course, you've just further demonstrated that Tipler is in fact still the only source.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:52, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Yet again, that's a false statement. As I above demonstrated, Prof. Tipler's Omega Point Theory has been publish in many peer-reviewed science journals, including a number of the leading physics journals. The Wikipedia article on the Omega Point Theory lists seven different scientific journals in which said theory has been published (and that's not including the Zygon journal). That is quite a significant amount.

Perhaps what you mean by "source" is that Prof. Tipler is the originator of the Omega Point Theory. That's true. But there is given a citation within the "Argument from physics" subsection to Prof. David Deutsch's endorsement of the physics of the Omega Point Theory in his book The Fabric of Reality, wherein he devotes nearly the entire last chapter to said theory. In that citation it links to the relevant excerpts of the chapter, if you wish to read it. As well, Prof. Wolfhart Pannenberg, one of the world's leading theologians, has written multiple times in support of the theology of the Omega Point Theory.--74.4.222.208 (talk) 04:22, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

My reading comprehension is actually very good, though it's not at its best now at 4AM. In any case, your position remains fatally flawed.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:54, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

On further consideration, the reference provided for Deutsch ([1]) actually debunks the theological aspects of Tipler's theory. If Deutsch is the best you can do for a reference, it doesn't help the position for inclusion of Omega Point theory in this article at all. For example, Deutsch says:

I have mentioned several respects in which Tipler's 'God' differs from the God or gods that most religious people believe in. There are further differences, too. For instance, the people near the omega point could not, even if they wanted to, speak to us or communicate their wishes to us, or work miracles (today). They did not create the universe, and they did not invent the laws of physics – nor could they violate those laws if they wanted to. They may listen to prayers from the present day (perhaps by detecting very faint signals), but they cannot answer them. They are (and this we can infer from Popperian epistemology) opposed to religious faith, and have no wish to be worshipped. And so on. But Tipler ploughs on, and argues that most of the core features of the God of the Judaeo-Christian religions are also properties of the omega point. Most religious people will, I think, disagree with Tipler about what the core features of their religions are.

--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:26, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I already said that Prof. David Deutsch regards himself as an atheist, which further demonstrates the absurdity of your charge of him being biased. Indeed, Prof. Tipler himself regarded himself as an atheist until circa 1998. But in the above excerpt that you provide, Prof. Deutsch is talking about the society near the Omega Point, not the Omega Point itself. Prof. Tipler agrees with Deutsch that the society near the Omega Point is not God in all his/her fullness.

The point of the citation to Prof. David Deutsch is that he agrees that the Omega Point exists, i.e., that the physics of the Omega Point Theory are correct, and that the diverging-to-infinity computational capacity of the universe can be used in order to resurrect the dead by perfectly emulating every possible quantum configuration of, e.g., the present universe.--74.4.222.208 (talk) 04:54, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I have deleted this section altogether. Aside from its questionable notability, it doesn't actually say anything of substance about the actual existence of God anyway, and is therefore out of scope.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:16, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

You have a great yen for making false statements, Jeffro77. Even you ought be well-aware that your above statement is false, since even a cursory reading of the subsection "Argument from physics" shows that it's a physical theory in which its author claims to be a physical proof for the existence of God. Your false claims have become utterly bizarre in their absurdity and obvious erronousness. You have here demonstrated even further what your agenda is: censorship of information you desire people not be aware of; censorship of information for which you have a distaste.

Your behavior has been atrocious within this thread and in your edits pertaining to this subject, but at least with your present action you have made quite clear the absurdist extent of your prejudiced irrationality and bias.--74.4.222.208 (talk) 02:36, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the part of the article that is not relevant, and have requested mediation to determine suitability of the section.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:48, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

You deleted the entire subsection. When I reverted your blatant vandalization, you then deleted the relevant portion regarding the afterlife, which is one of the principle powers that people attribute to God. You also added the factually false tag "This article or section relies largely or entirely upon a single source," when in fact, even in your vandalized shortened version, there was in fact three different citations--so you can't even get that right. I don't know what your problem is, Jeffro77, but you need to seek help.--74.4.222.208 (talk) 02:56, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Tipler is the source on which the section "largely" relies, and the only source for the part that has any bearing on the existence of God. Belief in an afterlife (as tenuous as it is in Tipler's fringe theory) is superfluous to the scope of this article, and even if Tipler's theory were correct, his application of an afterlife does not necessitate the existence of God.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:03, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

The fact is that the tag you added into there was factually incorrect. You can't even get that right. There were three different citations, not one. As well, Prof. David Deutsch (inventor of the quantum computer) has endorsed the physics of the Omega Point Theory. Yet you deleted that citation.

You have already clearly demonstrated what your agenda is: censorship of information you desire people not be aware of; censorship of information for which you have a distaste.

Your behavior has been atrocious within this thread and in your vandalizing edits pertaining to this subject, but at least with such actions you have made quite clear the absurdist extent of your prejudiced irrationality and bias.--74.4.222.208 (talk) 03:27, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

The tag was entirely appropriate. It is for use when a section is based either entirely, or largely, on a single source. Your text is based almost entirely on Tipler's writings. Specifically, the only part that has any relevance to the purpose of this article uses only Tipler as a source.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:12, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Your concept of a "source" is fallacious. Those were three different sources, one of which was to one of the leading peer-reviewed physics journals in the world: Reports on Progress in Physics. Prof. Tipler was not in charge of reviewing his own paper for that journal. By approving its publication, the professional physicists who refereed the paper could find nothing wrong with the paper within its paradigm of assumptions (which in this case, is the known laws of physics, i.e., the second law of thermodynamics, general relativity, quantum mechanics, and the Standard Model of particle physics). So this approval for publication itself is an endorsement that the professional physicist peer-reviewers could find nothing wrong with the physics or mathematics within the paper's declared assumptions (i.e., the known laws of physics). As well, you also removed the citation wherein Prof. David Deutsch endorses the physics of the Omega Point Theory.--74.4.222.208 (talk) 04:37, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

As previously stated, Deutsch's endorsement of the physics has no bearing on the suggestion that it proves the existence of God. In fact Deutsch explicitly debunks those aspects. None of what you have said suggests any acceptance by the scientific community regarding Tipler's theological views, and it does not seem that any other phycisists have acquiesced with those theological views. I am going to bed, and will see what it looks like when I wake up. Do not remove the dispute tags - which you should have no problem with, as you made similar demands of me.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:49, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Prof. David Deutsch's critique of the theology of the Omega Point is quite flawed. Prof. Deutsch is not a theological thinker, and he has no particular expertise or erudition in the field (whereas Prof. Tipler is quite erudite on theological matters); rather, Prof. Deutsch is a great physicist. One of the world's leading theologians, Prof. Wolfhart Pannenberg, has defended the theology of the Omega Point in multiple writings. But if one wants to add that Prof. Deutsch doesn't regard the Omega Point as being God, then that's fine.

Regarding the tag "This article or section relies largely or entirely upon a single source," I looked up the definition of a source in Wikipedia:Citing_sources, and it give the definition of a source that I have been using: i.e., each different document is a source. Hence, this tag is factually incorrect. Therefore I'm removing it.

And just to add again, one of the given sources is to one of the leading peer-reviewed physics journals in the world: Reports on Progress in Physics. Prof. Tipler was not in charge of reviewing his own paper for that journal. By approving its publication, the professional physicists who refereed the paper could find nothing wrong with the paper within its paradigm of assumptions (which in this case, is the known laws of physics, i.e., the second law of thermodynamics, general relativity, quantum mechanics, and the Standard Model of particle physics). So this approval for publication itself is an endorsement that the professional physicist peer-reviewers could find nothing wrong with the physics or mathematics within the paper's declared assumptions (i.e., the known laws of physics). As well, Prof. David Deutsch endorses the physics of the Omega Point Theory.--74.4.222.208 (talk) 05:14, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

You keep pasting the same chunks of text over and over again. This has been dealt with above previously.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:19, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy on sources states:

Wikipedia articles should use reliable, third-party, published sources. Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. ... Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made;

Acceptance by other scholars of any of the physics presented by Tipler does not establish any acceptance of Tipler's theological theories in the scientific community, as is explicitly shown by Deutsch. No sources that endorse Tipler's theology have been provided, which is the specific purported relevance to this article. It has absolutely not been established that Tipler is a reliable source regarding his theological views. The presence of articles (all written by Tipler) in scientific journals is being used as a fallacious argument from authority to establish validity of his theologicl views.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:13, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I've opened a Wikiquette alert regarding 74.4.222.208 here. Ilkali (talk) 03:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Since 74.4.222.208 has now reverted five times within one day, I've also filed a 3RR report here. Ilkali (talk) 12:38, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

In the middle of this heated debate I think 74.4.222.208 is using unnecessarily long words. This is not a discussion about people's opinions, it is about facts. 69.136.72.16 (talk) 00:35, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Please, go easy on each other, such energy could be channeled for useful purposes. We could try finding God and die in the process - could be more worthwhile than killing eachother for nothing. --Kaosa (talk) 17:12, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

• Reduce The section on the Omega Point should be greatly reduced as it is a fringe theory with no general support or credibility amongst physicists. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:50, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - responding to RfC request. In general, we try to use the most specific, easily understandable terms possible. Based on the statements above, the essential argument seems to be over "Argument by physics" or similar and "Omega Point theory" or similar as the title for the section related to this subject. Of the two, the second would to my eyes be clearly preferable. Referring to "physics" in general is neither at all specific nor particularly clear, while explicit reference to the Omega Point theory, which seems to be the primary subject here, is both more specific and probably a bit clearer to the average reader, as it doesn't require further delimiting later. As for whether the position should be discussed in detail, I would personally think that it should receive no more attention than the majority of the earlier "scientific proofs" of God. Much of the material, particularly regarding the possible circular nature of time, would be better included in other articles, and not need to be repeated here. Also, it does not seem to have become a particularly notable argument within the larger discussion of the possible existence of God, and thus probably shouldn't receive undue weight within this article. Scientific evidence of the existence of God or some similar article might be a better place for such content. John Carter (talk) 22:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Atheism Bias

I do not feel comfortable with just having an atheism group working on this. We need both sides. It's like writing an article about meat with the help of a vegetarian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.68.237.117 (talk) 11:14, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I am afraid that is what we are stuck with. Since everyone has a different definition of what god is, and is atheistic towards all other definitions it would be impossible to include "both sides" as you are asking because there aren't two sides, there are millions. What good would an article titled "Existence of ___" be? --Jake4d (talk) 12:48, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Anyone is free to edit this article - the "groups" listed above are not necessarily representative of who is actually editing this article (whilst I am an atheist, I didn't find this article via the Atheism group). It's also part of WikiProject Philosophy, anyway. If another "group" wants to add this page to their project, they are free to do so. Mdwh (talk) 20:59, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

This article is on the 'Existence of God'. Atheist lack belief in a God, thus I don't see how this article is fair under the powers of an atheistic orgy?--72.74.114.109 (talk) 03:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Orgy? Why wasn't I told? ^_^ Anyway, this page is about the literature on the existence of God, so it shouldn't play a role who is editing, as long as WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:DUE are observed. Do you have any specific complaints wrt the content, the references cited, or ... ? If not, I think your best choice of course would be to ask WikiProject_Christianity why they do not appear to be interested in this article. Who knows, maybe it was a mere oversight. Paradoctor (talk) 14:32, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Oops. I think a bunch of people who don't believe in Santa Claus were caught working on that article...Quietmarc (talk) 22:22, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Part protect

Once the current dispute is resolved, I would like to request partial protection of this article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:05, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

How about the contradictions?

All respect to your point of view. But, do you honestly believe that the character of God is displayed accurately? One one hand God is portrayed as One who knows all, but then again could he have forgotten the shape of our solar system - leave alone the universe? So much as to bring down the Tower of Babel before the earthlings could build to His high place? And about mixing their language, doesn't the law of God teach people to love one another, how could He possibly go against His principles (...does he have such?) to cause all the tribalism in Africa and racism elsewhere? All these wars in His name...

Maybe you will agree with me, chaos rules the day. Could God choose a race from among humans and use them to slaughter all the others? What is His gain? Now again, do you believe that African, Indians, Chinese, Arabs, Blondes and others all originated from Noah and his three sons? If so, does it mean that man (according to the Bible) evolved after Noah's time to all the UNIQUE races that walk this earth now? Did the EVOLUTION take only 4,000 years? Or is man, according to that definition, only the white man? Then where did all the others come from?

Is it possible that, God went on a 'creation spree' one day, or maybe in six days (if God exists at all)? Then He created a black man, moved a little distance and created a white man, moved a little distance and created an Indian, etc in a certain order? Or did he create several 'Adams' and 'Eves' instantaneously then later on proceeded to seperate them with masses of water so that they could not mix?

Don't you think there is more to this than just a twist in the laws of Physics?

--Kaosa (talk) 16:29, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Are you suggesting a change to the article, or just using Wikipedia as a forum?--Jeffro77 (talk) 19:24, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

By all means - this discussion might turn out to be the most important discussion of our lives, for all mankind (considering we only exist for limited periods). --Kaosa (talk) 13:51, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Please read WP:NOTAFORUM. Ilkali (talk) 14:24, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Done that. We're cool. No offence meant--62.24.99.80 (talk) 11:15, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Ilkali, I removed my entire argument. But, how are we expected to make any progress with our hands tied behind our backs? --62.24.99.80 (talk) 11:01, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

You don't understand the purpose of this talk page. There are plenty of places on the internet where you can go to talk about theology. This just isn't one of them. Ilkali (talk) 12:30, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you might want to look at this: Existence of God is part of WikiProject Atheism, which aims to organize, expand, clean up, and guide atheism related articles on Wikipedia. --Kaosa (talk) 11:36, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

To clarify a little bit, the existence of GOD has everything to do with theology and history and almost nothing to do with Physics. You don't expect to physically find God, or evidence of His whereabouts. Do you? Please note that Dan Brown (after The Da Vinci Code) was thoroughly criticized, one such critic is Chuck Missler - The Da Vinci Deception, over his apparent lack of information on what is contained in Judeo-religious material (like The Bible). We should learn from that and take time to study on what other people believe before we start qualifying or disqualifying it on our grounds. I also need to remind you that people have paid big prices for their belief in God, and though I am also into Physics, I am sure this is no forum for Physicists either. You can't just send me off. What do you say?--Kaosa (talk) 14:26, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Your posting here is pointless until you understand the purpose of Wikipedia and its talk pages. This space is only for discussion of improvement of the article, and Wikipedia does not include original research. Ilkali (talk) 15:22, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

You mind providing a link to the article you've so much spoken about?--62.24.99.80 (talk) 16:04, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

...you're serious? Scroll up to the top of the page and look at the third orange box. The one that starts with "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Existence of God article". Read everything in there, including the linked policy pages. Ilkali (talk) 16:12, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Done. I find that in the article, Omega Point Theory is only a small section of it. I quote "Deductive arguments attempt to prove their conclusions by deductive reasoning from true premises" right from the article. I also find theology is really important here--62.24.99.80 (talk) 16:22, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Kaosa (62.24.99.80). Theology is of course important to this article. However, we cannot seek to prove or disprove any particular theological views here, as that is not Wikipedia's purpose. Wikipedia needs to present what is already known about a topic, with reputable, verifiable sources. Additionally, and particularly in regard to the Omega Point theory section, we must not make a particular idea seem more widely accepted than it actually is. This page is specifically for discussing improvements to its associated article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 17:14, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I see I got your attention. Your knowing my IP address is not in the least scary. I own none of 'em. The point is, there is not a heading or discussion topic for "Omega Point Theory" that is just a sub-topic, and a rather baseless one, much more difficult to accept than the most absurd religion. Did you try to block me?--Kaosa (talk) 17:42, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Though you don't seem to understand many of Wikipedia's editing principles, I don't see a reason to request that you be blocked (unless you deliberately break the rules once you understand them), and I have made no 'attempt' or request to block you. 'Knowing your IP address' is not intended to 'scare' you at all - it is quite clear from the conversation in this topic that the IP-based edits were the same user. You may also like to review WP:Assume Good Faith.

Based on what you've said above along with your other comments on this page, it is unclear what point you are trying to make regarding the content of the article. Are you suggesting any particular change? If you feel you can improve the article, you can go ahead and edit it.--Jeffro77 (talk) 17:55, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for the advice. Bold as I may be (WP:bold) I understand that it is not what I feel alone that counts here. I suggest that the entire Omega Point Theory be removed from the article (Existence of God) for it contradicts the neutral point of view. Only a link to the article 'Omega Point Theory' should remain. The last line in the section "Most religious people will, I think, disagree with Tipler about what the core features of their religions are" should strengthen my point. 'Omega Point Theory' should remain as an article but only as a book-review like the other controversial 'Da Vinci Code'.--Kaosa^talk12:37, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree. This theory isn't significant enough to rate a mention on this page, let alone a multi-paragraph explanation. Ben Standeven (talk) 06:32, 15 December 2008 (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)

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)

Accusations made by 74.4.222.20

Jeffro77 replaced this entry--which is very similar to the version that existed there since October 31, 2008, with some improvements--with this entry, giving the excuse in his edit summary of "WP:FRINGE," which doesn't even make sense as an explanation for his edits: i.e., deletion of a number of citations; deletion of the information on theologian Prof. Wolfhart Pannenberg's defense of the theology of the Omega Point Theory; etc. As well, there's no need for the large displayed quote, as the previous entry already stated that Prof. David Deutsch doesn't agree that the Omega Point is God; furthermore, Jeffro77's edit deletes the mention of the fact that Prof. Deutsch endorses the physics of the Omega Point Theory.

In addtion, Jeffro77's edit isn't even literate, as he give the following mangled citation to Prof. Deutsch: "Chapter 14: "The Ends of the Universe," with additional comments by Frank J. Tipler; also available here". Whereas the version before was properly cited: "David Deutsch, The Fabric of Reality: The Science of Parallel Universes—and Its Implications (London: Allen Lane The Penguin Press, 1997), ISBN 0713990619. Extracts from Chapter 14: "The Ends of the Universe," with additional comments by Frank J. Tipler; also available here and here."

Given that an edit cannot read, I suppose that yes, my edit isn't 'literate'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 18:29, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

As stated above, Jeffro77's excuse in his edit summary doesn't even make sense, as it doesn't explain why he would delete mention of Prof. Deutsch's endorsement of the physics of the Omega Point Theory, particularly since Jeffro77 himself called Deutsch an "eminent physicist" in his own edit (i.e., that statement wasn't there before): of which argues against the notion that Jeffro77 considers the physics of the Omega Point Theory as fringe. Further, Jeffro77 deleted mention of the fact that Prof. Wolfhart Pannenberg, who is one of the leading theologians in the world, has defended the theology of the Omega Point Theory and Tipler's position that the Omega Point is consistent with the Judeo-Christian God.

Additionally, while Jeffro77's "fringe" claim's aren't even relevant to his edit, they have already been refuted numerous times. Indeed, Jeffro77 himself refutes this claim in this very edit of his: to state again, therein Jeffro77 himself called Prof. Deutsch an "eminent physicist" in his own words. So obviously Jeffro77 himself must consider Deutsch's endorsement of the physics of the Omega Point Theory to be noteworthy, and yet he deleted this endoresement in an area where Jeffro77 himself agrees that Deutsch is eminently qualified and replaced it with a large displayed quotation regarding a matter that Deutsch has no qualification or erudition in, even though the previous version already clearly mentioned that Deutsch disagrees that Omega Point is God. Moreover, in this edit Jeffro77 deletes all mention of the fact that an actual trained theologian, Prof. Wolfhart Pannenberg, who is one of the world's leading theologians, has defended the theology of the Omega Point Theory.

As well, Prof. Tipler himself has defended the theology of the Omega Point Theory and his identification of the Omega Point as being God in a peer-reviewed academic journal: see Frank J. Tipler, "The Omega Point as Eschaton: Answers to Pannenberg's Questions for Scientists," Zygon: Journal of Religion & Science, Vol. 24, Issue 2 (June 1989), pp. 217-253. Regarding the physics, Prof. Tipler has published his Omega Point Theory in many peer-reviewed science journals, including a number of the leading physics journals such as Reports on Progress in Physics (one of the world's leading physics journals) and Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society (one of the world's leading astrophysics journals). The Wikipedia article on the Omega Point Theory lists seven different mainstream peer-reviewed scientific journals in which Tipler's Omega Point Theory has been published (and that's not including the Zygon journal). That is quite a significant amount.

Jeffro77 is out of control. Given his mangled and illiterate Deutsch citation, he doesn't even know what he's doing: he's simply wildly deleting information he dislikes, like a bull on a rampage in a china shop.--74.4.222.208 (talk) 17:36, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Editing based on a difference of opinion is not vandalism, and you should not call it that. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:23, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

It is vandalism. It is best to argue issues out rather than deleting. See Absolute Zero RR.--Kaosa (talk) 17:35, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

A theologian defended a view that supports his theology, though he has no qualifications in the physics. Tipler's belief that the Omega Point is God is entirely a fringe theory, with no accreditation from any physicists. Endorsement of the science of Tipler's theory is no endorsement of his theology, and is not relevant to this article.

Your longwinded and flawed accusations will not help you.

The Deutsch citation is entirely correct, and the quoted text is available at the linked article in the citation. Failing to use the exact citation supplied by you is immaterial.--Jeffro77 (talk) 18:26, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Jeffro is no vandal, and I actually think he's being generous here. No more than a short summary is necessary. Ilkali (talk) 18:45, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The "version that existed since 31 October" was the section that you introduced. No one has given support for your preferred version.--Jeffro77 (talk) 19:01, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Considering the nature of his attacks against advances in this discussion, with due respect, I think that either Jeffro77 owns Wikipedia, or he has serious issues - sounds like he's a daring guardian of something. It is essential that we know what we really need to know. --Kaosa (talk) 14:08, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Any further accusations or insinuations regarding my edits or alleged motives will be reported to admins.--Jeffro77 (talk) 18:19, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

It's desperate... --Kaosa (talk) 11:51, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I repent.--Kaosa (talk) 17:33, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

how many miscellaneous "refs" and additional reading do we need?

Wikiepedia is not a directory, nor is it a bibiography. We have a notes section for refs actually usd in the article (in which the number is messed up by the way, someone should fix that). There is absolutley no justification for a HUGE additional refs listing and "further reading". I moved that section off themanin page and put it here. If any of the following is actually used as a real reference to something within the article, footnote it instead:

References and Further Reading

• Broad, C.D. "Arguments for the Existence of God," Journal of Theological Studies 40 (1939): 16-30; 156-67.
• Jordan, Jeff. "Pragmatic Arguments for Belief in God", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2004 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.)
• Cohen, Morris R. "The Dark Side of Religion," Religion Today, a Challenging Enigma, ed. Arthur L. Swift, Jr. (1933). Revised version in Morris Cohen, The Faith of a Liberal (1946).
• Haisch, Bernard. The God Theory: Universes, Zero-Point Fields and What's Behind It All. Red Wheel/Weiser Books, 2006.
• Hume, David. 1779, Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion. Richard Popkin (ed), Indianapolis: Hackett, 1998.
• Mackie, J.L. The Miracle of Theism. Oxford, Eng.: Oxford Univ. Press, 1982.
• Nielson, Kai. Ethics Without God. London: Pemberton Books, 1973.
• Oppy, Graham. "Ontological Arguments", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2005 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.)
• Paley, William, 1802, Natural Theology. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1963.
• Plantinga, Alvin. Warranted Christian Belief. Oxford Univ. Press, 1993.
• Pojman, Louis P. Philosophy of Religion: An Anthology, Fourth Ed., Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 2003. ISBN 0-534-54364-2.
• Ratzsch, Del. "Teleological Arguments for God's Existence", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2005 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.)
• Rouvière, Jean-Marc, Brèves méditations sur la création du monde L'Harmattan, Paris (2006), ISBN 2-7475-9922-1.
• Swinburne, Richard. The Existence of God. New York: Clarendon, 1991.
• Everitt, Nicholas (2004). The Non-Existence of God: An Introduction. London: Routledge. ISBN 0-415-30107-6.
• Mackie, J. L. (1982). The Miracle of Theism: Arguments for and against the existence of God. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-824682-X. Retrieved 2006-10-27.
• Matson, Wallace I. (1965). The Existence of God. pp. xv–xvii.
• McTaggart, John & McTaggart, Ellis (1927). The Nature of Existence. Volume 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Sobel, Jordan H. (2004). Logic and theism: Arguments for and against beliefs in God. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-87975-307-2.

changed bit about occam's razor

I updated the bit about Occam's razor, which I didn't like. Here is my motivation. The old piece said:

"The belief that God created the universe and God just exists makes too many unproven assumptions,"

I found this rather vague: each belief is an assumption. It does not make many assumptions. Furthermore assumptions are always unproven.

"therefore using Occam's Razor one can "shave" off the unnecessary assumptions, leaving the universe just exists."

One does not use Occam's Razor to do something, instead it is a principle that dictates that we do something. The last part of this sentence is not grammatical.

"The theistic response to this statement is that Occam's Razor applies only in philosophy not logic, and has no bearing on whether God or Gods exist."

I object to the notion of Occam's Razor "applying" or "not applying": it is a principle that one may or may not embrace. I have therefore tried to explain more clearly why Occam's Razor might make sense, and what its limitations are.

I feel that actually this is not a deductive argument but an empirical one, and it should be merged with the parsimony item. What do others think? Also, citations are missing.

Ilkali's Violation of Wikipedia Policy

Ilkali deleted this edit with this incorrect statement: "Reverted 1 edit by 74.4.222.208; See talk page - this material has already been lengthily discussed and rejected."

Of course, as the above discussions show, no such rejection has ever taken place: disagreements occured as to what form this section on Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point Theory should take, but everyone was in agreement that it should exist in the article. And indeed, going by Wikipedia policies, such a claim by Ilkali doesn't even make the slightest sense, as Wikipedia isn't an arbiter of what anyone thinks is or isn't the truth, including that of ideologically-motivated people such as Ilkali. Although Ilkali therein does reveal the censorious agenda of himself and those like him, as he therein makes clear that he's violating Wikipedia policy by attempting to be an arbiter of his version of "truth" by keeping verboten subjects from corrupting the unwashed minds of the masses.

That is, Ilkali and those like him hate any mention of Prof. Tipler's Omega Point Theory. And if finally forced by Wikipedia policy to include it, they'll attempt to sabotage this section to the greatest extent they can, as their previous dishonorable history on this matter amply demonstrates.

Ilkali has not only stated a false claim regarding the above discussions, but the notion behind the claim in of itself violates Wikipedia policy.

And as was voluminously shown in the above discussions, Prof. Tipler's Omega Point Theory is extensively verifiable in the only sense in which Wikipedia policy cares about, as it as been published in a number of the world's most prestigious peer-reviewed physics journals.--74.4.222.208 (talk) 19:31, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

You are spectacularly failing to assume good faith.

I'm not opposed to including mention of Omega Point (see my edit) and haven't claimed that anyone else is. Prior discussion clearly demonstrates wide agreement (ie, everyone other than you) that: 1) OP is fringe science and should not be given as much weight as your edits provide, and 2) it should, if included, be given an explicit heading - something like "Omega Point theory" rather than "Argument from physics". You have ignored consensus, bode your time, and reposted the exact same material you did before, presumably hoping for a different result. This is not a responsible way to edit. Ilkali (talk) 20:12, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

You're just confirming your own bad faith. I merely mentioned your baseless deletions of any form of this section, which all had agreed ought to exist. As well, Wikipedia policy is clear that the only thing that matters is verifiability and notibility, and in this case Prof. Tipler's Omega Point Theory has been published in a number of the world's most prestigious physics journals, and indeed his prinicple paper on the Omega Point has gotten him praise from the publisher's review board. Hence, we all agree that it should be included. Great, now then, stop deleting mentions of it.--74.4.222.208 (talk) 21:26, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

"all had agreed [the section] ought to exist". "All"? Are you sure? In fact, not a single person who expressed an opinion on the matter supported your extensive coverage or choice of heading - they only differed in how much they disagreed with you. I was relatively accommodating, supporting inclusion of a short summary in line with the treatment given to other, more notable arguments.

Here's my last word: You are demanding special treatment for something that, evidently from your edit history, you are either involved with or particularly partial to, and you are mistaking everybody else's disinterest for bias. Ilkali (talk) 21:56, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Change to Boeing 747 and Recommended Change

First of all, I changed the Boeing 747 Section to read that "[it] is a fallacy with or without the use of special pleading", because the two possibilities if the argument is accepted are: The use of special pleading to try and get out of it or an acceptance of the argument, which holds that the idea of god is, in fact, a logical fallacy

Second Thing: The part that talks about Russel's Teapot is not so much an argument for or against either side, just a statement that the existence of god must be proven by the theist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.121.53.2 (talk) 03:42, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty of adding an additional change. I do not think that you can truly say that natural selection has a real explanation for complex design (as suggested by the cosmological argument). If anyone can convince me that natural selection has a reasonable proof of design, then humor me please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emperor Cool VIII (talk • contribs) 03:47, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Do These New Facts Settle Question?

The following is not research, but rather readily verifiable arithmetical observation. Remember, this is a question but this is also not a forum. The question is essentially whether God exists with a real non-traditional but in the modern sense commonly acceptable definition. I will leave my opinion out and ask credentialled scholars, practicing theologians, and public figures only to reply in an analytical way only. Weigh in from a peace science perspective first, please, and do not bog things down on the obvious special nature of these identities. These are moderating requests. Here are the strange new facts: A) (365+1/4)^2=3^7*61+9/16 and B) (365+1/4)^4=17797577732+7^2/2^8. On the question of verifiability and to see the little dispute on whether and how these facts could be presented in wikipedia, see first the Talk:Numerology section and follow the history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Julzes (talk • contribs) 14:03, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

No, no, no, no, no. This is not the place for discussing "new facts". If you want this kind of material to be included, 1) find a published work, and 2) establish notability. Ilkali (talk) 14:50, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Ilkali: Strictly speaking: 1)You are in a published work and 2)This is relevant to "Talk:Existence of God" and the possibility of its meriting a seperate article is not mutually exclusive with its also being here. I like the Title "The Main Fact" for this pair of identities, and if someone else beats me to writing a seperate article, this would be the title I would recommend. On 1): I do not want to seem glib, but if you had been the first person to see a black swan and take a picture, would you be constrained to not submitting it with your experience to the article on swans?Julzes (talk) 15:06, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a publisher. It is not here for people to publicise their own thoughts or observations or musings, whether on God or numbers or swans. Ilkali (talk) 16:08, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, only some form of hearsay is allowed here when it comes to human thought? You are just being stubborn, like me.Julzes (talk) 16:36, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Only published work is allowed here. It's nothing to do with you or me, it's just how Wikipedia works - and has always worked. Ilkali (talk) 18:28, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense. See the recent history of the article on the Fermi Paradox for how my slightly new hypothesis was edited for style by someone else (rather than discarded).Julzes (talk) 22:57, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Burden of Proof

When discussing the existence of God, the theist has the burden of proof because he is making an existence claim. Shouldn't there be an section on the Burden of Proof? Consentium (talk) 04:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I like this argument for inclusion of a new section, however I think this falls afoul of policy as too controversial because it would create an argument over what qualifies as proof. I'm not an expert on policy, though.Julzes (talk) 14:59, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I would argue on your perception and school of though. You need evidence (piece by piece)and if god is the whole of reality then how can you disprove him. What are you going to do without the evidence claim that god as the whole of reality does not exist, thus reality itself is false? It would be interesting to say theist hold proof of burden, but rarely does science show the proof. I have never seen an atom, only through faith do I assume it exists. The point is, god is not a duplicate, he is not like a cell or an ant he is god.--207.68.237.117 (talk) 11:19, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

The talk section is about improvement to the article not a forum about the topic. I think a section on burden of proof would be great.--Adam in MO Talk 18:21, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

If you've never seen atoms then you've never seen matter, since both are entwined. Proof of the existence of atoms themselves isn't even necessary, as the notion that all matter is made of smaller particles is self-evident from the fact that matter can be broken down to naked-eye-invisible matter; 'atom' is simply what was chosen to name one set of those particles. Regardless, atoms—and other scientific facts—are, from an epistemological perspective, the best explanation to observable phenomena—and thus accepted as truth. God is the best logical explanation for nothing, and thus rejected as truth. An article about the existence of God is all about epistemology, therefore a section about burden of proof is appropriate. Remnant76 (talk) 14:13, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

why is it assumptive in every discusion about a god, that the god in the Existance of god article, is the biblical god? Is this section about the god from the bible or god in general. If god in general, why is god with a capital "G", which would give the word god (when capitalized) power. Who gives the word "god" the power but the side that assumes god exists. And which god exists?? i am new at this but my concern is that if we are having a discusion to improve the article concerning the existance or non existance of a god i am confused by which god we are speaking of if not defined initially. Unless it has already been defined by the title, which is the existance of God....should it not be "existance of a god"? Then, the discusion of a god other than the biblical god would have equal strength.....The arguement from an Athiest point would be an arguement against a god, whether it be the god from the bible or the blue monkey god, and any other god that is conceivable in the human mind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nashka (talk • contribs) 22:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Although there have been thousands of books and papers written throughout the course of human history, nowhere is there one shred of physical proof that a God of any kind other than those created in the minds of men has ever existed. Only writings, usually made years after the fact, made by man, have existed. The book of God describes many "objects of divinity" including the Cup of Christ, the Staff of Moses, the Ark of the Covenant containing the tablets of commandments, Noah's Ark and many other objects mentioned as physical items used or displayed by the characters in the bible story. Yet their non-existence has been also termed to mean symbolism in the face of criticism [[2]]. --Watchdog09 (talk) 00:14, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

There is evidence that can and has been set forth for the existence of some supernatural involvement in humanity and our environment, and it needs to be handled in toto if the question is to be resolved. So far there has been nothing supporting a creator of the entire Universe which has not been fully debunked, and the prior writer is correct on the Judaeo-Christian God in all its aspects to my knowledge.Julzes (talk) 02:06, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Here is a famous paradox: if a tree falls and no one senses it, did it fall? If it falls and the senses are not used and the fall is not perceived then the argument that because no one sensed the tree falling it must not have happened is false if it actually happened, since the senses do not deal with what is real or not and only deal with what is perceived.--72.74.98.143 (talk) 23:21, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

First sentence of lead ought to be moved down or deleted

"Arguments for and against the existence of God have been proposed by scientists, philosophers, theologians, and others."

This sentence is void of substantive information. Why does the article start out with something completely generic and rather obvious? It doesn't introduce the concept or provide a basic definition. Wouldn't the second line be a much better lead into the article?:

"In philosophical terminology, "existence-of-God" arguments concern schools of thought on the epistemology of the ontology of God."

At least this line actually leads into the subject - rather than just providing a random, unremarkable statistic...

What do you all think?

Ofus (talk) 20:22, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with it. "Arguments for and against the existence of God have been proposed by scientists, philosophers, theologians, and others." Absolutely! After all we are talking about Theism, Agnosticism, Pantheism, Gnosticism, etc. Many different views that have this interest and most likely argue on it--72.74.98.143 (talk) 23:29, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Funding

As an amateur philosopher, I would like to know how can I obtain funding to try to prove the existence of God. Could you add this information to the article, please? (maybe in external links, at least). I only know of the existence of the Templeton Foundation, but I would like to know more sources. --62.57.0.234 (talk) 14:45, 15 July 2009 (UTC) If provable, would have been a long time ago. The catholic church would have put all there resources together and proven the existance. With all the power and money they have, if the topic was provable it would have been done. You shouldn't waste your time on a topic that has no provable outcome. Go enjoy your life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nashka (talk • contribs) 22:06, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

The fact of the matter is that so long as we have a broad enough definition of God--not a particular one from an ancient text written by people (generally men) with an agenda--then God was proven to exist by me in January of 2006 and made public here recently (Feel free to look over my contribution attempts starting at Numerology by substituting "Julzes" for your name in the web command line after clicking "My Contributions" above). The God--whoever it is, and I prefer advanced ET with a natural (Godless) origin limited by physical rules and natural resource limits--is such that I cannot lay a claim to the discovery, as you will see. So I won't be looking for funding except through whatever book(s) I may write. Anyone who can SIGNIFICANTLY add to what I am trying to do in the publicizing of this NEW KNOWLEDGE (or perhaps in finding more complicated prior attempts at proof as having been overlooked) AND who can say something meaningful about how we should move forward as a species and biosphere should get that $1M (the Templeton award), in my opinion. Other than that, the job is basically done, though a solid proof needs to be provided for those without a mathematical sense but with the ability to understand mathematics. All that said, I would not expect miracles from me, though I am strangely special. No miracles, no end of world type stuff. Nothing but the strange facts. Now, back to the section before last. What is PUBLISHED on the burden of proof, anyway? It seems that the burden of proof should be on existence, with science having given pretty good explanations for things without necessitating a God.Julzes (talk) 02:29, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Define existence

The article requires that existence be defined to progress. This wiki existence article requires some work. To me, the most relevant definition is "the state or fact of having being especially independently of human consciousness and as contrasted with nonexistence" from [3]. It is self evident that God exists in human consciousness but how god exists independently of consciousness seems to be the subject here. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 16:05, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Agnosticism

"An agnostic believes it is not possible to prove or disprove the existence of gods. Agnosticism as a broad umbrella term does not define one's belief or disbelief in gods, a person can be an agnostic but still identify themselves as a theist or an atheist.[29]"

How can someone be agnostic and a theist at the same time? Theism is the positive belief in God/gods. You can not have a positive belief in something, and claim to be neutral on the subject at the same time. An atheist is anyone who does not have a positive belief in God or gods so all Agnostics are necessarily non-theists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.22.235.160 (talk) 06:15, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

It's called agnostic theism. I corrected the section accordingly. BTW, if you quote, please indicate the source, saves some work for your audience. Regards, Paradoctor (talk) 09:57, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your response, and apologize for not sourcing my quote.. I am not sure how to feel about the term agnostic-theism, it seems a little like apolitical-republican or left-handed-snake. What I mean to say is (I am quoting the main article) "Theism: The theistic conclusion is that the arguments indicate there is sufficient reason to believe that at least one god exists." is in direct contradiction with the term agnosticism. We can create a term (e.g. agnostic-theism) and give it any meaning we want. But a "conclusion..that the arguments indicate there is sufficient reason to believe that at least one god exists" seems to be almost the exact opposite of Agnosticism.

An Agnostic has not come to ANY conclusion, but a theist necessarily has.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.94.204.200 (talk) 06:09, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

No need to beat your chest, it's just that sourcing is really helpful. ;) I'm afraid you overlooked that agnosticism is about knowledge, while theism is about belief. According to the classical definition, every statement that can be counted as knowledge is also a belief, while not every belief is knowledge. Hence, an agnostic theist holds a belief, but does not consider it knowledge. Regards, Paradoctor (talk) 08:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

should this not be reorganized

if you're referring to the existence of God, with a capital G, you are probably referring to a monotheistic god (lower-case g). the typical white fluffy hair and halo guy most people seem to make the christian god into is a monotheistic god. however, there are numerous other gods which one could argue have similar characteristics, but which are described as part of a host of gods, e.g., zeus and hera (& kittens…). so maybe it would be easiest to structure the document from the beginning-top to say that the document discusses the existence of a single omnipotent/omnipresent God (there's that G again) rather than "A god" which is entirely different. 76.111.68.88 (talk) 03:29, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Hindu arguments

I added some Hindu arguments to make the article well-rounded. Raj2004 (talk) 02:56, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Argument from Bible Prophecy

added it.

It's not really a philosophical argument, it's more of a claim of evidence. Philosophical argument start from assumed truths and then applies logic to reach conclusions. This section makes very controversial claim, that the bible foretells the future through supernatural means. The "implied argument" just points out that yes, if such evidence did exist, it might be evidence for the existence of God. It's a notable claim, but not a philosophical argument.

The writing style is problematic.

But more glaringly, the limitation to the Bible is unacceptable. Many, many religions make claim the power of prophecy. Obviously, any individual editor will find some religions' claims more convincing than others, but Wikipedia cannot.

I proposed an alternate text that religion-neutral with a more encyclopedic tone. That text was rejected by the original author of this section, who reinserted his own version with the comment "No other religious writings foretell future events as the Bible". Obviously, there is no consensus on that point, nor would I expect there to be any consensus on the one true religion anytime in the foreseeable future.

Since I object to the religion-specific presentation, and since the original author objects to a religion-neutral presentation, we need to create a text that does have consensus before the article can cover this argument.

According, I'm removing the disputed section, but I'll refrain from adding my own version in. -70. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.160.114.106 (talk) 18:22, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Belief in the existence of God

The article starts by claiming it is about arguments for and against the existence of God. Not really. Either God exists or does not exist - - - regardless of our arguments. The article is about arguments for our belief in the existence of God. This needs clarification in the article. Grantmidnight (talk) 03:15, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

The intro's formulation is just a common shortcut almost universally accepted in any natural language. (Something about semantic classes of abstract/concrete, where "argument" is abstract and "existence" concrete). However, clarification cannot hurt. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 06:35, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Reclassification needed

Quite a few arguments are rejections of the determinability of "existence of God":

God's existence, then, cannot be proven (Jacobi, like Immanuel Kant, rejected the absolute value of the principle of causality), it must be felt by the mind.

maybe in a way "felt by the mind" can be seen as a "proof", but not in my language, since a "proof" for me, is where one person is demonstrating a truly factual phenomenon for a public of other persons, and those other persons are declaring the phenomenon true, based on each individuals own experiences. I think maybe there should be three sections:

• pro arguments, and their religio/philosophical contexts,
• contra arguments, and their religio/philosophical contexts,
• provability denied, and their religio/philosophical contexts.

Where atheism and humanism (life stance) is a religio/philosophical context.

provable?	God exist?
	yes	no
yes	belief	atheism
(yes)	(pro)	(contra)
no	belief	agnosticism
(no)	provability denied

Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 06:51, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

According to talk page guidelines, I shouldn't say that the article is pretty good, but it is. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 07:18, 28 May 2010 (UTC)