Humanities desk
< June 15	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 17 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

June 16

Could you help me find information about H. Loesch, an artist?

I have a print of a picture signed by H. Loesch. I believe the name of the picture is "Our Presidents". It has all of the American Presidents, up to 1901, standing together. The copywrite date is 1901 and there is a publishing company listed, as well. The name is Thos. H. Devereaux & Co. Chicago, U.S.A. I can find no information about the picture or the artist. Could you help? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.251.141.165 (talk) 03:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A copy of your print is among the Edward Martin papers in the Pennsylvania State Archives (see here), which gives the size "24 x 18" - no doubt that's in inches. I've looked for H. Loesch, and the only candidate I can find is on the artnet page for Lod - Lof, Hans von Loesch (German, 1863). But the maker of your print may not be listed. Xn4 19:25, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Same Sex Discomfort

Do straight women find sexual or otherwise compromisingly close contact with members of the same sex less disturbing than straight men ? Eg At an office getaway recently hotel rooms were booked but only had double beds for two to share, - women with women and men with men - the girls said they had no problem with this whilst the men were totally grossed out ! As a straight male I find the thought of sharing a bed, or worse a nude or sexual encounter with another male totalling disturbing. Another example is in the porn industry, where it seems that straight women seem to have no discomfort in performing 'lesbian' scenes. Apologies for the nature of this question, just curious as to the mindset of the opposite gender !--196.207.47.60 (talk) 04:48, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. For another example, woman feel perfectly comfortable wearing men's clothes, but most men would be highly embarassed to wear women's clothes in public (Scotsmen excluded, of course). StuRat (talk) 05:18, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excluding Samoans, and our former Foreign Minister, Alexander Downer, too, StuRat :) As to the beds, it does seem out of era to expect adults to bunk in like that – was it testing their team playing qualties? In contrast, our Edison reminded us that accepted sleeping arrangements were different 100 years ago[1]. Re clothes, maybe it depends on the context – a non-gay guy at my uni wore a miniskirt and tights the whole time but I only noticed when someone pointed this out to me. From a female pov, there's a difference between a woman wearing man-style clothes and actually wearing men's clothes imo, are you including y fronts, SR? Julia Rossi (talk) 06:35, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, women wear boxer shorts, don't they ? Too bad men don't like to wear women's clothes in public, cuz many men could benefit from a bra. :-) StuRat (talk) 04:38, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sleeping in the same bed in a hotel out of necessity is not going to lead to nude or sexual encounters. There is no requirement for snuggling. You can even sleep in your clothes. Or you can sleep on the floor. Adam Bishop (talk) 07:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My own theory on this comes down to confidence in ones own sexuality. I think men tend to be more concerned about potentially being seen as gay (if they aren't) than women are. This probably comes down to teasing. Men are more likely (at least in my experience) to tease men about their sexuality than women. I've no problem sharing a bed with a man if needs must - though many friends do find it odd, as Adam Bishop notes it's not going to lead to sexual/nude encounters it's just sharing a bed. As for porn - I expect that is a result of consumer demand and therefore to earn the best money female performers must also perform those scenes. We're in the era where the female form is considered more beautiful/attractive than the male form - and people seem to forget that historically that has not always been the case. The male form was oft considered the more beautiful, and historically the pre-pubescent (spelling) male form was considered most beautiful of all. The problem is people sexualise non-sexual activity and many men seem to be less comfortable with anything that could be viewed as gay/feminine around other men. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 09:10, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most of it I think depends upon the paradigm. Think crowded elevator. There is nothing more than I would want that to be pinned against the back corner by the buttocks or milk factories of that loverly new young fox in accounting. On the other hand if its that gay guy in advertising I'd be ready to kill. He'd find my ball point pin quite capable of maintaining minimal proximity. Wake me up in the morning and tell me you "enjoyed" the warmth of my body and the smell of my hair and you're horse meat at the zoo. Adaptron (talk) 11:06, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh Adaptron, you're so masculine! Adam Bishop (talk) 11:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It complies with the paradigm, does it not? Adaptron (talk) 02:12, 17 June 2008 (UTC) [reply]

I think I agree that it boils down to confidence in your own sexuality which implies that women are more confident than men. But why do men distance themselves from homosexuality more than women? I don't think it's related to teasing. Perhaps men find it ~~harder~~ more difficult to be open to experimentation because lesbian intercourse is less intrusive (?) than gay intercourse.

Personally, I'd be just as uncomfortable with the girl from accounting as I'd be with the gay guy from advertising (I'm a straight guy who hates crowded elevators). I also find User:Adaptron's attitude a bit disheartening. Homosexuality and homosexuals are here to stay, get used to it. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 11:53, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And yet, it's essentially no different than sitting next to a guy at the movies or in a plane. The only difference with a bed is that beds are often places where sex happens; but just because you're in bed with another person does not mean that something sexual is automatically going to happen. (Just ask any married person :) Two people could be further apart in a bed than they would be at the movies or on a plane. Admittedly, the opportunity factor is greater in a bed than in the other places; but that only has relevance if both parties want to take advantage of the opportunity. Unless, of course, you think that all gay men are natural predators and want to have sex with any and every male body that happens to cross their path. Or if you think that all gay men are more-or-less rapists. If you think either of those things, think again. If you were asked to share a hotel bed with a woman, I imagine you'd have less of a problem than sharing with a man. You might even see it a potential opportunity for some casual sex, if she was attractive enough, and willing. If you'd have such thoughts in the sharing-with-a-woman scenario (and I'm not saying you would), you might want to consider the double standard you'd be operating under. -- JackofOz (talk) 12:06, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's just teasing but the social attitudes. There is definitely (IMHO anyway) greater social stigma to being a gay male then to being a lesbian female. It's manigest in any many ways. The above for example. Or the fact that many straight men will take great offense if hit on by a gay male (which logically should really be a complement in many cases.) I don't think it's just because of men though. I suspect many men would have no problem with dating a female who's 'experimented' however I suspect far more females will be reluctant to date a male who has 'experimented' and there are also I suspect far more likely to be comments and suggestions that he's gay but in denial. For that matter, any male perceived as being gay is likely to be seen as a friend but nothing more to many females whereas someone thought to be lesbian may be seen as a 'hot challenge' to many males. (And of course, many men have a fantasy of 'doing' two lesbians at the same time whereas I suspect fewer women have a fantasy of two gay men). Personally as a straight male, I have no problem sharing a bed with another male. Or being in a crowded lift next a gay male or a hot female from accounting. Nil Einne (talk) 12:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"...whereas I suspect fewer women have a fantasy of two gay men" Slash fiction, Ho Yay. But yes, social attitudes and the teasing and judgement that enforce them. 79.66.45.237 (talk) 13:53, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of men also sleep without a shirt on, or in their boxers, some take up a lot of room when they're sleeping, and there's stuff like morning wood that could be embarassing, or uncontrolled movement when someone's sleeping. Personally, I don't mind being pinned against a gay male or a hot female in a crowded elevator either, but I would feel uneasy if I had to share a bed with another male. I think it might also come from how often the situation comes. Guys might be more comfortable sharing a bed with a female than a male cause that's almost all males know (probably mostly from thoughts of sex, but that's pure speculation, of course), while females I knew that were young often had friends sleep over. I wonder if slumber parties are the reason females don't mind... hmm. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 20:26, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I personally don't find the idea of sharing a bed with anybody I'm not dating comfortable, because of the reason JackofOz specified. It's a context for sexual behaviour, and the potential for misunderstanding is high. Wirbelwind has a point that there's more of a problem between men, because of misunderstandable accidental arousal or morning glory etc. Modern men in general are also less comfortable with their own gender, because of the possibility of sexuality stereotyping. It is still considered a bad thing for someone to think of you as homosexual, regardless of the reality. With regards to pornography, gay for pay implies that there are a surprising number of men out there who will go against their normal instincts for financial benefit. 150.203.174.171 (talk) 01:19, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Guys might be more comfortable sharing a bed with a female than a male cause that's almost all males know" Really? I for one would be far more comfortable sharing a bed with a male then a female, particularly a heterosexual male since there would be little likelihood of misunderstanding. I would guess most men would cover up better when they are sharing a bed with someone else so I personally don't what clothes people may sleep in as a problem. Perhaps it's partially my history though, I'm not unused to sharing a bed, particularly with my male siblings. Re 79.66: It obviously exists, but I'm not convinced it's as common as it is among males, but perhaps I'm wrong about how common it is among males or not-common among females, or both. Definitely the having sex with two women seems as being one of the ultimate fantasies of many men seems to be more common then it's female equivalent. Nil Einne (talk) 02:50, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural differences seem to exist here. I see User:Nil Einne is from Malaysia, and I noticed in Asia, Middle East and Mediterranean area that men are less afraid to get close to each other. In many Middle Eastern countries, for example, it is not uncommon to see men greet each other with a kiss on the cheek or close male friends hold hands on the street. But most of them are straights, without doubt. --211.243.240.41 (talk) 03:21, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The original question posits an anomaly. In the late 20th century or after, it would be bizarre for a company to tell its adult employees to share a double bed with another of the same (or opposite) sex. Getting rooms with two beds would be quite possible, but not the arrangement suggested. Edison (talk) 03:30, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quite true. Sharing with a friend and sharing with a workmate would be quite different things as well - in fact, I think that a workplace situation described above would put most people out of sorts, being such a strange occurrence. It would have to be quite an emergency before any company in its right mind would suggest it (IMHO). (oh, and I'm 150.203 above - I forgot to sign in). Steewi (talk) 06:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'm a heterosexual male and have often shared a bed with males and female friends without concern. Hell, I have even shared a double bed with a gay guy and an ex-girlfriend (not at the same time. But on a few occasions, I have shared with two other people of both sexes - try that without any accidental touching!). I don't see what the big deal is. In contrast, my wife hates sharing a bed with females (even her twin sister!) and would refuse point blank to share with a male other than me. I don't think it comes down to gender, really, more about how comfortable you are with yourself and others. Rockpocket 06:48, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

term limits

There are term limits for politicians. Is there anyplace where there are term limits for political parties? Adaptron (talk) 10:49, 16 June 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Are you asking whether there is a limit to the number of consecutive terms that a single-party can stay in office? If so I have never heard of anything like this myself - though as an early-years political student there's a huge amount i've not heard so perhaps it does exist somewhere. A look through http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Electoral_restrictions doesn't find anything on political-party term-limits so I suspect not. It would be difficult because a huge number of nations are effectively a two (plus) party system so they have 2 dominate parties. Therefore if there a limit on a party the other main party would be almost guaranteed power which wouldn't be an ideal scenario (politically speaking) 194.221.133.226 (talk) 13:16, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are no term limits for political parties. Political parties are "extra-constitutional" constructs. That is -- they are private associations, not official governmental bodies. Wikiant (talk) 13:19, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kinda depends on what country we're discussing, no? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 13:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Why would any democracy want to implement such a limit? Zain Ebrahim (talk) 13:25, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The iron law of oligarchy is a good one. User:Krator (t c) 14:54, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Baath Party is another. Adaptron (talk) 15:10, 16 June 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Or the PRI. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure that notion isn't set out in any written constitution anywhere, so to achieve it those holding a majority would need to pass legislation to ensure their own future removal from even the possibility of winning an election. Turkeys don't vote for Christmas. There are surprisingly few bodies which try to define international standards for democratic elections, but they include the Venice Commission and Democracy Watch International, neither of which is likely to promote such an idea. If a party can win three, or five, or even a hundred elections in a row, in free and fair elections, then it must be what people want, or at least what they fear least. Why should they be denied? Xn4 18:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh yes but on that basis why should a leader be limited to a set number of terms? If the person is popular enough to get 5 elections in a row why should they be removed from office? Not saying i'm agreeing with the idea, but it does rather ask the question of why some nations have term-limits for individuals. Incidentally I prefer no limits at all, provide the elections are democratic. ny156uk (talk) 18:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even if some country wanted to have term limits for parties, it would be problematic to implement. Although some parties maintain a continuous identity for decades or centuries, it's also common for existing parties to split, merge, or form alliances without actually merging. This usually happens among parties that have been unsuccessful lately: for example, in Canada the Progressive Conservatives, who had not held power since 1993, merged in 2003 with the newer Canadian Alliance party to form the present Conservative Party of Canada, and are in power now. But in a system with party term limits, a successful party might choose to merge with a minor, allied one and declare that they are a new party and therefore eligible to run again. Or they might split into two parties, but arrange for one to retain all the important people and ideas while the other would be designed so that nobody would vote for it. This issue simply does not exist with individuals, who are most unlikely to merge with others to form a single person, or to divide into two people. --Anonymous, 22:43 UTC, June 16, 2008.

Except in the case of the Clinton's... Bill's personality split (the conjoined personality, if you will) at least during Hillary's campaign in 2008 and aspirations for Chelsea (the amalgamated) in 2016 . Adaptron (talk) 02:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Some parties have held power for many decades in democracies - Japan, for example. Term limits may not be practical there.78.148.121.214 (talk) 19:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tibetan Buddhist symbol?

I saw this sort of thing a few times on my recent trip to Yunnan, once at the Buddhist temple where the photo was taken, and other times near local stupas (2nd pic). I can't figure out what it's called or what it signifies from the articles on Tibetan Buddhism or Buddhist symbolism. --BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 16:14, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you talking about the prayer flags? СПУТНИК^{CCC P} 16:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I meant the vertical bush things. BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 16:48, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a soft version of a phurba. See also[2] representing the axis mundi, or "world tree" Julia Rossi (talk) 02:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can God commit suicide?

In more general terms: can an omnipotent being(who is presumably indestructible by anything less than all-powerful) willfully destroy itself? 207.233.86.189 (talk) 16:30, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is somewhat similar to the question "Can God create a Rock that even he cannot lift?" with the implication being that God, as an omnipotent being, can do anything. This includes being able to lift any rock ever created, but also being able to create an unliftable rock. It's abit of a problem with untempered omipotence, which has been dealt with by reasoned theologians.--NeoNerd 16:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't this imply that God could if God wanted to, with the implication that if God didn't want to be omnipotent anymore, God would make it so? 142.33.70.60 (talk) 20:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also see Omnipotence and Omnipotence paradox. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 16:55, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can also read the book God's Debris by Scott Adams, which deals with this same question. (Though personally I felt the book rather a little trite...) — Sam 17:25, 16 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.138.152.238 (talk)

Doesn't this go back to the unstoppable force meeting the unmovable barrier? The answer was that the two are contradictory, just like the four legged chair that only has three legs. Just like the unstoppable force and the unmovable wall can't exist at the same time, can't we also say that the unachievable feat and the undefeatable superbeing can't simultaneously exist? Duomillia (talk) 22:57, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely because an omnipotent being is omnipotent, there are things that it can't do. For example, it can't be ignorant or stupid and it can't make mistakes, contradictions included. bibliomaniac 1 5 23:10, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some theologians have used that as an explanation for why God can't commit a sin, because all sins are the result of imperfection. (Which also means that, by definition, anything God does is not a sin because it's backed up by complete knowledge of the circumstances.) Applying that logic to the original question, God probably couldn't commit suicide because that action is sinful, unless there was some cosmic obligation which only God Himself would know. 69.111.189.55 (talk) 02:00, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If something is omnipotent, can't it defy logic and contradictions?--Lenticel ^(talk) 23:41, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you believe in the Trinity and God's omniscience, then God effectively committed suicide when he took flesh as Jesus, knowing he would be killed. --Nricardo (talk) 00:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From a logical POV consider the process of classification/identification. In the beginning a rock might have as its sole attribute, hardness or bigness or heaviness. Over time other attributes may be applied such that a rock may still be called a rock but have different combinations of attributes than any of its neighbors.

If you ascribe the attribute of "capable of committing suicide" to an entity you call "God" then you may still call that new entity "God" just as you might still call Gibraltar a rock, although entirely different than a pebble, which you call a rock as well or a flag which has different colors and belongs to a different nation but which you still call a flag. Its merely a different God, rock or flag by attribute or by definition. ${\aleph _{0}}^{\aleph _{0}}$ _{(talk) (email)} 02:58, 17 June 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Isn't this question based on a category mistake? Strawless (talk) 23:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Before the mountains were born or you brought forth the earth and the world, from everlasting to everlasting you are God." - Psalms 90:2. "O Jehova, are you not from everlasting? My God, my Holy One, You will not die." - Habbakuk 1:12. "... which God will bring about in his own time- God, the blessed and only Ruler, the King of kings and Lord of lords, who alone is immortal and who lives in unapproachable light, whom no-one has seen or can see." - 1 Timothy 6:15,16. Can God commit suicide? No. The God promise it: "I the Jehova do not change." - Malachi 3:6.--78.177.173.0 (talk) 23:47, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Donating to Democrats

Hi all,

If I wanted to donate to help the Democrats in 2008, which do you think would be the best recipient of (i.e. would make best use of) my $100? And why? Serious answers preferred, thanks... :)

Thanks! — Sam 17:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
P.S. As Lomn notes below, I'm not soapboxing nor looking for others to soapbox. I'm asking what, in your personal opinion, would be the best use of money if the intent is simply to help advance the Democratic Party in November. Thanks again! — Sam 17:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

While avoiding the "no soapbox" clause, I think it depends on what you think most helps the Democrats, as noted by the links you've provided -- contributions can range from the very general (the DNC) to the moderately specific (the DSCC) to the specific (Obama). Judge where you think the help is most needed and donate accordingly. — Lomn 17:25, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right now the Denver 2008 Host Committee is pretty desperate for cash.[3] Rmhermen (talk) 18:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Poll? Adaptron (talk) 07:12, 17 June 2008 (UTC) [reply]

If you can't decide, split it 4 ways and give $25 each? Nil Einne (talk) 11:48, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Existence of God

Greetings,

On my philosophical debate website, [point made promotional link removed -- Julia Rossi (talk) 00:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)] (so you don't think it's for a class), I plan on posting a thread in which we argue for the existence of God. I've used wikipedia in the past for information relevant to topics, but when I visited the "God" page, the proof section was very sparse. Do you know of any proofs that have yet to be debunked? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.131.131.5 (talk) 20:10, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, but here's an argument that such a proof is inconsistent with (at least) the Christian concept of God. (1) God created humans to have free will. (2) If humans obtain irrefutable proof of the existence of God, then free will (for all practical purposes) ceases to exist. (3) Ergo, the human condition (in the sense that God created it) ceases to exist. Wikiant (talk) 20:25, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How does having irrefutable proof of god destroy free will? Having irrefutable proof of the existence of trees or water doesn't take away "our free will," so how would knowing the existence of another object or creature destroy it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.131.131.5 (talk) 20:28, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was just thinking the same thing... Wrad (talk) 20:32, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Irrefutable evidence of the existence of an omniscient and omnipotent God combined with the belief that choosing sin results in a break with said God means that one has effectively lost one's free will. Example: Someone holds a gun to your head and tells you to hand over your wallet. Technically, you have the free will to refuse. But for all practical purposes, your free will is moot. Wikiant (talk) 20:42, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...but let's say it's a hidden sniper who will kill you if you scratch your nose, but you have no way of knowing he's there. Do you still have free will? Is the sniper really there? You can choose to do whatever you want, gun or no gun, in my opinion. Wrad (talk) 20:49, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Wikiant's point implies that after someone "proves" to you that there is a sniper and that you would be shot for scratching your nose, you won't (practically) have the free-will to scratch. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 21:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the sniper example, the would-be-victim has to know that he will be sniped for scratching his nose, otherwise the thought experiment doesn't relate to the original problem: does knowledge that a certain action will lead to one's death remove that person's free will? Connecting back to the theological, in Judaism and Christianity, Adam and Eve knew about the nature of God (omniscent and omnipotent) yet still chose to eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.131.131.5 (talk) 21:19, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

... This discussion has steam into a discussion of free will rather than a discussion about the proof of God. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.131.131.5 (talk) 20:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No it hasn't. It deals with both pretty directly. Wrad (talk) 20:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that there is simply no (reasonable) proof for the existance of God that hasn't been debunked. You could use the sneaky argument that some historical persons (the prophets of the Old Testament, Jesus, Muhammmad) told that they have spoken with God (and that written records of this exist and are widely available). Noone can prove that they lied... Flamarande (talk) 20:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC) Face it: God doesn't exist :).[reply]

To the OP, you say you looked at the God article but have you looked at: Existence of God#Arguments for the existence of God? Zain Ebrahim (talk) 20:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That link is pretty good. Better arguments than the one provided. Wrad (talk) 20:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the page, and although it's a good starting point, it only summarizes the arguments rather than creating them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.131.131.5 (talk) 20:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not create arguments. It summarizes what has already been said about things. That's what encyclopedias do. If you want us to debate, then you're in the wrong place. This is not a debate forum. Sorry. Wrad (talk) 21:02, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I don't understand why that's a problem. Please sign your posts by typing ~~~~ at the end of your note. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 21:06, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not to upset you, but an encyclopedia is a "comprehensive reference work containing articles on a wide range of subjects or on numerous aspects of a particular field, usually arranged alphabetically." It wouldn't go against anything wikipedia stands for by providing a more in depth representation for each argument. If you don't know, that's okay. I can look somewhere else too. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.131.131.5 (talk) 21:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, your definition is essentially a longer version of what Wrad said. But I still don't understand why you need arguments to be created. If you don't understand any of the arguments in that list, feel free to bring them here individually. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 21:26, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of what's available on WP, try looking at the articles in Category:Arguments for the existence of God. You may find some helpful things there, although some of the articles are a little under developed. Pastordavid (talk) 21:33, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a bunch. :) This is probably the closest thing to what I'm looking for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.131.131.5 (talk) 21:38, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One argument which may or may not be covered there and which might be called original research is the argument that God exists by virtue of definition. Take for instance Dark Matter. It exists by definition. My favorite definition for "God" then in that respect is the entity with the capacity of reducing an infinite number of logical equations, having an infinite number of variables and an infinite number of states to minimum form instantaneously and to have done this first. God exists by definition. ${\aleph _{0}}^{\aleph _{0}}$ _{(talk) (email)} 03:07, 17 June 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Do we have to have yet another thread arguing about God?86.53.80.11 (talk) 03:57, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...as the Big Bad Wolf said to Little Red Riding Hood, "...all the better to see you with my dear." -- Taxa (talk) 08:55, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What was there before big bang, 15 000 000 000 jears ago? Where the all materials came from? This is my opinion.--78.177.173.0 (talk) 16:09, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From nothing comes nothing. The universe have a beginning. "The sinners in Zion are terrified; trembling grips the godless: Who of us can dwell with the consuming fire? Who of us can dwell with everlasting burning?" - Isaiah 33:14, 26 "Lift your eyes and look to the heavens: Who created all these? He who brings out the starry host one by one, and calls them each by name. Because of his great power and mighty strength, not one of them is missing." - Isaiah 40:26. Energy=Fire=Power=Mighty strength. Energy <=> matter are same. The universe made from energy.--78.177.173.0 (talk) 16:37, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does it Matter? Religion and theological concepts originally started as explaining natural phenomena, but as time progressed, theology evolved into a monotheistic way of life that consisted on teaching more about morals than nature. All of the major religions today say how to live your life as a good person. If the red sea parted or not does not really matter, what matters is what we can learn from their exodus, whether it happened or not.--Xtothe3rd (talk) 23:53, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Philo Zombie

How can I prove to myself that I am not a philosophical zombie?

I certainly think that I have conscience experiences, qualia, sensation, etc, but what if that is an illusion?

If I merely think that I have these things, does that prove that I am not a PZ because by definition a PZ cannot think? But if my qualia and sentience etc are illusory, then lacking them I am by definition a PZ.

Help!!!

(ps if Frankenstein's monster were to obtain a PhD in philosophy and get a teaching position at a university somewhere, what would that make him/it?)

Duomillia (talk) 22:54, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you can't distinguish between the real thing and an illusion, would it make difference which of the two you're experiencing? Random Nonsense (talk) 06:29, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing deep or meaningful here. It is a simplistic attempt at describing subjective experience. Is what you experience real or just your subjective interpretation of what is real? Scientifically, it is your subjective experience. For example, that keyboard you typed on is not a solid. It is mostly empty space. However, you experience it as a solid because of the interaction between the atoms in your fingertips and the keys as well as the way light is remitted from the surface and triggers receptors in the back of your eyes. But, do you even exist? Of course you do - at least in your subjective reality. Since everything is subjective, there is no use in wasting time worrying about someone else's subjective reality.

As for your second question, he'd be a monster professor with a PhD. -- kainaw ™ 11:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't help I'm afraid, as this question is still being discussed in philosophy academies all over the world. But what I can say is that if you are experiencing the things all of us are experiencing, then this...wait I lost my words...I'm confused now. Help anyone?--Faizaguo (talk) 17:15, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that I think therefore I am applies here. If you were unable to think, then you would be unable to ask the question about whether you were a zombie or not. Since you do ask the question you are clearly not a zombie. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:46, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. If you are not Philo Zombie, maybe you are his brother Rob. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But I can't know that I know that I am experiencing the same things you are. After all, qualia are by definition not able to be compared person to person.

Also, wouldn't that Professor Monster be a (different kind of) philosophical zombie? A philosopher zombie, if you will? Duomillia (talk) 21:28, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Having a PhD in philosophy does not make a person a philosopher. It merely makes them a person who spent enough time and money in education to be granted a degree. The same applies to monsters. -- kainaw ™ 00:57, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]