Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Sexual continence

2010-04-10T18:55:09Z

Malirin:

[[Image:Bride and groom.jpg|right|thumb|250px|The Word of the Judeo-Christian God approves only one sexual relationship:
that between a husband and wife within marriage.]]
'''Sexual continence''' is abstaining from sexual actions until married, and remaining strictly faithful within marriage.
<blockquote>What's right is always smart, and always for your good. Sex is not just something you do—sex is someone you are. It is linked to the welfare of your whole person. <ref> [http://www.epm.org/articles/sexpur.html Guidelines for Sexual Purity] by Randy Alcorn. </ref></blockquote>

<blockquote>
''"We are getting married anyway." - Great!! Then surely you must want to build your marriage on a foundation of obedience to the Lord and respect for one another. If you are a Christian and you love your spouse-to-be, you must want the best for him or her and following God's commands is always the best. A healthy Christian marriage consists of two people who are committed to obedience to Christ above all. God cannot bless sin so if you choose to build your marriage on sin rather than on obedience to Christ, you will reap the consequences of that sin rather than enjoy the blessings of God.'' <ref>[http://www.zyworld.com/PURENHART2/purity.htm Sexual purity]</ref>

</blockquote>

''In 1917, The American Medical Association passes a resolution declaring that "sexual continence is compatible with health and is the best prevention of venereal infections," and one of the methods for controlling syphilis is by controlling alcohol. Secretary of the Navy Josephus Daniels prohibits the practice of distributing contraceptives to sailors bound on shore leave, and Congress passes laws setting up "dry and decent zones" around military camps. "Many barkeepers are fined for selling liquor to men in uniform. Only at Coney Island could soldiers and sailors change into the grateful anonymity of bathing suits and drink without molestation from patriotic passers-by."'' <ref>[http://www.sodaknorml.org/history.htm A History of Drug Use and Prohibition]</ref>

== See also ==
*[[Abstinence]]
*[[Sexual healing]]

== External links ==
[[Image:Natha.jpg|right]]
*[http://www.probe.org/content/view/891/72/ Medical Reasons for Sexual Purity] Written by Dr. Ray Bohlin.
*[http://www.premaritalsex.info/ Sexual purity]
*[http://www.epm.org/articles/sexpur.html Guidelines for sexual purity]
*[http://www.mc.maricopa.edu/~tomshoemaker/StudentPapers/JewishSexuality.html Sexuality in Judaism]
*[http://www.marriagefriendlycommunities.org/ Marriage Friendly Communities]
*[http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=25922 Study reveals flaws in sex education]
*[http://www.teen-aid.org/Abstinence_Education/psychological_argument_for_abstinence_and_commitment.htm#_Love_Or_Lust? Implications For Sex Education And Counseling] Brock Alan Salzman.
*[http://www.bible.com/bibleanswers_result.php?id=252 WHAT DOES THE BIBLE SAY ABOUT...]

== References ==
<references/>

[[Category:Sexuality]]
[[Category:Health]]

Design

2010-04-10T18:52:06Z

Malirin:

'''Design''' is the purposefully made enhancement of an animate object or [[artifact]] by a planned process. In the context of the [[evolution]] vs. [[creation]] controversy, "design" often refers to [[intelligent design]], the [[scientific theory]] that life carries traits which could not have arisen absent purposeful direction towards a goal.

*[[Darwinism|Evolutionary biologists]] such as [[Francisco Ayala]] and [[Richard Dawkins]] assert much more. Dawkins, for example, acknowledges that living organisms "give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." But, he argues that this appearance of design is completely misleading because undirected Darwinian processes — random mutations and natural selection — can produce the features of living systems that look designed. In Ayala's words, natural selection produces "design without a designer." [http://www.discovery.org/a/4522]

* [[Charles Darwin]] said his [[theory of evolution]] had disproved design in nature. He declared that [[natural causes]] could explain life. Although the world looked designed, he said, it actually was produced by the blind action of the environment on [[random variations]] in [[organisms]]. [http://www.beliefnet.com/story/172/story_17214_1.html]

Some atheists argue that Evolution is design by trial-and-error. Thus, complicated life forms could have arose by a natural system of animals reproducing into millions of slightly-different forms and preserving the most successful ones until a remarkable creature is formed.

== See also ==
* [[List of Intelligent Design Theorists]]''

[[category:science]]

Talk:Evolutionary racism

2010-04-10T18:36:54Z

Malirin:

All I can say about the issue is Charles Darwin may be a scientist, but was a product of his time (mid 19th century) and scientists admit to be wrong at times about a few theories, even Darwin can be wrong on something like ethnic or racial differences between groups of fellow humans. Usually, racial propaganda about "smarter" people vs. "dumb" minorities/foreigners/social pariahs are concocted by members of ultra-nationalist regimes when they are at war (i.e. British WW1 posters on Germans are Kaiser-like primates) or governments dislike the idea of diverse cultures wanting everyone to believe, speak and dress alike. Evolutionary racists like nativists in the USA may want immigrants to stop speaking foreign languages since "everyone in America only uses English" and "if they can't learn our language, then their brains are less evolved", thus are believers in a theory of certain races/ethnic minorities are unable to learn...it's just cultural misunderstanding as it takes years for one to completely adapt to a new culture. + [[User:Getitstraight|Getitstraight]] 16:10, 14 December 2009 (EST)

Hey guys, evolutionary racism makes no sense. If Hitler really believed in evolution and survival of the fittest, why would he set up a system to exterminate people? That is systematic genocide, not evolution. If Hitler really believed in evolution, he would think "hmm, those jews are inferior, so they will be slightly less capable of reproducing than others, and after millions of years their population will be smaller in comparison to races with genes better suited to their environment, which is assuming that they don't have children with non-jews and mix up the gene pool." Instead, Hitler wanted a scapegoat to skyrocket national pride and make himself an all-powerful dictator.--[[User:Malirin|Malirin]] 14:36, 10 April 2010 (EDT)

Atheism and Mass Murder

2010-02-27T02:29:38Z

Malirin:

[[Image:Stalin.jpg‎ |right|200px|thumb|[[Joseph Stalin]]'s atheistic regime killed tens of millions of people.]]
In respect to '''atheism and mass murder''', [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologist]] Gregory Koukl wrote that "the assertion is that religion has caused most of the killing and bloodshed in the world.
There are people who make accusations and assertions that are empirically false. This is one of them."<ref name="Koukl">Koukl, Gregory, [http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5527 The Real Murderers: Atheism or Christianity?], 1994</ref>
Koukl details the number of people killed in various events involving theism and compares them to the much higher tens of millions of people killed under [[communism|communist]] [[Atheism|atheistic]] regimes.<ref name="Koukl" /> It has been estimated that in less than the past 100 years, governments under the banner of [[communism]] have caused the death of somewhere between 40,472,000 to 259,432,000 human lives.<ref>[http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/finalconflict/fcrevb102.html The Black Book of Communism]</ref><ref>[http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~hpcws/lelivrenoir.htm The Black Book of Communism]</ref><ref>http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM</ref><ref>[http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm Source List and Detailed Death Tolls for the Twentieth Century Hemoclysm]</ref><ref>[http://www.sarasotamagazine.com/blog/template_permalink.asp?id=365 Memory and Ideology]</ref><ref>[http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=2526 The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression]</ref> Dr. R. J. Rummel, professor emeritus of political science at the University of Hawaii, is the scholar who first coined the term democide (death by government). Dr. R. J. Rummel's mid estimate regarding the loss of life due to communism is that communism caused the death of approximately 110,286,000 people between 1917 and 1987.<ref>http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM</ref>

Koukl summarized by stating:
{{cquote|It is true that it's possible that religion can produce evil, and generally when we look closer at the detail it produces evil because the individual people are actually living in a rejection of the tenets of Christianity and a rejection of the God that they are supposed to be following. So it can produce it, but the historical fact is that outright rejection of God and institutionalizing of atheism actually does produce evil on incredible levels. We're talking about tens of millions of people as a result of the rejection of God.<ref name="Koukl" />}}
[[Image:Solzhenitsyn.jpg‎|thumb|150px|left|[[Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn]]]]
[[Nobel Prize]] winner [[Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn]] was asked to account for the great tragedies that occurred under the brutal communist regime he and fellow citizens suffered under.

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn offered the following explanation:
{{cquote|Over a half century ago, while I was still a child, I recall hearing a number of old people offer the following explanation for the great disasters that had befallen [[Russia]]: 'Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened.'

Since then I have spend well-nigh 50 years working on the history of our revolution; in the process I have read hundreds of books, collected hundreds of personal testimonies, and have already contributed eight volumes of my own toward the effort of clearing away the rubble left by that upheaval. But if I were asked today to formulate as concisely as possible the main cause of the ruinous revolution that swallowed up some 60 million of our people, I could not put it more accurately than to repeat: 'Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened.' <ref>https://www.rbc.org/devotionals/our-daily-bread/2000/08/13/devotion.aspx</ref>}}

==Explanatory links between atheism and mass murders==

Christian philosophers and theologians explain that there are causal links between mass murder and atheism. Atheism, lack belief in God, have the following characteristics that can lend itself to mass murder and can explain why the greatest mass murderers were atheists:<ref>Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli, Christian apologetics</ref><ref>Joseph de Torre, Christian philosophy</ref><ref>Contemporary Philosophical Issues in Historical Perspective, Manila: UA&P, 2000</ref>
*lack of recognition of an ultimate judge of moral actions and a judge who sets injustice aright in a last judgement, and thus do not recognize the immorality of murder.
*lack of seeing the importance of human beings as images of God and so easily discarding them as merely material things, products of mere chance.
*lack of acknowledging an external standard of moral perfection, thus ending up with self-created standards which can include killing for political survival.
*absence of guidance by divine revelation of the moral law, such as "Thou shalt not kill".
*following an ethic of atheistic evolutionism that is based on the survival and victory of the fittest, which is ultimately a "bloodthirsty ethic", the words of [[Joseph Ratzinger]], that is an ethic that is eager to kill and to maim. This ethic is about conquering others rather than self-conquest.<ref>[ Joseph Ratzinger, Truth and Tolerance http://www.zenit.org/article-13872?l=english]</ref>.

== China ==
The [[atheist]] [[Mao Zedong]] killed tens of millions during his [[Great Leap Forward]] and many more during the purges and slaughters of the [[Cultural revolution]].

== Criticisms of this claim ==

A common [[atheist]] argument is that morality is not tied to religion. It has evolved as a mechanism to ensure an individual's social status within a community. It's pretty obvious that communities which allow or advocate murder would have a huge disadvantage compared to another which criminalizes murder, because of the significant population loss. Thus, the community without murderers would flourish and the communities with murderers would not. For this reason, humans have evolved with an innate resistance to killing others regardless of religious beliefs.

Another argument is that the regimes run by [[Hitler]], [[Stalin]], or [[Mao Zedong]] were not atheistic. They were mass murderers not because of their religious beliefs, (or lack, thereof) but because they were power-hungry extremists. Atheism is an insignificantly small factor in the creation of these regimes. (see Godwin's law)

==See Also==
*[[Atheism and Uncharitableness]]
*[[Atheism and deception]]
*[[Atheism and Morality]]
*[[Morality]]
{{Nb Atheism}}

== Notes ==
{{reflist|2}}

[[Category:Atheism]]

Arguments for the existence of God

2010-02-27T02:00:03Z

Malirin: /* Objections */

'''Arguments for the existence of God''' involve carefully crafted reasoning with the hope that an individual will come to the conclusion that [[God]] exists.

== Overview ==

Also known as '''proofs''' for God's existence, these arguments have not always come with full acceptance. Those opposed to [[natural theology]] claim that God's existence cannot be proven by human reason or the natural world, and that any attempt to do so runs the risk of becoming a [[God of the Gaps]] argument. However, [[Oxford]] scholar Roger Penrose states that [[materialism]] is now the faith of the gaps (see: [[Atheism of the gaps]]).<ref>http://www.leaderu.com/ftissues/ft9511/revessay.html</ref> Viewpoints vary, but responses tend to conclude that God can only be known by supernatural [[special revelation|revelation]] or [[Scripture alone]]. [[Karl Barth]] is a classic example of this as he believed that God is exclusively revealed in [[Jesus Christ]], and Jesus is only revealed in the [[Bible]]. Proponents of natural theology vary as well, but most conclude that the existence of God can be known through human reason although it is not salvific (not a saving knowledge of God). [[Thomas Aquinas]] is characteristic of this view, holding to the understanding that the created world reflects aspects of its creator that are apparent to all. Nonetheless, arguments for the existence of God have been formed throughout [[church history]] and continue to be used today, namely in the area of [[Christian apologetics]].

These arguments do not generally tell us much about God, and certainly not the details that is revealed in the Bible.
Rather, they argue for the basics, such that God<ref>The term "God" is a reference to the ultimate being, not necessarily the Christian God. There term is here capitalised as it is a reference to ''the'' ultimate being, not a counterfeit or lesser "god-like" being.</ref> exists, although some characteristics of God can be deduced from the nature of His creation.

==Cosmological arguments==
(the "unmade maker")

===Kalam cosmological argument===
The aim of this argument is to show that the universe had a beginning in the finite past. The argument battles against the existence of an [[infinite regression]] of past events which implies a universe that has infinitely existed. This argument implies the existence of a First Cause.

The form of the argument is:
# Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
# The universe began to exist.
# Therefore, the universe has a cause.
Note that the key phrase here is "''begins'' to exist". The question is not "whatever exists".

The atheistic counter argument has traditionally been to point 2, taking the position that the universe has always existed. With the advent of the [[Big Bang theory]] pointing towards a starting point, this line of defense has become rather shaky. It should also be noted that the Kalam argument removes one of the knee jerk reactions to any discussion on creation involving God which is "Then who created God?" Since God has no beginning, the question becomes meaningless. The Bible makes clear that God exists outside of our construct of time in many locations, including 1 Corinthians 2:7, 2 Timothy 1:9, and Titus 1:2.

===[[Thomism|Thomistic]] cosmological argument===
# What we observe in this universe is contingent (i.e. dependent, or conditional)
# A sequence of causally related contingent things cannot be infinite
# The sequence of causally dependent contingent things must be finite
Conclusion: There must be a first cause in the sequence of contingent causes

===Leibnizian cosmological argument===
The argument comes from a German polymath, Gottfriend Wilhelm Leibniz. Leibniz wrote, "The first question which should rightly be asked is this: why is there something rather than nothing?"

The argument runs as follows:
# Every existing thing has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own [[nature]] or in an external cause.
# If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.
# The universe is an existing thing.
# Therefore the explanation of the universe is God.

Some [[Atheism|atheists]] object to premise 2 in that God does not have to be the explanation, but that the universe can be what is called a necessary being (one which exists of its own nature and have no external cause). This was a suggestion of [[David Hume]] who demanded, "Why may not the material universe be the necessarily existent being?" (Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, part 9).
The Kalam Cosmological Argument is helpful. If Hume (and other atheists) is right in saying that the universe is a necessary being/thing, then this implies that the universe is eternal. This is exactly what the Kalam argument seeks to disprove. Thus, the Kalam is a valuable supplement to the Leibnizian argument.

==Teleological argument==
(the "unmoved mover")

Probably the most popular argument for God's existence is the teleological argument. Derived from the Greek word ''telos'', which refers to purpose or end, this argument hinges on the idea that the world gives evidence of being designed, and concludes that a divine designer must be posited to account for the orderly world we encounter. Although the teleological argument dates at least as far back as Plato, it is perhaps most memorable today from the work of [[William Paley]] (1743-1805), in his ''Natural Theology'' (1802). Recently, the teleological argument has gained renewed interest as a core element of the theory of [[Intelligent design|Intelligent Design]] and the related efforts to reconcile science and faith.

Although there are variations, the basic argument goes something like this:

# ''X'' is too complex to have occurred randomly or naturally.
# Therefore, ''X'' must have been created by an intelligent being, ''Y''.
# God is that intelligent being.
# Therefore, God exists.

===Comments on the teleological argument===
'''The first and second premises''' assume that one can infer the existence of intelligent design merely by examining an object. This is the same principle that archaeology uses to determine if, for example, a piece of stone is a stone tool.

The teleological argument assumes that because life is complex, it must have been designed. This is based on observations that complexity is not the outcome of random processes. Some object that life or objects are described as, “orderly” or “ordered”, and that this implies that an intelligent designer has ordered them. These objector claim that a system can be non-random or ordered simply because it is following impersonal physical processes, for example diamonds or snowflakes. However, such "ordered" systems do not have ''complexity'', which life has.

'''The third premise''' is rejected by some even if the first and second premises are accepted, as the implied designer (Y) might be an unknown force or mere demiurge, not God as God is commonly understood. It is argued in defense that the outside force through which Y came into being might then be explained as a more powerful being resulting in either an omnipotent being or infinite regression.

Critics often argue that the teleological argument would apply to the designer, arguing any designer must be at least as complex and purposeful as the designed object. This, they say, would create the absurdity of an infinite series of designers. However, the counter-argument of an "undesigned designer," akin to Aristotle's uncaused causer, is common. Furthermore, it has been argued that God is ''not'' complex, that is, He is not composed of many interrelated parts, so the complexity argument does not apply.

==Anthropological argument==
The anthropological (anthropos meaning "man") argument is made on the basis of the condition of humanity, of mankind's basic moral standards and the thread a search for a higher being. It is related to the cosmological and teleological arguments in that it if man has a yearning for God and a conscience when offending him, ostensibly these have their origin and cause in God and not in man. The argument was perhaps most famously posited by [[Blaise Pascal]], who reasoned that it was better "bet" to believe in God than not to do so.

==Ontological argument==
The ontological argument attempts to prove God's existence through abstract reasoning alone. The argument is entirely a priori, i.e. it involves no empirical evidence at all. Rather, the argument begins with an explication of the concept of God, and seeks to demonstrate that God exists on the basis of that concept alone.
{{cquote|"The argument is ingenious. It has the appearance of a linguistic trick, but it is a difficult task to say precisely what, if anything, is wrong with it. All forms of the argument make some association between three concepts: the concepts of God, of perfection, and of existence. Very roughly, they state that perfection is a part of the concept of God, and that perfection entails existence, and so that the concept of God entails God's existence." <ref>http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/ontological.html</ref>}}

The ontological argument was first formulated by [[Anselm]] of Canterbury (1033-1109), one of the great medieval philosopher-theologians, in his ''Proslogium'', Chapter 2. Anselm’s ontological argument rests on the identification of God as “that than which no greater can be conceived”. Once it is understood that God is that of which no greater can be conceived, Anselm suggests, it becomes evident that God must exist.

A problem with this argument is that it merely defines God into existence. It is unclear if the concept of being able to conceive of a perfect being has any connection to actual existence. Without being able to make this connection, the merit of the argument can become questionable.

===Descartes' ontological argument===
We have the idea of an infinitely perfect Being. Since we are finite, and everything around us is finite, the idea of an infinitely perfect Being could not have originated with us or with the nature around us. Therefore the idea of an infinitely perfect Being must have come from such a being - God. <ref>http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/descartes-ontological/</ref>

==Free will argument==

* There can be no free will in a totally naturalistic system
* Free will exists
* Therefore God exists

Oxygen and hydrogen don't 'choose' to combine, they do so due to natural laws. In a naturalistic system every component that makes us up obeys similar natural laws. The concept of freewill or choice would therefore not exist.

=== Objections ===
Some challenge this argument on the basis that premises one and two have not been proven. They argue:
* In challenging premise 1, those ascribing to [[compatibilism]] believe that our experience of free will is still compatible with naturalistic causes even if the mechanism that causes this to be is not yet known and no viable explanation can be postulated apart from acting as if it is so.<ref>"The Astonishing Hypothesis is that "You," your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and '''free will''', are in fact no more than the behavior of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules ... Free Will is located in or near the anterior cingulate sulcus." Francis Crick, ''The Astonishing Hypothesis: The Scientific Search for the Soul'', Charles Scribner's Sons, New York, NY, 1993, p. 3, 268. </ref> Since this can not be disproven, it is possible that free will exists in a naturalistic system.
* In challenging premise 2, those ascribing to [[determinism]] simply believe that free will does not exist and no one has free will. Therefore there is no importance to the concept of God.

==Consciousness==

* Nature consists of a finite number of elements.
* We (our physical bodies) consist of those elements.
* The elements themselves which we consist of, and nature itself, have no consciousness.
* Despite our elements themselves having no consciousness, we do.
* Consciousness can not happen by chance, therefore there must be a being who supply that to us.
* Infinite regress of beings is illogical, therefore a single, uncaused causer must be the causer of consciousness.
* This uncaused causer of the conscience is [[God]]

===Objections===

* This argument fails to address [[gestalt consciousness]].
* [[Evolutionists]] typically argue that consciousness is not a spirit or soul, but is simply the workings of a highly-developed nervous system. According to the theory of evolution, the nervous system would evolve and make a consciousness, which would not require a creator.
* Infinite regress is allowable both in modern mathematics and physics.
* The last point (that the uncaused causer is God) is unsupported unless it is taken as a statement of definition. If this is the case, the prior arguments are unnecessary.

==Resources==
* ''God, Are you There? Five Reasons God Exists and Three Reasons it Makes a Difference'', by [[William Lane Craig]] (from the [http://www.rzim.org RZIM] Critical Questions Booklet Series)
* ''Does God Exist? The Debate between Theists and Atheists'', by [[J.P. Moreland]] (theist) and [[Kai Nielsen]] (atheist). Prometheus Books, 1993.

==See also==
* [[Apologetics]]
* [[Atheism]]
* [[Thomas Aquinas]]

==References==
*''This article is based off the Theopedia.com [http://www.theopedia.com/Arguments_for_the_existence_of_God article] which is in the public domain.''
{{reflist|2}}

==External links==
* [http://www.apologetics.com/default.jsp?bodycontent=/articles/theistic_apologetics/kreeft-arguments.html Twenty Arguments For The Existence Of God], by [[Peter Kreeft]] & Ronald K. Tacelli
* [http://www.homestead.com/philofreligion/files/Theisticarguments.html Two Dozen (or so) Theistic Arguments] by [[Alvin Plantinga]]; Lecture presented at the 33rd Annual Philosophy Converence, Wheaton College, Oct 23-25, 1986
* [http://www.apologetics.com/default.jsp?bodycontent=/articles/theistic_apologetics/beck-cosmology.html The Cosmological Argument: A Current Bibliographical Appraisal], by W. David Beck
* [http://theologica.blogspot.com/2005/11/evil-as-evidence-for-god.html Evil as Evidence for God], by Justin Taylor
* [http://www.theologicalstudies.citymax.com/page/page/1572404.htm The 4 Primary Arguments for God's Existence], by Michael J. Vlach

===Multimedia===
* [http://biblicaltraining.org/audio/TH503/theology_1_11001.mp3 Theism; Proof of God's existence], by [[Bruce Ware]] (MP3)
* [http://www.veritas.org/mediafiles/Craig%20DoesGodExist%20Fresno.aiff.mp3 Does God Exist?] (MP3), by William Lane Craig
* [http://www.veritas.org/3.0_media/topics/17 Existence of God Audio Lectures] (The Veritas Forum)
* [http://www.believerschapeldallas.org/audio/slj-69_systematic-theology/002_SLJ_69_32K.mp3 Is There a Supreme Being?, or the Existence of God] (MP3), by S. Lewis Johnson
* [http://biblicaltraining.org/audio/TH601/apologetics_08c_MSTR.mov Cosmological Argument] (QuickTime), by Ronald Nash
'''ApologeticsPress.org''' (RealPlayer) <br />
* [http://www.apologeticspress.org/audio/rsf1-l05.rm The Case for the Existence of God] (Part I)
* [http://www.apologeticspress.org/audio/rsf1-l06.rm The Case for the Existence of God] (Part II)
* [http://www.apologeticspress.org/audio/rsf1-l07.rm The Case for the Existence of God] (Part III)

[[Category:Christian Apologetics]]
[[Category:Arguments for the existence of God| ]]
[[Category:Theology]]
[[Category:Philosophy]]