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

Template:Vital article

Philosophy: Logic / Religion B‑class 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

B

This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Mid

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

Associated task forces:
/
	Logic
	Philosophy of religion

Spirituality B‑class 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
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Religion B‑class

	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
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Atheism B‑class 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

B

This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

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 B‑class

	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
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Fine tuned universe

Did not add an edit, but I am baffled why it is not mentioned. I.e cosmological constant problem where lambda is fine tuned to 10^-120. 5.173.65.38 (talk) 22:26, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's mentioned: Existence of God#Argument from design. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:30, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A recommendation for a new heading (3.1.5 Unitary Argument)

Hi,

I see that none of the arguments here is a complete argument for God. For example, kalam cosmological argument claims that the universe has a cause. However, in and of itself it cannot be a sufficient argument for God, since it says nothing about the attributes of God and how that God is defined. The same is applicable to almost all arguments mentioned here.

Ender Tosun presents a unitary argument (proof) for the existence of God. In its content and structure this argument is quite different than the other arguments mentioned on this page.

So, I think the below edit will contribute to the richness of this page.

I suggest the following edit:

"3.1.5 Other arguments" is changed to "3.1.6 Other arguments" and the following part is added:

"3.1.5 Unitary argument Tosun argues that a convincing proof of God can be achieved by proving the sufficient number of the key properties of a unitary God, such as self-sufficiency, unity, all-encompassing, will power, creative power, awareness and by uniting these within the unitary essence of God. He also argues that this way it will be possible to have a clear definition of God which can be based upon empirical and logical evidence.^[1]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jutewin (talk • contribs) 17:53, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not seeking to be mean, but Ender Tosun is a minor apologist, not a great philosopher. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:30, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your feedback. But could you give some evidence for your conclusion?

Because the work is a very serious one and very relevant to the page. And I do not think that all of the contents of wikipedia come from "great" philosophers according to everyone. Obviously some arguments of some "great" philosophers on this page are nonsensical according to some "great" philosophers who defend some counter arguments again on this page. What "great" philosophers write are not necessarily entirely true. I think the information is more important than the authors.

So, unless you present some evidence about the "work", I do not think that your input is relevant. Jutewin (talk) 07:31, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:UNDUE. This does not mean that I'm jury, judge, and executioner, but you do need to make a case for inclusion beyond throwing some empty words. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:21, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://books.google.com.tr/books?id=b6lhEAAAQBAJ&lpg=PA2&ots=Q7NnXshs11&dq=proof%20of%20allah%20ender%20tosun%202nd%20edition&hl=tr&pg=PA2#v=onepage&q=proof%20of%20allah%20ender%20tosun%202nd%20edition&f=false

Scientific evidence and scientific domain

"No scientific evidence (by scientists that consider the concept of God to be within the domain of science) of God's existence has been found. Therefore, the scientific consensus is that whether God exists is unknown; assuming, the concept of God is within the domain of science.^[1]"

I disagree with the inclusion of the parenthetical "by scientists that consider the concept of God to be within the domain of science" on the grounds that it seems to imply scientific evidence has been found by non-scientists and/or by those those don't consider the concept of God to be within the domain of science. Unfortunately, the (accessible) provided reference ambiguously cites "we" as being those who have not found scientific evidence of God's existence, so perhaps I have the wrong interpretation.

Secondly, I find both the aforementioned and (in the second sentence) "assuming the concept of God is within the domain of science" to be redundant considering that "scientific consensus" is already mentioned in both. To me it would seem scientific consensus cannot occur outside the scientific domain by definition.

My edit includes the text "whether God exists is not falsifiable" to which I refer to the source's choice of words: "we cannot be 100% certain that atheism is true". Anderjef (talk) 00:03, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Baggini, Julian (2003-08-28). Atheism. Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/actrade/9780192804242.001.0001. ISBN 978-0-19-280424-2.

God is exists in nature or not

God is exit in nature or not 110.227.50.134 (talk) 08:28, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a question we can answer. tgeorgescu (talk) 09:00, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 2 October 2022

It has been proposed in this section that Existence of God be renamed and moved to Existence of deities.

A bot will list this discussion on requested moves' current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil.

Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly.

Links: current log • target log • direct move

Existence of God → Existence of deities – This article is about the existence of deities in general, not specifically the Abrahamic God. Treetoes023 (talk) 19:53, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The new title would suggest polytheism or paganism while Abrahamic religions assert there's only one God. A possible compromise where coverage of both Abrahamic and non-Abrahamic religions is intended would be moving to "god" with a lower-case letter. Brandmeister^talk 20:24, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As below I think the use of lower case "god" as a proper noun or name is incorrect. If it's being used as a proper noun it should be capitalized. —DIYeditor (talk) 21:18, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The current title is more recognizable and natural than your proposed title. When one searches on the Internet, there are more results about the "Existence of God" than for the "existence of deities". On top of that, I'm sure that people are more familiar with the former. On the other hand, I agree with the suggestion above about moving to "god" with a lower-case letter and recommend that the article be improved instead, to include other POVs. StephenMacky1 (talk) 20:46, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe there is such a term as a singular (the) "god" it would have to be capitalized to indicate monotheism. It'd be akin to saying "existence of cat".—DIYeditor (talk) 21:13, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Clearly "Existence of God" is the WP:COMMONNAME - Arjayay (talk) 21:09, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Aside from the lede which is strangely out of place, this article appears to be about the existence of a god of the universe ("God"), not deities which is a broad topic. Existence of deities could be its own article. —DIYeditor (talk) 21:16, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think Existence of God → Existence of God or deities would be better, the word "or" is sometimes used in wikipedia article or category names, see Category:Memorials of or with American slaves. The "existence of god" results 40 times more google search results than "existence of deities" but in academic contexts both are treated together see here. Uni3993 (talk) 04:52, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. "Existence of God" is the topic. Srnec (talk) 20:52, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttps://books.google.com.tr/books?id=b6lhEAAAQBAJ&lpg=PA2&ots=Q7NnXshs11&dq=proof%20of%20allah%20ender%20tosun%202nd%20edition&hl=tr&pg=PA2#v=onepage&q=proof%20of%20allah%20ender%20tosun%202nd%20edition&f=false

[2] Baggini, Julian (2003-08-28). Atheism. Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/actrade/9780192804242.001.0001. ISBN 978-0-19-280424-2.

[1]

[1]