Talk:Evidence for God's existence

Wait!!! I have some evidence: Uh, shoot! I lost it! But I had some! I swear!The Goonie 1 05:05, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

ASK's (Philip's) Evidence

Would someone with more patience than me please put in some responses. I'm going to bounce my keyboard off the wall sooner or later else. ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 17:41, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

On the whole I prefer the "sbs" template - you can't see what you're responding to on this unless you open two tabs & flick back & forth. (and it's too easy to put something in the wrong place: effing up the formatting.) ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 17:52, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

True. I didn't think of that. -- Nx / talk 18:00, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Heh! Not using a template will allow it to be copy/pasted into ASK as "Lack of evidence for God's existence" though. ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat

Copy the template over as well, to support it... ħuman 21:03, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

A little trick. -- Nx / talk 19:31, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Excellent, Nx. ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 19:48, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

wp

An interesting read ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 19:05, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I've always been drawn to the idea that most of the Biblical accounts of Jesus were drawn together by taking stories and myths of multiple real people and evolving them into one. On a simple level it explains the corroborative evidence that Jesus did exist and the fact that other figures pretty much have the exact same "jesus story". Of course, I should read up on it properly to see how possible it is. ^moral 19:09, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Trouble is: there's so much to read. (I've just been reading about the Q document.) Life's too short! Think I'l go back to Iain M Banks.^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 19:23, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

It's certainly a most interesting read. I must admit that I'd never come across that one before. --Bob^{Not Jim} 20:04, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Existence of the Universe

What's really interesting about Philip's suggestion that the fact that the universe exists is evidence for God is that not only doesn't a "creator" if one existed at all have to match the Christian version, but it doesn't even need to be an intelligent entity at all. Evidence fail. --Kels (talk) 19:19, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I've seen more moderate religious apologists reconcile this by saying that all religions worship the same God but do so differntly (something that I find almost hilariously stupid). In which case the "creator" doesn't need to be the specific one, just there. Still, doesn't answer where the creator came from in a way that also doesn't allow the universe to have the same rule applied. ^moral 19:26, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Isn't that just the deist argument is slightly different clothes? Indeed a couple of his arguments are potentially deist aren't they?--Bob^{Not Jim} 19:44, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I really don't get Philip's differentiation between the anthropic principle and the fine-tuned universe. I've always thought of the former as a more specific version of the latter, that the former concerns humans whereas the latter concerns all life. Sterile walkie-talkie 20:42, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree, AP is a subset of teleology. See:Observation selection effects, the anthropic principle, self-locating belief, and associated applications and paradoxes in science and philosophy. ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 20:55, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Argument from design

I wonder if someone smarter than me (a set comprised of "almost everybody") could incorporate the strong human trait of pattern recognition in there. That is, the perception of pattern in random noise, as applied to seeing conspiracies or design inferences. --Kels (talk) 19:22, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

AKA: Wishful thinking (An article which was deleted, but could be usefully resurrected^[sic]. ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 19:25, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I was wondering why that was deleted, but to be fair, as it was, it was crap. But a good Wishful thinking article is something we could do with. ^moral 19:28, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

One could argue that humans searching for an intelligent designer focus on aspects that look like human-designed (the skeleton for instance) while ignoring aspects that are "overengineered" and ridiculously complex (cell duplication, where a smart designer would probably eliminate all the complexities, and cancer with it). 157.193.206.103 09:01, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Is there any way...

... to have two sets of reference lists, one for ask's and one for RW's? (This would be useful in a number of places at RW!) Sterile walkie-talkie 19:27, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Not got it at the tip of my fingers, but I believe it involves using <ref group=nnn> & <references group = nnn/> or somesuch? ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 19:37, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

here's a ref I put in the original but which Philip's (I'm sure) accidentally omitted: *Observation selection effects, the anthropic principle, self-locating belief, and associated applications and paradoxes in science and philosophy Well worth a read, or a least a scan. If anyone can use it. ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 19:40, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

mediawikiwiki:Extension:Cite/Cite.php#Grouped_references -- Nx / talk 19:41, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I am really impressed by that bit of technical wizardry! ħuman 21:00, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

aSK wiki-links

Should we take PJR's wikilinks and point them at aSK? Because as they are, they point to our articles, not what he intended. ħuman 21:00, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes. ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 21:16, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I did a few... ħuman 04:55, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks whoever worked through all the rest! ħuman 00:54, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I did a load. ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 01:04, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, then, as I said, thanks! ħuman 08:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

categorise the arguments ?

Would it be a good idea to categorise the arguments and give general responses? I see that "The need for evidence", "Jesus Christ" and "the Bible" are based on the bible - which is hardly going to convince anybody who is not already convinced. "The existence of the universe", "Fine-tuned universe" and "Complexity of life" are not necessarily arguments for the type of prayer-answering, mind reading, interventionist God PJR is pushing. The final two arguments "Christianity" and "Testimonial evidence" could perhaps be grouped as "Arguments from insanity".--Bob^{Not Jim} 20:15, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it might be good to group all the Biblical-Christianity evidence in one if we go that route. Sterile walkie-talkie 20:24, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be a good way to go - but it would mean re-ordering his article.--Bob^{Not Jim} 21:11, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Don't think his article ought to be amended: leaves us open to all sorts of claims. ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 21:14, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but maybe we can get him to reorder the original and then we can use a newer permalink? ħuman 21:14, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Fuck this

I keep trying to add stuff and getting E/Ced.

“”A "clever designer" should also be capable of avoiding elementary design mistakes. For instance, light receptor cells in the human eye are "back to front", necessitating the "blind spot" as nerves pass through the eye wall to the brain. Similarly, food/drink and air are both introduced to the body through the same orifice, often causing choking.

Add or kill. I'm going to bed. SuspectedReplicant (talk) 20:15, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, dude. It happens. Sterile walkie-talkie 20:16, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Added. Sterile walkie-talkie 20:17, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

If I spend ages writing something out I always highlight it and copy it to the clipboard in case I get EC'd. Then you can just paste it and go. SJ ^Debaser 22:53, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Although one can breathe through one's mouth I tend to use my nose for the air and restrict food and drink to my mouth. Just sayin'. Генгис^mutating 23:26, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but you need to make a conscious effort to do so. Your mouth is still, no matter what you do, still connected to both tubes. Bad engineering. ħuman 04:53, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Anyone who has vomited out their nose cannot but agree that it's bloody silly. ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 00:21, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Move?

Should this be moved to the essay space? That's where all our other analytical articles are. SJ ^Debaser 22:53, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Certainly no. Most of our articles are analytical. ħuman 04:52, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Please name it mroe specific to ASK (perhaps some of us want to debunk other place's evidence for God's existence?). [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 23:00, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed and voted in fashion. ħuman 04:52, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Not an essay. Rename quite possible but other places could be added in series. ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 23:10, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Let's vote on the new name then?

aSK's Evidence for God's existence	0	Vote
Evidence for God's existence by aSK	1	Vote
Evidence for God's existence from aSK	0	Vote
Evidence for God's existence on aSK	3	Vote
Evidence for God's existence: aSK's version	2	Vote
Leave as is	16	Vote

[[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 00:30, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Evidence for God's existence on aSK is actually kind of funny, as it implies God may or may not exist over a restricted domain. - π 00:54, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I also like it as a relatively simple article title. We should have a main "Evidence for God's existence" article as well, of course, with linkies. ħuman 04:52, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, Biblical creation on aSK gives the inspiration (I suppose other articles would be affixed in the same fashion). [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 01:03, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Although the voting runs towards keeping this here, it's all based on one article at aSK and I think it should be moved. As Pi says, EfGe on aSK is kinda funny, as well as clear as to what the article is. I'd like to move it, but I'd rather see a bit more consensus (discussion rather than votes?) first. ħuman 00:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I think one article. Can be sections for each source. I'm more likely to read one article than hop to another. I know from WP that linked articles are less likely to be followed than if it's all in one place. It would also make comparisons between sources easier. ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 00:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

That would make it huge, if we add a few more SBSs. Also, the main "evidence" article ought to be more tumblweedy and crickety, I think, with links to pieces like this one. I follow links at WP all the time to get where I really want to go... ħuman 00:56, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but you don't follow all the links on one page. You get sidetracked and go off at a tangent - I do anyhow. (Re voting: don't trust it, SusanG said a short while ago that voting can be rigged.) ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 01:00, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, although I've done some things to make it less vulnerable , it's still based on IPs, so if you have dynamic IPs... -- Nx / talk 06:01, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Depends on the page. IE, if the "main article" type link seems to have what I really wanted, I go there. If the article says, say, "crickets", and then has a few links to SBSs, if I'm in the mood, why not read them all? Especially if the editors of the site make it easy by putting them all in see alsos or a dpl navbox? ħuman 03:12, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't the crickety article be in Funspace, and a serious article in Main? I say we keep this here until we need the space for a more generic article -- Nx / talk 06:01, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I have made a new article with the cricket-template on it. ListenerX^TalkerX 06:06, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Crickety is simply what we would write, belongs in mainspace. This article should have a "sub name". OK, I don't mind waiting until there is another, I guess. ħuman 08:32, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

... I just found this while search for "evidence for the existence of a god" or "arguments for the existence of a god," which we still don't have almost 2 years after the above discussion. The title of this thing is still misleading - these aren't our arguments, they're Rayment's. I don't want this oddly named side by side to be the first thing a random surfer sees when he's looking for a general article on the subject. People overwhelmingly voted to keep the title the same -- yet the only ones to comment were in favor of or agnostic to changing the title. Fucking weirdos. I propose the thing be called "aSK:Evidence for God's existence" unless there's a problem with creating pseudo-namespaces like that. 20:58, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

"Once any cult has the ruling..."

Christianity started its practice among the lower classes in the Roman Empire and was able to hang on for some hundreds of years as religio illicita before it was legalized in the Edict of Milan. In the intervening period it faced active opposition from the ruling classes. To imply that religions only prosper if they have the ruling class backing them helps PJR's argument that Christianity, having no such backing, was able to triumph only through a miracle. ListenerX^TalkerX 23:23, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

There aren't too many examples I suppose, but I would have thought that most religions start as popular movements and the ruling classes are forced to adopt them in order not to be overthrown. Генгис^mutating 23:29, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Not that they only prosper if they have ruling class support, rather that once they have ruling class support, there's no stopping them. Religions have been perverted to give control ever since. ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 23:33, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Thinks) I see what you mean Listener - we're talking about different periods in religion's history. You mean the start & I mean the ongoing. ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 23:35, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

That is why I think the paragraph is misplaced, because PJR's argument at that place refers to the start of Christianity.

"Once they have ruling class support, there's no stopping them..." Today in Russia, 70% of the population is Christian and 16% is atheist. ListenerX^TalkerX 23:40, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

FurryNuff: Ditch it then. ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 23:42, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

There must be some real scholarship on this, like by historians or religious scholars and not CMI loons. 'Cause after all, proselytizing is fairly common in Christianity and how can anyone not like something that says you can live forever with the angels? Sterile walkie-talkie 00:02, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Test for design

Bradley's submitted a very simple, straightforward test for design. Let's try it out and see if it works. My computer is based on silicon chips, is powered by electricity, and does not self-replicate. Let's see, does any of that match what I see in nature? Nope. How about humans? Humans are based on DNA, are powered by food and drink, and reproduce sexually. Do we see that in nature? Yup, all over the place. So I guess humans fail the test for design. That was surprisingly easy. --Kels (talk) 05:12, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I assembled my home computer from individual parts. The motherboard came with a circuit diagram, ergo it was designed by who ever drew the circuit diagram. I am yet to find a circuit diagram for people that was drawn before the fact rather than after. - π 05:21, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Not to mention that many computer programs are designed in the evolutionary manner, atop hardware that was not designed for the task. Undesigned systems render up the darnedest things. ListenerX^TalkerX 05:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

One experiment in evolution used an adaptable electrical circuit and somehow it managed to do something the people running the experiment didn't even think was possible. That is, it worked better than intelligent design could manage. Wazza^{Hello? Is there anybody in there? Just nod if you can hear me...} 13:27, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I read about that one in the Science of Discworld. The guy's name was Adrian Thompson and his page is here. There's a good description of the experiment here, although you can buy the book for a quick precis and complete your Pratchett collection. SuspectedReplicant (talk) 13:39, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Fine-tuned universe

I hate the five-tuned argument. It seems so useless. There wouldn't be an argument if things were some other way. To that end, I dislike this sentence in the rebuttal of the fine-tuned universe section:

Fortunately we happen to live on one of the planets that can support intelligent life.

It almost reads to me as an endorsement of fine-tuning while trying to refute. There is no fortune involved. It's not like we'd be having this discussion and happily typing away at our computers if the Earth were completely frozen or a molten ball. Does this make sense to anyone else or am I beng too sensitive? --Edgerunner⁷⁶ 16:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

It shouldn't say "fortunately" - more like: Of course we happen to live on a pretty planet in a pretty universe.... it could not happen any other way. ħuman 20:13, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I already changed it. ListenerX^TalkerX 20:15, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The "Fortunately.." sentence was mine. It was intended to be slightly sarcastic, but I agree it could give the wrong impression, and I'm very happy with the new version: in fact I was thinking of doing something similar myself. Cantabrigian (talk) 09:23, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Testimonial evidence

I see two additional problems with testimonial evidence:

1. God apparently goes about telling different people mutually exclusive things.
2. Improvements in people's lives caused by conversion (when there even is a causal link) aren't limited to conversion to any one religion.

Christians who rely on testimonial evidence are tacitly supporting everything from Wicca (see point 1) to the Nation of Islam (see point 2). ... of liberals? (talk) 19:07, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

"supported by archaeological evidence"

It is worth noting that many aspects of Homer's Iliad and Odyssey are also supported by archaeological evidence. On this basis, I presume I can assert that the Greek gods must also be real. VOX^HUMANA 03:52, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

The word "accident"

The usage of the word "accident" to describe the factors that resulted in the existence of life implies that life either should not have happened (which is obviously untrue since it did) or that mistakes were made when something else was trying to be made (which presupposes that there was some intelligent force there to make a mistake). We don't assume that a scientific phenomenon is an accident simply because our own biased intuitions say that it shouldn't be true or should not have happened. The point of science is to shed this mindset to arrive at what really happened. Scientific explanations are ideally as simple as possible but that is not to say that a scientific explanation must always be simple or else it must not be true. To say that some all-powerful being outside the realm of logic and thus, understanding, did anything at all (much less create the universe) is not only untestable, but doesn't aid in the understanding of how anything works in reality. The only purpose it serves is to lend some credence to the possibility that some religion out there just might be true and its members may feel justified in proselytizing. ^{— Unsigned, by: Digaag Wa Riz / talk / contribs} 21:07, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

While "accident" may mean "unplanned unfortunate event" it may also mean simply "unplanned event or occurrence." In other words it does not have to have the negative implications which you suggest.--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 21:42, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

The content of this article

Well, I was hoping to see a tumbleweed gif, but this works too! 58.173.244.33 (talk) 21:02, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

You need to check out Scientific evidence for God's existence. It may satisfy you more. Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 12:39, 31 March 2021 (UTC)