Talk:You can't prove God doesn't exist
(Difference between revisions)
(Hindu/Vishnu example a good one? can anyone think of something better?) |
|||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
:: Good solution. -- [[User:Kazim|Kazim]] 07:19, 31 August 2006 (MST) | :: Good solution. -- [[User:Kazim|Kazim]] 07:19, 31 August 2006 (MST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==Better than Vishnu?== | ||
| + | |||
| + | Do you think the Hindu/Vishnu thing is a good example? It was the best I could come up with off the top of my head... - [[User:Dcljr|dcljr]] 23:13, 1 September 2006 (MST) | ||
Revision as of 01:13, 2 September 2006
I've added this article to the "Argument for the existence of God" category. I feel there is a deeper level category that it also belongs in, but I can't figure out which one it might be. Is there one that is sort of like "Semantic arguments"? "Burden of proof shifting"? --Kazim 04:09, 31 August 2006 (MST)
- Like Pascal's Wager, this doesn't seem to be an argument for God's existence as much as it's an argument for belief. I think the distinction is notable, but not enough to remove them from the 'for existence' category. The subcat you're suggesting is one I've tried to think of several times, I just haven't come up with a brief, descriptive label that I like. "Arguments for belief" is my current preference, so I added that subcat and included this article and the Pascal's wager article. -- Sans Deity 06:57, 31 August 2006 (MST)
- Good solution. -- Kazim 07:19, 31 August 2006 (MST)
Better than Vishnu?
Do you think the Hindu/Vishnu thing is a good example? It was the best I could come up with off the top of my head... - dcljr 23:13, 1 September 2006 (MST)
