Talk:God/Archive 10

Qur'anic conceptions of God
Having removed irrelevant commentary from this section, there is almost nothing left. Muslim editors are sorely needed.

Also, I've changed the section title, as "conceptions" is inaccurate - if there is one thing on which the Qur'an is clear it's this, "concept" is fine - further, as the Qur'an is not mentioned, "Islamic" is more appropriate.Timothy Usher 09:43, 4 May 2006 (UTC) ghrgrgihrgijhgo;gr'pg'hphbio'hbj4iopb'te4ouiretgbjioe'g3tg2j4 I have adopted the following first interpretation of the word Concept noun (plural concepts) (from Wiktionary), something understood, and retained in the mind, from experience, reasoning or/and imagination; a generalization (generic, basic form), or abstraction (mental impression), of a particular set of instances or occurrences (specific, though different, recorded manifestations of the concept) Fundamental Issues: It is impossible to assume that a creature can conceive the nature of his creator even if the creator discloses himself in totality to the creature. Human beings did not come to being by their own conscious choice!!! Natural sciences show powerful evidence of a creator, but can not reach a conclusive proof of the existence of a creator!!! Evolution science can not reach a conclusive proof of the reality of the theory of evolution!!! Creation science can not give a convincing proof of the reality of Creation!!! Religions are adamant that there is a creator!!! If all (or even a big majority of) human beings are convinced that there is no god, we would have never bothered ourselves talking about god!!! But it seems that a big majority of human beings have strong beliefs in the existence of a god of some kind!!!

Now let us assume that there is a god (one god, multiple gods or a council of gods). If that god did not create us human beings, then he is not worth us worshiping him! Hence we should not bother about him and just look after our own affairs. If that god has created us, then he either created us for a purpose or for no purpose. If that god has created us for no purpose (i.e. just exercising his powers), then he is not in need of us! Here again we should not bother about him and just look after our own affairs. If that god has created us for a purpose, then he should tell us about his purpose of creating us. If the circumstances allow, he should disclose himself and talk to us openly face to face. If the circumstances do not allow, he should contact us by some trustful convincing means. Allah claimed himself to be the only God in the existence. No other entity challenged him for godhood. Allah claimed that he created all beings, he is sustaining them, he is in full control of their sustenance and their activities and he will increase the creation as he wills. Because Allah had ordained to create suitable environment {Planet Earth}, some creatures to be called human beings with minds and free wills, capable of plowing earth and cultivating it, create evil temptations to them, send wise ordinances to them and order them to worship him according to his instructions for a very short period of life starting with birth and ending with death, and one day he will resurrect them from death, he will ask them – with all merciful and sympathetic considerations - to account for their deeds in that short life, settle the account with them and then lodge them into eternal - either joyful or miserable - life, he decided not to disclose himself, but to send messengers to human beings. Thus the one and only God {Allah} created Adam {the first human} and spoke to him. When human beings grew in number and mutilated Allah's ordinances Allah sent other messengers, well known of them are Noah, Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, Jesus and Mohammad. Hence Islam warns all human beings that the creator of all beings is Allah (The God), the only god. Allah sent successive messengers with his ordinances to human beings. Many followers of the messengers mutilated Allah's ordinances that came to them. The last of Allah's messengers to human beings was Mohammad. Allah's ordinances revealed to Mohammad {i.e. the Qur'an} as well as the demonstrative Islamic teachings of Mohammad are still in tact. The most important of which is that no human being will escape settlement with Allah, though with all merciful and sympathetic considerations. Those who maintained Allah's ordinances and obeyed them sincerely will be magnificently rewarded. Those who mutilated Allah's ordinances and disobeyed them will be severely punished. Salah eddeen Shaheen —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 163.121.145.243 (talk • contribs) 16:24, June 20, 2006 UTC.

Split?
Intriguing. Please discuss.Timothy Usher 10:52, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * God typically is used as a name for the Judeo-Christian God. The Hindu version is usually referred to by his names. When people search for 'God', they are more often than not searching for the Judeo-Christian version, not the Hindu. Yahadreas 10:55, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * In English, given the Christian influence on the language, you are of course correct. Of course, one might point out that the word "God" (or more accurately Ishvara or Brahman — relatively non-secretarian names) are frequently used in Hinduism (see henotheism). Whether "people...are more often than not searching for the Judeo-Christian version" is debatable, given the quantity of text related to Hinduism on this page. That said, this article does seem more of a mess and hodge-podge of ideas that would do well as separate pages, if only for the sake of clarity. That leaves open the question, however, of the fate of this particular page. Do we leave it as a brief summary of various accounts of God — more clearly defined on their respective pages — or dispense with this article altogether? iggytalk 11:10, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep, trim if indicated, but do not turn into a disambig page. Link child articles if appropriate and not linked. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua?!? 11:59, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * As, in the English speaking world, God typically refers to the Christian God, it would make sense to use this article to refer to this god only. This, after all, is the English language Wikipedia. As you say,iggy, Hindus refer to God as "more accurately Ishvara or Brahman"; they use the names. I am not certain, but I am sure that most Christians do not refer to God as Yahweh or Jehovah. When people use the word 'God' in the English speaking word, it is almost always associated with the Christian God, and so this should be reflected here. Yahadreas 12:31, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Strongly disagree. KillerChihuahua?!? 12:47, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I disagree as well. Many Hindus speak English and they refer to Ishwara or Brahman as God (Ishwar translated into English). Infact, as a Hindu interacting with Hindus in an English speaking world, I must have heard the word God used to represent the Hindu God more often than Ishwara and Brahman (Brahman is a more esoteric concept). Yahadreas, when you say the word is most associated with the Christian God, I am assuming you are basing it on Judeo Christian settings and not Hindus.  --Pranathi 17:47, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, Pranathi, I am basing it on Judeo Christian settings; after all, I do live in a predominantely Christian environment. I don't actually have much experience of Hinduism and am merely assuming. If Hindus do refer to their God by the term 'God', then I will yield. I won't push further. Yahadreas 11:09, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I always forget about the dangers of qualifiers... I said "more accurately" only because those are transliterations (though not the only possible ones... Ishvara = Ishwar) of (Sanskrit, in this case) terms that are generally translated as "God" (note the qualification about being non-secretarian). As Pranathi points out, most Hindus speaking English have no problem with the word "God" and, in fact, make frequent use of it. Anyway, moving back to the discussion of the split, I rather like KillerChihuahua's comments above: trim if indicated, but do not turn into a disambig page, except I tend to think some trimming is called for. iggytalk 02:30, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Spitting God into two? Why not split God into three while we're at it. Traditional Christians should have no problem with this. But, seriously, I agree that this page is slightly biased toward a traditional Christian view, but what can you do about it. It is in English, and most English speaking people either are Christian or are influenced strongly by the Christian view. Majority rules. It doesn't matter if you are right, it matters what most people think, so if you want it to say something else, you just might have to change what most people think. I would love it to say, "Most people believe that Jesus Christ is the One God of Heaven and Earth, Yahweh in the flesh." Although it is true what I said about Jesus, it is not true that most people believe it, so I have a lot of work to do before it will say the truth on the God page of Wikipedia. Jasonschnarr 22:58, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

The American Heritage Dictionary defines God as "A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.".

The clause "...the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions," is arguably not part of the definition, but only a reference point. In other words, God is still God even in a religion where God isn't the principle object of worship.

"It is in English, and most English speaking people either are Christian or are influenced strongly by the Christian view. Majority rules."

That's true when it comes to definitions of words, but it shouldn't be true with articles we write about the concept to which those words refer. If the Hindu Ishvara or Brahman is "A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe," then it deserves inclusion, as it's topical. The only other justification for a split would be article length, but if so, I'm not clear why the Hindu concept (if indeed it meets the definition of God) ought be the first to go.Timothy Usher 23:15, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with the statement most English speaking people either are Christian or are influenced strongly by the Christian view, partly because it isn't true. But also because this has nothing to do with bias or christianity. There are two deffinitions for the word god. There is God as in We worship you Oh God, which refers to the specific often JudeoChristian diety. There is also the more general god as in the greek gods which could refer to any diety. It is possible (although unlikely in my opinion) that the former is significantly more commonly searched for by english speakers, in which case it might be reasonable to make a God_disambiguation page and add a link at the top of this one. Olleicua 03:14, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm confused on what the split is attempting to accomplish. There is already a clarification at the top of the page that this is about the monotheistic God and not greek gods. If Abrahamic religions only are considered monotheistic - such views don't befit an encyclopedia. A Hindu can say We worship you oh God and make perfect sense. Truly confused, ---Pranathi 21:29, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Please visit the site http://www.apostatesofislam.com/ to know who was Allah and what Islam preaches.(a·pos·tate: n. One who has abandoned one's religious faith, a political party, one's principles, or a cause.)before proclaiming that Allah was the only GOD????????

poular culture
I moved the link as to god in pop culture to the see also section as it doesn't need its own section Olleicua 03:22, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Merge with God
The God article is already about the monotheistic God, and is far more developed than what we have here. WE should think about what parts of this article need to be in God but aren't there already, add them, and redirect.Timothy Usher 07:51, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Wait a friggin' minute...I'd tried to post to Talk:God (monotheism), only to realize that the talk page is redirected here, but the article is not! I'll fix that.Timothy Usher 07:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Etymology section edits
The information about the various theories regarding etymology was arrived at through consensus by a VAST number of editors. Any alterations to that consensus require a new consensus to be developed here first, not summarily rewritten. (Common wiki-courtesy for something this big!) ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 11:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The etymology section in this article (which I hardly need point out isn't a minor one) is a serious embarrassment to Wikipedia. It has been filled with a large number of spurious etymologies fallaciously connecting the Germanic word with a large number of languages completely unrelated to Germanic, and in some cases invoking false comparisons with those languages that are (distantly) related.  There is a very strong consensus in the linguistic community about this.  As for the consensus of "a VAST number of editors", I have gone through the discussion archives and I find no discussion of the bad etymologies at all, and what discussion of etymologies there is supports the changes made.  So there does not appear to be the consensus you claim.  RandomCritic 21:07, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * As the article states, "The original meaning and etymology of the Germanic word god has been hotly disputed".


 * When something is "hotly disputed", you don't cut out all the other viewpoints except your favorite one and supress or censor all the rest. That's not NPOV, it's favoring only ONE pov. There is enough room in the section to give a voice to the other views, even the ones you disagree with or find embarassing.  ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 22:07, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * From Neutral point of view: "We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view, and views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute."
 * The erroneous sections of the Etymology section of this article are not even representing a minority view; they are simply unsourced individual accumulations of errors to a text that was originally not so bad, which were never reviewed or discussed.
 * The error of asserting an IE root "khu" was introduced by user Pmanderson on September 20, 2005, 23:12 under the comment of "simpler representation of IE"; Pmanderson replaced the graph of g-acute with a k, which was not simpler but merely wrong. Nobody caught that a major change had been made.  There was no discussion.
 * The "khoda" reference was introduced by user 68.71.99.45 on March 17, 05:32-05:33, making the claim that "The origin of the the word God comes from the Pesian Language in the form of khoda or khuda, which was then used by Hebrew and Indo-European tribes in the form of gudda". No source, no verification, and a citation of a non-existent word.  This isn't a "hot dispute", this is something made up by a user one day.  A brief review of Indo-European_languages will show that Persian is not an ancestor of either English or Hebrew; consideration of the dates of the languages mentioned will show that the earliest Germanic (Gothic) form of the word "god" goes back to a period before Modern Persian even existed (or, to the point: before xwadāy became khodā).  This was labelled "citation needed" for months, but a relevant citation was never provided.  A reference to Catholic Encyclopedia, later added, which is not a linguistic authority, and does not even address the major claim, is not acceptable.
 * "Waheguru" was added on April 5, 22:35 by user 24.76.249.222. No discussion or comment.  Possibly this was just a mistake, taking the list of (supposedly) etymologically related words as a list of names.  No attempt is made to show how "Waheguru" could be cognate to "god".
 * "Kadavul" was added on April 25, 21:22 by user 61.1.210.199. No discussion or comment. Tamil is a Dravidian language entirely unrelated to the Germanic languages.
 * These are not examples of a POV in a "hot dispute", these are examples of people idly jotting down something that seems plausible to them (but which they've never researched) or simply making casual errors. If somebody with a modicum of linguistic knowledge had been paying attention, they would have been corrected immediately. Part of the editorial process at Wikipedia is detecting and removing such errors; the fact that an error may have been undetected for several months doesn't sanctify it.
 * As for the Geat/Gaut thing which you restored, can you explain what relevance you think it has to the etymology of "God"?RandomCritic 10:48, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Anyone doing etymological research can see that the Anglo Saxon word "god" comes from the name of one of their gods when they were polytheistic, it has been written about for centuries... This god is mentioned in all the genealogical sagas including the AS Chronicle, the Eddas, right there with Woden and Thor, and many think these were chieftains and that the god-hero-ancestor known as "Geat" eponymously gave his name to peoples for whom were named the Goths (possibly Getae in Latin), Jutes, etc. etc.  All of this deserves to be mentioned, and does not deserve to be hidden from view.  ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 13:08, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * It's not possible that *ǥuđa- comes from *ǥauta- (>Géat, Gautr). This confuses sharing a common root with descent. (Whether there is a common root is debatable on both sides; *ǥuđa- may not come from *ǵhew- -- this is really the only "hot dispute" here, between an IE root *ǵhew- and another *ǵhewə- -- and *ǥauta- may have nothing to do with the verb *ǥeutan.) The claim is the same as saying that because Latin deus shares the root *diw- with the name Diana, this proves that deus derives from Diana.  Actually it shows nothing of the kind; the two words have developed separately from the common root.   Even if it were true that both *ǥuđa- and *ǥauta- could be traced to the IE root root *ǵhew-, it would not add anything to our understanding of the word "God", which goes back to *ǥuđa- but not to *ǥauta-.
 * If that doesn't help, then please cite some sources for your Gaut > God hypothesis. If it's your own private view, then it counts as "original research" and by policy would not appear on Wikipedia.  If you're representing something that you've read in a book or article, then it would be of great help to provide titles, authors, and dates, so that readers can evaluate the source.  Furthermore, if such a hypothesis was published in a reputable source, it has just as certainly been refuted in another reputable source, and having a citation will help me track down where that refutation has been published. Fair enough? RandomCritic 14:22, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Why the omission of yogh form proto-Germanic " Ȝuđán " in favor of the Ǥ|g-stroke? Barnhart dictionary of etymology uses the yogh version; which seems closer to the Germanic usage whereas the g-stroke is from the Latin Skolt Sami alphabet. I originally had the yogh variant in the article. Nagelfar 00:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Misrepresented Kabbalistic View
I am suprised that there is so much emphasis on the similarity between Kabbalistic and panthesitic beliefs. Anyone with a passing knowledge of Kaballah knows that this is in error. Just because we are saying that the table is G-d, doesn't mean G-d is the table. Similarly I can say that your arm is you, but that doesn't mean you are your arm. Think about it-it makes a world of a differnce. Unfortunately this vital distinction is lost on most critics. I'd like fix it up, but its so far gone I'm not sure where to begin. XXX

Then it's Panentheism. Str1977 (smile back) 00:57, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

External Links being Suppressed (RfC opened)
The link below is being removed. I oppose the censoring of this valid POV, which centers on the central philosophical questions involved in an intellectual conception of God---one examines its internally and externally consistency and rationality. This is central to the ideas and debates surrounding the question of conceptions of God, no matter what is ones POV. I feel this is being removed simply because of its non-religious premise and method, i.e. it measures conceptions against standards of science (known laws), and against logic and rationality (many Christian thinkers reject this appraoch). These secular, humanists and philophoical links are particularly effective in demonstrating these POV as it is interactive allowing the user to play over and over, coming up with differnet answers, which also yeild different analysis, according to the above criteria. I note the analysis and feedback is very informative and as well as accessable. It has the effect of allowing the reader a deeper understanding of the philosophical questions involved in the notions of God.

I will abide by the 3RR rule so I can not restore it now, but I urge other editors to oppose the censoring of these links, by restoring them. Giovanni33 01:39, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Philosophical issues involved in conceptions of God. Test the rational consistency of your thinking.


 * The POV is fine, Giovanni. Find scholarly sources that state the points the quiz is trying to make (for instance, the ones it cites as its inspirations) and cite them.  Noted philosopher so-and-so says the concept of God is self-contradictory because so-and-so.  That's fine.  These links just play games with the readers.


 * Moreover, despite your invocation of "standards of science", there appears to be no empirical basis whatsoever for the "plausibility quotient" - the theoretical underpinnings are just the creators' ad hoc philosophical observations. That's not science anymore than is religion.Timothy Usher 01:58, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * In the external links section there is no requirement for only "schoarly soucres that state the points." There is no rule that the POV can not be presented in a novel manner, as long as it does a good job as doing so. This cite is of quality and does that. For an article, yes, in the text it must say "noted philospher so-and-so says...", but not for an external link.
 * Also, you misunderstand the sense in which I said that it models its working understandings from the stanards of science. Its not a specific empiracle study, its the scientific assumptions employed in methodological and ontological naturalism in a general sense. This is because the philosophical measuring yard stick that is used is logic (consistency), rationality, and known laws in physics (materialism). They are theoretical and philosphical, and they are the basis of the scientific world view--hardly the same as religion.Giovanni33 02:48, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * You describe the "create your own God" as "fast, easy, and fun" when linking to that website from your own user page. Hardly something that belongs in a mainspace article. AnnH ♫ 10:44, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Why not? It is fast, easy and fun (for me), but is also informative and relevant to the topic. Most of the same ideas and concepts can be found here, for example, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evil/ however, this just does it in a more novel, interactive way that does make it more interesting, more fun, and more accessable. I don't see why this means it does not belong as an external link.Giovanni33 11:00, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh great, let's slap a quiz page on all the other articles, too, then. Danny Lilithborne 23:04, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Did you even try it? Its not a quiz of any sort.Giovanni33 23:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Click some check boxes, hit submit, get a page with a bunch of numbers explaining your choice? Looks like a quiz to me. Danny Lilithborne 23:20, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm willing to drop that one (the first one), if you agree to support the second one, which is more complex, and not a matter of checking boxes.Giovanni33 23:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I've removed one links as a compromise, leaving the more complex one to stand. I've opened up a Rfc on this issue to get more editors to comment before the usual editors who usually support me start to show up and then this devolves into the typical edit war.Giovanni33 06:48, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The "17 questions link" is a good one but I'm not sure it belongs here as it's not really about God but about how people rationalize their concept of God. I would suggest one of the philosophy/theology articles but I'm not sure which - will have a look around and let you know. Sophia  07:00, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Just checked the other link and would say the same thing - has merit but is in the wrong article. Sophia  07:03, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comments, Sophia. But, in looking at this article there are three sections in particular with do deal with the very same philosophical issues, and so it therefore seems apropos for this article in so far as this deals with the very same philosophical issues. True, its focus is on rational consistency, but rational and logical consistency is a main part of the philosophical critques that are used in arguments against the belief in the traditional conceptions of God. In anycase the three sections most relevant in this artcle are: :::http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God#Conceptions_of_God
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God#Abrahamic_conceptions And,
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God#Parodies_of_God_and_religion
 * Also you will notice that afterwards the site gives you a "Battleground Analysis", in which refrs to, in my case, "beliefs about God are internally consistent and very well thought out."
 * Lastly, external links should be independently useful and highly topical. This is a page that is about a highly general topic, and so my link is likewise general but still topical to the core issues of conceptions of god which have as much to do with philosophy as it does with religion.Giovanni33 07:21, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the forementioned links add value to the article. They are educational and entertaining at the same time. What WP policy or guideline do they contravene?  --Blainster 07:42, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your words of support Blainster. I feel the same way. I am a firm believer (as an educator) that learning should be made fun, and entertaining. The two are not mutually exclusive as some seem to think.Giovanni33 07:45, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the links add value to the article. They are also educational, informative, despite what Timothy says.Kecik 08:27, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * So, tell us, "Kecik", as asked of User:MikaM and yourself on Talk:Adolf Hitler, which you never answered: are you or are you not Giovanni's puppet? As of now, it seems G33 has violated WP:3RR again.Timothy Usher 08:40, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * No, I am not a puppet as others have explained to you many times. Your question is insulting and a violation of civility. I will report you if you do not cease.Kecik 08:51, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with Kecik in this matter. Your contant false accusations, even afte a user check has cleared any connection, and despite logical argument and evidence being given to you on your talk page, you persist in making these accusations, which prove bad faith on your part.Giovanni33 08:54, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't see the link as adding much to the understanding of the subject, much more of testing and experiencing internal logical consistency of one's values. Since the main aim of the link isn't about the article, but more about the implications of one view of the subject, it would seem that it could be put somewhere else.  Obhaso 00:29, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * True, the link tests rational consitency, not of values, but of philosophical possitions relating to ones conceptions of god. But the fact that it does so about the ideas of the subject matter is the point--in the words of Marshall McLuhan, the medium is the message. In grappling over the philosphical issues and testing rational consistency of ones thinking about them, it educates a reader and forces them to think about these very issues. What are these very issues? The arguments used on both sides about philosophical conceptions of god, of which ]logical consistency is at the heart of the arguments made by philosophers. So, while it does test an editors own consistency, the is only an end. Its the means to that end which is an end in itself. This is why its perfect for this article.Giovanni33 01:20, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

We need neither linkspamming nor puppets on this page, Mi Gio. Str1977 (smile back) 00:58, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree, but I see neither on this page. What I do see are personal attacks, false accusations, and the typical suppression of on your part of any material you feel is mean to "malign" Christianity (also not true). I see you wikistalked me here to edit war in this regard, and calling the links "spam" is not civil. You have been warned about that in the past (even if you archive your talk page to hide it). Giovanni33 02:29, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I reverted Giovanni's links again. Of the more than half-billion pages on the web that mention God, I don't think these are particularly helpful or insightful, no offense intended.  Both are essentially quizzes -- the second could easily be reformatted as such without losing anything of substance, and making it quicker to take -- and while they have some useful analysis of the results, I don't think they add much, any more than, say, any of the blog posts I, or my friends, have written on the subject.  I also note that you (Giovanni) appear to be going against the consensus on this.  bikeable (talk) 02:59, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Are you looking for something original? Just becasue it contains analysis that of something that you or your friends have written about on a blog, doesnt mean that it doesnt add much. How much does it need to add before its considered useful? Useful for what ends, and to who? Maybe not useful to people like us who are very familiar with the arguments but to new readers who are only getting introduced into the subject and these issues, it could be very useful, insightful and helpful. This is an article on a subject not an indepth research project that needs to be on the cutting-edge. So, its should cover and introduce basic philophical problems with the conception of God.Giovanni33 02:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I note the arguments to remove these links have not been sustained. If Timothy, AnnH, or Str1977 feel the links should be removed they should make the case on talk instead of edit warring.Giovanni33 21:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I would have to agree with Obhaso's comments above. It adds little to the understanding of the subject. As a Christian, I also find references to God as "she" highly offensive. BenC7 09:42, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Other puppet
You know, Kecik33, that other editor is a "new" username for indefinitely blocked user User:Robsteadman.Timothy Usher 08:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Who are you, the wiki-police now? Rob is a good editor and you should not spread negative news about his alleged old account. Is he bother you or doing anything disruptive on wikipedia? No. Are you? Yes.Giovanni33 08:50, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * That's one more 3RR violation through puppetry. Is that not disruptive?  Is your inept and farcicle attempt to create the illusion of several agreeing editors on the talk page not disruptive?  How about the near-daily talk-page flooding centered on your own sophomoric philosophical speculations?  Is that not disruptive?Timothy Usher 09:06, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * No, its not because it doesnt exist. These are all fabrications on your part, which is what is disruptive. Your entitled to your opinion, no matter how wrong it is (as it certainly is), however you are not entitled to present your accusations as facts and then spread them around where you see fit. That is what makes it both personal attacks and disruptive. Your message above is just another example of this pattern you have established. I suggest you stop before you get in trouble.
 * Oh, and btw, you did not answer my question about focusing on Rob, or reverting his edits twice in your reverts. Are your reverts just careless and blind, or do you oppose his edits, too?Giovanni33 09:14, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Rosa 09:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Robsteadman, like Giovanni33, was shown by technical evidence to be using puppets, who voted the way he did. He was banned indefinitely for abuse and trolling, particularly at Requests for adminship/Deskana and at his own talk page, which has now been deleted. He returned as Robertsteadman, and did not continue the pattern of his previous behaviour. Administrators (including myself) discussed the matter, and decided to allow him back on probation under certain conditions, which he agreed to, and which he seems to be abiding by. We would like him to be given a chance to edit productively, which so far he seems to want to do. The Robertsteadman account is not a puppet account; it is a new username for a user who wishes to start with a clean slate. He lives in the UK, and there is no connection between him and Giovanni, other than that they share the same POV, and vote similarly.


 * Giovanni33 arrived in January, made a lot of big 3RR violations for which he was warned but not reported as he was new. Then, after he had met with opposition, some new users appeared, and began to revert to his version, follow him to other unconnected articles without being asked to, and help out with votes, reverts, and talk page support. They were all informed of the policy on puppetry, and were warned about edit warring. Their first 3RR violations were not reported, but eventually they were reported and blocked. Finally, the checkuser results came through, showing that Giovanni was Belinda (they had put up an active pretence of not knowing each other, but Giovanni now said she was his wife). They were both blocked. During the block Freethinker99 turned up, said he was new and had read the Christianity talk page and agreed with Giovanni &mdash; and then reverted to Giovanni's version. After a huge blunder where Giovanni denied on his talk page that he had any connection to Kecik, MikaM, and Freethinker99, &mdash; and forgot that he was actually logged on as Freethinker! &mdash; Freethinker was also blocked. Giovanni then said that he did know Freethinker, and was at his place, showing him how to use Wikipedia, and hadn't seen the name Freethinker when he denied knowing any of the editors. Since then, there have been several more newly-created accounts that started by reverting to Giovanni's versions. Genuine newbies do not normally know how to carry out a revert, and do not have the confidence to edit war.


 * So where does Kecik fit into this? The checkuser showed no link between him and Giovanni. Note that a checkuser cannot show that there is no link between two users &mdash; only that they don't make their Wikipedia edits from the same IP. Many users have access to more than one IP. Getting a friend to join in order to help out with reverts and votes is prohibited, and checkuser cannot prove one's guilt or innocence in this. There is extremely strong linguistic evidence linking Giovanni to the accounts that support him, including Kecik's. And they display similar behaviour. If you have an account which exists for the purpose of supporting another user, then you will be accused of puppetry, regardless of whether or not a usercheck shows a match. Kecik has been here for four months. He has 42 article edits, and 37 of them are reverts to Giovanni's version. His seventh edit (one day after registering) was a vote for something Giovanni wanted on a page that he was unlikely to have found by chance. Giovanni has shown in the past that he's capable of violating the puppet policy in order to get his own way, and Kecik, from Day 1, has behaved as a puppet. AnnH ♫ 11:43, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I think this whole discussion is off-topic to this article and only serves to distract from it. I guess that was the purpose, but since it is here I might as well respond breifly. I will say that the way you tell the story is getting much better, so I have to give you credit. Ofcourse there are different version to retelling a story (history), but this rendition is more accurate than previous times, however there are still some problems with it. Specifically, with my friend Freethinker, it was simply not a case of not seeing him but that when the question was asked, it did not include Freethinker among the editors I was asked about on my page. That is why I answered as I did. It was only added later, after I had read the initial message and was already in the process of making my reply. See here: It would be silly to deny any connection to someone at whose house and PC I was using to reply on my own talk page about, even if he were not logged onto his account. I'm aware of userchecks, which is why it would make no sense to lie. Also, as soon as I saw the question about Freethinker, right after I answered, I amended my answer to state I did know Freethinker. I never archived my talk page to hide anything. So all my history is open for anyone to see.
 * The other problem with the way the story is told is that it leaves out some pertinent information. For example, the fact that Kecik and MikaM (and anyone else who supported my POV on the Christinaity page, including Sophia), were all user checked at the same time. The results? Only BelindaGong showed a connection to me. Ofcourse, BelindaGong is a separate person who lives with me. And while I never denied any connection to her (no one asked), it's true I did not want it to be known for various reasons, and I pretended to not know her in my interactions. However, even though I tried to hide a connection, the user checked exposed it. It did not expose MikaM or Kecik. Why? They were all checked at the same time. One would logically expect that if they were my puppets they would have also been discovered along with Belinda, who I did not want it known I was connected to in some way. Since my desire to have this connection hidden failed, then so would any others who were checked at the same time. Why would I use different methods at the same time? And why two other users, who edit at both different times and at the same time that I edit, proving its not me going to different locations as was suggested. Lastly, with these editors, while I do agree support my POV, this is not proof they are not separate people, or have any connection to me in real life. Lately I have discovered we do not always agree, either, and we do not edit all the same articles, nor to they come to my assistence at times you'd think I want to use them if I were the puppet master. I think in time this will be shown further to be the case if they start to pursue their own interests and stop thinking they need to support poor, picked-on Gio.
 * In anycase, I have never had any socketpuppets, and for Timothy to keep making this charge on talk pages, stating his belief as it it were an established fact is both wrong and disruptive to the purpose of an article talk page.Giovanni33 13:14, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

capitalization edit conflict, God vs god

 * My reasoning is that it should only be capitalized when it's a proper noun, and lower case when it's a common noun. It should have nothing to do with religious meaning, just use plain correct English rules. Nouns that can be either proper or common, depending on usage. Since 'god' as a noun can be either proper or common, then its capitalization is based on that usage.  It is extremely rare that a proper noun would follow an indefinite article (a or an).  It's far more likely for a proper noun to follow the definite article (the). Examples of an entire class of exceptions: I bought a Big Mac and fries. I gave my son a Game Boy for Christmas. Take a look at how I capitalize the word mom in the following sentence: I told my mom, "Thanks, Mom, for being the best mom ever." In the case where its talking a particular god who is identified as only one, its clear that we are dealing with a proper noun, the name of the thing, hence God. Otherewise, if we are talking about the abstract concept, god, it should be lower case.Giovanni33 09:35, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Can it be a common noun if there is only one? The views of the traditions discussed in this article hold that there is no god, but only God.  You don't get any instances of 'god' in the Bible, or do you?  I assumed that in this article all instances would be capitalized, but I was intrigued by your edits.  Also, I do think it was right to edit out "the name God".  Hmmm...  Obhaso 17:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * "god" (lowercase) is used in the Bible when referring to pagan gods such as Baal or Moloch. "God" (uppercase) is used when referring to the specific eternal being/father of Jesus God.

Please stop edit warring
Can I suggest that you all work on the potential article split as this may solve some of the problems you are currently having. Sophia 10:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

either unexistent of calvinistic
let's be honest. he sits and watches us suffer through these terrible "trials" and doesn't offer aid for those in the most pain. and yet you praclaim he "care for everyone"?? Thats hypocrisy in the extreme!! what the hell? oops I said hell! sue me !--Institute representative 18:29, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Logical definition of God
God: Function: (noun) Context: (logical) - the only entity by definition possessing the ability to reduce an infinite number of logical equations having an infinite number of variables and an infinite number of states to minimum form instantaneously. ...IMHO (Talk) 11:08, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Consensus at 7:2
Sorry, Kecik33, I overlooked Blainster as well as Obhaso. True WP isn't a democracy, but it's not a link farm, either. You shouldn't waste other editors' time responding to your RfC only to ignore what they say.Timothy Usher 02:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I've removed them again, as per consensus.Timothy Usher 04:38, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * So far no good arguments have been made to censor these links. There is no conensus either way yet and seems split. Consensus is not just stating for or against as if one is voting, its about making the good and convincing arguments. This is where you lose.Giovanni33 06:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You're the only one who's not been convinced.


 * Perhaps one problem here is your background in philosophy. You seem to wish to engage editors and readers in Socratic dialogues aimed at showing how their metaphysical (etc.) assumptions are unfounded.  This is exactly what philosophers are supposed to do.  However, this is not what encyclopedias are supposed to do (particularly when they involve the editors' original arguments.)  We shouldn't be trying to "challenge" people, but merely compile what is already accepted.  I can see why you'd think that boring.  Re the link, it's directly engaging readers in argument.  I have to guess that's why you like it, why you find it interesting.  But it's not particularly scholarly, and it's definitely not encyclopedic.  Please follow up on the sources they cite, so we can determine their notability and present their views directly and appropriately.


 * p.s.DO NOT change existing section titles. Create your own, if you must, below them.Timothy Usher 06:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Who said that is not what an encyclopedia is not allowed to have as an external link a style that engages its reader in such a method? Its not an original argument, its a very old and very basic argument. The original aspect to it is the format it presents it. Again, this is perfectly allowable to exist as a link in the external links section. As other editors have pointed out, there is no rule against this. Your criteria does not pertain for external links, only for actual article text.Giovanni33 07:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I didn't want to get involved, but I'll concretely throw my vote against the links, so it's "4:2" now. Danny Lilithborne 07:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Note that Giovanni33 had changed the section title/count to falsely read "3:2" at the time when Danny Lilithborne's comment was posted.Timothy Usher 09:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Also not true. Notice in fact I changed it to 4:2, following what Danny said, but then corrected myself and listed a 7:4 since the ratio of 4:2, or 2:1 would not be accurate.Giovanni33 13:23, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I, too, do not believe the links are appropriate for this article. --ElKevbo 17:55, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 7:2 8:2. Giovanni, please stop disrupting wikipedia to make a point.Timothy Usher 21:12, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 3:2. But, Wikipedia is not a democracy. Make a case using a sound argument, which those who are suppressing the links have failed to do. I feel that it is you, not me, who is distrupting wikipedia to make a point. Please stop.Giovanni33 21:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * We've discussed it ad nauseum, as you know. It would also appear that you cannot count.  You've wasted other editor's time by posing an RfC and proceeding to ignore the overwhelmingly negative feedback you've received, most recently from ElKevbo.  Now you are wasting our time by edit warring. Having already been blocked for 3RR on the talk page, you've made five reverts to the article in 26 hours.  Time to STOP.Timothy Usher 21:22, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Wrong, again. And, no, I don't know that. What I do know is that you have failed to make and sustain an argument that is valid and justifying your continued attempts to censor legitimate links. Are arguments have been refuted, and you have not replied, nor has anyone else to my arguments above, which stand as valid. The feedback I recieved has been mixed, and the consensus is currently at 3:2. But this is besides the point. Wikipedia is not a democracy. Make a valid case on talk, or stop wasting our by time by edit warring.Giovanni33 21:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Let it go Giovanni33. Right or wrong, the overwhelming consensus is to keep the links out of the article.  You've made arguments which have not convinced the majority of editors.  It's not worth disrupting Wikipedia just to prove yourself right.  --ElKevbo 21:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, ElKebo, but I'll revisit this and see if more editors can consider the merits. I was looking for a good argument form the other side to convince me at least. I'll give it a rest and come back to this at another time pending the involvement of other editors, esp. ones who able to articulate and use the talk page instead in a constructive manner.Giovanni33 22:09, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Split
Okay, I've gone and split this article that was an extremely long article into multiple articles as suggested. Hoof38 12:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * All these subarticles now need major editing and possibly partly merging back. Kusma (討論) 21:53, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it is easier to revert to this revision and then start splitting again. The (now indefblocked as sock of Science3456) user above split the article into the following, which could be deleted as G5 if needed:


 * Biblical definition of God
 * Theology of God
 * History of Monotheism
 * Conceptions of God
 * Christian Monism (used to be a redirect)
 * Parodies of God and religion
 * Posthuman God
 * God as unity or trinity
 * God as an extraterrestrial
 * Phenomenological definition of God
 * Conceptions of God in Hinduism
 * Abrahamic conceptions of God
 * Kabbalistic definition of God
 * God (word)
 * God (expression) - not sure about this one

Any thoughts on whether deleting them all and splitting more carefully from the old article or partial re-merging is best? Kusma (討論) 22:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Let's revert the changes of the puppet, as you suggest, and take another look.Timothy Usher 02:33, 3 June 2006 (UTC) Done.Timothy Usher 03:19, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Someone had already split the article and I've worked a bit into the new one Conceptions of God. Now I see the split was reverted again. Anyway, I think that limiting to two average paragraphs per conception is enough: the rest of each "essay" could go to a separate article related to each of the specific conception. This way any user could go through the article without thinking that he/she is in shopping center looking for the product with the "best" publicity... --88.214.139.161 04:27, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Since work has been done on the subarticles already, maybe it would be best to just reduce the treatment here to a summary paragraph per WP:SS and to keep the split. I don't feel comfortable doing much about this; I was only reporting what happened and which articles need attention Kusma (討論) 15:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I'd like to experiment to adjust the external article on Conceptions here. However due to the complexity of the issues presented in the majority of the conceptions, it is difficult and perhaps not advisable (the main ideia in each one wouldn't get through) to reduce (condensing) it to one summary paragraph. My suggestion is that it is better to have a small introduction going directly to the issue here and re-direct it to the specific article of the conceptions, than to try to put many words just to have a bigger article. My English language is not very formal so I'll try and then if you consider it can be developed is all yours, or if if you disagree you may revert it at your own will. --Rosaecruz 17:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Done, I've finished my editions for now, but one must continue to develop it, as there is much lacking yet... Btw, if any data is found to be valid in the article God (monotheism), then it should be merged into here and afterwards that article should be erased as it is like a replic of this one. Best regards, --Rosaecruz 20:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion
This article is longer in See Alsos than in content. As someone just coming into this article, I can tell you, it's kind of ugly. Maybe it would be a good idea to either pare it down (not likely without causing all kinds of edit wars) or just relegating all the See Alsos to Category:God, if they're not there already. Related, some of the references look irrelevant to the content --Elliskev 21:22, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Parodies of God
These should be deleted or moved to another section. The examples just aren't relevant or widespread enough for a serious article on God. The "Flying Spaghetti Monster" is particularly ludicrous. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.110.135.75 (talk • contribs).

Having Pasafarian leanings myself I should probably support the inclusion and I do up to a point. I think one short paragraph giving a couple of the most well known examples would more than suffice so the section should definitely be reduced. Sophia 09:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * It is already in a subarticle, see above. Please summarize here and synchronize with the subarticle. Kusma (討論) 15:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

+gd
Please add Dia

Trinitarianism
Trinitarianism, a conception of God in the largest single unified religion in the world, Catholicism, and also the main conception of God in all Christianity is not adiquitely written about in this article. Under "Conceptions of God," and more specifically under "Abrahamic conceptions" it would be wise to take out the link to "God as unity or trinity" and add links to the articles of "Trinitarianism" and "Unitarianism". Also the links under "Abrahamic conceptions" Should be put in Alphabetic order. Moreover, it is needless to have two links to "Kaballistic definition" (which, by the way is a small fringe sect of Judiasm), so I propose that one of them should be taken out.

I also propose that under "See also" and more specifically under "specific conceptions", "Holy Trinity" should be added. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by StThomasMore (talk • contribs) 22:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Strongly disagree. See WP:NPOV. This would bias the article strongly in the direction of Catholicism. This article is about the monotheistic god, not about the Catholic God. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Are you kidding me? the Catholic God is the monotheistic God, and should get equal treatment as the other "gods" spoken about on this page. Adding "Holy Trinity" to two lists does not bias this ariticle in the direction of Cathoicism.


 * We'll ignore the tautology and note that your edits contain a strong bias and as such are inappropriate, as would be a discussion of Christianity's need for a triune nature of its deity. That said, let's try to avoid the bias and accept that your edits serve no other purpose than to proselytise for a specific religion and its dogma in violation of the Wiki policy of WP:NPOV.   &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  23:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The Catholic God is most assuredly not the only monotheistic god, and already does receive balanced treatment. The Trinity is a Christian belief, which is mentioned, and you are editing it so it aligns with Catholic dogma, which is undue weight. Cathoics are the largest single group of Christians, but a minority compared to the mixed bag of Protestants. The trinity mention should be as non-specific to any particular dogma as possible, or there is bias. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua?!? 23:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Acutally, there are more more Catholics than all the Protestants combined. Since the Moslem conception of god gets a link in each of those place, so should the Catholic Conception of GOD —The preceding unsigned comment was added by StThomasMore (talk • contribs) 23:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Uh, and? What's this, the might equals right argument?   &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  23:30, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Seems to be a lot of that sort of thing on Wikipedia articles dealing with religion... iggytalk 23:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I stand corrected. Breakdown seems to be: Christians 32.88% (of which Roman Catholics 17.39%, Protestants 5.62%, Orthodox 3.54%, Anglicans 1.31%), Muslims 19.54%, Hindus 13.34%, Buddhists 5.92%, Sikhs 0.38%, Jews 0.24%, other religions 12.6%, non-religious 12.63%, atheists 2.47%. However, this does not make your rewrites more acceptable, as Roman Catholics are still a minority religion group at 17.39%, and other Christians have their own view of the Trinity. Rewriting a neutrally worded article to concur with your personal beliefs, when the original wording was not antithetical to the majority view, is inappropriate.

Perhaps your suggested edits would be more appropriate on the article God as unity or trinity. Be prepared to discuss any edits on talk. I have already warned you about 3RR; I will be watching. Do not continue to edit war. KillerChihuahua?!? 23:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I've not been reverting. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by StThomasMore (talk • contribs) 23:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

You would also have to break up the 2 Muhammadean denominations (i. e. Shiites and Sunis)StThomasMore 23:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Making the same, or substantially the same, edit is a revert whether you actually use the history and revert function or not. You are now in violation of 3RR. KillerChihuahua?!? 23:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

"a conception of God in the largest single unified religion in the world, Catholicism" - Roman Catholicism, isn't a religion. It's a denomination/sect in the old sense.


 * No, it's a religion, or at least conseders itself a religion, and the largest unified one in the world. It is larger than all the Sunnis (though the same size as the Sunnis and Shiites counted as one "religion") and is therefore the largest UNIFIED religion in the world. BTW, we do not call ourselves "Roman Catholics" unless we are reffering to the Roman rather than Eastern "lung" of the Church. The term "Roman Catholics" was invented by High Church Anglicans who thought themselves the "real Catholics".


 * So your point is that only Roman Catholicism is "real" catholicism? In any case, it is a sect, not a religion -- what it "considers" itself (in your opinion) is irrelevant.   &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  00:39, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I have reversed the images!!
Surely more people on this Earth hold the view in the picture that was presented in the second (read: subordinate!!) position!! Over a billion people are in India alone!! //// Pacific PanDeist * 01:05, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I see now that the images have been shuffled, with the non-Western conception again being pushed to the bottom, now behind TWO depictions of God as a white-bearded white-skinned man, presumably with a holy penis twixt his loins!! This is not the article on DEPICTIONS of God is it?? What about those of us who equate God with the Universe, not even a depiction that reflects that view?? Please, give me one good rationale why there should be TWO depictions of the westernized old white man, one Hindu conception shoved to the end, and that's it!! //// Pacific PanDeist * 05:46, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the article is much the worse for no longer having an image, any image, in the intro section. I can understand PanDeist's concern, and I would encourage us to include non-Judeo-Christian imagery, although I am slightly unsure (this is my own limited knowledge speaking) about the precise correspondence of Krsna and God as such (isn't he more an "aspect"?).  I would put one image back in the intro, be sure to include Krisna or another non-Christian God, and I would consider eliminating one of the two Michaelangelos -- the close-up is the better, and other artists have done fine jobs representing both Judeo-Christian and non-JC Gods.  I would also look into including images of Ahura Mazda as well as Sikh representations of God.  Finally, I would suggest that a compromise on which God gets to be in the intro, we could rotate them occasionally -- every week or two, perhaps even on a schedule.  There are plenty of us watching this page to take care of that.  bikeable (talk) 22:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * That is a start towards a better concept, I like the idea of rotation, but I do not think we need to remove one of the Michaelangelos so long as we balance it with equal numbers of other conceptions... I regret that the image I added was removed - there needs to be something there for those who believe in God as related in PanTheism/PanDeism/Pan-en-Theism, etc, showing something symbolic of the Universe itself as representing the image of God to such believers!! There is no limit, of course, the article could use more images (maybe 6-7?)!! //// Pacific PanDeist * 03:26, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

A Symbol: pls. your comment is highly valuable


Dear fellow and friend editors: I have added the Symbol The Winged Self, to the article's intro, with the follwing comment in the historic:
 * "20:30, 26 June 2006 88.214.135.188 (Talk) (A Symbol: starting to learn looking for the God dwelling inward, "Our God who art our Winged Self" (Kahlil Gibran))".

Soon after, user Codex Sinaiticus reverted the edition with the following comment:
 * "20:41, 26 June 2006 Codex Sinaiticus (Talk | contribs) (putting any picture or symbol in the intro is going to look pov, because it excludes other povs. Maybe it could go further down, but the intro does not need to highlight any one conception)".

Let me assure you that I do understand and appreciate user Codex Sinaiticus' edition and comment. However, I would like to purpose this Symbol, "The Winged Self" (with its related description), to be the One associated with the present article God. In order to accomplish this Aim, I would like to humbly request to each one of editors to please state your own opinion/thought, sincere and direct, on this issue that I bring here. In order to permit a knowledgeable decision, You may find details about the Symbol: Finally, I must here state that to the Symbol "The Winged Self" it is associated, within my Mind at least, the following Passage:
 * at the related article,
 * in the original web page concerning It ,
 * and also at this recent webpage created on my own; blessed, indeed, I have been during these dark times of my soul, for the Divine Essence always poured Light upon my darkness:.


 * "et vidi alterum angelum ascendentem ab ortu solis habentem signum Dei vivi et clamavit voce magna quattuor angelis quibus datum est nocere terrae et mari" (Revelation 7:2).

Thank you very much for your attention. My best Regards. --GalaazV 21:40, 26 June 2006 (UTC) May God bless you, each and every one. --GalaazV 22:47, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but I don't see that The Winged Self is well-known enough to merit an image in this article; indeed, with 54 google hits, I'm not sure it merits a wikipedia article at all, but perhaps a mention in Khalil Gibran. best,  bikeable (talk) 21:54, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Galaz, what are you doing? You keep editing your comment on the talk page.  I mean I admit, you approach a perfect comment, but it doesn't actually contribute to the discussion, which seems to have already arrived at a consensus not to put your symbol up at the top of the God article.  I don't want to disuade you from adding what you wish to the talk page (within reason) but I just don't understand where you're going with this. --Christian Edward Gruber 15:37, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi! Well, I wont be around editing anymore, but it would be welcome with Joy if you - in an individual and in a collective effort here - would be able to go beyond the dogmas in your minds and listening for a while to your own hearts, revising your decision(s). Nevertheless, I regard as my duty to bring to You a message. "For what we do presage is riot in grosse, for we are brethren of the Rose Cross; We have the Mason Word and second sight, Things for to come we can foretell aright." "We give you Love, 'tis all we've got./For Love unties the Gordian Knot." --GalaazV 16:56, 30 June 2006 (UTC) --GalaazV 05:57, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I hope you didn't take things the wrong way. No one is asking you not to edit and contribute.  However, contributions to this site need to be neutral.  You may love your message wholeheartedly - yet this is not a platform for advocacy, it is a place to present, neutrally and in a balanced way, a whole range of ideas without preference.  Since you quote from rosicrucian and masonic ideals, I recommend you consider contributing there - but again, it all has to be neutral.  That's why I asked about editing the comment.  It seemed like simple advocacy, where we're trying to build an encyclopedia in a shared environment.  So please don't just leave - we're not hardened by dogmas as you put it.  Rather, we're consistently trying to practice a principle of this website, and not allow any dogma, yours or mine, to override another, nor to have such put forward with undue weight.  If we put rosicrucian symbols in a prominent way on a general God page, it would be ascribing it undue weight.  That's really what the whole discussion earlier was about - that western (Christian) images of the deity were being prioritized unduly.  --Christian Edward Gruber 17:56, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I hope you didn't take things the wrong way. No one is asking you not to edit and contribute.  However, contributions to this site need to be neutral.  You may love your message wholeheartedly - yet this is not a platform for advocacy, it is a place to present, neutrally and in a balanced way, a whole range of ideas without preference.  Since you quote from rosicrucian and masonic ideals, I recommend you consider contributing there - but again, it all has to be neutral.  That's why I asked about editing the comment.  It seemed like simple advocacy, where we're trying to build an encyclopedia in a shared environment.  So please don't just leave - we're not hardened by dogmas as you put it.  Rather, we're consistently trying to practice a principle of this website, and not allow any dogma, yours or mine, to override another, nor to have such put forward with undue weight.  If we put rosicrucian symbols in a prominent way on a general God page, it would be ascribing it undue weight.  That's really what the whole discussion earlier was about - that western (Christian) images of the deity were being prioritized unduly.  --Christian Edward Gruber 19:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

External POV links
Hey all. A recent link was added that is an apologetic christian site which has all sorts of "proofs of god", "proofs of Jesus" stuff. There are other POV external links too, which is why I didn't delete it as somewhat un-NPOV and unencyclopedic. I am not sure this article is the place for them, since it is about (generically) the monotheistic creator deity, and not really about a POV on a particular flavour or interpretation of that deity. I think that such links are great on pages/articles that discuss those POVs, but more scholarly or comparative links should be the norm here. How do people feel about this? I would say scrap POV external links entirely, especially because it would be impossible to keep them in balance with all the various views available, or we'd have an amazingly long list. Anyway, just my HPOV --Christian Edward Gruber 02:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes I agree, if we let one in, all must come in (and we don't have room for all to come in). //// Pacific PanDeist * 03:27, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

what is our policy on external links here? Clearly, we cannot have random musings of assorted Swamis and Reverends that happened to accrete here. Only treatments by notable authors or institutions should be kept. I have serious doubts about most of the links here at present, maybe we should keep only encyclopedic entries, and delegate more specific topics (different creeds, existence, etc.) to sub-articles. dab (&#5839;) 19:46, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

the split
WP:SS was a good idea, but whoever did the split did a terrible job imho. WP:SS means that every topic branched out gets a summary section. Instead, we have a lengthy dab notice. The God (word) was bullied out of the article, apparently, as if the history of a term had nothing to do with the history of the concept it refers to. Shame, the article was beginning to look good, and it's been bombed back to average half-baked Wikipedia list-cruft standard. Come on, the see also section is unusable. "See also" should link five, maybe ten centrally related terms. What we have instead looks as if five people did a flip-board brainstorming session over lunch. dab (&#5839;) 19:59, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree.141.213.66.102 00:27, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Fear of god
I am utterly surprized that there is no "Fear of god" article, which is the very basic topic in religion. (There does exist "Fear of God" article, but don't be fooled.) `'mikka (t) 15:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Belief in God vs. Other Beliefs
I would like to propose including in this article a comparison between the belief in a supernatural god, with the belief in other supernatural entities for which no proof of their existence currently exists, such as space aliens, ghosts, big foot and the loch ness monster. I do not believe that this article should go into any of these topics in detail, but just present an overview of the similarities in all of these kinds of beliefs. Snapfisher 04:36, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I would also like to see a section outlining the most common criticisms of the monotheistic god notion.

Citation for Allah?
Is it really necessary to find a citation for the Christian use of Allah in Arabic speaking countries? It is kind of a blatant fact the word is "God," and is discussed on the Allah page. Perhaps a reference to al-Ab might clarify some? Lxx 13:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Intro
Something odd has happened to the intro since I last looked at it. For example, what does the first sentence mean? "God is a Germanic name for deified reference ("reverence") to the unitary concept of deity ..."?? SlimVirgin (talk) 18:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I've restored an older version of the intro, which seems less problematic. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Stevertigo, as you've restored the intro, please say what it means, particularly the first sentence. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You are not responding to comments on your talk, or on wikien, I will not feed your abusive usage of first reverts by responding to you here. Comment on wikien at either one of the two relevant threads. Thanks. -Ste|vertigo 20:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what you're talking about. I am asking a question here about the contents of the article, which is what this page is for. The first sentence is completely meaningless, and yet you restored it. Therefore, please say what you think it means and stop playing games. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Stevertigo, do not add that nonsensical first sentence again. This is the English Wikipedia. Material has to make sense to native English speakers. The first sentence you are reverting to &mdash; "God is a Germanic name for deified reference ("reverence") to the unitary concept of deity ..." &mdash; does not mean anything. If you want to tell me what you're trying to say, I will help you to write it in a clear way. Alternatively, you can supply a source. But it cannot be left as it is. SlimVirgin (talk) 14:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

---

The above exchange of nonsense is nothing but another turf battle between the packs. And as usual, the outcome of the turf battle between the pro-God pack and the anti-God pack of howls will turn on how many supporting sets of teeth and snarls the two opposing packs can muster and bring to bear against each other in the impending showdown at this¸ another Armageddon--unless one pack or the other relents and moves on--as sometimes happens in the natural world. What is disheartening for quality in Wikipedia is that, in the exchange of meaningless nonsense in which the pro-God pack and the anti-God pack rally their coalitions and battle for possession of the turf, both sides miss the WP:NPOV in the other's statement. While it is NPOV true that God does not exist and hence the empty, colorless, and contentless lead section is NPOV appropriate, it is also NPOV true that the pro-God bombast captures the NPOV essence of the superstition that drives much of politics and economics today whether you like it or not. In consequence thereof, the civilized NPOV compromise might be a time-sharing, such as a scheduled and agreeable switching between the 1) truth NPOV and the 2) essence NPOV every six months, with time-shares in rough proportion to the splits among the pro-God and anti-God factions throughout the intelligent readers of Wikipedia world-wide. But, in truth, Wikipedia is not a civilized place--for the unthinking packs of hounds stream from one page to another without weighing evidence, ripping out NPOV, ignoring citations, and positioning themselves only to organize their coalitions to take turf away from whomever they see as their opposing pack at the moment. --Rednblu 05:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Youre probably right about some things, but Im not sure if youve linked your comments up correctly - I cant seem to match particular points in the text with the links. -Ste|vertigo 17:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Well you seem to have the basics down. But your proposed solution at best appears facetious, if not altogether trite. There is a way in which to present information which conforms to both NPOV and does give some richness to the subject. As citations are often just one pov (see the "cite nazi" thread on wikien-l) there is good reason to defer more to NPOV rather than various subordinate policy. Slim had a point about the first sentence, and I tried to accomodate her. God after all isnt just a word, or a concept (of divine personage), but a real thing, with arms (manifestations) and legs (enduringness) and other aspects to be described with bombast and flourish. ;] -Ste|vertigo 20:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[more]

 * "God" is a Germanic name for deified reference ("reverence") to the unitary concept of deity &mdash;most commonly described as an intelligent consciousness of infinite spiritual substance that underlies or permeates through the whole natural and physical universe, which is therefore said to be both its "creator" and "ruler."

What strikes me about the accuracy of the above wonderful passage and point-of-view is that it is pretty much what every respectable dictionary says--in somewhat less bombastic glory, I will admit. So there is a real problem with the current lead sentence in that it mixes apples with oranges by stirring in a little of Jehovah--who is a totally different personality from the Germanic God--which I see from the etymology of God is related--not to any Jehovah--but rather to Germanic words like giddy. Is there even one English dictionary that explicitly relates "God" to the four-letter Jehovah? Or even to the five-letter Allah? Did the word "God" appear anywhere in the original texts into which the King James translators forced the alien and Germanic "God" who was definitely not Jehovah back in the time at least when "God" and "giddy" had the same Most recent common ancestor? I have enjoyed these little discoveries, so thank you. --Rednblu 04:05, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Well I wrote all of that above, so Im grateful that someone appreciates it - particularly in the context of Slim's hatchet job critiques. That said, I do agree with Slim that to refer to the word (Germanic name) puts a bit of a spin on the lede toward the linguistics - which is better handled at God (word). While removing that phrase was proper to get this article back within the boundaries as stated in the disambiguation, these limits require its parallel association with related terms up front. YHVH and Allah are, after all, different names for the same God, (with slight cultural differences arisen from different cultural interpretations of Abrahamic monotheism.) :) -Ste|vertigo 17:16, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I slightly changed the sentence. The use of the indefinite pronoun "it" was confusing as it was not completely clear if "it" referred to God or to the "universe."  I think my revision makes it completely clear.  Feel free to revert or edit further!  --ElKevbo 17:38, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[more]
I know that original research is forbidden, but I just cannot resist the temptation to quote, paraphrase, and cite what actual scholars throughout history have actually written about "God." I also know that WP:NPOV when it appears in Wikipedia is quickly ripped out with snarls such as "literally nonsense" or "Don't revert on a line" as the various packs fight for nothing but turf. Nevertheless, I am intrigued by the underlying work issue of the God page which is "What have researchers found God to be--really"? So I am assembling here in one place excerpts of the WP:NPOV that the dog packs have ripped out from the pages all over Wikipedia.

This being Sabbath morning, I consult my favorite source of original research which is PubMed to find what new evidence researchers have found on "what God is--really". I search on God and find that there are 1933 articles on the detailed anatomy of "God" and I sort by date to select the most recent findings I have not yet read. Right there at the top is a September 2006 publication in the International Journal of Neuroscience (2006 Sep 116(9):1079-96), a publication with the scholarly title, Experimental facilitation of the sensed presence is predicted by the specific patterns of the applied magnetic fields, not by suggestibility: re-analyses of 19 experiments. The scholars detail how researchers have made "God" make a personal appearance to 407 subjects in 19 experiments by the application of subtle magnetic fields of signature pulses focussed on the proper areas of the subjects' brains. In the words of the scholars, "The importance of verifying the specific timing and temporal pattern of the software-generated fields and following an effective protocol is emphasized."

So, if God does not exist, and surely she does not, then it is something of a WP:NPOV mystery how "God" got related to the four-letter Jehovah. So what I just realized when I heard the snarls over whether God was Germanic--was that God is Germanic. Now, maybe it would be good if people of the future could think of God and as simply different names for the same thing. A people should be able to define their abstractions to be useful to them. Nevertheless, it is WP:NPOV true that God and did not have common origins; they had different inventors. Perhaps, the inventor of was Abraham. The inventor of God is more obscure.

In searching for the process that invented God, PubMed is again useful. Now, I will quickly admit that PubMed enforces the most tyrannical POV there is, and PubMed's POV is to ban whatever is not supported by fact. Nevertheless, PubMed is a good source if you are interested in the facts of "what God is--really". You might search for God many ways. But one way to search for God is to search in PubMed for "Oldest Germanic God". You will find there a very likely theory of humankind's discovery of God as summarized by Scott Hajicek-Dobberstein. Scott was examining Wasson's hypothesis that many lines of human religious experience derived from the before 5000 B.C. discovery somewhere near Finland that eating the red mushrooms that grow under birch trees gives you an imagined experience of 1) being divine or 2) being in the presence of someone who gave you answers to the hard questions of life. Wasson summarized his research and fact-finding in his 1968 book Soma: Divine Mushroom of Immortality ISBN 0-15-683800-1 in which he stated that essential enlightenment practices of Hinduism derived from these Northern European discoveries of how to either become or to invoke Gods. Wasson documented the existing religions, such as in Siberia, that even today use the body and broth from these mushrooms as their sacred sacrament to renew their experience of being in the presence of who created them. These red mushrooms contain entheogens such as ibotenic acid and muscazone--toxic chemicals which make people feel that they 1) are gods or 2) are in the presence of gods.

Expanding on this 1968 research, Scott Hajicek-Dobberstein examined the religious writings of Tibetan Buddhists to discover symbols such as "One-Eyed" which he associated with Wasson's observation that the red mushroom that gave people the divine experience when they ate it "at one stage of development, looks something like a bloody human eye-ball plucked from the socket and thrown on the ground" (p. 107). When Scott asked his colleagues for other divine traditions in which there was a One-Eyed god, someone pointed him to the Germanic tradition of God, Odin, Woden, Wotan, Wodanaz, Godan, Wod, ... which shows up in our God's day, Wod's day, Wednesday, the name of the middle day of the modern week if Sunday is the first day. And Scott found that the traditions of the Germanic God shared with the Hindu and Buddhist traditions of Soma, the religious symbols of One-Eyed, raven, and tree of enlightenment under which the red mushrooms still grow as symbionts. And now of course, it makes sense that etymologically the Germanic God and the Germanic giddy have common ancestors.

In contrast, PubMed contains no evidence for an evolutionary relationship either direction between God and. Apparently, the translators of the King James version simply were ignorant of both 1) what meant and 2) how  was pronounced. --Rednblu 02:19, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Dont confuse God with any of the variants of the Abrahamic God, but neither claim that the differences therein are based in cultural artifacts rather than in theological differences. But then, let us not understate culture. In other words its a balance. So when you say that the Germanic has weight with regard to the concept of God, this may be true, but from a theological point of view it would represent the influence of paganism - God as an Odin-like personage. Personality and character are cultural elements, which are secondary to the unifying theological aspects. So, while I have great regard for the avenue of promoting linguistic unity which you (and to some degree dab, in a comment above) seem to lament, concepts can nevertheless show a relationship even where there is no direct etymology. Thats the nature of the God concept, which is why in the "God" article we can deal with so-called polytheistic concepts as well, in a way which does justice to those views which see these as fundamentally similar rather than culturally different. Regards, -Ste|vertigo 06:23, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * So what would be a WP:NPOV distinction between pagan and non-pagan views of "God."? --Rednblu 17:12, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep in mind that, in the context of Abrahamic religion, "paganism" is a pejorative to refer to polytheism. Polytheism is itself a kind of polite modern word to refer to "idolatry:" ie. "if its not The God (or "Our God") they worship, its an idol." So, you are correct in noting that the distinctions are subjective, localised, or (as I put it above) contextual. The problem of course with that approach is that "context" for "God" tends to be Abrahamic, and not universalist. So, because that's where people come from, we have to deal with that dimension, while still applying NPOV in a way which connects Abrahamic and Dharmic concepts. -Ste|vertigo 21:04, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Mark 3's version
Mark 3 a new user, wrote an extremely simplified version of the lede. While things of course can be changed, they should be done so with care, and not simply as a unilateral changeup. -Ste|vertigo 03:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC)