| Revision as of 00:10, 25 November 2016 editLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,292,502 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:Theism/Archive 3) (bot← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 20:25, 15 July 2024 edit undo2601:240:c480:2d0:892d:3baf:733e:4088 (talk) →Wheres that one ideology that is basically the same thing as this?: new sectionTag: New topic | ||
| (48 intermediate revisions by 21 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{Talk header}} | |||
| {{Vital article|level=3|topic=Philosophy|class=C}} | |||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config|archive=Talk:Theism/Archive %(counter)d|algo=old(28d)|counter=3|maxarchivesize=100k|minthreadsleft=1|minthreadstoarchive=5|archiveheader={{Automatic archive navigator}}}} | |||
| {{WikiProjectBannerShell|1= | |||
| {{WikiProject banner shell|class=Start|vital=yes|1= | |||
| {{WPReligion|class=C|importance=top}} | |||
| {{WikiProject |
{{WikiProject Religion |importance=top |attention=yes}} | ||
| {{ |
{{WikiProject Philosophy |importance=Mid |religion=yes |attention=yes}} | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| {{Broken anchors|links= | |||
| {{WP1.0|class=Start|category=category|VA=yes}} | |||
| * <nowiki>]</nowiki> Anchor ] links to a specific web page: ]. The anchor (#Religious belief) is no longer available because it was ] before. <!-- {"title":"Religious belief","appear":{"revid":894307093,"parentid":894306652,"timestamp":"2019-04-27T00:49:06Z","removed_section_titles":,"added_section_titles":},"disappear":{"revid":905285976,"parentid":905285832,"timestamp":"2019-07-08T04:19:55Z","removed_section_titles":,"added_section_titles":}} --> | |||
| {{archive box|auto=long}} | |||
| __TOC__ | |||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | |||
| |archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}} | |||
| |maxarchivesize = 100K | |||
| |counter = 3 | |||
| |minthreadsleft = 3 | |||
| |minthreadstoarchive = 1 | |||
| |algo = old(180d) | |||
| |archive = Talk:Theism/Archive %(counter)d | |||
| }} | }} | ||
| == ''create page'' and paragraph: ] (usually tautological to ]) == | |||
| == Recent revert == | |||
| prerequisites for ''strong theism''<br> | |||
| (otherwise God or the gods might not be cosmogonic and cosmocentric ) | |||
| I reverted to the lead, which was made by an anonymous ip with no edit summary. I can only guess why he feels the change is necessary, but in contrast, I think the sources are quite clear. AFAICT, ] is about "knowledge", not about "justification for belief". Our article on agnosticism covers this in some detail as well. If I've missed anything, or there's some reason this change is necessary, I'd be happy to discuss it! Thanks! — ]<span style="margin:0 7px;font-variant:small-caps;font-size:0.9em">· ]]</span> 20:38, 9 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| * self-causation/self-causality of ] | |||
| * involvement of personhood in cosmogony | |||
| === details in French: L'auto-causalité et la cosmogonicité de le personnétat === | |||
| :I agree, the William L. Rowe source is quite clear, "...an agnostic is someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in God...". The statement, "...agnosticism deals with (absence of) rational claims to asserting knowledge" is no where contained in the source. This statement actually contradicts what the source is advancing, that agnosticism "deals with (absence of) rational claims to asserting belief." The source is advancing the position that agnosticism is a valid third alternative to theism and atheism, while the current statement advances that agnosticism is not a valid third alternative. It is clearly a misrepresentation of the source.] (]) 00:26, 11 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| (Keep it because some English speakers speak French or use autotranslation. The main article has to be enriched.) | |||
| :It's been yet again, same user. I do like this new change direction but it needs to specify what agnosticism is (lack of knowledge) not just what it isn't (a matter of belief.) ] (]) 22:10, 10 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| Religiologiquement, l'auto-causalité et la cosmogonicité de l'état de la personne ( anglais : ''personhood'' ) sont les principaux éléments du théisme fort ( ''personocratie métaphysique'' et non un rôle secondaire au divin ). Si le personnétat ( l'état de la personne ) n'est pas en soi auto-causé et cosmogonique, dans ce cas Dieu a des ingrédients, et en aucun cas il n'est aisé de prouver qu'ils co-sythétisent un tout indivisible tandis qu'en étant séparé de son ] ( ousia ). ( Le personnétat est produit par un organe pensant, qui doit remplir de nombreuses conditions préalables ; voir : « Mary Anne Warren - the criteria of personhood ». Le cerveau humain utilise de nombreuses parties pour atteindre le personnétat ; voir : Nancy Kanwisher, Mark Solms. Les théistes ne fournissent aucune explication sur les mécanismes de l'âme. L'âme est un simple méréologique ( voir : méréologie, simple en philosophie ), elle est donc incapable de transmettre des informations plus d'un shannon ( unité d'information ), et elle est incapable d'exprimer différentes sous-routines comme les aires de Brodmann. ) Il est très difficile pour un Dieu avec des ingrédients discrets ( inévident et multisubstantiel ) d'être interprété comme l'origine de tout. | |||
| ::I have no issues if others want to advance the view that agnosticism is not a valid third alternative, but the current source cited, is not advancing that view.] (]) 00:26, 11 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| Le Dieu impersonnel / athée, est un sophisme superficiel et une altération lexicale ( une confusion avec son antonyme généralement pour tromperie rhétorique ). | |||
| If you change this back again, then you are doing Original Research. No where in the citation does it imply what you want it to imply.] (]) 20:01, 12 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ________ | |||
| :Hi IIXVXII. I haven't responded again because I saw you got some input here, and are also having this same discussion on the Agnosticism talk page. We have other sources than the one to which you're referring. I'd be happy to swap out this current source with others if that's what you'd prefer. One is by ] : "{{tq|agnosticism is not a third alternative to theism and atheism...agnosticism refers to the impossibility of knowledge with regard to a god... Agnosticism can be either theistic or atheistic.}}" (See page 10-11 for the full quote). Another is by ], page 96 . "{{tq|The two words serve different concepts and are not mutually exclusive. Agnosticism addresses knowledge; atheism addresses belief. The agnostic says, “I don't have a knowledge that God exists.}}". These are sources we're using in wikipedia already on this set of articles. I could find others if necessary, but I think what we have already should be sufficient. — ]<span style="margin:0 7px;font-variant:small-caps;font-size:0.9em">· ]]</span> 21:16, 12 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| En philosophie, on ne peut prétendre avoir une vue supérieure qui reste injustifiée. | |||
| ::Yes, the agnosticism talk page, where I showed the flaw of the quotation. | |||
| == "charged particles in the neutron beam"????? == | |||
| ::Now I'm dealing with you, and how you are violating ] by demanding the minority view be the only view presented. You even admit you will exchange the majority view source with a minority view source, in order to obtain your goal of advancing the minority view. | |||
| Why, why, why on earth was the below citation placed under 'Autotheism'? | |||
| ::My compromise is to remove the entire sentence and let this debate continue in the agnosticism talk page. Afterall, the sentence offers nothing to the topic of theism.] (]) 04:14, 13 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| I don't know who added it there but I'm sure there was a reason why. | |||
| :::The sentence offers nothing to the topic of theism ''if we assume your premise'' that they are mutually exclusive. They are not always mutually exclusive. All we're doing here is summarizing the ] and ] articles, so I agree that you should have this discussion on those pages first. I disagree that Rowe is in the majority, and Smith and Barker and Martin et al. are all in the minority. You're welcome to hash that out and demonstrate the majority position on the Agnosticism talk if you'd like. All the best, — ]<span style="margin:0 7px;font-variant:small-caps;font-size:0.9em">· ]]</span> 15:15, 13 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| I can't access the document; whoever placed it there, could you explain? Thanks :)) | |||
| == Missing category == | |||
| {{Citation|last=Jain|first=Mahavir|title=Neutron Experiments at Lampf|date=1976|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-7204-0481-4.50063-0|work=Few Body Dynamics|pages=215–219|publisher=Elsevier|doi=10.1016/b978-0-7204-0481-4.50063-0|isbn=978-0-7204-0481-4|access-date=2020-11-10}} ] (]) 12:48, 23 September 2022 (UTC) | |||
| If a theism is not ] or ] then what is it? | |||
| == theism = metaphysical personocracy (krátos: dominance, rule) == | |||
| (pandeism and panendeism does not count)--] (]) 15:15, 21 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| A personocratic/personocentric (based on personhood and at least one person) view on/about the first principles. In ] (not strong belief, but theism with strong characteristics = great importance given to personhood and at least one divine/supernatural person) God is the origin of everything/the absolute everything (which cannot be defined and cannot exist as a single entity because there is no set of all sets, no system of all systems, no axiomatic system of all axiomatic systems ; and even if theoretically we could create a system which contained all the systems, we would require a mathematical definition for it... which would be infinite, and infinity cannot exist locally, it is a tendency... deeper questions about reality open. Even if we could claim that we cannot create an algorithm which would have to work an infinite amount of time, and place in some common file even mutually exclusive axiomatic systems in a protected unprocedural way which doesn't cancel them... that overall collection cannot have a mathematical definition; because it would require even different mathematics/allomathematics based on different axiomatics... and even if somehow we imagine an impossible infinity like that... it would be a monster of no internal coherence; or with infinite protective mathematical layers in order no procedure would cancel any mutually exclusive subroutine/subformula everything]/thus God cannot exist and for that reason ]. (Many physicists confuse the "big everything" = "absolutely everything and not only what we can access or everything related to us and our environment" with the "small everything" = every law/onto-procedure and everything included in our universe.) | |||
| • metaphysical personocracy/theism = Greek: μεταφυσική προσωποκρατία/θεϊσμός | |||
| :The article isn't claiming that all belief is either pantheist or panentheist. Those are simply presented as two types of theistic belief. Clearly there are belief systems in which their deity/deities are separate in substance from the universe (such as the vast majority of Abrahamic religions). ] (]) 22:38, 15 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :: And why would Pandeism and Panendeism not count? ] (]) 23:25, 10 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
| • metaphysical personocrat/theist = Greek: μεταφυσικός προσωποκράτης/θεϊστής m, θεΐστρια f | |||
| == Article lede changed in a manner to make it inaccurate. == | |||
| <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 16:38, 26 January 2023 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| == Wheres that one ideology that is basically the same thing as this? == | |||
| In ] changes the lede sentence in a manner that simplifies the sentence a little bit, but it changes the meaning from what used to be accurate to what is now inaccurate. | |||
| I’ve tried to find what im talking about and I found it in the past, but now, I can’t seem to remember it | |||
| ''"the belief that at least one ] exists"'' is '''not''' the same meaning as ''"the belief in the existence of ]."'' And, of course, the difference is that the current version excludes the singular and only includes the plural. That is both a misrepresentation of the vast majority of theists (who are ]), it is also just inaccurate. | |||
| sincere regards, | |||
| I will change it to ''"the belief in the existence of a or deities."'' Perhaps it should just be reverted, but I don't want to have a revert struggle, so I will try to take this edit and make it better rather than revert it. ] (]) 03:25, 24 November 2016 (UTC) | |||
| ] (]) 20:25, 15 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 20:25, 15 July 2024
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Theism article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 28 days  |
 | This  level-4 vital article is rated Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
|
create page and paragraph: strong theism (usually tautological to monotheism)
prerequisites for strong theism
(otherwise God or the gods might not be cosmogonic and cosmocentric )
- self-causation/self-causality of personhood
- involvement of personhood in cosmogony
details in French: L'auto-causalité et la cosmogonicité de le personnétat
(Keep it because some English speakers speak French or use autotranslation. The main article has to be enriched.)
Religiologiquement, l'auto-causalité et la cosmogonicité de l'état de la personne ( anglais : personhood ) sont les principaux éléments du théisme fort ( personocratie métaphysique et non un rôle secondaire au divin ). Si le personnétat ( l'état de la personne ) n'est pas en soi auto-causé et cosmogonique, dans ce cas Dieu a des ingrédients, et en aucun cas il n'est aisé de prouver qu'ils co-sythétisent un tout indivisible tandis qu'en étant séparé de son essence ( ousia ). ( Le personnétat est produit par un organe pensant, qui doit remplir de nombreuses conditions préalables ; voir : « Mary Anne Warren - the criteria of personhood ». Le cerveau humain utilise de nombreuses parties pour atteindre le personnétat ; voir : Nancy Kanwisher, Mark Solms. Les théistes ne fournissent aucune explication sur les mécanismes de l'âme. L'âme est un simple méréologique ( voir : méréologie, simple en philosophie ), elle est donc incapable de transmettre des informations plus d'un shannon ( unité d'information ), et elle est incapable d'exprimer différentes sous-routines comme les aires de Brodmann. ) Il est très difficile pour un Dieu avec des ingrédients discrets ( inévident et multisubstantiel ) d'être interprété comme l'origine de tout.
Le Dieu impersonnel / athée, est un sophisme superficiel et une altération lexicale ( une confusion avec son antonyme généralement pour tromperie rhétorique ).
________
En philosophie, on ne peut prétendre avoir une vue supérieure qui reste injustifiée.
"charged particles in the neutron beam"?????
Why, why, why on earth was the below citation placed under 'Autotheism'?
I don't know who added it there but I'm sure there was a reason why.
I can't access the document; whoever placed it there, could you explain? Thanks :))
Jain, Mahavir (1976), "Neutron Experiments at Lampf", Few Body Dynamics, Elsevier, pp. 215–219, doi:10.1016/b978-0-7204-0481-4.50063-0, ISBN 978-0-7204-0481-4, retrieved 2020-11-10 FatalSubjectivities (talk) 12:48, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
theism = metaphysical personocracy (krátos: dominance, rule)
A personocratic/personocentric (based on personhood and at least one person) view on/about the first principles. In strong theism (not strong belief, but theism with strong characteristics = great importance given to personhood and at least one divine/supernatural person) God is the origin of everything/the absolute everything (which cannot be defined and cannot exist as a single entity because there is no set of all sets, no system of all systems, no axiomatic system of all axiomatic systems ; and even if theoretically we could create a system which contained all the systems, we would require a mathematical definition for it... which would be infinite, and infinity cannot exist locally, it is a tendency... deeper questions about reality open. Even if we could claim that we cannot create an algorithm which would have to work an infinite amount of time, and place in some common file even mutually exclusive axiomatic systems in a protected unprocedural way which doesn't cancel them... that overall collection cannot have a mathematical definition; because it would require even different mathematics/allomathematics based on different axiomatics... and even if somehow we imagine an impossible infinity like that... it would be a monster of no internal coherence; or with infinite protective mathematical layers in order no procedure would cancel any mutually exclusive subroutine/subformula everything]/thus God cannot exist and for that reason ]. (Many physicists confuse the "big everything" = "absolutely everything and not only what we can access or everything related to us and our environment" with the "small everything" = every law/onto-procedure and everything included in our universe.)
• metaphysical personocracy/theism = Greek: μεταφυσική προσωποκρατία/θεϊσμός
• metaphysical personocrat/theist = Greek: μεταφυσικός προσωποκράτης/θεϊστής m, θεΐστρια f
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2149:8AB8:3F00:28D0:340A:240:B4DB (talk) 16:38, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
Wheres that one ideology that is basically the same thing as this?
I’ve tried to find what im talking about and I found it in the past, but now, I can’t seem to remember it
sincere regards,
2601:240:C480:2D0:892D:3BAF:733E:4088 (talk) 20:25, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Categories:- Start-Class level-4 vital articles
- Misplaced Pages level-4 vital articles in Philosophy and religion
- Start-Class vital articles in Philosophy and religion
- Start-Class Religion articles
- Top-importance Religion articles
- Religion articles needing attention
- WikiProject Religion articles
- Start-Class Philosophy articles
- Mid-importance Philosophy articles
- Start-Class philosophy of religion articles
- Mid-importance philosophy of religion articles
- Philosophy of religion task force articles
- Philosophy articles needing attention