Talk:Arguments for the existence of god

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(Other Gods)
(Physical existence of objects called god)
Line 1: Line 1:
 +
== Physical existence of objects called god ==
 
I have yet to spot a section that refers to god(s) that can be demonstrated to exist now, let alone to have existed in the past,
 
I have yet to spot a section that refers to god(s) that can be demonstrated to exist now, let alone to have existed in the past,
 
vis:
 
vis:
Line 8: Line 9:
  
 
In my mind, to omit these gods, who clearly exist, is a failing in the atheist argument that needs to be addressed.
 
In my mind, to omit these gods, who clearly exist, is a failing in the atheist argument that needs to be addressed.
 +
 +
:That is not a legitimate failing of the argument - it is an equivocation. The 'atheist argument' is not claiming that the physical objects of worship do not exist, but that the divine qualities attributed to them have not been demonstrated.
 +
 +
:For brevity, we should agree that people call something a god only because it is attributed with some uniquely divine or supernatural qualities. It is those qualities that must be demonstrated. Less that, we must simply find a word other than "god" to make our argument, but the point is not defeated. --[[User:Jaban|Jaban]] 16:39, 10 May 2010 (CDT)
 +
  
 
== Other Gods ==
 
== Other Gods ==
  
 
If there are such arguments demonstrating te existence of those specific gods, then let us know, so we can dissect them. However, a very little amount of people do believe in these gods and a demonstration of their non-existence would be unnecessary; anyway, we do have arguments against the existence of all possible gods. You can spot these arguments in the atheology center, "arguments against the existence of God".--[[User:Wissam hemadeh|wissam hemadeh]] 04:25, 10 May 2010 (CDT)
 
If there are such arguments demonstrating te existence of those specific gods, then let us know, so we can dissect them. However, a very little amount of people do believe in these gods and a demonstration of their non-existence would be unnecessary; anyway, we do have arguments against the existence of all possible gods. You can spot these arguments in the atheology center, "arguments against the existence of God".--[[User:Wissam hemadeh|wissam hemadeh]] 04:25, 10 May 2010 (CDT)

Revision as of 15:39, 10 May 2010

Physical existence of objects called god

I have yet to spot a section that refers to god(s) that can be demonstrated to exist now, let alone to have existed in the past, vis:

  • Sol (the sun)
  • Prince Phillip
  • The Emperor of Nihon

...etc, and so-on.

In my mind, to omit these gods, who clearly exist, is a failing in the atheist argument that needs to be addressed.

That is not a legitimate failing of the argument - it is an equivocation. The 'atheist argument' is not claiming that the physical objects of worship do not exist, but that the divine qualities attributed to them have not been demonstrated.
For brevity, we should agree that people call something a god only because it is attributed with some uniquely divine or supernatural qualities. It is those qualities that must be demonstrated. Less that, we must simply find a word other than "god" to make our argument, but the point is not defeated. --Jaban 16:39, 10 May 2010 (CDT)


Other Gods

If there are such arguments demonstrating te existence of those specific gods, then let us know, so we can dissect them. However, a very little amount of people do believe in these gods and a demonstration of their non-existence would be unnecessary; anyway, we do have arguments against the existence of all possible gods. You can spot these arguments in the atheology center, "arguments against the existence of God".--wissam hemadeh 04:25, 10 May 2010 (CDT)

Personal tools
Namespaces
Variants
Actions
wiki navigation
IronChariots.Org
Toolbox