Talk:God/Archive 20

Undue weight to Kant?
No philosopher takes Kant seriously anymore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.126.246.122 (talk • contribs)
 * Nonsense. Str1977 (smile back) 10:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

"No philosopher takes Kant seriously anymore"

Hilarious. Since you posted such inane rubbish, I assert that no reasonable human being of decent intelligence will take the IP address of Internet user 130.126.246.122 seriously any longer. 195.92.168.163 06:20, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Not applicable here
This doesn't belong in this article: "Alternative positions include atheism, which denies the existence of any such being, agnosticism, which questions its existence, polytheism, which claims that there are multiple deities rather than one supreme one, and pantheism, which ascribes the divine properties of God or gods with the Universe itself or parts thereof." &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; 18:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Why doesn't it? --Janus Shadowsong  |  contribs  19:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * What has it to do with the intro? It's pretty clearly stated that the capitalised "God" refers to the deity of monotheism.  Maybe further down in the article it might be OK, but don't see what it adds to the intro.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  19:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The paragraph is a result of a NPOV dispute. We're talking about the God of monotheism, yes, but these positions also have something to say about that God.  Roccondil 22:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * This article is about God, so the lead should talk about that. The material in question has nothing to do with God; the intro isn't a religion vs. atheism debate, or about various other kinds of beliefs. Jayjg (talk) 23:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. It's out of place in the lead. ElinorD (talk) 23:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The issue of whether any monotheistic deity actually exists, or whether all such conceptions are man-made fantasies, is fundamental to any treatment of this topic, and should be reflected not only in the intro, but in the introductory sentence. --Serge 04:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't go so far as to say the question wasn't applicable, but per the style guidelines the intro is supposed to summarize the content of the article. The lengthy material on the existential debate that was removed was all out of proportion both to what properly being should be in this article (considering that we have a whole separate article on it) and what actually is in the article. It's worth a brief description, nothing more. For myself, I have no problem with including the one sentence under discussion, probably at the end of the intro, but the near-essay Jayjg removed plainly didn't belong there. TCC (talk) (contribs) 05:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm confused why some feel the article necessarily is about a monotheistic god and not the concept of god (e.g. apollo). I welcome any thoughts on why this article should not be about monotheistic and polytheistic gods. Thanks, Hu Gadarn 22:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Minor quibble - All the great vs Many prominent
Who defines great? This could become a disputed statement simply as it incluses what is arguably a POV qualifier. &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; 13:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Intro again
The intro sentence currently is this:
 * God is the deity believed by monotheists to be the supreme reality. He is believed by some to be the creator, or at least the sustainer, of the universe.

First, I already raised the issue about the meaninglessness of "the supreme reality" wording above. I thought we were passed this, now it's back. Second, the wording of the first sentence implies that the deity exists and the only question is whether he is the (meaningless) "supreme reality" or not. This violates NPOV. Pending further discussion, I'm changing it to:


 * God is the name most commonly used to refer to the deity that monotheists believe exists. He is believed by some to be the creator, or at least the sustainer, of the universe.

--Serge 04:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * If you don't mind my saying so, it's butt-ugly English. But I see what you're getting at, and you may have a point. TCC (talk) (contribs) 05:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Upon further reflection, I reverted to an earlier version (plus NicholaiDaedalus' recent edit). The intro/paragraph is now back to this:


 * The term God most commonly refers to the deity worshipped by monotheistic and monolatrist religions, usually claimed to be the creator of the universe. As of 2007, a majority of human beings are classified as adherents of monotheistic religions. While the largest of these, Christianity and Islam, vary in their description of this deity, they usually hold it to be the same as the God of Judaism. Alternative positions include atheism, which denies the existence of any such being, agnosticism, which questions its existence, polytheism, which claims that there are multiple deities rather than one supreme one, and pantheism, which ascribes the divine properties of God or gods to the Universe itself or parts thereof.

Please discuss any changes to this here and achieve consensus before editing. Thanks. --Serge 05:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Why? No one else is, yourself included.


 * I don't think any article should open with "The term [subject of article] refers to...." It's a miserable way to start off an article unless the article is about the word itself and not the concept it's used to express, and is just as over-used as "It should be noted..." used to be. I remove that evil phrase whenever I come across it, and I think I'll start doing the same to this kind of opening. TCC (talk) (contribs) 05:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Other than rewriting the first paragraph I mostly just rearranged, and cut very little text. I removed "As of 2007" because I see little prospect of that changing over any timespan relevant to how we're going to word this article, and I put all the bits about the existence question together in the fourth paragraph. I admit that I still don't think this material belongs in the intro, at least not at this length, but we can continue that argument later. TCC (talk) (contribs) 05:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * It looks as though people are making up the text of the lead as they go along, but we need to stick to reliable sources, and in this topic, that probably means philosophers and theologians. Serge, the "supreme reality" is what the source says. Some other issues:


 * One version says he is the "divine creator" of the universe: is there a non-divine one called God too?
 * This sentence is meaningless: "In other [religions], the pre-eminent deity among all those believed to exist is called "God" in addition to the personal name otherwise used to distinguish it."
 * This sentence needs a reliable source, if it's to stay: "A majority of human beings are classified as adherents of monotheistic religions." But preferably it wouldn't be in the lead even if sourced, because it's not about the concept of God.
 * There's no need to refer to atheism in the lead of an article about God, and to discuss polytheism misses the point that this is an article about the concept of God, not gods. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * In the first place, saying God is the "divine creator" merely ascribes both these properties to God, rather than specifying him as being the divine as opposed to the not-divine creator. In the second, I heartily agree that the sentence is meaningless.  In the third, rather than removing it, let's find a source; there are plenty out there.  In the fourth, atheism has a fair bit to say about God, so it does belong in the article, and if you're mentioning monotheism in the lead you should mention the other positions there as well.  Roccondil 08:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The source for "A majority of human beings are classified as adherents of monotheistic religions" is given at the end of the paragraph, since it's also the source for the statement that the two largest of these are Christianity and Islam. I really don't think we need to cite exactly the same source in two successive sentences.
 * The sentence being called meaningless isn't. If you don't understand what it's talking about it perhaps needs to be clarified, but it's a true statement, particularly about henotheistic and monolatrist religions. It's even sometimes true of the supreme god in a polytheist religion; the ancient Greeks occasionally called Zeus "ho Theos", for example. In those cases, the basic definition for God given doesn't apply. Mormonism is perhaps the most prominent modern henotheistic religion -- perhaps they call themselves monotheist, but their theology fits the definition of henotheist -- and what they call God is clearly not the supreme creator and/or sustainer. So there are two groups of religions being discussed here: one where the first sentence in the lead is true, and one where it isn't, both of which worship something they call "God". "Supreme god" is incorrect because a monolatrist doesn't necessarily worship a supreme being in any sense of the word; thus "pre-eminent". This needs to be said if the lead is to be correct. If you don't like how I put it then someone can come up with his own phrasing.
 * I'd be happy cutting anything else anyone wants to cut. TCC (talk) (contribs) 09:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll just reiterate that the article is about the concept of God, not about various religions, much less about atheism etc. Discussing the concept does not in any way imply that one believes in the existence of God, and the impossibly argumentative insertions into the lead, apparently as a prophylactic to ensure that no Wikipedian might be misled into thinking God actually exists, are fine for polemical debates, but not encyclopedia article leads. Jayjg (talk) 14:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not about misleading anyone. It's about being accurate and reflecting an NPOV.  The article cannot be about the concept of God because there is no one concept of God.  There are arguably as many concepts of God as there are people aware of the term.  The article could be about what all those concepts have in common, but that's very little, if anything.  Certainly God does not share the characteristic of "supreme reality" or even "creator of the universe" in all conceptions of God.  In the end, then, the article must address all this, and, to be clear, the broad scope should should be framed in the introduction.  It's not easy to do, and I'm not saying we're there yet, but that should be our goal, no?  But an assertion that "God is (or is believed to be) the 'supreme reality'" does not accomplish this. To the contrary. --Serge 17:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I think everyone pretty much agreed the "supreme reality" was butt-ugly English, and furthermore that it truly is meaningless. &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  22:46, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Is there consensus, or not?
I've reverted Jayng again. This is the intro he keeps trying to insert:


 * God is the deity believed by monotheists to be the supreme reality. He is believed by some to be the creator, or at least the sustainer, of the universe.


 * Theologians have ascribed various attributes to God, including omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, perfect goodness, divine simplicity, and eternal and necessary existence. He has been described as incorporeal, a personal being, the source of all moral obligation, and the greatest conceivable existent. These attributes were all supported to varying degrees by the early Jewish, Christian and Muslim scholars, including St Augustine, Al-Ghazali, and Maimonides. Freud regarded this view of God as wish fulfillment for the perfect father figure, while Marxist writers see it as rooted in the powerlessness experienced by people in oppressive societies.


 * All the great medieval philosophers developed arguments for the existence of God, attempting to wrestle with the contradictions God's attributes seem to imply. For example, God's omniscience implies that he knows how free agents will choose to act: if he does know this, their apparent free will is illusory, and if he does not know it, he is not omniscient. Similar difficulties follow from the proposition that God is the source of all moral obligation: if nothing would be right or wrong without God's commands, then his commands appear arbitrary, but if they are based on fundamental principles that even he cannot change, then he is not omnipotent.


 * The last few hundred years of philosophy have seen sustained attacks on arguments for God's existence. Against these, theists argue that faith is not a product of reason, but requires risk. There would be no risk, they say, if the arguments for God's existence were as solid as the laws of logic, a position famously summed up by Pascal as: "The heart has reasons which reason knows not of."

Is there anyone besides Jayng who supports this over the current wording? The current (what appears to be consensus supported) wording is:


 * In monotheistic, and some henotheistic and monolatrist religions, God is the object of worship. In many of these religions, God is claimed to be the divine being responsible for the existence of the universe.


 * A majority of human beings are classified as adherents of monotheistic religions. While the two largest of these, Christianity and Islam, differ in their description of this deity, they usually hold it to be the same as the God of Judaism.


 * Tradition and theology have ascribed certain attributes to God, including omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, omnibenevolence, divine simplicity, and eternal and necessary existence. God has further been described as incorporeal, a personal being, a source of moral obligation, and the "greatest" conceivable being. These attributes were supported to varying degrees by the early Christian, Muslim, and Jewish scholars, including St Augustine, Al-Ghazali, and Maimonides, respectively.


 * Some of these qualities imply a number of contradictions, and raise many questions in the philosophy of religion. Many notable medieval philosophers developed arguments for and against the existence of God, attempting to wrestle with these contradiction. The last few hundred years of philosophy have seen many questions regarding some of the arguments for God's existence raised by such philosophers as Immanuel Kant, David Hume and Antony Flew, although Kant held that the argument from morality for the existence of God was valid. The theist response has been either to contend, like Alvin Plantinga, that faith is "properly basic"; or to accept, like Richard Swinburne, the evidentialist position. No argument has thus far been put forward which conclusively affirms or denies God's existence, although they can tell us what attributes God could not have.


 * The belief that God does not exist is termed atheism; those which conclude that the answer to the question of God's existence is unknown or unknowable are variants of agnosticism. Alternative religious positions to belief in this deity include polytheism, which claims that there are multiple deities rather than one supreme one, and pantheism, which ascribes the divine properties of God or gods to the Universe itself or parts of it.

The current version has been evolving over several weeks now, and Jayng is attempting to make a wholesale change that undoes the work of many collaborating editors. --Serge 17:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, ElinorD reverted back to the "supreme reality" wording, without explanation here. I don't want to get into a revert war. I would really appreciate it, though, if folks would discuss their changes here first. --Serge 18:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Is there anyone besides Jayng who supports this over the current wording? That must be a rhetorical question, since at least two other editors have reverted to it. Jayjg (talk) 20:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I posted here yesterday, saying that the stuff about atheism etc. shouldn't be in the lead in an article about God. I put the same thing in my edit summary. ElinorD (talk) 20:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Yep, it shouldn't be. &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  22:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Will someone please remove he vandalism in the first line?

First sentence
Okay, let's deal with the first sentence, which is currently:
 * God is the deity believed by monotheists to be the supreme reality.

As noted above, and not addressed by anyone, the wording of the first sentence implies that the deity exists and the only question is whether he is the (meaningless) "supreme reality" or not. This violates NPOV.

How about this?


 * Monotheists most commonly refer to the deity in which they believe as God.

--Serge 18:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm certainly willing to discuss potential changes to the intro, once you restore the properly written one. Regarding this introduction, it is all wrong; it is not about the terms "monotheists" use, but rather "God" is, in fact, the English term or name for that deity. Moreover, most monotheists do not refer to that deity as "God". Some English speaking ones do, but Muslims would say "Allah", Jews would say "Hashem" or "Adonai", and Christians would often say "The Lord" or "Jesus Christ". And that's just English speakers. Jayjg (talk) 20:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that "the deity that they believe and often claim exists" sounds rather inelegant. Also, the word "claims" should be avoided. ElinorD (talk) 20:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed, the wording, which was once readable and elegant, has deteriorated significantly, which was one of the reasons for restoring an earlier version. It suffered from the usual Wikientropy; people of various POVs keep trying to force their own agenda into the lead, and in the back and forth tussle, the once readable prose turns into a serious of poorly connected arguments. Jayjg (talk) 20:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Fix it anyway you like. All I've changed is the first sentence. My only strong objection is to the meaningless "supreme reality" term. So feel free to make incremental changes to the current version, but please do not revert to the "supreme reality" language.  Perhaps it makes sense in some context where "supreme reality" is defined, but not as opening sentence or paragraph of an article.  It explains nothing and simply raises more question.   supreme reality.  --Serge 21:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Is this any better, or worse?


 * God commonly refers to the only deity that monotheists believe, and often claim, exists.

--Serge 22:46, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Middle ground: just as bad. &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  22:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Can you be more specific? What's the problem?  How can it be improved? --Serge 22:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * It's hardly NPOV, is it? As Elinor noted, "claim" needs to go. &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  22:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I wrote the first sentence as I did because anything else was either in accurate or POV. I used the examples of Mormons above and ancient Greeks above. They both worship deities they may address as "God", but in neither case is this the only god, and neither are monotheists. Any opening must be inclusive of these cases if it is to be complete.

I do think it's more than a little useless to take words that are commonly translated "God" and say they do not apply to the subject of the article. English-speakers say "God"; in German it's "Gott"; to Greeks it's "ho Theos"; in Arabic (for both Muslim and Christian) it's "Allah"; in Hebrew it's "Elohim" (no, neither haShem nor Adonai, which are both specifically euphemisms for YHVH); etc., etc., etc. All these words are talking about the same thing. Unless the article is about the word rather than it's referent, this is the wrong direction to take it, unless someone wants it to be about linguistics instead of religious belief. Of course both Jews and Christians have other names by which they address or refer to God, but I don't see how this is either here or there.

On "supreme reality" -- I'm reasonably well-educated in theology, and I have no idea what is meant by this. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Jim62sch has changed the 1st sentence to this:
 * God most commonly refers to the deity worshipped by monotheistic and monolatrist religions, believed to be the creator of the universe.

Seems acceptable to me, except that religions don't worship, people do. --Serge 23:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Oops. Should be OK now.   &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  00:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I made a few changes. I'm not wedded to any of them. Change them back if you like. semper fictilis 00:53, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Monolatrist religions do not necessarily teach that their God created the universe. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * So maybe we should distinguish the monolatrist from the monotheist position. Str1977 (smile back) 12:19, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Do we really need "ruler and creator"? The lede would be better without it, in my opinion.  semper fictilis 12:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think so. It is quite an important part of most beliefs in God. Str1977 (smile back) 17:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That is one of the things that distinguishes the god of a monotheistic religion from the gods of polytheistic religions. In the case of polytheism the various godly attributes are divided up (and there is usually a hierarchy).  In other words, Str is correct.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  18:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * So for the purposes of this article we're distinguishing "God" as meant by Christians, Jews, and Muslims from "God" as meant by, say, Mormons? TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Contradictions reloaded
Once upon a time I objected to some wording in the intro, as archived now here. The issue was never resolved and I still see t he same problems present. The passage in question is:

''Many medieval philosophers developed arguments for and against the existence of God, [3] attempting to wrestle with the contradictions implied by the various attributes generally ascribed to God. For example, omniscience implies that God would know how free agents will choose to act: if he does know this, their free will is illusory, and if he does not know it, he is not omniscient.''

The problem is that there is a logical fallacy in the argument given (in the bold part), either because the editor writing this or the argument reported here confused predestination and providence. While the passage correctly defines providence (deducing it from omniscience) it then narrates a contradiction that applies to predestination. How shall we proceed.

Do really all instances of this contradiction contain the fallacy? In either case, should we report it?

The second argument reported is at least consistent (noting the objections raised in the archive about omnipotent), though it should be better attributed instead of being reported as a fact. But my main concern is the first one. Str1977 (smile back) 12:19, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I didn't write this, but how is it a contradiction? In the context of "God", omniscience implies future as well as current knowledge.  But knowledge of the future implies predestination, which negates free will.
 * Omniscience(future) → predestination → free will.
 * --Serge 17:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for replying. That's exactly the fallacy I decry. Predestination posits problems for free will but omniscience/providence does not and though both predestination and providence are two Christian beliefs they are not identical (and especially about the former there are huge disagreements). Since God is outside of time he knows "beforehand" what anyone will do regardless of His predestinating anyone for anything. Consider the book example I related in the linked archive.
 * Omniscience ≈ Providence ≠ Predestination ←→ Free will
 * Str1977 (smile back) 18:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * However, whether you argeee with it or not, whether or not you think it's a fallacy, it is a legitimate argument that has been raised for aeons. Our purpose is merely to describe the argument, not to decide on it's merits.   &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  18:47, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Jim, I am concerned about phrasing the argument correctly, even if it has been phrased incorrectly (or colloquially) many times. We are an encyclopedia and as such we should be accurate. The issue the confusion of Providence with Predestination. And you will not find me here discussing the merits of the argument, once properly phrased. Str1977 (smile back) 18:53, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * By all means let's get it phrased properly, but for that we need citations. What would be best would be a cite containing the history of the concepts of Providence and Predestination in addition to the proper framing of the argument.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  20:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * This might be of interest. . However, given that this concept is so disputed I doubt that we're going to find anything pithy to explain "free will" in a way short enough for this article.   &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  21:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The linked article contains neither providence/omniscience nor omnipotence/predestination, though the argument is (of course) closer to the latter when it says "omni-determining". Is the article currently used as a reference avaiable online? Str1977 (smile back) 13:26, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

scholar
I don't know much about Al-Ghazali and Maimonides, but the word "scholar" is not the best term for Augustine. In my mind, the word scholar is about someone whose work involves working on someone else's ideas. Augustine is a thinker, intellectual, philosopher, etc. How well does this fit for A-G and Maimonides? semper fictilis 12:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It isn't a good term for any of them. They are really theologian philosophers (hyphenated, probably).  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  18:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Are you guys seriously contending theologians and philosophers are not scholars? Augustine for instance worked on other people's ideas, Jesus' for instance. Roy Brumback 05:11, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The word "scholar" implies a formal education, derived as it is from the Latin for school. It's quite possible to be a philosopher or theologian without that. That most philosophers and theologians are scholars simply suggests that education either provides useful habits of thought for those pursuits, or that a certain amount of learning is beneficial for them, but there's no need to say that either is a scholar per se. TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Intro again?
I see that after much debate and work on the intro a fairly good new version was pretty much replaced with a version from a couple of months ago that had several theological arguments in it when they belong in the theology section. An intro should simply state there are several arguments for and against the existence of God and leave the details to the appropriate section or article. And the fact that the majority of people believe in the monotheistic God of the article seems germane to an intro of the subject.

I see Marx and Freud have crept back in despite the fact that I pointed out months ago that their arguments against God are simply an Appeal to motive and cited Alister McGrath pointing out that many philosophers feel that they are begging the question as they implicitly assume that God does not exist in order to reach the conclusion that belief in God is based on something other that the truth.

As for Harris et. al's arguments against God based on what they feel are religion's bad effects, these are simply an Appeal to consequence and also a logical fallacy. I suppose they can be reinserted in the theology section with the logical fallacy counters but that seems a little pointless. Roy Brumback 05:24, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

___________________________________________________________________________

The following is a new line of discussion from SLFord. Apologies to Roy Brumaker should anyone believe he added this note. I feel there should be an additional section under God:

How and why people choose to believe in God. This ought to cover the latest discoveries on the brain: God is a product of the temporal lobe thus humans had to have a highly developed brain before they could ‘think’ about any form of God. Stimulation of the temporal lobe will lead to religious experiences and visions dependent up on the cultural upbringing of the individual: someone raised in a catholic country will see a western version of Christ, a Muslim will see Mohamed, a red Indian a grey wolf, etc.

Secondly: the need we have to explain ourselves along with the world in which we find ourselves. God explains why the sun comes up in the morning until we learn how the world rotates around the sun; the crops fail because of God until we learn about climate, farming and insects; we are created by God until we learn about evolution and DNA; etc

Just a question
Is the photo at the top of the page included as that of God? Is that appropriate? -- Amit 18:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you mean Michaelangelo's Sistine Chapel? Yes, in fact, we have argued this endlessly, I'm afraid.  Looking through the article now, I see that the only representations of God are by Michaelangelo; at some point, other traditions were better represented.  I would be happy to see more images from other traditions included.  Note that the topmost image is not part of the article proper but from the  template.  Given that the Sistine Chapel God appears in that chunk, I don't see a good reason to use the same image later in the article.  bikeable (talk) 18:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * And I just removed it from the template. It seemed patently wrong to place an image in a template like God when most monotheists don't believe that any such image can meaningfully depict him. TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Blogspot source used
According to WP:V "blogs are largely not acceptable as sources" - hence the rollback. SparrowsWing (talk) 03:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * This is nonsense. What makes a blog unreliable is that any idiot can write one, and many do. The link you deleted, though, was to a video that's hosted by Google, not the blog. Even though the blog is, for our purposes, unreliable, the video is still 100% reliable.
 * Your reversion is based on a lame excuse, so I've taken that excuse away by linking directly to Google. Have fun trying to convince us that Google is an unreliable souce or that the video is faked. Do not revert again. ThAtSo 05:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, ThAtSo.I'm just trying to make the external links section a little balanced with different perspectives.Giovanni33 06:14, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * AGF please. Maybe tone it down a little bit too? Arkon 20:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

please be quiet all of you!

My reference is incorrect.
I view this page once in a while because my article "the god particle" has been referenced as an external site for several years (www.freewebs.com/thegodparticle). Today I noticed that my name - Joel Schlecht - was still mentioned but my articles link disappeared. As I do not edit this article or any other on wikipedia, I was wondering if someone would put it back. This is only because I think it is a mistake. If the article does not belong here that is another story. However my article was used as part of an answer for google answers.

Thank You,

Joel Schlecht 24.209.156.169 23:56, 13 August 2007 (UTC)