Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Arguments for the existence of God

2007-07-07T00:09:39Z

MikeK: See my talk page

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

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]].

__TOC__
==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, temporal regress 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.

===[[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.

===Objections to the teleological argument===
'''Regarding the first and second premise''' -- The first (and therefore second) premise assumes that one can infer the existence of intelligent design merely by examining an object. The teleological argument assumes that because life is complex, it must have been designed. This is an example of non-sequitur logic. Life or objects are described as, “orderly” or “ordered”. This implies that an intelligent designer has ordered them. In reality a system can be non-random or ordered simply because it is following impersonal physical processes, for example diamonds or snowflakes.

'''Regarding the third premise''' -- Some argue that even if the first and second premises are accepted, 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.

==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.

One problem with this argument is that it merely defines God into existence. For example, one might theorize the existence of a super-[[unicorn]]. This super-unicorn is the same as a regular unicorn, only it has the property of 'existence'. Clearly, simply including 'it exists' in the definition does not mean that a super-unicorn really exists. Through "perfection is a part of the concept of God, and that perfection entails existence", theists apply the same flawed reasoning to prove God's existence.

===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>

==Freewill argument==

* There can be no freewill in a totally naturalistic system
* Freewill 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.

==Consciousness==

* The earth is made of a small number of elements
* We are also made up of those elements, as is all of nature
* The elements that make us up have no consciousness and the earth has no consciousness
* We have consciousness
* Something outside of the elements that make us up has given us our consciousness (God)

==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]]
* [[Natural theology]]
* [[Thomas Aquinas]]
* [[God of the Gaps]]

==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.''

<References/>

==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) 
* [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:God]]
[[Category:Theology]]
[[Category:Philosophy]]

Arguments for the existence of God

2007-07-06T17:09:36Z

MikeK: Restore text

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

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. 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]].

__TOC__
==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, temporal regress 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.

===[[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.

===Objections to the teleological argument===
'''Regarding the first and second premise''' -- The first (and therefore second) premise assumes that one can infer the existence of intelligent design merely by examining an object. The teleological argument assumes that because life is complex, it must have been designed. This is an example of non-sequitur logic. Life or objects are described as, “orderly” or “ordered”. This implies that an intelligent designer has ordered them. In reality a system can be non-random or ordered simply because it is following impersonal physical processes, for example diamonds or snowflakes.

'''Regarding the third premise''' -- Some argue that even if the first and second premises are accepted, 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.

==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." [http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/ontological.html]}}

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.

One problem with this argument is that it merely defines God into existence. For example, one might theorize the existence of a super-[[unicorn]]. This super-unicorn is the same as a regular unicorn, only it has the property of 'existence'. Clearly, simply including 'it exists' in the definition does not mean that a super-unicorn really exists. Through "perfection is a part of the concept of God, and that perfection entails existence", theists apply the same flawed reasoning to prove God's existence.

===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. [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/descartes-ontological/]

==Freewill argument==

* There can be no freewill in a totally naturalistic system
* Freewill 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.

==Consciousness==

* The earth is made of a small number of elements
* We are also made up of those elements, as is all of nature
* The elements that make us up have no consciousness and the earth has no consciousness
* We have consciousness
* Something outside of the elements that make us up has given us our consciousness (God)

==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]]
* [[Natural theology]]
* [[Thomas Aquinas]]
* [[God of the Gaps]]

==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.''

==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) 
* [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:God]]
[[Category:Theology]]
[[Category:Philosophy]]

User talk:DanH

2007-07-05T01:29:01Z

MikeK: Arguments for God

'''Archives:'''

[[User talk:MountainDew]]

[[User talk:DanHarchive1]]

==Vandalism==

Dan,

Thanks for all your help dealing with this latest vandal. Rather than deleting all the pages he creates, I have been replacing them with content or redirecting them, and then protecting them. Eventually, we can hope he will run out of inventive names for Satan! ~ [[User:SharonS|Sharon]] [[User talk:SharonS|Talk]] 16:38, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

== [[deletedpage]] ==

when pages need to be deleted and protected, just protect it and replace the content with <nowiki>#REDIRECT [[deletedpage]]</nowiki>. that way it doesn't show up on searches. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim (CPAdmin1)]][[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] 12:24, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

== Please take a look at this edit ==

You might want to have a look at this [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Che_Guevara&diff=160970&oldid=160909 edit], and the associated photo that was uploaded to make the edit possible. I've already left a message with the user responsible for the photo and edit, but am not sure if it is revertable. [[User:HeartOfGold|HeartOfGold]] 18:41, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

==Allegation of Racism==

I fail to see how my comments on Sikhs are racist. Islam and Sikhism do not describe races they describe religion. Both are wrong in my opinion are to be condemed

== Thank you indeed ==

It has been an honor. Thank you indeed.

--[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 19:42, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

== Deceit Entry ==

Dan, please accept my apologies on the Ward Churchill edit to the [[deceit]] entry. I was confused about who he is. Feel free to reinsert something, with support like this: [http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_3841949,00.html]
--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:08, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
No need to apologize. I just figured that this instance was not quite conducive to the direct you had intended for this article. I'll re-add it a little later this evening. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 23:29, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

== Hovind ==

May I ask why you removed "controversial". Given that many other YECs also have issues with him, calling him controversial seems fair. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 12:59, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

I've come under attack for my edits on this article (there was even a call for me to be blocked from the site, though it's not on any CP talk pages) and I was trying to "balance" the article somehow. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 13:02, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

== notice ==

please read this: [[New Sysops Training Page]]

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:22, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

== Hello! ==

First of all, thanks for the greeting. This project is very interessting. I'm trying to build up a counter-Wikipedia in german language. The situation of the german Wikipedia is really dire. If you are dissapoited by the english language Wikipeda, take a closer look at the german one. There are not liberals (left) dominating, there are partly well known left-wing extremists (communists, socialists) serving as administrators. It's bad. --[[User:Deutscher|Deutscher]] 16:43, 18 May 2007 (EDT)

== Trashbat ==
Dan - I've no idea if Trashbat is blocked or otherwise in disgrace but the crude sexual reference you removed from [[Leeds]] was not posted by him but by Tony Drago. FYI. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 14:44, 20 May 2007 (EDT)
: I stand corrected. Well spotted. Tony Drago must have been a sock. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 14:49, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

*I don't see Dan online, however I did see: ''10:13, 20 May 2007 DanH blocked "Trashbat" with an expiry time of infinite ("dogging" reference to Leeds)'' So the two users being blocked are different instances. The other user's block isn't infinte. ;-) --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 14:51, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

:TK The "dogging" reference was put in twice but I only noticed the second edit which was done by Tony Drago. I thought that Trashbat was being unfairly blocked instead of Tony Drago but Dan pointed out that Trashbat had made the orginal edit a lot earlier, so it was fair after all. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 03:20, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

== Siege mentality ==

Thanks for moving that. I was trying to do it myself with a name change and redirect but being a sysop has its advantages I guess. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 03:15, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

== [[Contaception]] ==

Dan, can you move this to its proper title with an '''R''' in it. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 03:26, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

== [[Orthohombic]] ==

OK here's another one with a missing '''R''' - it should be orthorhombic. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 03:38, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

== think i made a mistake ==

Got your message. I unblocked him I think before i got your message. Please make sure I did the unblocking right as i am not too techie here. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:58, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

== Question ==
I notice that some sysops protect images. Do you want me to do that to?[[User:Bohdan|Богдан]] [[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]] 15:16, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

==Article Creations==
Your welcome Dan. I enjoy contributing to this site. [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] [[User_talk:Crocoite|Talk]] [[Conservapedia:Requests for adminship#Support|Support my RfA]]) 22:44, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

== ! ==
I wanted to undo the Joshua article! Your to fast.[[User:Bohdan|Богдан]] [[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]] 23:44, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

== Thanks ==

Thanks for your kind welcome. I am glad to be here. I hope I can make a positive contribution. --[[User:ErnstR|ErnstR]] 00:06, 26 May 2007 (EDT)

== Thanks ==

Thanks for protecting Joshua. Recently I have become more aware of the responsibility that we have to avoid efforts at sensationalism or inappropriate edits. I found one of our articles in an internet search engine, the first one I have seen. It was listed under atheism. There, proudly, is the link to conservapedia. What is the first line of text in the search engine for all to see what conservapedia says? George Bush states that he doesn't believe atheists should be U.S. citizens... This is what is presented as conservapedia? When we allow through junk, we sully the reputation of the site... Thanks again... [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 03:25, 26 May 2007 (EDT)

== Thanks! (sorry not to have anything different from the above 2) ==

It's good to be back! Oh, and check out my shiny new hellenised sig!--[[User:Wikinterpreter|'''ύικι ντερπρετηρ''']] [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter talk?]

== Tiny typo==

Hi, hope you don't mind but I am really really picky about punctuation. I'm not proud of the fact, I just can't help it! In the Bible article, in the King James section, second paragraph, second sentence, it says "it's vocabulary", which should be "its vocabulary". "It's" is only ever a contraction of "It is". I wouldn't say anything but I just know there are people like me out there who will see that mistake, roll their eyes, and jump to conclusions (unfairly) about the quality of the article. [[User:Ferret|Ferret]] 19:09, 26 May 2007 (EDT)

* And then I went and wrote "tint typo" as the description. That's justice. [[User:Ferret|Ferret]] 19:10, 26 May 2007 (EDT)
==Chrono Trigger==
This was a well known video game in the mid 90s. It is definetly noteworthy. Wikipedia and Uncyclopedia both have articles on it.

== Answers in Creation ==

So do I get brownie points for creating this one Dan? ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 16:05, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

You definitely do from me, but probably not from the majority of the sysops. LOL just kidding [[User:DanH|DanH]] 16:12, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

Hi Dan, I'm trying for sysop now to join you 'elect' guys. I know you've put a 'good job' on my page before so I thought I'd ask what you think of my overall contribution to conservapedia. If you're pleased with my work, I hope you'll drop by and add some comments. Thanks ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:25, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

== Weimar republic ==

Why did you remove the stub? It is more than appropriate for this article. [[User:Order]]

== Protection ==

Hi Dan,

We may be at the point where it would be wise to protect Satan (again) and Hell. I know Satan was opened again to merge in Luficer, but that's been taken care of. Thanks! [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 15:05, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

== Lions Den ==

Dan with a name like yours was it wise to enter the Lion's Den? :-) [[User:DollarsAndSense|DollarsAndSense]] 16:38, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

== Cumbernauld ==

DanH I see you reverted my reversion of this entry. Channel 4, is an incredibly controversial channel in the UK often broadcating sensationalist programs. It's main output is a program called Big Brother where members of the public are locked in a house together in order to be voted out by the public. Even this is fixed as the most sensational members are reinstated to boost viewing figures. It has featured coed type nude jacuzzi scenes and even live sexual acts. It also gave a prime-time slot to Richard Dawkins to attack religious belief. I would not take seriously any reference to programming from this source. [[User:Alban|Alban]] 17:58, 31 May 2007 (EDT)
:Follow the link - [http://www.channel4.com/life/microsites/D/demolition/worst2.html] Or would you prefer a BBC link? Try [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4362410.stm] I have no idea why you have suddenly appeared to defend reversion of my corrections of previous deliberately inserted inaccuracies and falsehoods, but I stand by my edits and the links above refute your opinion. [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 18:02, 31 May 2007 (EDT)

::Your BBC link actually refers to a protest by the local council against this slur. [[User:Alban|Alban]] 18:06, 31 May 2007 (EDT)
::: A ''slur'' that has seen the town 3 times voted a "carbuncle" etc. Regardless of the news source, the national opinions remain the same. Attacking the edit by claiming it is a liberalist, pornographers' conspiracy is just peurile. [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 18:09, 31 May 2007 (EDT)

::::If your are going to engage in ''ad hominem'' attacks and name calling then I will not continue this discussion. It is not appropriate language for Conservapedia. [[User:Dafydd|Dafydd]] 18:15, 31 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::The word "peurile" is directed at the action, not the person. And did you forget which sock you were supposed to be using? I thought you were [[User:Alban]]...? Sock-puppetry is also a peurile action. [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 18:20, 31 May 2007 (EDT)

::::Thank you for your support Dafydd but as a native Scot I think I know what I'm talking about. Cumbernauld is not a monstrous carbuncle and deserves better than being derided by a sensationalist sassenach TV station. [[User:Alban|Alban]] 18:18, 31 May 2007 (EDT)

:::::Oops! Got the correct puppet on now XD [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 18:20, 31 May 2007 (EDT)

::::::Oh yes, very funny. Accuse me of socking. Just because someone else objects to your abusive language. If you want to continue this discussion further then I suggest you move it to one of our talk pages rather than cluttering up a sysops page. [[User:Alban|Alban]] 18:32, 31 May 2007 (EDT)

:::::::Please refer back to [[User talk:Dafydd|your other talk page]] to see confirmation that you were busted via IP address. Nice try. [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 18:37, 31 May 2007 (EDT)

==Thanks==
Thanks Dan. I appreciate your support. [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] [[User_talk:Crocoite|Talk]] 23:29, 31 May 2007 (EDT)

==Why was my edit reverted?==

What's wrong? I'm trying to improve the baraminology article by explaining what the types of people under the Human Holobaramin are. It's what's in the Bible. [[User:BillJones|BillJones]] 02:02, 1 June 2007 (EDT)

The Mongoloid entry was totally racist. For one. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 02:26, 1 June 2007 (EDT)

==Your granny==

I mean, your grammar: [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Skylab&curid=28032&diff=186334&oldid=186289] Nice fix! :-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:30, 1 June 2007 (EDT)

Thank you. My Grandmother would expect nothing less. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 22:31, 1 June 2007 (EDT)

== South Africa ==

Dan, there's a lot on this site I disagree with. So be it. But I am glad to see that people here find all those racist bits on South Africa as loathsome as I do. Thanks for nuking all those entries by a guy who seems to be longing for the days of Pik Botha. [[User:Sevenstring|Sevenstring]] 23:15, 1 June 2007 (EDT)

==Capitals==

Thanks for the info. I did search under several titles for US Capitals, etc. but no pages came up. Should I ask a sysop to delete my page, or is that unnecessary? [[User:DeborahB.|DeborahB.]] 15:20, 4 June 2007 (EDT)

I think your page looks good, and better than the other one. Maybe if all the links got fixed that would be best. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 15:23, 4 June 2007 (EDT)

== blocking ==

Hey how can you find the IP for the user, I dont think I have the checkuser button. lol Sorry I might sound dumb.--[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 16:19, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

I sent the instructions to you through Conservapedia email. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 16:21, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

::I heard about the email and no one told me how to acess it!--[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 16:44, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

How to access your email? It should just be sent to whatever email you signed up to the site with. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 16:45, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

::O thanks. Um Tk told me you also get a email through conservapedia. So I got that confused.--[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 16:47, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

That may be what he meant. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 16:47, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

:Yes, it was. Will, if your email is enabled here, users can email you, CP will forward it to your regular email account. If you reply to them via your email client, they will also have your email. If you respond to them via the CP "email this user" deal, they will not. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 06:05, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

Should I block Brainslug? Brainslug created Zimbardo Cookie Experiment and has had a 2 hour block in his past. [[User:BethanyS|~Beth~]]

Yes. If he wants back, he can email you and plead his case. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 13:17, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

== Question ==

How was your paper on [[Putin]]? [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 15:17, 11 June 2007 (EDT)
:well done. He is not a good guy. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 15:57, 11 June 2007 (EDT)

== Andorra ==
On the matter of [[Andorra]], look at who the edits before me were made by; [[So Alone]] who was blocked for being a sock of this one guy. Do you think his edits are trustworthy? [[User:UnderCurrent|UnderCurrent]] 16:35, 11 June 2007 (EDT)

Thanks for pointing that out! Definitely not trustworthy. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 16:38, 11 June 2007 (EDT)

:P.S. Where would one find a compendium on user boxes around here? [[User:UnderCurrent|UnderCurrent]] 16:53, 11 June 2007 (EDT)

http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Userboxes [[User:DanH|DanH]] 16:56, 11 June 2007 (EDT)

== Question ==

Hello, I was looking at the user creation log and I noticed this:

15:08, 12 June 2007 HolographicMedia (Talk | contribs | block) created account for User:OpticalEthernet (Talk | contribs | block)

What happened, and is this allowed? Can users create accounts for others like this?[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 17:56, 12 June 2007 (EDT)

I'm not sure how that works, but I think that without an explanation given, it generally isn't allowed. I know that HolographicMedia was blocked earlier today. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 17:58, 12 June 2007 (EDT)

== you missed ==
I think you missed [[User:MartyFillmore]]. --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 18:43, 12 June 2007 (EDT)

== Image ==

Hello, Dan. I see you protected an [http://www.conservapedia.com/Image:Balkans.png image] I uploaded. Did you, by any chance, look at the talk page? The image is a modified version of a Wikipedia image, and I wasn't sure if it was acceptable. Thanks! [[User:GregLarson | Greg]] 00:31, 14 June 2007 (EDT)

== War Elephants ==

Hell ya it is!--[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 15:25, 14 June 2007 (EDT)

I bet its true [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 17:48, 18 June 2007 (EDT)

== Request for assistence in writing Article. ==

I have noted that two rather influential Supreme Court Justices have not managed to receive articles about them, namely, Hugo L. Black and William O. Douglas. However previous attempts at writing articles have ended in deletion as the result of perhaps a bit too overt a bias, I have the [[William Orville Douglas| beginnings of an article]] but am not remotely certain as to how I should proceed from here without repeating past mistakes. If at all possible could you review the beginnings of the page and lend me some of your wisdom?
Thanks-N. i. V.[[User:Nullius in Verba|Nullius in Verba]] 08:40, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

*Don't bother, Dan. I rather think old Nullius will have a problem with soiled robes, and won't be able to participate. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 09:26, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

==[[Freedom]]==
Dan, have you seen the Freedom entry? [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Freedom&action=history] This article probably needs some serious treatment. Any idea who we can recruit to work on it? Thanks. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:32, 20 June 2007 (EDT)
:I'll ask Karajou. Thanks. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:37, 20 June 2007 (EDT)

::It's on my list, boys. This should have been emailed, to keep from crossing up. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 08:21, 21 June 2007 (EDT)

==script?==
do we italicize book titles? Thanks!--'''Staple[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Staple HI!]''' 15:01, 21 June 2007 (EDT)

I have before, at least. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 15:02, 21 June 2007 (EDT)

== Vandalism ==

Where was my signature dishonestly used? I'd like to see. '''Scorpion'''[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Vote for Pedro]] 17:50, 21 June 2007 (EDT)

:::I looked through the history and couldn't really find anything that looked like vandalism (except for that crap by Humorless). Could you perhaps direct me to the diff? '''Scorpion'''[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Vote for Pedro]] 15:22, 22 June 2007 (EDT)

==FF Vandal==
Is there something we can do? TK was helping me but he signed off AIM.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 00:03, 22 June 2007 (EDT)

We can lock the database for a few seconds if it doesn't let up. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 00:04, 22 June 2007 (EDT)

:I don't think thats going to deter him. TK has done it three times now.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 00:07, 22 June 2007 (EDT)

::Who goes to bed at 11?--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 00:18, 22 June 2007 (EDT)

:::Kids. [[User:Niandra|Niandra]] [[User talk:Niandra|talk]] 00:19, 22 June 2007 (EDT)

When I was a kid, I wasn't allowed online past 11. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 00:18, 22 June 2007 (EDT)
::When I was a kid we didn't have internet...--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 00:20, 22 June 2007 (EDT)
:::Liar! That was me! :p --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 01:59, 22 June 2007 (EDT)
::::Ok, lemme rephrase, when I was a kid we couldn't AFFORD the internet.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 02:01, 22 June 2007 (EDT)

== Hi There! ==

I hear that you're against Wikipedia. Me too. They accused me for '''Disruption, Single purpose account created for AFD purposes'''. I like you and your site.--[[User:Edtropolis|Edtropolis]] 15:38, 22 June 2007 (EDT)

== Back ==

[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk%3AHojimachong&diff=205937&oldid=205934 thanks]! My final marks for the year were five "A"s and one "B". --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 22:41, 22 June 2007 (EDT)

== Thank you for the welcome ==

As a disgruntled former Wikipedian, I appreciate it. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 23:34, 23 June 2007 (EDT)

== Keepp fighting ==

Ya will do but I am going away until next monday which would be july 2.--[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 14:11, 24 June 2007 (EDT)

==WoW article==

We had a guy copy and paste a bunch of junk to the article from wikipedia, but I accidentally edited it before I caught it. Is it possible to rollback to BethanyS's edit, or does it have to be done manually?

I got it. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 19:06, 24 June 2007 (EDT)

==Samoza regime==
What a joke. It never takes long for bleedingheartliberal's to respond after upsetting their plans. Thanks. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Somoza_regime&action=history]

==Philistines==
LoL - I would have picked it up when I rewrite it later, honest :P - need to watch "Heroes" first though, back in a blink [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 16:44, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

== Your question ==

Because I think many people may search that word.

== Dissidents ==

Not much of an article unless it gives some examples, no? [[User:Guitarplayer|Guitarplayer]] 18:06, 25 June 2007 (EDT)
At least my version didn't editorialise, but provided a list I was hoping to expand [[User:Guitarplayer|Guitarplayer]] 18:07, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

== VANDAL ==

Someone is being a busy boy - shut him down [[User:Guitarplayer|Guitarplayer]] 18:22, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

==Wiki Research==
Thanks for your help. [[User:Sutton4019|Sutton4019]] 10:02, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

== Hello Dan ==

Hi Dan, as someone who is not a conservative, I'm seeking your view for recent changes made at John the Baptist. I am concerned with the direction taken and the actions taken to force a change to stand that I believe is inappropriate. Could you please add your input? Thanks [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 11:54, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

== Thanks ==
I appreciate the unblocking. It just came to my attention. Do you have any idea how it came to happen? I had never done any edits here when I was blocked.--[[User:Neiljohnson|Neiljohnson]] 15:09, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

==Funny Coincidence==
Ha,ha! I was in the process of blocking ihatefags when you did it! --[[User:BethanyS|Beth]][[User talk:BethanyS|Talk]] 15:45, 29 June 2007 (EDT)
::What happened earlier? It looked frightening. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 01:11, 1 July 2007 (EDT)

It's a really long story. Email me. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 01:12, 1 July 2007 (EDT)
:Will do. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 01:13, 1 July 2007 (EDT)

== I left some funny messages...... ==

For our dear friends on their talk pages. I know you will enjoy! :p --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 03:52, 1 July 2007 (EDT)

==Mountain Dew==

To the most stimulating (and highly caffeinated) sysop I know, welcome back! Yo da man! Woo woo! :-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 23:11, 1 July 2007 (EDT)

== narniaexpert ==

Ok sorry about all the troll before. I was trying to see if I could hack it unlike wikipedia. Good job anyway. Well WHY DO YOU KEEP BLOCKING ME!!! I gave up trying to see if I could hack you guys. I was making up for it by contributing to the site I hand wrote an article about Linkin Park and was working on beefing up the Walt Disney page and what do you do DELETE ME! If your going to delete me then atleast leave up my hard work on the Linkin Park page. I'm really sorry about the troll just please let me get back and add some more articles to increse the site's slim number of music/tech articles.

BTW if you look up troll in the dictionary it is defined as repedidly posting offensive content repedtively onto websites. I don't consider Disneyland very offensive lol ;-P anyway sorry for the troll but could you please let me finish putting up some Apple related pages.

*Cobblenet, if your contribs are legit, you are welcome here. Just spare us any vanalism, and keep to the editors rules...and I'll let you live tonight, and Dan can decide tomorrow, okay? That fair? --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 01:02, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

*Ok but what are the editors rules exactly. I was actualy talking about my real account Narniaexpert [[User_talk:narniaexpert|/Narniaexpert]] not my sock puppet

== Can you help ==

I am trying to add a universal infobox template to US presidents but cannot access the following
#Richard Nixon
#Ronald Wilson Reagan
#George H. W. Bush
#George W. Bush
Could you either unlock them for me for a short period to make the additions, or add the info on my behalf. Thanks [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 15:52, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

==Team contest==

I would like to have you on my team in our new [[Conservapedia:Team contest|team contest]]. Please let me know if you are able to compete. ~ [[User:SharonS|Sharon]][[User talk:SharonS|Talk]] 16:30, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

== John54 ==

The name, the time without doing nothing, are the same profile of vandals. We can see if he is not, waiting for a mail asking unblocking. This procedure has become necessary as we are under fire. The instructions are "it is better to make a mistake than to allow vandals". But you may unblock him if you consider it proper. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 16:30, 4 July 2007 (EDT)

==Hello!==

How are you, Dan? --[[User:Samian|Samian]]

== Arguments for God ==

Um, not trying to be difficult, but what was the reason for your revert? [[User:MikeK|Mike K]] 21:29, 4 July 2007 (EDT)

Arguments for the existence of God

2007-07-05T01:09:22Z

MikeK: /* Ontological argument */

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

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. 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]].

__TOC__
==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, temporal regress 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.

===[[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.

===Objections to the teleological argument===
'''Regarding the first and second premise''' -- The first (and therefore second) premise assumes that one can infer the existence of intelligent design merely by examining an object. The teleological argument assumes that because life is complex, it must have been designed. This is an example of non-sequitur logic. Life or objects are described as, “orderly” or “ordered”. This implies that an intelligent designer has ordered them. In reality a system can be non-random or ordered simply because it is following impersonal physical processes, for example diamonds or snowflakes.

'''Regarding the third premise''' -- Some argue that even if the first and second premises are accepted, 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.

==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." [http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/ontological.html]}}

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.

One problem with this argument is that it merely defines God into existence. For example, one might theorize the existence of a super-[[unicorn]]. This super-unicorn is the same as a regular unicorn, only it has the property of 'existence'. Clearly, simply including 'it exists' in the definition does not mean that a super-unicorn really exists. Through "perfection is a part of the concept of God, and that perfection entails existence", theists apply the same flawed reasoning to prove God's existence.

===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. [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/descartes-ontological/]

==Freewill argument==

* There can be no freewill in a totally naturalistic system
* Freewill 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.

==Consciousness==

* The earth is made of a small number of elements
* We are also made up of those elements, as is all of nature
* The elements that make us up have no consciousness and the earth has no consciousness
* We have consciousness
* Something outside of the elements that make us up has given us our consciousness (God)

==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]]
* [[Natural theology]]
* [[Thomas Aquinas]]
* [[God of the Gaps]]

==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.''

==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) 
* [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:God]]
[[Category:Theology]]
[[Category:Philosophy]]