Talk:Theism: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 09:30, 26 August 2022 edit2a02:2149:8b32:9e00:21f4:c4c4:2c17:4f89 (talk) →details in French: L'auto-causalité et la cosmogonicité de le personnétat Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit← 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
(29 intermediate revisions by 12 users not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{Talk header}}
	{{Vital article\|level=4\|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 ~~Atheism\|class=C~~\|importance=top}}		{{WikiProject Religion \|importance=top \|attention=yes}}
	{{~~philosophy\|class=C~~\|importance=~~high~~\|religion=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
	}}		}}

Line 37:		Line 27:
	En philosophie, on ne peut prétendre avoir une vue supérieure qui reste injustifiée.		En philosophie, on ne peut prétendre avoir une vue supérieure qui reste injustifiée.

			== "charged particles in the neutron beam"????? ==
	==Does the term exclude pantheism and deism?==

	I feel pretty sure that I once read somewhere that as theism is belief in a God who is both transcendent and immanent, it would be taken to exclude both pantheism (which rejects the transcendence of God) and deism (which rejects the immanence of God). This could be more clearly formulated in the article. ] (]) 15:56, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
			Why, why, why on earth was the below citation placed under 'Autotheism'?
	:I like the suggestion, but the question is where is theism defined as "belief in a God who is both transcendent and immanent." Because, if that is the definition of theism, than it would be pretty close to pantheism? Thanks, ] ] 18:00, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

	::My understanding of pantheism is that it defines God as the Cosmos (which would then preclude transcendence beyond the cosmos), where panentheism is closer to the understanding of God as both transcendent and imminent (i.e. fully present throughout the cosmos, but not the same substance as the Cosmos). Interestingly, the distinction between the two has parallels in the distinction between transubstantiation and consubstantiation (with regard to the Christian practice of Communion), and also reminds me of the distinction between homoousios (of the same substance) and homoiousios (of like substance) in the Christological debates of the 4th century.] (]) 10:24, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
			I don't know who added it there but I'm sure there was a reason why.
	::: What about ] then, where the Creator is formerly transcendent and presently immanent? ] (]) 04:12, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

			I can't access the document; whoever placed it there, could you explain? Thanks :))

			{{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)

			== theism = metaphysical personocracy (krátos: dominance, rule) ==
			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

			• metaphysical personocrat/theist = Greek: μεταφυσικός προσωποκράτης/θεϊστής m, θεΐστρια f

			<!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 16:38, 26 January 2023 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

	== ~~Wiping~~ ~~out~~ ~~all~~ ~~the~~ ~~links~~ on the ~~page~~? ==		== 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
	IP Editor 142.160.131.202 wiped out all the see also links on this page. When I reverted he reverted it back pointing to WP:EMBED. I looked at WP:EMBED and I see no justification for wiping out all the links as he/she is doing it. We can discuss specific links that may not deserve to be on the page, but the wiping out of all links does not seem right to me? Thanks, ] ] 19:33, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

			sincere regards,
	== Weasel words regarding proof ==
			] (]) 20:25, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
	This sentence from the article is problematic: "There have been many proofs of Monotheism postulated by a multitude of philosophers and academics throughout history." Even though the word "postulated" makes the sentence technically true, a careless reader could easily take the sentence to imply that there were many valid proofs of monotheism. This sentence should be removed or replaced with something with a neutral point of view linking to https://en.wikipedia.org/Existence_of_God for example. ] (]) 19:26, 25 August 2019 (UTC) John Corbett
	:Thanks for the note. I for one agree with you, so you can try your hand at it, and I will be checking and adding comments and edits if needed, to what you come up with. Since you are apparently also signing your name, I'd suggest you login as a registered user to start making your edits. Thank you and good luck, ] ] 20:56, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
	::And thank you as well, warshy. My preference would be to delete the sentence. If anyone has an interest in adding a history section, the link I mentioned and many others would be appropriate. I'm not inclined to try to fix the sentence again because last time I did, it got reverted. I do appreciate the encouragement to create an account, but I don't have time today. ] (]) 00:54, 26 August 2019 (UTC) John Corbett
	:::Whenever you do have sometime, and if you feel so inclined, I'd encourage you to try your hand at a better statement, instead of the one you have identified. If I agree with your suggested edit, I don't think it would be reverted. Thank you for caring about the accuracy of the content of this page. Be well, ] ] 14:41, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
	:::: Function of the fact that in theology arguments are called proofs. Suggest reversing word order -- "Philosophers and academics throughout history have postulated many proofs of Monotheism." Could further make it "postulated many arguments claimed as proofs" for caution's sake. ] (]) 19:43, 26 August 2019 (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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

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:

Religion Top‑importance

	Religion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.

Philosophy: Religion Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Misplaced Pages.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Philosophy of religion

This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

] Anchor Belief#Religious belief links to a specific web page: Religious belief. The anchor (#Religious belief) is no longer available because it was deleted by a user before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

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: