Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 09:30, 26 August 2022

Template:Vital article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Religion Top‑importance 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. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Atheism Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Atheism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of atheism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AtheismWikipedia:WikiProject AtheismTemplate:WikiProject AtheismAtheism Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. For more information and how you can help, click the link opposite: If you would like to participate, you can edit this article and visit the project page. Quick help Project's main talk page Article layout Links to atheism-related information · List of free online resources Writing about religion · Article development Citing sources · Verifying sources · About original research Assume good faith · Be civil Recent activity Core articles the "Atheism" article Articles recently added to Category:Atheism To do edit history watch purge Join WikiProject atheism and be bold. Add a userbox to your page ({{User WikiProject Atheism}} or {{User WPA2}}) and attract potential members. Help with articles. See this month's adopt-an-article. Help out with this to-do list. Be consistent Use a "standard" layout for atheism-related articles (see layout style, "The perfect article" and Featured articles). Add Atheism info box to all atheism related talk pages (use {{WikiProject Atheism}} or see info box) Ensure atheism-related articles are members of Atheism by checking whether ] has been added to atheism-related articles – and, where it hasn't, adding it. Maintenance, etc. Find sources for all positions of an article (see Citing sources and atheism references). Try to expand stubs. Ideas and theories about life, however, are prone to generating neologisms, so some stubs may be suitable for deletion (see deletion process). Watch the list of atheism-related articles and add to accordingly. Always write for an encyclopedia. Articles to improve Agnosticism Create Articles on notable atheists Expand an atheism stub Immediate attention State atheism needs a reassessment of its Importance level, as it has little to do with atheism and is instead an article about anti-theist/anti-religious actions of governments. False choice into False dilemma: discuss whether you are for or against this merge here Clarify references in Atheism using footnotes. Secular movement defines it as a being restricted to America in the 21st century. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Philosophy: Religion High‑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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Philosophy of religion

Template:WP1.0

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.

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.

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. Vorbee (talk) 15:56, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

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, warshy 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.The Famous Adventurer (talk) 10:24, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

What about Pandeism then, where the Creator is formerly transcendent and presently immanent? Pandeist (talk) 04:12, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Wiping out all the links on the page?

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, warshy 19:33, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Weasel words regarding proof

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. 76.21.18.251 (talk) 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, warshy 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. 76.21.18.251 (talk) 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, warshy 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. Hyperbolick (talk) 19:43, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• C-Class Religion articles
• Top-importance Religion articles
• WikiProject Religion articles
• C-Class Atheism articles
• Top-importance Atheism articles
• C-Class Philosophy articles
• High-importance Philosophy articles
• C-Class philosophy of religion articles
• High-importance philosophy of religion articles
• Philosophy of religion task force articles