Talk:Arguments for the existence of god
(Difference between revisions)
(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 16:39, 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)
