Talk:Existence of God

The Conditional Notions of Defeating the Anti-God by Counter-ESP Arguments

The conditional ESP by telepathy, now that the standing on telepathy is still a bit unconfirmed, must be considered pro-God, in defeating the former anti-ESP-anti-God arguments.

That is, the religious win further (intellectual) ground in saying this: if telepathy exists then the credibility pro-God increases, also because Atheists are to increasing degrees found to be WRONG! This is uttered also in relating to any culture of lying among the people with the opposition, i.e., the con-God Atheists.

The argument goes, of course, by standard Modus Ponens: if telepathy then credibility for God, telepathy, conclusion: (necessary/more possible) God. I also like to refer you to former notions of ESP and God discussion. Cheers! 46.9.42.58 (talk) 14:59, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Your ‘argument’ is merely a series of non sequiturs. If telepathy were proven real, this would not actually show atheism wrong about anything, because atheism takes no position on telepathy. Believers in paranormal phenomena can be atheists — in fact, I know an atheist who believes in psychic woo-woo. And unless you use ESP to read God's mind, ESP provides no evidence either way about God. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 16:38, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

To my knowledge, the classic position of the Atheist has always been the physicalist/realist. Secondly, I challenge you on existing, respected (well established) literature. Thirdly, you can't simply pull an argument "out of your nose" and think that you (re-)define the entire Atheism-Religions debate. Also, as last, your use of "non sequiturs" is wrong and suggests two facts, 1. you have read very little here, 2. your own use of this is a "non sequitur"! Bye!

1. You are mistaken. Physicalism can lead one to atheism, but not all atheists are physicalists. 2. You did not cite any literature. It's not enough to claim to have reliable sources, you have to actually name them. 3. What do you mean? 4. My first response explained why your arguments were non sequiturs. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 05:45, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

The logics, in which I have more stature that you, just to kill this non sequitur by your name right now: 1. If not ESP (Telepathy) then (most likely) not God. Prem. 2. ESP (Telepathy) P. 3. God - Conclusion. This is a a form of Modus Tollens. This is only one answer from you, very typically. Now EAT your non sequitur, non-reader, non-logician, Robin Lionheart... (Hah-hah-hah) 109.189.67.107 (talk) 20:05, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Criteria for Citation Needed and Weasel-Words

I'm looking for a serious discussion on whether these Wikipedia-global criteria are valid for pages like this, or alternately a reference to the grounds on which pages like this have been made exempt from such criteria and others not.

HenrikErlandsson (talk) 22:29, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Not sure exactly what you are looking for, but you might look at Wikipedia:Citation needed and WP:Weasel. Editor2020 (talk) 23:46, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

"Hindu arguments"

This section just repeats arguments, only putting them in a different wording. Could it be deleted, or at least other religious arguments added to the sections for and against the existence of God? It would make the article more neutral. Oct13 (talk) 20:05, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

How does the proposed law of karma (and a deity to judge it) repeat any other argument? DeistCosmos (talk) 22:32, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Because it's the transcendental argument - specifically, moral reward - in Inductive Arguments, under Other Arguments.

Oct13 (talk) 16:39, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

But Hinduism does not simply propose that morality would not make sense absent a god, but that karma-- good things in fact happening to good people, and the converse-- tangibly demonstrate such an agency at work. Even if only through reincarnation, this is an actual physical result of divine action being claimed. DeistCosmos (talk) 20:18, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Karma and reincarnation are moral rewards (since X thing happens as a result of Y behavior: good karm for good people, reincarnation for bad people, etc.) so it does repeat the transcendental argument. Oct13 (talk) 12:41, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Then we ought to promote transcendental to its own section and put all of this together within it. DeistCosmos (talk) 15:19, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

unlocked for edits???

really dumb question but seeing as how this particular article has documented eveidence of vandalism as per a below talk and its single handedly the most controversal topic in the world let alone on wikipedia doesn't it stand to reason to have this particular article locked down to only moderators/admin with verifiable sources only? all you need is one heavy handed scientist/cult leader/aethist or wacko god worshiper* to make it into a pro their campaign article to really bring wikipedia into a negative light.

• - for all 4 examples i am not insulting believers but rather the extremists in all these areas

203.219.85.18 (talk) 10:12, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Per WP:PROTECT, we only protect articles if there is concrete evidence of frequent and ongoing vandalism or edit warring, or if the topic is particularly sensitive. Looking at the history, I don't see enough recent activity, let alone disruptive editing, to consider page protection at the moment. All edits go into a database, and old versions can be easily restored (by any user) if a wacko manages to reduce article quality. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:44, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

The Problem of Hell

It says "The problem of hell is the idea that eternal damnation for actions committed in a finite existence contradicts God's omnibenevolence or omnipresence.", but the problem of hell forgets that a certain (mental) pathology would have wanted hell to defeat heaven (and God, religiousness) and as such the intentions or intention of the one going to hell is consistent with its (moral) character that certainly has not qualified for heaven. 46.9.42.58 (talk) 10:01, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

That doesn't really answer the objection, since it imputes the category far too broadly, and conflates the question of whether punishment is merited to the question of whether infinite punishment is merited. It may be that some people don't deserve to get into heaven (or even that nobody really does), but at the same time it is clear that whatever wrongs placed them in this position were finite, and therefore that any punishment must be finite, or the punishment itself becomes an evil on the part of whoever could stop it but fails to act. DeistCosmos (talk) 20:19, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Another explanation is that God has created human being with free-will, and someone can intentionally decide to be so evil that really does not deserve forgiveness. Kiatdd (talk) 20:43, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

But once the punishment exceeds the wrong, unforgivingness becomes purely evil. At that point the finite wrong h already been punished, and the once-wrongdoer is being punished for nothing. A being would need to be an infinitely evil scum to permit an infinite punishment for a finite wrong. Naturally, it is a compoundedly greater error to make a binary inquiry of this. Some faiths suggest a deity so basely evil that it would impose an eternal punishment on somebody who simply never came to believe in the existence of the deity in question despite living an otherwise good, even flawless life. But so far as I am given to understand, Islam avoids this error by providing that the 'sinner' retains the ability to repent and obtain forgiveness even after death, ie even while in Islamic hell. Which is the most sensible thing of all, since the infinite impossibility of such a thing would require a most sadistic elimination of free will. Simply put, if our minds continue to exist after death at all then we retain the capability to change our minds, or they are not truly our minds. That's what it means to have a mind at all. And if we are able to change out minds then people must be able to to go from a hell to a heaven or from a heaven to a hell based upon their change of mind. DeistCosmos (talk) 14:57, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

The pitfall in your argument is that when you see hell as a punishment, something that God has made to punish people in a very disproportional way…let’s see it this way: I am given free-will, and I mean free-will in its broadest and deepest concept, and I am told that if I lock a door I won’t be able to unlock it and yet I do what I’m not supposed to do, intentionally and fully aware of the consequences. In this view I have created a situation that is hell, not God and in this view God is the hope not the torturer that you described. In your mathematical terms I have cause infinite pain with a finite action, which is possible, I can give real life examples.Kiatdd (talk) 16:25, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

It is simply mathematically impossible for a finite mind to ever be "fully aware" of an infinite consequence. That is what makes infinite consequences inherently evil as applied to finite actors. And it can not be the case that the consequence is both infinite, and unfixable for the duration of that infinite period, for that would eliminate the free will from which the situation is claimed to arise. DeistCosmos (talk) 16:51, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Humans seem to have the ability to understand infinite, for example two parallel line do not intersect infinitely, we have a symbol for it,∞. Here a mortal limited actor is given unbelievable choices with everlasting consequences.Kiatdd (talk) 17:12, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

The choices may well be unbelievable but the very fact that we simply 'have a symbol for it' indicates that we cannot truly understand it as it is. The question remains: why does the least deserving condemned person remain condemned? And why would this condemnation persist even when the condemned person least deserving of condemnation fully repented after, say, one hundred billion years of torture? Why not, when the least deserving saved person is saved for all time, even if they become no more worthy of it after salvation, or even slip into thoughts meriting condemnation? DeistCosmos (talk) 19:45, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

• The problem of this discussion is that it appears to be original research, anything in articles has to come from reliable sources. The problem in relation to this article is that the topic is one of a list which links to main articles on the various topics, rather than giving sources for the statements. The Problem of Hell article does cite sources and appears to be reasonably well summarised by the brief statement here: any discussion of the wording here must be related to coverage in that article. . . . dave souza, talk 17:33, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Dave souza is right, the argument is just a line in a long list and is properly discussed in the corresponding page, an interesting comment by C.S.Lewis is given in that page about our discussion.Kiatdd (talk) 18:34, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Coincidences

What do the fellow editors think about this:

Should it be mentioned that some people view signs and 'coincidences' that are viewed as signs as a prove of Existance of God? For example, a person A met his long forgotten friend B in Chicago for the first time in 3 years. He said hello and went to New York and have met him again a few days since the first meeting. Then he went to Italy and week later met his friend in Milan. And fourth time he met him in Thailand after two weeks.

Every such consecutive meeting makes it look less and less probable to happen. So some people think that such happenings can prove the existance of God logically and mathematically, because it comes that the total probability of all the meetings (events) is or close to 1/infinity (one divided by infinity).

I'm talking about the total probability of all such events in the whole of the world population since the time of the humanity's creation. And, perhaps that could be expanded even further to the all probability of all the events since the Big Bang leading towards appearance of solar system, the Earth, life and humans. And, it could be expanded even further, past Big Bang to the moment of the creation of everything. And, in case there wasn't a point of creation but everything is eternal than its definitely and absolutely one divided by infinity. Ryanspir (talk) 15:36, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

The misinformation on knowledge in the article

The article says: "Knowledge in the sense of "understanding of a fact or truth" can be divided into a posteriori knowledge, based on experience or deduction (see methodology), and a priori knowledge from introspection, axioms or self-evidence. Knowledge can also be described as a psychological state, since in a strict sense there can never be a posteriori knowledge proper (see relativism)." This is clearly not the case, relativism is an academic standing that's likely to be a plausible loser, as much as you say, Paris of France and know how to get there to, or picking up your specific groceries with the supermarket, all from milk and bread to the ingredients for your dinner, not cabbage, but carrots... fx. 109.189.67.107 (talk) 20:22, 10 March 2013 (UTC)