Talk:Existence of God

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Existence of God article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7: 90 days

Philosophy: Logic / Religion Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Logic
	Philosophy of religion

Spirituality Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spirituality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spirituality-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpiritualityWikipedia:WikiProject SpiritualityTemplate:WikiProject SpiritualitySpirituality articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Religion Top‑importance

	Religion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Atheism Top‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Atheism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of atheism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AtheismWikipedia:WikiProject AtheismTemplate:WikiProject AtheismAtheism articles

Top

This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

For more information and how you can help, click the [Show] link opposite:

If you would like to participate, you can edit this article and visit the project page.

Quick help

Recent activity

To do

Join WikiProject atheism and be bold.

Add a userbox to your page ({{User WikiProject Atheism}} or {{User WPA2}}) and attract potential members.
Help with articles.
See this month's adopt-an-article.
Help out with this to-do list.

Be consistent

Use a "standard" layout for atheism-related articles (see layout style, "The perfect article" and Featured articles).
Add Atheism info box to all atheism related talk pages (use {{WikiProject Atheism}} or see info box)
Ensure atheism-related articles are members of Atheism by checking whether [[Category:Atheism]] has been added to atheism-related articles – and, where it hasn't, adding it.

Maintenance, etc.

Find sources for all positions of an article (see Citing sources and atheism references).
Try to expand stubs. Ideas and theories about life, however, are prone to generating neologisms, so some stubs may be suitable for deletion (see deletion process).
Watch the list of atheism-related articles and add to accordingly.
Always write for an encyclopedia.

Articles to improve

Agnosticism

Create

Articles on notable atheists

Expand

an atheism stub

Immediate attention

State atheism needs a reassessment of its Importance level, as it has little to do with atheism and is instead an article about anti-theist/anti-religious actions of governments.
False choice into False dilemma: discuss whether you are for or against this merge here
Clarify references in Atheism using footnotes.
Secular movement defines it as a being restricted to America in the 21st century.

Theology Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Theology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Theology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TheologyWikipedia:WikiProject TheologyTemplate:WikiProject TheologyTheology articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

On 2 October 2022, it was proposed that this article be moved to Existence of deities. The result of the discussion was not moved.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Philosophy of Baruch Spinoza#Substance of God|Baruch Spinoza]] The anchor (Substance of God) has been deleted.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Responses to Arguments?

a while ago i added bunch of arguments in the section 'Arguments against the existence of God or gods', however i added them with responses from opponants and counter-arguments. should i remove the responses and counter-arguments presented? if not, should i add counter-arguments and responses to arguments in the section 'Arguments for the existence of God or gods'? Adrianxastron (talk) 07:57, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Remove God(s) or deities

Focus in only on the Christian God of the Bible put the other ‘God’s’ separately these arguments are for the Christian God of the universe there’s a problem of requiring a trans philosophy of theocratic theology as if conjoined with other mono theisms, this creates a false argument when connected with non Judeo Christian epistemologies and metaphysics. Christianity especially Catholicism teaches of a mono theistic religious teaching one God consubstantial in the Trinitarian teaching and eschatology of Man’s purpose and anthropology therefore uniquely distinct. Please consider these as a set of different teachings. 92.234.203.209 (talk) 21:29, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but not for the same reason. "God" is used in a general sense to refer to a supreme being. Wikipedia already shows that different religious and philosophical belief systems have different names for God and conceptions of God. The term "deities" is irrelevant and should be removed from this article. Bezora (talk) 05:54, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Questionable argument

About "the shift from hostility towards theism in Paul Edwards's Encyclopedia of Philosophy (1967) to sympathy towards theism in the more recent Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy": since philosophy essentially means "you can posit anything as long as you devise seemingly rational arguments for it", I don't think the shift inside philosophy is telling for a shift inside the mainstream academia. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:01, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Worldwide view

The article doesn't seem to "deal primarily with Christianity". The editor who tagged this may have conflated classical theism with Christianity. The classical theist conception of God has historically been the topic of interest in the philosophy of religion, so not much can be done about this. Bezora (talk) 12:27, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What about Sisyphus?

For the Ancients, myths were stories worth reflecting thereupon, but not dogmas. So, it would be fallacious to infer a metaphysical belief from the myth of Sisyphus. Greek-Roman religions had some metaphysical beliefs, but broadly speaking they did not have Scripture. So, the myth of Sisyphus wasn't Scripture and need not reflect Ancient metaphysical beliefs. Religion was the worship of the gods, rather than stories about the gods. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:44, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Section on Argument from ancient ignorance?

I was looking for info on "Argument from ancient ignorance" (i.e. the lack of knowledge about the vastness of the universe, scientific concepts, or other phenomena in ancient religious texts indicates that these texts are not divinely inspired. The argument posits that a truly omniscient being would not have omitted such fundamental knowledge if the texts were meant to be a comprehensive guide to reality.) Is it somewhere but I haven't found it? Or should I write it myself? (I'm not an expert) Or is it not worthy of a page or section? Thanks ^{Talk to} SageGreenRider 21:31, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]