Talk:Existence of God

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Responses to Arguments?[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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?[edit]

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]