Jump to content

Talk:God/Archive 13

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15→Archive 20

Contradictions? They don't seem to be.

Two contradictions are listed in the very introduction of the article which are debatable at best. (Please cite!) They seem too subjective to be labeled contradictions, I suggest they be relabeled.

1. "...God's omniscience implies that he knows how free agents will choose to act. Bull, of course he knows how we will choose to act, please ignore the rest.

2. "If nothing would be right or wrong without God's commands, then his commands appear arbitrary." WHAT BULL god is what he is our father.

3. I propose that the wording be slightly altered, instead of "contradictions God's attributes seem to imply", write "apparent contradictions God's attributes imply". This moves the qualification to its correct place. laddiebuck 00:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

No, God's attributes do seem to imply those contradictions, as has often been pointed out. It's your view that they are only "apparent contradictions" but they clearly are real contradictions (which may, it is true, be resolvable in some way). Contradiction and contrafactual are not necessarily the same thing. If you want to make a countercase, you need to bring some sources. I don't agree at all that the most common argument against free will in the context of God is molecular determination. I think that the impossibility of free will with a creator who is outside time (and consequently knows everything you will do before he creates you) is far more thorny for theology, which would simply ignore your argument because it does not believe we are merely machines.
In the second case, you have possibly not understood the argument. I'd suggest reading further in the source given. Grace Note 07:36, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Remember we're not here to argue about what actually is a contradiction about God or not; but rather what those philosophers achieved and concluded (as the part of the article under question is talking about their findings). GromXXVII 11:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Can you cite to a reputable scholar who explains why "there are no contradictions" or that the "contradictions" are only apparent? And aren't you bothered by the fact that "the contradictions God's attributes seem to imply" have nothing to do with the "God" article--since the body of the article does not discuss or explain these seemingly implied 1) contradictions or the other 2) POV assertions improperly cited in this lead section. Supposedly the lead section should be a concise overview of the article rather than the current disjointed POV essay introducing themes and difficulties that are never addressed in the article itself. --Rednblu 17:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
All I am saying is that the current wording "contradictions God's attributes seem to imply" parses as "It seems that God's attributes imply contradictions, but they might not imply them after all". Whereas "apparent contradictions God's attributes imply" parses as "God's attributes imply contradictions, or at least they seemed like contradictions at first glance". (Roughly paraphrasing, of course.) It's your choice based on available texts which one of these two stances you wish to reflect, but it seems that a. many philosophers have argued that God's attributes imply contradictions, and b. theologians do not contest that these conundrums are implied by God's attributes, but contest that they are contradictions, arguing rather that they are merely illusory contradictions and a close look will dispel them. Thus it seems to me that the philosophical history of this debate can be better reflected by the second wording, which I proposed, rather than the first wording. laddiebuck 16:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


And Rednblu, I've asked you before: please supply constructive suggestions for improving the article rather than simply carping. At least, lay out what you think is wrong with it. I'm understanding that you think the stuff about contradictions etc does not reflect the article but I rather think it would once the article is complete. Grace Note 10:15, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe this arguement should even be in the article.Amen to that. If this article is striving to be neutral, it should not bring these things up. Christians, for example, believe there are no discrepancies in God's attributes, while athiests, etc believe there are- part of the reason (most likely) they do not believe in God. Perhaps it would be best to summarize what different religions believe, and forget about the nuetrality issue. You just can't be neutral about God. Either he exists and we are his creations, or he doesn't and we are creatures of some natural process. ~@Brin

Just a word of advice: Don't try to figure out why atheists don't believe in God. I'm sure some people drop out of the church because they can't resolve the contradictions, but there's a world of difference between not believing in an organized religion's version of God and specifically believing that there is no God. Let me put it this way: I was raised atheist, and, thus, I have no conception of how a person can be religious. I understand religions, and what they do, but I can't really understand how one believes in God. But I do my best to not insult people who are able to -- it seems cool to me. In the same way, you don't seem to understand how an atheist can not believe, so you have to fall back on a generalization which doesn't really make sense.
There's no such thing as an aethiest I'm afraid, the closest thing in existence to an aethiest is actually an agnostic - someone who doesn't know if God exists or not. To be an aethiest (to state broadly that there is no God) you would have to have complete 100% abundant knowledge at every point in history, from every civilisation in history. If you don't know how many hairs there are on every peruvian yak's backside, you don't have 100% of the knowledge available in the world and as such would have to rationally conclude that perhaps somewhere there is evidence of God's existence (I personally find this evidence all around me and in the Bible, but hey, that's me).
Yes there is. I can say that I am an atheist and with 100% certainty that there is no god simply because I do not believe in one. God was/is a creation of man. People wrote the bible and all religious scriptures. Their reasons? Who knows? Perhaps it was merely meant to be a fairy tale or perhaps it was because they so desperately wanted/needed something to believe in. This all means that god doesn't exist in any physical essence, he/she only exists in the minds of those who want to believe. Additionally, the onus is on religion to proove the existence of god, not on the non-religious to disproove. The burden of proof _always_ lies with those who posit the belief.
As to your claim about neutrality, I disagree. Either He exists or He doesn't, that's true, but, as there is no proof either way, neither claim can be made. A neutral article would discuss God as a concept without getting into whether He exists or not, because nobody can make that claim from a factual standpoint. Despite my atheism, I fully recognize that the very nature of God precludes any scientific proof one way or another. The existence question should be left to philosophical discussions; an encyclopedia article should summarize the different hypothetical beings which might be referred to as God [I would say that religions like Hinduism wouldn't belong, because "God" is inherently a monotheistic concept, even with the Holy Trinity in Christianity] ...
EDIT: I had written more, but then I went back and looked at the article, and it was actually better than what I had suggested, as my suggestion was based on an older version.
ThatGuamGuy 16:45, 3 November 2006 (UTC)sean


I am all knowing. I know what you are doing right now. Besides reading these words, you are living, thinking, and rotating around this worlds axis with the rest of the crust. I know what happened before I was born and what will happen after I die. But I am human; matter, energy, thought and life.Christ alone 03:26, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

- Is there a link to what Omniscience actually means? Because as far as I know, omniscience is only knowing all, it doesn't imply any form of control or a lack of control in destiny. That is to say, just because you know everything doesn't mean somethings going to happen, it just means you know everything. So really, omniscience is being taken out of context and being applied as a contradiction. Zelphi 14:24, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Omniscience is knowing all. If God is omniscient and is the creator, He thus creates people/alligators/whatever knowing exactly what will happen to them. It would seem to be difficult to limit his power the way you are -- what you seem to be implying is that it's possible that God creates everything, knows what is going to happen to everybody, but there's some other outside force you refer to as destiny which is in actual control of what happens. So, then, destiny would be more powerful than God?
It seems like, whatever way you look at it, it belongs as a theoretical potential contradiction (or whatever the exact title is).
ThatGuamGuy 16:45, 3 November 2006 (UTC)sean

I think there's some misunderstanding regarding what the contradiction even is. The contradiction requires that we assume that God is not only omniscient (in fact, maybe that's not even a requirement at all), but also an omnipotent entity responsible for all creation and truth in the universe. If this is the case, then we are what we are because God made us that way, and all factors involved in our experiences and the decisions that we make as a result of these experiences, are a result of decisions made by God, not us, regardless of any conscious awareness that we may possess.

The contradiction actually occurs when we introduce the suggestion that we still have any actual free will within this kind of scheme. The contradiction lies in the fact that you cannot specify all of the factors in a situation and then expect that the situation will have any chance of deviation between cases. This is to say, if God introduced all of the factors in our decisions (our personality, our intelligence, our experience, our physical environment, etc), then it is sensible to assume that we simply will act in a way that God planned rather than exercising any measurable free will on our own part. In fact, that free will in itself would fall within the 'everything' that God created.

In simpler terms: If God made absolutely everything, then he made everything the way it is and will act. If God did not make absolutely everything, then we still need to explain who or what made the rest. We can only resolve the contradiction by removing our free will from the scope of God's creation.

Of course, then again, we could just assume that there are aspects of divine logic that we do not yet (or perhaps never can) comprehend. I'm not arguing for or against God here. I'm just trying to make sure that everybody understands what the actual contradiction even is. jetweedy 11:20, 29 November 2006

Yes, but there is not necessarily an actual contradiction. There are similar arguments in philosophy about free will without God being brought into the picture. Such arguments essentially state that we have no free will because our decisions are made by physical brains that are governed by physical laws. By this line of thinking, one has no more free will than a computer. These arguments for a contradiction are just as convincing as the ones you propose, but they are far from universally accepted as being an actual contradictions. Frankly, I don't think the contradictions should be stated directly in the article, but rather in another article where they can be treated in sufficient detail. Thats just my two cents. Nimrand 01:22, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Contradictions and POV

Everything written below is really unnecessary. If we are presenting a counterargument to the existence of god, we are presenting something that is inherently POV in a way. To present it as NPOV, all we have to do is preface the section as arguments against the existence of god that are often presented by athiests. The fact that these POV arguments exist is NPOV. Endorsing them is not. The best solution, perhaps, is to create a separate article presenting standard, sourced (if not cliched) arguments for an against the existence of god, along with standard, sourced counter arguments for each point on each side.

I have made some tweaks to the contradictions passage in the intro (why does the intro have to go into such details?) to ensure that it is at least NPOV:

  • "For example, God's omniscience implies that he knows how free agents will choose to act. If he does know this, their apparent free will is illusory; and if he does not know it, he is not omniscient."
This wording endorsed this argument, which is quite questionable, to say the least. At the least we must say that this is something that some people say (though I am uncertain why this needs to be in the intro).
  • "Similar difficulties follow from the proposition that God is the source of all moral obligation. If nothing would be right or wrong without God's commands, then his commands appear arbitrary. If his commands are based on fundamental principles that even he cannot change, then he is not omnipotent."
Again, this wording endorsed the argument, which is even shakier than the one before, as it uses the completely inappropriate word "omnipotent" (which choses to misinterpret).

The previous section addresses the questionable nature of these "contradiction" and this issue should be addresses there. Here, my concern is mainly about NPOV wording. No matter whether these contradictions are questionable or true, they must be worded NPOV. Str1977 (smile back) 07:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

The passage is still worded in a POV manner. Str1977 (smile back) 09:43, 13 September 2006 (UTC) ...and therefore I move it over here, so that we can try to work out a NPOV wording:

"For example, God's omniscience implies that he knows how free agents will choose to act. If he does know this, their apparent free will is illusory; and if he does not know it, he is not omniscient. [1] Similar difficulties follow from the proposition that God is the source of all moral obligation. If nothing would be right or wrong without God's commands, then his commands appear arbitrary. If his commands are based on fundamental principles that even he cannot change, then he is not omnipotent. [2]"

Str1977 (smile back) 12:40, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Can somebody explain to me why the above wording is POV? --Rednblu 15:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Seconded. If this is POV I realy dont see a way to adress the issue in a NOPV fassion. Emperors Harbinger 18:07, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Let me explain this to you. I will focus right now on the first sentence:
"For example, God's omniscience implies that he knows how free agents will choose to act. If he does know this, their apparent free will is illusory; and if he does not know it, he is not omniscient."
It is a non-sequitur to say that omniscience contradicts free will - the two have nothing to do with each other. If I read a book I know well, I know exactly what character A will do and even 200 pages ahead. Still, my knowledge does not make that character's choices unfree. You might say, he is not free as he is bound my the author's decision, but that is a completely different matter. I am afraid you and the writer of these passages cannot distinguish between the three concepts omniscience/providence and predestination and omnipotence.
Now, you might say: Be it nonsense, people are making that argument and WP just has to report. And that is the POV issue: then WP should report and not endorse. But the wording above endorses it by flat out, seemingly factual statements like "If he does know this, their apparent free will is illusory".
Another issue is whether such statements should be included in the intro at all. I will not argue that issue now.
Str1977 (smile back) 18:15, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
PS. Because it is a POV problem, arguments like "but this is referenced" are pointless. If something can be referenced, it still needs to be put in a NPOV language. Str1977 (smile back) 18:24, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
In the second sentence:
"Similar difficulties follow from the proposition that God is the source of all moral obligation. If nothing would be right or wrong without God's commands, then his commands appear arbitrary. If his commands are based on fundamental principles that even he cannot change, then he is not omnipotent."
the problem is a bit different. The contradiction at least makes sense at face value, though "ominpotent" is totally inappropriate here. Omnipotence (at least before Nominalism and Calvinism) never meant that God could change evil into good. But be that as it may, the main problem again ís the wording: "If ..., then he is ..." That is endorsing, factual language. Str1977 (smile back) 18:28, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

How about the following wording?

  • "For example, according to one argument, God's omniscience implies that he knows how free agents will choose to act. If he does know this, their apparent free will is illusory; and if he does not know it, he is not omniscient."

Would that wording be NPOV? --Rednblu 21:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid it doesn't work. The article would this say "if he does know ... free will is illusory.", thus endorsing the argument. The first sentence is fine. Maybe we could do with just the first sentence. Str1977 (smile back) 21:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok. How about the following wording?

  • "For example, according to one argument, God's omniscience implies that he knows how free agents will choose to act; if he does know this, their apparent free will is illusory; and if he does not know it, he is not omniscient."

Would that format make the argument NPOV? --Rednblu 22:56, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I can't see where your two suggestions differ. The problem, as I have written above, is the affirming is. This needs to be dePOVed into something like they (whoever) "argue that this ... would make ...." (assuming that they really argue this. Str1977 (smile back) 23:08, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

"It depends on what your definition of IS, is."??? Dude, your not makeing sense... Emperors Harbinger 23:14, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
I am not your Dude and I have no clue whom you are quoting.
"is" clearly identifies to propositions or parts of speech. It is a factual statement. And that is the problem. If I say "Emperors Harbinger is a hypocrite because he cites consensus one time and reverts against consensus the next time", this might be true, but it is POV language. However, "Str stated Emperors Harbinger to have been a hypocrite because he cited consensus one time and reverted against consensus the next time." that is merely reporting an utterance. Note that this is merely an example I have no clue why it came to mind. Str1977 (smile back) 23:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
But if I wrote "Honderich said that free will is illusory" that statement would be NPOV if Honderich wrote that, is that not true? --Rednblu 23:38, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Absolutely! Str1977 (smile back) 06:51, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your patience; I got tied up--so to speak. So what if I joined all the necessary pieces of the scholar's argument with semicolons as in the following?

Would that writing be NPOV, would you say? --Rednblu 19:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I would prefer if we got rid of the indicative, to make clear we report the argument, e.g.

Of course, we could switch to a nominal style but I think we can do it this way. Your thoughts? Str1977 (smile back) 19:44, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Is it as clear? How about you also get to state just as clearly the scholar that frames your important point-of-view for clear contrast? Would that be fair and unbiased? --Rednblu 20:37, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
It should be clear and NPOV - as for "my POV" - what POV? I don't propose a POV, I merely ensure that the wording does not endorse this argument. Str1977 (smile back) 22:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, that's the most spurious argument I've read on this page, and it has some fierce competition. What Str1977 ignores is that God wrote the book. Grace Note 10:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Sure he wrote the book, but that would be predestination and not omniscience or providence. And whether the book is a novel or a play with much room for improvisation is another matter. Str1977 (smile back) 21:06, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

GA Re-Review and In-line citations

Note: This article has a very small number of in-line citations for an article of its size and currently would not pass criteria 2b.
Members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles are in the process of doing a re-review of current Good Article listings to ensure compliance with the standards of the Good Article Criteria. (Discussion of the changes and re-review can be found here). A significant change to the GA criteria is the mandatory use of some sort of in-line citation (In accordance to WP:CITE) to be used in order for an article to pass the verification and reference criteria. It is recommended that the article's editors take a look at the inclusion of in-line citations as well as how the article stacks up against the rest of the Good Article criteria. GA reviewers will give you at least a week's time from the date of this notice to work on the in-line citations before doing a full re-review and deciding if the article still merits being considered a Good Article or would need to be de-listed. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us on the Good Article project talk page or you may contact me personally. On behalf of the Good Articles Project, I want to thank you for all the time and effort that you have put into working on this article and improving the overall quality of the Wikipedia project. Agne 22:53, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Mythological and fictional considerations

If Zeus, Odin, and some other deities are listed in this Wikipedia as fictional kings, mythological charcters and are generally reviewed as being just mithycal and imaginary in nature, so it must be applied to the article concernig God, since he's in just the same level.

God's status as fictional or real is pretty clearly disputed, and the article does a good job of explaining that. -- Beland 23:38, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Then it should be the very first thing to be stated about God. Something along the lines of "mythological supreme being", "Clearly disputed as fictional or real, God is blah blah blah...". The way it's written right now, it states much more than questions his existence. Vertebreaker 14:32, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

"believed by monotheists..."; "believed to be the creator..."; "The last few hundred years of philosophy have seen sustained attacks on the ontological, cosmological, and teleological arguments for God's existence. "; How are these stating the existence of God? DJ Clayworth 15:18, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

"Believed" is the key word. It cannot be disproven or proven weather there is a God or gods. Anker99 03:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

or, indeed, whether there isn't a God or gods! Slackbuie 17:02, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Slackbuie, that is clearly debatable. Anker99 23:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Defining and proving God ?

Defining God ?

In the beginning was the word, and the word was God and the word was with God, a trinity of relationships.

This is pure original research and that is the thesis that God the alpha and the omega is [ ], or 'nothing'. But saying nothing defeats its existence, suggesting that 'nothing' in the pure sense existed only in the beginning and will exist in that pure state in the end.

While this is a parameter for God, this does not describe or define it except in some minor logical parameters.

To prove God exists, moving beyond the argument that incredible probability of complex organizations and con-incidences is based on some 'great powers', the existance of God can be proven by proving that the 'devil' exists. There is a mathematical concept that deals with this relationship, it might be in the arena of 'relations', but here is the argument.

The Bible, shares one story with all three major religions, Muslims, Christians and Jews, and that is the deception of the garden of eden, where mankind was deceived by the devil. A somewhat unbelievable story, except for the interesting reality that there is a negative side to truth that has gone undetected since time began...or at least since human time began, and that is that a truth, that is part of the truth can lie, or in biblical terms a fruit from the tree of knowledge while still true, ignores the reality of all the other fruit still on the tree.

To say that God is nothing, is somewhat in error, for nothing does not exist in that pure state anymore, since we have something. This raises additional questions, as to where is something relative to nothing and other questions that still leave something to the imagination.

Nothing in the pure state reflects the concept of a trinity, where the first, the middle and the end are the same point. (CS Oct.30)

Caesar J. B. Squitti

--Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 03:34, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Greetings, Caesar,
While I quite agree that your statement is accurate from an Abrahamic point of view, the concept of God is also present in non-Abrahamic views. As Wikipedia editors, we cannot prefer either Abrahamic over non-Abrahamic, or non-Abrahamic over Abrahamic. We are prevented from doing so by Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy.
As it stands, the article reflects both points of view--not perfectly, but we are working to improve it. But we cannot define God only according to the Abrahamic view (excluding others) and remain true to Wikipedia's intent and aims. Justin Eiler 04:01, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

One word of advise, is that while it may be impossible to define God, it is so because verbal communication could not define a concept if that concept is both nothing and infinite...at the same time; lets call it the God paradox. I know it is easier to define the devil...(ie half-truths and all!

Have a nice day ! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Caesarjbsquitti (talk • contribs) .

Opps...

--Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 03:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Pictures

From a Pretestant Christian point of view I thought that any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above shall not be made, ("You shall not make for yourself any graven image") althogh Wikipedia should remain unbiased, and I respect that, but should it not be taken in to consideration of the Second Commandment?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.47.144.139 (talk • contribs) 15:01, 26 October 2006.

Wikipedia is not a Protestant project. To remove the images solely because of Protestant views would render a pro-Protestant POV to the article. Justin Eiler 00:28, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Roy's blanking of the intro

This article should be a top tier article, one becoming a FA. However, ignoring WP:LEAD and blanking the majority of the introduction doesn't seem the way to achieve this. I propose restoring the moved content. It is ok to have a bit of redundency in the lead because it is supposed to give an overview of the article. That's the whole point.--Andrew c 00:13, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I didn't blank the intro, I just moved parts to their appropriate sections. And the parts I moved don't give an overview of the article, they discuss theology and philosophy about God and nothing else. An overview would be like "several names have been given to God, the idea of God has developed over time, there are arguments for and against the existence of God, several people have claimed to have actually met God, the idea of God has had influence on several people/cultures ect... That would be a general summary, not the discussions about theology and philosophy, which I found repeated almost verbatim later in the article. Roy Brumback 11:49, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
I strongly disagree here and support the previous version with an adequate lead section. Redundent content is OK in the lead section. In fact, the lead section is SUPPOSED to summarize the content of the rest of the article. It is like a mini overview of what is to come. Does anyone else agree with me, or does the current 2 sentence intro work for everyone else? Was there someone specifically wrong about the previous lead section, and is a new lead section in the works, or are we simply disregarding how wikipedia article should be written?--Andrew c 02:36, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I want a longer intro too, but just discussing philosophy of God more in intro than actual section isn't good. Shouldn't we simply say there are arguments for and against the existence of God, instead of two whole paragraphs on the subject? Roy Brumback 06:47, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Is God A War Criminal?

"And it came to pass, that at midnight the LORD smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh that sat on his throne unto the firstborn of the captive that was in the dungeon; and all the firstborn of cattle. And Pharaoh rose up in the night, he, and all his servants, and all the Egyptians; and there was a great cry in Egypt; for there was not a house where there was not one dead." (Exodus 12:29-30) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.163.39.185 (talk • contribs) 22:31, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

You might find a more receptive audience on a sceptical website. Wikipedia is not the place for conjecture on such topics. Justin Eiler 22:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

This is the perfect place for such a discussion. It is entirely within the context of the main article and its previous absence was a serious omission. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.163.39.185 (talk • contribs)

If you know of a significant scholar who analyzed God as a "war criminal," then and only then would this be the perfect place for such a discussion. What page of the Law did you have in mind? --Rednblu 23:05, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject. The article is about the concept of God generally, in all cultures that have such a concept. Justin Eiler 23:05, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Those are your opinions, to which you have a perfect right, and nothing more. The first reeks of academic snobbery. As Socrates pointed out some two and a half thousand years ago, appeals to authority are fallacious arguments employed by the weak-minded. You have a little bit of catch-up to do it would seem.

That there is even such a thing as "the concept of God generally" is also your opinion and nothing more. I say you have just invented it without thinking firstly about whether it actually has any meaning whatsoever.

As Socrates pointed out some two and a half thousand years ago, appeals to authority are fallacious arguments employed by the weak-minded.

LOL - sorry, am I the only one who caught the irony there?

This is an encyldopedia, it can only be based on authorities otherwise 'anything' could go in. It is perfectly logical to ask you to cite sources. At the end of the day, it's the rules, and that is the end of it. Lostsocks 23:54, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

A Sense of Proportion

(Personal attack removed, per WP:NPA) Justin Eiler 23:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

That is a lie.

Concerning the existence of God.

(This may be a little off-topic, but I find it important none the less) It is true that we don't have proof that God exists or vice verse, but if I'm to judge by what I can find on wikipeidia alone, "fiction" is, and I quote, "storytelling of imagined events and stands in contrast to non-fiction, which makes factual claims about reality" (sounds rather correct in my ears)... While religious texts do not seem to fit into either of the categories, I think it's safer to say that the bible, the koran and all the other texts that states that the planet is, ca. 3000(?) years old are fiction compared to history... To claim that the bible, the koran et. c. et c. are historicly correct nonfiction is as saying that our planet's history is fictional (and then I'm counting to about year 1600... Come to think of it, we don't have any wittnesses that can tell us what's happened up 'til about year 1900). While we have pictures (some blurry, some vage and some fakes) of both the Loch Ness monster and Bigfoot, we don't actually have anything else to prove the existance of God than texts that makes the story about the "Sleeping Beauty" sound plausible... I've ranted up 'til now about the existance/nonexistance of God up until now, and I haven't even touched the subject of all the contradictions... Now then, I'm asking you as individuals, not as editors of wikipedia, do you think God should be considered fictional or nonfictional? What would you rather give up, religion or history?

The purpose of this page is to improve the article, While you raise some points that you may find interesting, I feel that you may get a more productive conversation at an internet forum. Justin Eiler 04:40, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
There is no proof that we all evolved from single cells yet evolution is still on this site...odd...Gotmesomepants 22:43, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Where in the Bible does it state the age of this world? Anker99 04:33, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

The Bible doesn't give the age of the earth anywhere. The "6000 years" assumption is based on calculations of the genealogies. Justin Eiler 04:40, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Now I'm an atheist and this is Wikipedia so I should have the right to put the term "Fictional deities" in the category box of God, right, because I keep doing this and I am getting threatened to have my account deleated? Hikarumitani

Your addition of "Fictional Deities" represents your POV, not an appropriate category for this article. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 21:19, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

But if all proof we have that God exsists comes from a book, no more believable then "The Sleeping Beauty" (which is fiction), shouldn't the bible, the koran and all those other books be considered fiction too? It's not openly stated that those books ARE fiction, but by using simple logic, it all points in that general direction, right?
To start with, please sign your comments using five tildes (~~~~~). This will generate your name and the date/time of posting.
Next: the Bible infers that the earth is approximately six thousand years old, not three thousand years old. In fact, its records are so exact that it places the date of the creation of the universe at 4004 B.C exactly.
This article is about the concept of a supreme supernatural being, or as the first sentence puts it, an "ultimate reality". It is not only about the concept of God as enumerated in religious texts. Your comments about fiction v. nonfiction are really quite irrelevant; a literary work may have errors (even glaring errors) and still be "nonfiction". The Koran, for instance, is a collection of statements and commands that were channelled by the illiterate peasant Muhammad while in a trance. This is not fiction; it is a historical record of statements that were made. Likewise, the Bible is a collection of records, letters, and accounts as penned by forty different authors over a period of several centuries.
Your statement that "all proof we have that God exists comes from a book" is quite irrelevant because this article discusses the concept of God in various viewpoints, not as restricted by the Koran and the Bible. Additionally, just because you personally find the Bible less believable than Sleeping Beauty (an astounding assertion considering the incredible continuity of the book) is no reason to call it fiction and then label various views of God as "fictional deities", which reflects your POV. I suggest that you read WP:NPOV before inserting your point of view and read at least a portion of the Bible before comparing it to the fable of Sleeping Beauty. standonbibleTalk! 00:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
standonbible is an extremely patient and thorough editor whose points here are right on the money. Simply put, this article is about what has been written about God (or attributed to God) by various faiths. It is not about atheism, or the beliefs of atheists, or atheist opinions about the beliefs of others. We have a whole slew of articles about various religous controversies; almost any of them would be a better forum for this discussion. Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 01:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
To start with, I prefer NOT to end my statements with tildes... Mostly because I see the information about what time I posted the comments to be unnecessary information and since I have no name on wiki (making me anonymous anyway), and I'd like it to remain that way, I find no further reason to fill in those tildes.
Second, I'm not into religion, so I can't possibly know how old the texts states that the Earth is, thanks for granting me this piece of information, standonbible.
If the only means of proving Gods exsistance (the religious texts) does not serve any at all purpose to proving Gods exsitance, then why do we consider God to be at all, since that would leave us with nothing to claim his existance in the first place? ... Like you said, the Koran is claimed to be a collection of statements done by Muhammad while in trance, and the bible is also claimed to be a collection of statements and experiences, all written by humans... My general opinion, based on experience and observation, of humans is that they tend to make mountains out of molehills and most of them don't think twice about altering a story to place themselves in more favorable situations, so why not begin with questioning the sincerity of the books instead of their actual contents? ... Btw, I'm not really an atheis, per se, since I have no second thoughts about an "after life" and don't doubt in the exsistance of etherial beings either... I just can't see the possibility of a "God", as the religious texts describes him, to really exsist... As a midless omniprecent exsistance perhaps, but not as "the great one" that the texts so hard tries to make him look like... You want me to make another example instead of "Sleeping Beauty", standonbible? Okay, how's "The Chronicles of Narnia"? It even has the presence of a "God" in it, and it's still about as believable as the bible (talking animals and angels are about equal in probability).—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.228.148.2 (talk • contribs) 19:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I think these comparisons are rather disingenuous. A significant distinction is that the religious texts mentioned here tend not to be taken as fiction by large numbers of people. Nor, as far as we know, were they presented by their authors as fiction. This second point seems to me to be vital (after all, I can conceive of large numbers of people taking the Chronicles of Narnia to be true). A book exists, I believe, written by a woman who claims to go into trances and learn about our afterlife on a planet orbiting Sirius; apparently one of the few earthly things that continues in this Sirian afterlife is freemasonry, which was given us by extraterrestrials. This is clearly rubbish, and the woman, if not deceitful, most likely suffers from mental illness (this may indeed have been the case for many writers of religious texts). Nevertheless, I would not categorise her book as fiction, and I don't believe most people would. To describe God as fictional seems to me to be something of a category mistake, like terming creationism (or indeed intelligent design) a science. garik 19:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why Wikipedia should be interested in the personal beliefs of 81.228.148.2 or anyone else. This is not what talkpages are for. The one and only threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is notability, not ontological status. As for "fictional deities", since deities are entities postulated and adored or worshipped by adherents, regardless of what you may think about their ontological status, fictional deities are clearly such entities postulated and adored in fiction, that is, by fictional adherents. For example Nurgle is not in that category because he "does not exist", but becaus his entire cult is fictitious. Again, Wikipedia talkpages are for on-topic discussion towards article improvement, not for sharing your outlook on the world in general. dab (ᛏ) 10:47, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality

On a lighter note, I laughed out loud to see "The neutrality of this article is disputed". Of course it is... unless you have the address of God's web page. --andreasegde 12:05, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

are you aware of WP:NPOV? It is easily possible to write neutral articles about biased concepts. The trick is to simply states who said what, and who thought otherwise. We can fill volumes about various conceptions of God without violating neutrality just as long as we do not endorse any in Wikipedia's voice. dab (ᛏ) 12:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Is this NPOV? Should it have a reference?

I think the section on the existence of God is overall pretty good and NPOV, but the last sentence stuck out to me. "Additionally, the weight of popular belief and the overwhelming multiplicity of references to God serve to reify the idea of God -- to make the concept of God seem more probable than it would be in the absence of such attention." This statement seems a bit POV to me. The statement, while not directly disputing the existence of God, implies the argument that people's belief in God are based on the popularity of the concept and not on truth. But, such an argument would be question-begging, because, IF God does exist, then the most obvious conclusion would be that the idea seems probable because it is true, and not because it is reified by its popularity. It might be better stated "Additionally, the weight of popular belief and the overwhelming multiplicity of references to God may serve to reify the idea of God." Or, at least, a reference should be added to back up the claim that the concept of God seems more probable because of the attention it recieves. Thoughts?Nimrand 04:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I have to say that to claim the conclusion that it would seem popular opinion would suggest that God does exist would (A) steer the reader to conclude that God does exists, and (B) suggest that a conclusion can be drawn in the real world. But then I'm baised. I'm christian. Graham 195.212.199.56 14:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Heh, "The neutrality of this article is disputed." How does the new version of the section look? Besides making some formatting changes and mentioning variant positions (I'm thinking eg. of "weak agnosticism" vs. "strong agnosticism"), I deleted the last sentence. I saw it as out of place for being a specific argument for or against belief (depending on how you read it), and for being the only such argument in the section. Presumably the list of hoary arguments deserves its own encyclopedia, so the argument belongs at least in an article on the arguments themselves. As I understand it, the point of the section is "The existence and nature of God are very very disputed and there are lots of arguments on the subject." --Kris Schnee 06:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Looks good to me. I agree, it seemed out of place. Nimrand 14:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  1. ^ Wierenga, Edward R. "Divine foreknowledge" in Audi, Robert. The Cambridge Companion to Philosophy. Cambridge University Press, 2001.
  2. ^ See Quinn, Philip L. "Divine command ethics" in Audi, Robert. The Cambridge Companion to Philosophy. Cambridge University Press, 2001.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:God/Archive_13&oldid=390251153"