Talk:God/Archive 21

Controversial Edit
In responds to the god dosnt exist statment: if god wanted the section to be removed he would remove it. god exists whether people believe in him or not. god has control over all people and things. secondly god dose not let bad things happen in this world. bad things happen because humans are to hard to teach, god sends a warning to people before bad things happen and we do not heed those warnings. third in proverbs it clearly states that gods wisdom is not mans wisdom so anyone who tries to prove or disprove the existants of god is chasing the wind.lastly the bible is based on faith which means an unquestioning believe in someone. It was brought to my attention by a friend of mine that under the section titled Etymology and Usage, there was the phrase 'GOD DOESN'T EXIST'. I created this account simply to edit the section and remove that offensive statement only to find I would have to wait four days to do so. I realize that the topic of God is an easily debated subject, however, I believe this page should be dedicated to facts and not potentially offensive material. I would hope that the statement be removed and that the article return to being factual and not a billboard for rude opinions. Thank you.

Rangeley1029 21:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I removed the vandalism. -- Gogo Dodo 21:15, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Technically, if this article is dedicated to facts then this phrase should be included.72.209.69.251 15:52, 19 September 2007 (UTC)ForgotMyLogin

If this article were based on facts "God" would be referred to in the same way as any other character in a science fiction book. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.4.47.233 (talk) 04:38, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

You know what? He does, can scientists explain how life began? No, It's not a fact... It's an opinion. Oh my Opinion is bannanas rule over humans.

Other guy: Oh that's a fact put it in there! 'Ya know what, no.

Make it a theory, alright? —Preceding unsigned comment added by24.166.21.38 (talk) 15:33, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Some of us seem to forget the importance of neutrality on wikipedia. Saying 'God is not real' is more of an opinion than a fact.OtherAJ 00:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It's not a matter of opinion; the statement is either true or false. But none of us can definitively show which it is. Ilkali 20:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It's a matter of philosophy, and taking either side in a philosophical matter is definitely POV. And before anyone mentions that it's a matter of religion or faith, those are philosophy. Pyrospirit  ( talk  ·  contribs ) 20:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not advocating taking a side. I'm just saying that the existence of gods is not a matter of opinion. Ilkali 21:27, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I see your point that we cannot actually know one way or the other and I agree. Regardless, unverifiable facts that happen to be the subject of controversy are also POV when stated in a vacuum. Olleicua 16:00, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree, of course. Ilkali 16:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

First I would like to point out that a fact need not be true to be a fact. My car happens to be red, but if I tell my insurance company my car is blue that is still a fact. However the ability for a statement to be true or false is dependant not only in form but content as well. If one were to say that a hamburger is juicy, this same scentence can be either an opinion or a fact depending on the context and the interpretation of the word juicy. My position on the matter of God's existence falls analagous to this concept. I would like to point out that any analogy pushed too far will fail and I simply place the juicy analogy as a matter to help understand and clarify. In regards to God's existence, their exists both an opinion and a factual (although I make no claim as to the validity of the factuality as it is clearly impossible) interpretation of the term God. God exists in humanity not only as an actual entity but as a concept as well. God, as interpreted as an entity, would bring reliance to fact, where as "God" as a philosphy can be viewed as opinion. I, as disclaimer, warrant and even go so far as to beg challenge and leave myself open to interpretation of my opinions. Any light that can be shed on the matter, even if it goes so far as to show I am entirely wrong, would be greatly obliged.(sorry forgot to sign)Bloxslave 07:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * First I would like to point out that a fact need not be true to be a fact.  Ummm... what?! JuJube 07:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't be alarmed; the Wikipedia crack pipe confiscation team are on holiday this week. Things will return to some semblance of sanity once they return. Love, Lewis Collard! (rock me mama like a southbound train) 07:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

A fact is something that is either true or false. A false statement is still a fact. It is a mistaken fact, but a fact none the less (and thats a fact).Bloxslave 07:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The OED doesn't support your claim, and apparently neither do the intuitions of the people responding to you. A fact is understood, in neutral contexts, to be a proposition that is objectively true. Ilkali 08:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * "Fact has a long history of usage in the sense “allegation of fact,” as in “This tract was distributed to thousands of American teachers, but the facts and the reasoning are wrong” (Albert Shanker). This practice has led to the introduction of the phrases true facts and real facts, as in The true facts of the case may never be known. These usages may occasion qualms among critics who insist that facts can only be true, but the usages are often useful for emphasis." Also note that even on the wikipedia page for fact, "Alternatively, "fact" may also indicate an allegation or stipulation of something that may or may not be a "true fact", (e.g., "the author's facts are not trustworthy"). This alternate usage, although contested by some, has a long history in standard English." Bloxslave 08:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * What you claimed earlier was that any proposition could be described as a fact, whether anybody asserted it or not, but the sources you quote give a more restrictive meaning: the propositions must be purported to be true. And it's not clear if this new meaning is lexical or just a pragmatic extension. So given that the word can take a certain meaning in certain contexts, why should we assign that meaning in this context?


 * And what does this have to do with the article? Ilkali 09:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

For what its worth a definetly to beat a dead horse, I'm to lazy to look for the OED but the handy dandy Merriam Webster online says the following: Main Entry: fact Pronunciation: \ˈfakt\ Function: noun Etymology: Latin factum, from neuter of factus, past participle of facere Date: 15th century 1: a thing done: as aobsolete : feat b: crime carchaic : action 2archaic : performance, doing 3: the quality of being actual : actuality  4 a: something that has actual existence  b: an actual occurrence 5: a piece of information presented as having objective reality — in fact : in truth So per Def. 3 a Fact must be true, per Def. 5 it does not, it merely must be presented as such. -signed "and who really gives a hoot" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.16.146.33 (talk) 20:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Taking this into account with the article, should atheism be mentioned? It is a view about God and so should probably be mentioned.  Midorihana(talk)(contribs) 08:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that perhaps the question of God's existence should be mentioned but not the atheist movement itself.  May you go in God's care.  Peter Deer (talk) 22:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Just in case anyone is wondering, Bloxslave is right about the topic of the definition of the word FACT. In an effort to make things simple, the definition of the word FACT is basicly a statement that can be proven true or false. However, most people assume that usage of the word FACT is most likely going to mean that the statement is true. Any statement that definitively states the existance of God to be true or false is not a fact then because it cannot be proven true or false. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fizzos98 (talk • contribs) 06:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, that is not true at all. You are thinking of a proposition, the definition of which is "A statement that is either true or false", and this excludes opinionated subjects.  Then logical definition of a fact is something that is true, period.   Prussian725 (talk) 23:14, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Something that can be proved either true or false is a theory (proposition works fine too). While something may be presented as a 'fact', something is only actually a fact if it is true.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 19:11, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

What really needs to be realized here is that religion was originally created to explain things early humans had no knowledge about, like how the universe was created for example. Christianity is just a spin on that. God is an opinion an that is that. If The christians god was real, why wouldn't everybody just follow christianity? Or the same with every other religion. We don't know how the universe was created. So god must have done it, right? Wrong. I just proved my earlier point. We don't know how it happened, so some greater power created it. It's the easy way out. The best way to say it i that we don't know how the universe was created and we never will know. There is NO PROOF of a god, a heaven, or also, Jesus. So if you think you can find out how the universe was created by playing 20 questions with God in heaven, it's not gonna happen. And people can have their opinion, i don't mind, it's called the first amendment here in America. But it still goes on to prove my first point. Scientists don't have to explain things to prove that it wasn't "God". God's Wikipedia article,(as well as Jesus's) should be treated the same as, say, Buddah or Muhammad and stick with Wikipedia's Neutrality.
 * Actually, there is some evidence that Jesus existed, but there is no evidence that he is actually Christ. The article cannot state that god does exist, nor can it state that he does not exist.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 19:14, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * First off, you said "should be treated...with Wikipedia's Neutrality.",I agree. This is Wikipedia and therefore it shoul be neutral and unbiased. However you could have just gone ahead and said that instead of trying to prove something you can't prove. This website is for presenting facts and not your opinions. You also said this "Scientists don't have to explain things to prove that it wasn't "God".". This is entirely false, it is not fact, it is your POV, it does not belong here, and if you want to argue about theology than please go to another website for that purpose.--Fizzos98 (talk) 01:35,19June 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you Fizzos.Prussian725 (talk) 15:53, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Removed non-topical edits
Hi! This talk page is for discussing the article, not for expressing ones personal thoughts on the subject. Removed non-topical entries. See Talk page guidelines. Best, --Shirahadasha 04:40, 9 September 2007 (UTC) ALFRED ACKLEY 1. you can not deny my experience 2. I haven't experienced God 3. God doesn't exists (you can not deny that)

Logic has nothing to do with personal opinion. Neither does fact.Prussian725 (talk) 19:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Frankly if we are going to go into logical fallacy battles over the existence or nonexistence of God here you might as well rename Wikipedia totse and get it over with.
 * Discuss the article. Adding things to the article requires neutral, reliable, and verifiable sources. If it's not regarding these things then it doesn't need to be here. Peter Deer (talk) 22:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * actually, I CAN deny that, most of the world does, remember your all powerful scientists are a tiny minority. God DOES exist, and you can deny that, but thats bad for younot me.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Metal9383 (talk • contribs) 02:52, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Reliable sources for the term dharmic religions?
Where are the reliable sources that use the term dharmic religions in the context of this article? Dharmic religions is a now deleted obscure neologism and should not be used throughout Wikipedia. Andries 15:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I propose to use the alternative phrase Indian religions. The number of google scholar results for "Indian religions"+"Indian religion" is (1,970 + 3,050) while it is only for "dharmic religions" + "dharmic religion" (3+5). See Deletion_review/Log/2007_September_8. Andries 19:21, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I just updated the google scholar search numbers to reflect a shift that shows how the term dharmic is shrinking even more. I also deleted the repeated number set for the dharmic religion just to be tidy although I emphasize that I only edited this comment to show that I not only strongly agree but that with recent trends it is even more important to emphasize this and although I feel myself too much of a newbie to take the matter into my own hand, I make suggestion that Dharmic tradition (religion) page point out that the term is out of date and should be avoided.Bloxslave 07:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

News item?
What are the reasons for adding a non-notable news item to this article? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:07, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I am referring to this: http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Nebraska_Senator_sues_God Funny, but not necessarily notable for this article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:08, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * If it was non-notable Wikinews wouldn't have covered it. I suppose the real question is, "Does Humour Belong in Wikipedia?" --Brianmc 20:30, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

God and Buddhism
In the article under "Conceptions of God" it say: "The dharmic religions differ in their view of the divine, ranging from the almost polytheistic view of God in Hinduism to the almost non-theist view of God in Buddhism. "

There is no God in Buddhism. Buddhism is purely atheist.

Buddhism simply does not belong in the article.

(Ajahn Patisallano 13:47, 4 October 2007 (UTC))


 * This is inaccurate. In some Mahayana and Tantric Buddhism, there is found what essentially resembles a mystical sense of the Divine - the idea of the Eternal, all-loving and omnipresent Buddha (see God in Buddhism article). Only in Theravada Buddhism (minority Buddhism worldwide) can one say that there is categorically no Absolute Creator God affirmatively spoken of. Best wishes. From Dr. Tony Page. 14:30, 4 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyMPNS (talk • contribs)


 * It depends on what type of Buddhism you are describing. I believe there is an atheist version of Buddhism as well as a theist version (correct me if I'm wrong).  Midorihana(talk)(contribs) 05:27, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree. However, it should be noted that the Buddha himself did not wish to be deified into a god. --Benedict of Constantinople (talk) 23:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, He is correct Buddha never claimed to be a God nor ever even mentioned a God, Buddha was just a guy trying to figure out how to end suffering and found a great way of living in the process. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nothingbutgrains (talk • contribs) 18:47, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Etymology and usage
I question whether the Arabic Allah is derived from a verb. I would like to see sources that claim this derivation.My experience with the Arabic language makes me believe the verb to be derived from allâh. Take for example the verb taHaTLaRa, which means to behave like Hitler, would this make Hitler be derived from tahatlara? Arabic generally makes verbs from the noun, which is in this case Allah.

I have learned that (‘a)l-lâh is the definite form of lâh, which is Arabic for god. The particle (‘a)l translates as the, making (‘a)l-lâh the god, or simply God.

Unless someone can show academic sources of derivation, this part should be modified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.229.68.74 (talk) 11:22, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Saying that Allah comes from the verb Allaha is like saying that the word Deity comes from the word Deify. So it's a little absurd, no? Jordalus 15:47, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Food for thought, Jordalus; consider as you wish: there is a school of thought that says that there are no objects (i.e., no nouns)...only the "unfolding now."  Couple that thought with the panentheistic idea that God is all there is, or ever will be, and the thought becomes distilled that the truth lies closer to God being a verb rather than a noun.  Again...for your consideration.--71.42.142.238 16:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Nouns and verbs are defined morphosyntactically, not semantically. Ilkali 07:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Also note: both the word father and mother are transitive verbs in their own right...not just nouns.--71.42.142.238 16:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I would like to add the following information to the entry "El" as a Name of God: According to The Oxford Companion To World Mythology (David Leeming, Oxford University Press, 2005, page 118), "It seems almost certain that the God of the Jews evolved gradually from the Canaanite El, who was in all likelihood the 'God of Abraham'...If El was the high god of Abraham - Elohim, the prototype of Yahveh - Asherah was his wife, and there are archeological indications that she was perceived as such before she was in effect 'divorced' in the context of emerging Judaism of the seventh century B.C.E. (See 2 Kings 23:15)"Bartbandy 01:01, 23 October 2007 (UTC)—–

Abba: Jesus refered to God as this... It could be a word for God. Or of course, as is the truth, it is the hebrew for "Father" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.97.94 (talk) 12:05, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Jehovah
Jesus's name presupposes a name for God that uses a y or j- his name means "God saves" and y or the anglicized j is used to prefix in the name of God (as supposed to be Yahweh or Jehovah)...the specific god of Jesus's heritage. Moses knew God by that name, Jesus was God by that name. The name of God goesd to His personal existence as He chooses to make himself known. The name of God, as first given to Moses from God while on the mountain where the burning bush was is spelled out in most Hebrew texts that have the "safe" spelling with a y to start it- the y gets anglicised to a j through the King James type of midset in transliterating. I can't offer much more of as guess than this relative to the other letters h,w,orh. I've heard that many Jews were so concerned about using the name of Gods in vain, a violation of one of the 10 cammandments that they refused to say Hiis name at all, eliminating the vowels from the given name as a method of safekeeping the name, this led to using the term Lord, often capitalized LORD in the Bible as a substitute for the given name of God. sorry to be so wordy- have a nice day —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.16.189.155 (talk) 16:57, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Someone out there please give a really serious answer. Judaism stopped [historically stopped; of course you still have later developments like Torah and contemporary commentaries and religious authors] at Old Testament. Christianity stopped at New Testament. Islam stopped at Koran / Quran. My friends are saying that God and Allah are the same except being called by different names. That the development [Judaism to Christianity to Islam] followed the same tradition. That when Christians fight with Moslems, it is brothers against brothers. Is this true? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ReikazeGyoame (talk • contribs) 01:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The name Jehovah is found on a subheading of YHWH. the name Jehovah should be listed seperately with references of the New World Translation. Jehovah's Witnesses are a religion that use the name and do not profess to any association with YHWH when refering to GOD. there are also other religious groups that use the name in reference to GOD. I believe they also use the New World Translation as their bible, however this may need to be confirmed. 65.163.203.130 19:11, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Jehovah's witnesses believe that Jehovah is the most common and longest used form of YHWH in English. while they make no claim that it is the correct pronunciation, they definitely connect it to the Hebrew letters Yod Heh WaW Heh transliterated as JHVH in English.Jiohdi (talk) 03:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

history of monotheism
It seems to me that this section should be it's own article or part of monotheism article. Olleicua 16:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

"Names" section
The "Names of God" section has apparently gotten completely out of hand, just by accumulation of well-meaning additions. There is a dedicated Names of God article, and the section in this article should only give the briefest summary of that, not replicate the full list of names (WP:SS, WP:CFORK). dab (𒁳) 13:37, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

The claim that Judaism had "henotheistic" origins is incorrect and misleading, despite being unsourced. Please remove. 213.8.159.152 (talk) 22:27, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

GA Sweeps (on hold)
This article has been reviewed as part of WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that need to be addressed: I will check back in no less than seven days. If progress is being made and issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far. Regards, Van Tucky  talk 21:23, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) The fact tags in Theism and Deism must be dealt with by the application of inline citations.
 * 2) The last sentence of Theological approaches asserts a possibly controversial claim without an inline citation.
 * 3) Etymology and usage needs inline cites for each specific etymological claim.
 * 4) The last paragraph of Monotheism and pantheism, as well as the Dystheism and Non-theism section, need inline citations.
 * 5) The textual reference to see also Satanism needs to be converted in to a seealso template link.
 * 6) The External links section needs paring down.
 * "The textual reference to see also Satanism needs to be converted in to a seealso template link." - That would require the link to be at the top of the section, rather than at the end of the paragraph, right? Having "See also: Satanism" under the header "Dystheism and nontheism" might set up bad associations. It might be better to include mention of Satanism within the text? Ilkali (talk) 23:06, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * To my understanding, seealso templates can also be placed between paragraphs and at the end of a section. The beginning is just a custom. However, you could convert it to a regular textual reference to Satanism, which would eliminate the need for a see also link. Whatever you want is fine, so long as it is not an untemplated, inline see also reference like it is now. Van Tucky  talk 23:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Links to Dawkins in the references section?
If we're going to put links in the God article that are clearly against theism, why don't we put a link to the Bible and every other religious text we can think of on the atheism article?24.170.229.78 (talk) 13:08, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Dawkins' books are about theism. The bible isn't about atheism. Ilkali (talk) 18:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Richard Dawkins' books are about ANTI-theism (esp. monotheism). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.79.96.82 (talk) 18:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Richard Dawkins specifically is about theism, particularly monotheism. He discourages the practice of religion. Generally, you would call this atheism. Also, it is important that the controversies against the idea of the existence of a supreme being be put in this article, as this topic is highly controversial now. --Benedict of Constantinople (talk) 23:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * So is evolution.Prussian725 (talk) 23:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Evolution really isn't about God/gods (as I understand it). There's always the article Existence of God to look at, in any case.  Midorihana   みどり  はな  00:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I think Evolution more likely describes how past life has slowly changed to become what life is today. Meanwhile, Atheism probably uses Evolution as a way to contradict intelligent design and Theism. --Benedict of Constantinople (talk) 00:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


 * However, this talk page is for discussion of the God article, not evolution or atheism. Midorihana   みどり  はな  00:16, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


 * But we're talking about whether (and how) evolution and atheism should be should be included in the God article. --Benedict of Constantinople (talk) 03:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Atheism is a view about God; it can be briefly covered in the article like non-theism is, I feel. Evolution, however, doesn't seem to do much with God IMO (although of course I could be wrong). It talks about how the various forms of life came about, instead of the origin of said life. Midorihana   みどり  はな  09:22, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I think (being a rabid theist myself.) that Atheism should be included in the article, as the article is regarding the concept of God and Atheism is a belief in the lack of a God based on certain arguments or a perceived insufficiency of evidence or logic. Thus, atheism is an important perspective on the concept. As far as evolution is concerned, I think that largely the issue is with perceived or imagined incompatibilities in the concepts, as well as public scandals regarding the inclusion of religious teaching in education and opposition by adherents to the teaching of evolution. I think that is much less related to the concept of God itself, and I don't see much reason to include it in this article. Peter Deer (talk) 10:11, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree. Atheism definitely should be included in the article. As for evolution, there is not much reason to include it in this article. However, I think Deism should be expanded in this article. The famous "Spinoza's God" is pretty important. I think, -Midorihana-, that you have some pretty good sources for this? --Benedict of Constantinople (talk) 00:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't know exactly what gave you the impression that I had sources on hand for Spinoza and his god (although I can see how you would come to that conclusion :D ), but here's something from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: . Midorihana   みどり  はな  04:34, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Whoops. Sorry, my mistake. I can't use any book sources as I am away from any of my books. But are we allowed to use information from other encyclopedias? --Benedict of Constantinople (talk) 08:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

← Sorry, I thought you wanted a quick reference. :D It's a tertiary source, so it's okay for a summary or overview of the subject (I think, according to No_original_research). Midorihana  みどり  はな  08:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The Abrahamic God
The "Abrahamic" God of Christianity and Judaism, YHWH, is not the same as Allah. The article should be changed accordingly, as should other articles that mention YHWH (such as Creationism).

71.254.201.182 (talk) 17:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * As I understand it, Allah is generally considered an Abrahamic god. Ilkali (talk) 18:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * If you look up the etymology of the word Allah, it comes from the hebrew and aramaic words for God (in particular, El, Eloah, Elohim, and Elaha.) The Quran specifically mentions that Allah is the same God that spoke with Adam in the garden of Eden, and with Noah and Moses and Christ and all the other prophets of Christianity and Judaism. The assertion that Allah is a different God from that comes either from ignorance of Arabic's semetic origins, misunderstanding of Islam's claims, or just from a desire to discredit the Islamic concept of God as being a separate God when, in fact, Islam does and has only ever claimed to worship the same single God as Judaism and Christianity. Peter Deer (talk) 07:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Trinitarians cannot accept Allah as the same God as Jews and christians, however many jews cannot accept the trinity as the same God either. There are however, non trinitarian christians and the God of the muslims is closer to the God of the jews then the trinity. Unitarian christians hold that the trinity was the invention of pagan converts to christianity when the jewish core had faded.Jiohdi (talk) 04:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

- Allah is a combination of the native "god" in Arabs and God in the Old Testament as understood by Mohammed. The native god has various nature of a local god. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.79.96.82 (talk) 18:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

The Abrahamic gods are a category of gods, not a god. Rds865 (talk) 18:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Protected tag
Do we really need this tag at the top of the article? Wouldn't just a cross in the corner suffice? Anyway why do the IPs and new users need to know? They will find out if they try to edit it. It just provides 5 wikilinks to distract the reader who came here to find out about God. Harland1 (t/c) 14:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Nature of article
I'm not an atheist, but I do believe in a pluralistic society of varying views. I believe this entire article could well be headed with something along the lines of "The concept of God is held by those who follow most modern religions, but like any metaphysical phenomena it can neither be proved nor disproved by conventional logical tools." Anything from there on out should read like truth without a lot of fine print or disclaimers. Such wording dispersed throughout detracts from the usefulness of the article to readers sincerely seeking knowledge. Atheists do not own the concept of God; anything historical or faith-based of the sort does indeed exist, and one cannot escape the effects of God on a believer's life, even if such effects are only feigned. Many people believe, and nobody can change that. Describing what they believe is the purpose of this article. Since no proof or disproof of God exists in literature, any such debate here is original research and against Wikipedia standards. kevinthenerd (talk) 18:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the article just about God, not how the lives of the faithful are affected by God? (I'm not too sure about that though.)  There are many attempts in literature to publish proofs or disproofs, like Richard Dawkins (in the God Delusion) and Rene Descartes (in his Meditations).  -- Midorihana (talk) (contribs)  23:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I believe that this article should only talk about the concept of God. (Although many will disagree.) In literature, there are many authors that try to prove or disprove the existence of God. I think some good examples come from Leo Tolstoy (War and Peace, and some of his essays), C.S. Lewis (Aslan, the Lion, is almost a direct reference to God), and Friedrich Nietzsche (his writings clearly try to disprove God.). --Benedict of Constantinople (talk) 23:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * This article is about the concept of God. :) It quickly summarizes the different beliefs in the monotheistic God and several positions on God. I think the article you're looking for is Existence of God. Midorihana   みどり  はな  03:25, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Flawed statements and poor referencing
There's a statement in the document that I am going to correct along with its poor referencing:

"In the English language the capitalization continues to represent a distinction between monotheistic "God" and the "gods" of polytheism.[5] The name "God" now typically refers to the Abrahamic God of Judaism, Christianity, Islam and the Bahá'í Faith. Though there are significant cultural divergences that are implied by these different names, "God" remains the common English translation for all." The reference [5] states the following: "^ Webster's New World Dictionary; "god n. ME < OE, akin to Ger gott, Goth guth, prob. < IE base * ĝhau-, to call out to, invoke > Sans havaté, (he) calls upon; 1. any of various beings conceived of as supernatural, immortal, and having special powers over the lives and affairs of people and the course of nature; deity, esp. a male deity: typically considered objects of worship; 2. an image that is worshiped; idol 3. a person or thing deified or excessively honored and admired; 4. [G-] in monotheistic religions, the creator and ruler of the universe, regarded as eternal, infinite, all-powerful, and all-knowing; Supreme Being; the Almighty"

This is a poor reference because it doesn't state anything about the use of capitalization. Someone made an assumption of this based on how they read the definition. If you go to dictionary.com and look up "god", here's what it says:

3.	(lowercase) one of several deities, esp. a male deity, presiding over some portion of worldly affairs. 4.	(often lowercase) a supreme being according to some particular conception: the god of mercy. 5.	Christian Science. the Supreme Being, understood as Life, Truth, Love, Mind, Soul, Spirit, Principle. 6.	(lowercase) an image of a deity; an idol. 7.	(lowercase) any deified person or object. 8.	(often lowercase) Gods, Theater. a.	the upper balcony in a theater. b.	the spectators in this part of the balcony. –verb (used with object) 9.	(lowercase) to regard or treat as a god; deify; idolize.

If you used this dictionary.com reference, the first sentence of the quote I'm correcting is acceptable, because this is a typical though not always followed convention. The second sentence is not referenced and isn't accurate. It excludes Hinduism. Hinduism has many sects and types of followings, some of which are polytheistic, others that are monotheistic, monist, etc. By stating that the name "God" now typically refers to the Abrahamic God of Judaism, Christianity, Islam and the Bahá'í Faith, this encyclopedia begins to assert that the above 4 religions have some kind of monopoly over the name "God". Please do not create rules or make presumptions about such things. Also note that there is no one (regardless of whether they are priests, imams, rabbis, pujaris, popes, etc) who has sufficient authority to decide which religions' followers have the right to use the word "God" with 'G' in capital.

Please choose your wording more carefully.

-Sarang —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarangdutt (talk • contribs) 21:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The Webster's online does state the use of capitalization, I believe. In the following text, the G- denotes the capitalization:


 * 4. [G-] in monotheistic religions, the creator and ruler of the universe, regarded as eternal, infinite, all-powerful, and all-knowing; Supreme Being; the Almighty


 * Looking at World Book online, capitalize if you are talking about a singular God, don't capitalize if you're talking about multiple gods. If you say 'the god' there is no capitalization.
 * Examples (from the world book article)
 * Don't capitalize:


 * Gods of nature. In the Shinto religion of Japan, gods are thought to reside in particular trees, rocks, and streams.


 * Also don't capitalize:


 * In Hindu tradition, the god Krishna is portrayed as a lovable and intimate human being, especially in stories about his childhood.


 * Capitalize:


 * Personal Gods. In many religions, people believe that a supreme God has been revealed as a friendly human being.


 * Hope that helps, Midorihana ∫ ∞ 21:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Their advice is bad advice. Capitalise proper nouns, don't capitalise common nouns. Ilkali (talk) 22:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, what source are you talking about? Midorihana ∫ ∞ 03:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm talking about the advice from "World Book online". Ilkali (talk) 07:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks. Midorihana ∫ ∞ 08:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Jargon in hatnote
The hatnote at the top of the article currently reads:

I think it'd be great if someone could rephrase it to remove the jargon (i.e. 'henotheism') that many people might not understand. Thanks very much :) Drum guy (talk) 22:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I internally linked the terms for quality. Happy editing,  Midorihana ~iidesu ne? 06:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Images
We've got two pictures of God in this article and they're both from the Sistine Chapel and both by Michaelangelo. Can we swap one of them out with some other depiction, perhaps from one of the other monotheistic traditions? Bryan Derksen (talk) 01:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Learn how to read books. When you do come back to contribute.  In the meantime, this BS has no place here,  No credible Biblical scholar makes ANY associatin between Anehamhat I and Abraham, thee is no connection. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 22:24, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

When I'm not logged in, I see the vandalism at the top of the page : GODS NOT REAL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1. When I log in, I can't see it. That's why I can't remove it. Can someone fix it ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.200.218.236 (talk) 12:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I saw it also.

This was from cut and paste when signed off.

on polytheistic usages. For other uses, see God (disambiguation)

1 God most commonly refers to the deity worshiped by followers of monotheistic and monolatrist religions

When I signed on it disappeared, but I could not seem to highlight the same area for copying without highlighting all of the links in the square area at the right side of the page.

This was the code in the page when both logged in and not logged in.

uses, see God (disambiguation)}}

(( god )) - note { replaced by ( and a space in this message

God most commonly refers to the deity worshiped by followers of

When I got rid of it and then put it back in again it seemed like the message went away when I logged off to view it that way, but I am not entirely sure if it is still there or not.

Edital (talk) 13:12, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * It will be hard to find more images of God from other Abrahamic religions. Islam forbids the portrayal of God. I think (correct me if I'm wrong) Muslims prefer to have their own, individual images of Allah. Portrayal of the Jewish God is hard to find in Judaism. I think only Christianity tries to portray God. The Creation of Adam has the most famous portrayal of God. Perhaps the views of God from different Christian cultures around the world? --Benedict of Constantinople (talk) 23:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, this article isn't solely about the Christian god, which is the problem. Midorihana   みどり  はな  00:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


 * My mistake. I think I meant religious views. However, I think that even if we take a look at different portrayals of God from different Christian cultures, it is possible to obtain different cultural views of God. People from different areas have different portrayals of Jesus Christ (the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church, as well as the Russian Orthodox Church clearly hold different images of Jesus, I think.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Benedict of Constantinople (talk • contribs) 08:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Sai Baba about God
The message for today - 21st February 2008 - says:
 * Thought for the Day


 * God is not involved in either reward or punishment. He only reflects, resounds and reacts. He is the eternal unaffected Witness. You decide your own fate. Do good, be good, you get good in return; be bad, do bad deeds, you receive bad results. Do not thank or blame God. He does not even will that creation, protection and destruction shall take place. They follow the same law, it is the innate law of the Maya-ridden (illusory) universe. Electric current, for example, can be used by us to power fans to get cool breeze, light bulbs for light, to magnify human speech, to make many copies of a printed sheet, etc. In all these cases, it creates, but if you grasp the bare wire which carries the current, you are killed. The current creates, it protects, it destroys; it all depends on how we utilize it.

- BABA

Although Satya Sai Baba is from Hindu background, he doesn't seem to belong to Hinduism only, since Hinduism is said to be a polytheistic religion. Nobody would accept this text to be inserted into a page on monotheism. Right? Should be inserted somehow, nevertheless, into the article.


 * Austerlitz -- 88.75.79.162 (talk) 14:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Atheism
As there are essentially two basic beliefs with regard to god- theism and atheism surely they are both very relevant to the article? I think atheism needs more than a mention- a section at least.


 * There are whole articles at Theism and Atheism. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

This article is about God. Atheism is not a belief in God, and therefore deserves no more a mention with a link.--Fizzos98 (talk) 01:40, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, atheism is a position regarding God's existence. In that sense it does deserve maybe a short paragraph in this article. Midorihana   みどり  はな  04:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Atheism is a philosophy about the existence of a deity. Since the God described in this article is considered a deity, atheism should be mentioned in at least a short paragraph. It is probably discussed even further in the Existence of God article. --Benedict of Constantinople (talk) 02:40, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Capitalization of the term "god" how come?
I'm cuios to know why the term "god" capitalized in the article. Would we write "the God Zeus" or "the god Zeus"? Sorry if this topic has already been covered. There are thousands of mythological gods so is the term "god" always capitalized? We don't capitalize the term "monkey" or "angel" in articles abount monkeys or angels. Just struck me as odd. Angry Christian (talk) 23:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Generally, "God" is captalized to distinguish God the all-powerful deity of which the article speaks of, to "god" a word that classifies several different powerful beings of polytheism, or simply a being with superhuman powers (like, uh, Light Yagami of Death Note claims to be. Sorry! ^_^) JuJube (talk) 00:01, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It should also be considered that when people refer to God they use the word "God" as His name. And yes, I capitalized, "His" out of personal respect, but while I would think it would be appropriate to capitalize the word God in the article, capitalizing the pronouns seems unencyclopedic to me, as it confers a note of reverence that is not applied to other individuals in articles. In other words, "God" is fine to be capitalized, but "He" "His" and the like should probably be kept lower-case. Peter Deer (talk) 03:25, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Hindu Concept of God
 * Austerlitz -- 88.72.29.72 (talk) 19:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes that is a link. Underline and blue text and everything. Peter Deer (talk) 20:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Check the Manual of Style for guidelines regarding the capitalization of deities. Midorihana ~iidesune?  06:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow. I'm actually surprised that they've specifically made that distinction. Cheers, wikipedia. Thanks midorihana. Peter Deer (talk) 19:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe God is referring to the god of Monotheism Christianity, because they are referring to one specific person, and the titles, pronouns, and nouns are capitalized because they are all considered proper nouns. If you are referring to a polytheistic god then it is a title and therefore not a proper noun, and would only be capitalized based on context.

EX.


 * Doctor Zeus is a doctor./God Zeus is a god.


 * God is capitalized here because it's used as a proper name for a certain (supposed)diety. Because of this, "gods" should NOT direct here, but rather to the article, "Deity".  Can someone make this change?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.119.126.195 (talk) 03:35, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia taken over by jesusfreak fundy types
The very fact that I'm directed to "God" with a capital gee when I type in "god" with no capitals shows christian bias clearly. Hindus don't believe in "God" with a capital gee and in fact Christians are fully outnumbered by "heathens". Anybody check the Buddhism stats lately? Seriously Wikipedians, stop being POV. It's sad.
 * Stop being dense. "god" "redirects" here because you can't make a separate article without the first letter being capitalized in this system. JuJube (talk) 02:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Type in 'deity.' And as to what Hindus believe, you need to read your vedas more often, and I think you'll find that there is an omnipotent omniscient omnipresent Being and similarly that hindu gods aren't excluded from wikipedia, they're included under devas, which is the Hindi word as opposed to the Germanic word 'god' which has gained popular usage in the english language. You might as well be complaining that the word "God" doesn't redirect to Allah. If it really makes that big of a difference to you then you should move to disambiguate, but what you shouldn't do is go off making prejudicial accusations because things aren't exactly the way you think they should be. Peter Deer (talk) 03:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I would just like to draw to EVERYONES Attention that God should always have a CAPITAL LETTER. User:cwatson334 (talk)18:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That depends on the context. OhNo itsJamie Talk 18:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 2nding this! goodone (talk) 18:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The manual of style on this matter is quite clear. In regards to God the singular Entity as perceived in Abrahamic religion it should always be a capital letter. In regards to the various gods of polytheistic religions it is regarded as lowercase, as the term God applies as though it were one of His names, and god in the polytheistic sense applies in the same form as "christian" as opposed to "Christ." However, pronouns (Him, His, etc.) and terms referring to God (Deity, Being, Divinity) are not capitalized, though the holy books (Bible, Quran, Zend-Avesta, Kitab-i-Iqan, etc.) are capitalized individually, but are not capitalized in their collective form (Scripture, Books, etc.) I hope this clears everything up. Peter Deer (talk) 05:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The specific page that states the policy about the capitalization of deities' names is this page: Manual of Style (capital letters). Midorihana ~iidesune?  07:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * If this article about the god of Abraham (aka "God") then it makes sense to capitalize the G; but if it's about the concept of "god" or about gods in general (there are so many of them) I would think "god" would make more sense. Again, if it's about a specific god (like Jesus' pappy) it makes sense to use God.  I see that leprechaun is not capilatized yet God is so I'm guessing the article is in fact about the god of Abraham and not god in general.  Angry Christian (talk) 23:24, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The article is about the term God in the context of monotheism, as it says at the top of the article. There are separate articles for gods and deities in polytheism. Midorihana ~iidesune?  02:22, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * indeed. Read the disambiguation note. Case closed. dab (𒁳) 16:32, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe God is referring to the god of Monotheism Christianity, because they are referring to one specific person, and the titles, pronouns, and nouns are capitalized because they are all considered proper nouns. If you are referring to a polytheistic god then it is a title and therefore not a proper noun, and would only be capitalized based on context.

EX.

Doctor Zeus is a doctor./God Zeus is a god. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fizzos98 (talk • contribs) 06:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Small article
This article needs to be expanded.AlexNebraska (talk) 23:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * In what way? Midorihana ~iidesune?  02:22, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Etymology and usage 2
The current etymology given is a hypothetical one, that is it is not an actual etymology, but a created one based on certain theoretical beliefs, and provided without citation at that. I would remove it since it does not provide any better idea of etymology then the suggested borrowing from Hebrew abbreviation of Gimmel-Dalet and its traditional interpretation of "running after the poor".--mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 22:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd like to propose deletion of anything Proto- as it is entirely theoretic and hypothetical and can not be illustrated from any source given there were no surviving speakers to provide evidence--mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 11:13, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Move to "God (monotheism)"
As in article titles there's no difference between God and god (all titles are capitalized), God should be a disambiguation page and not an article on the Judeo-Christian-Islamic MonoTheos, that is only one of the many possible meanings of the term god.

Also many authors (beginning with Spinoza) have used the term God (capitalized) to refer to very different concepts than the JCI MonoTheos.

Hence I strongly propose that the article is moved to a different title, of which God (monotheism) is surely the most adequate.

--Sugaar (talk) 22:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

finally, a useful idea. 76.28.195.113 (talk) 06:02, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Too much emphasis on philosophy
The lead section of this article spends too much time on philosophy/theology, and not enough on the modern and historical societal importance of belief in God, especially in the Western world. What is most significant about God isn't that philosophers have wrestled with definitional vagaries involved in the term; it's that a huge swathe of the population profess belief in God, and justify other of their beliefs and actions upon this belief. What matters above all else are the millions upon millions of laypeople theists out there, not the handful of little old theologians. For a concept like God, sociology comes before philosophy in importance, just like it does for religion (where the phenomenology of religious belief is vastly more focused upon than its veracity). -Silence (talk) 03:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

No, you are wrong. Wikipedia doesn't focus on what everyone's opinion is it focuses on the experts. Theology is the study of what God is. There might be too much emphasis on Atheism. Philosophers and Theologians have long been considered experts on who/what God is. Sociologists study societies, and perhaps is important if you are talking about religion and culture. This article is not about beliefs in God/god, but about God/god —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rds865 (talk • contribs) 18:26, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * In this article, emphasis on philosophy and theology is very important. For centuries, people have debated on what/who God is. It is only fitting that we should put their ideas into this article, which is about God, not about opinions of God. I think (please correct me if I'm wrong) Wikipedia only takes into account what is significant enough that people should know. It is not wise to create an article talking about everyone's different beliefs in God, as many people will follow a main idea of God (Christianity, Judaism, Islam, or Baha'i Faith), but perhaps slightly altered to fit their own lives. I hope that what I just said makes sense. --Benedict of Constantinople (talk) 00:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Not everyone's opinon on God can be included in the article, of course - the article would be very large then, which is why we have the articles on Christianity etc. as Benedict says. Midorihana   みどり  はな

Re-protection
The page has been vandalised by anonymous users over ten times since it was unprotected twelve hours ago. I think that makes a pretty good case for keeping it protected. Ilkali (talk) 19:36, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

God vs god
my understanding is that God is spelled God when referring to a monotheistic God, and god when referring to polytheistic a god. So if one was to refer to the one true God, it would be spelled God. if one was to compare the God of the Jews to the God of the Muslims, he could talk about the Gods. If one is talking about the possibility of a monotheistic God, they could ask is there a God. does anyone disagree with this? Rds865 (talk) 00:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Only on the notion that the Jewish God and the Muslim God are different things. Ask any Muslim if when they talk about Allah if they are referring to the Being which spoke to Adam and to Moses and to Abraham and they will say "Yes." But in regards to capitalizing the term 'God' as used in monotheistic practice, I agree that it should be capitalized, and in accordance with the Manual of Style that is the capitalization guideline that is recommended. I don't recall this being changed recently.  May you go in God's care.  Peter Deer (talk) 00:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Common nouns capitalise, proper nouns don't. If the word in question could be replaced with 'deity' without the sentence losing any coherence, you're probably dealing with the common noun form. Ilkali (talk) 06:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)8
 * Okay, this is probably how it works. Monotheists called Him God and Polytheists reffer to him as a god. And let's not forget the term "goddess" which is a her. just call them God is Monotheist being and a god or goddess if its polytheist being. Simple as that.--User:Angel David Commune with Heaven Spy on my Angelic Gifts 21:37, 23 April, 2008 (User Talker Contributor)
 * Wrong. The type of religion that the deity belongs to is irrelevant. Common nouns capitalise, proper nouns don't. Simple as that. Ilkali (talk) 07:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "When used alone in reference to a specific figure of veneration, start with a capital letter" so If I say my God, or his God it is capitalized. If I say is there is a god, it isn't. As far as the god/goddess thing, monotheistic gods, don't have gender, that would imply reproduction. Just like ships are always feminine, God is masculine. That doesn't make him a male or a female. Rds865 (talk) 18:17, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "so If I say my God, or his God it is capitalized". No. Common noun. Not capitalised. Ilkali (talk) 18:48, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * read the manual of style Rds865 (talk) 19:06, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I have. It's very poorly worded, but it backs me up. 1) "when used alone..." - What do you think this means? The writer doesn't seem to understand much about syntax, but I think the natural interpretation is that he/she is excluding instances with determiners. 2) "in reference to a specific figure" - In 'my god', the word god isn't referencing any entity, because it's a common noun. It denotes a set of entities, used in combination with a determiner to make a deictic reference. Contrast this with the proper noun God, which is referential by nature. Ilkali (talk) 19:20, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * As a Muslim, the Jews beleive in the same God as us, as the Christians do too. This is His article, and capitalisation must be in His name. A god is just a noun, such as "Neptune was a god in Roman times". Or even, "God is the god of Islam". Even in the Shahada in English, we say "There is no god but Allah". So it is simple English grammar rules, Proper noun = Capitalise, Common noun = lower case. :) Hope that cleared things up a bit. --88.149.117.47 (talk) 01:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "This is His article, and capitalisation must be in His name". I've no idea what you mean by this. "Proper noun = Capitalise, Common noun = lower case". Yeah, that's what I've been saying all along. Ilkali (talk) 05:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that there's been some misunderstanding here. Ilkali is right on the money regarding capitalization. When it refers to God (as in, God as if it were His name) then it is a proper noun and is capitalized, but when it refers to God as being "a god" or "godly" possessing of "godhead" or His status as a "single creator god of Abrahamic religion" for example, it is a common noun, and is not capitalized. Pip pip tally ho.  May you go in God's care.  Peter Deer (talk) 06:36, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Oops and I forgot I'd like to note that I personally just capitalize the pronouns and such in my sentences but that's because I'm a crazy religious whackjob coo coo cajoob it's not saying that you should do that in articles. Thanks!  May you go in God's care.  Peter Deer (talk) 06:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, Rds865, I note that you silently omitted the most important part: "Honorifics for deities, when used alone in reference to [...]". The common noun god is not an honorific, no matter how it's used. Ilkali (talk) 12:44, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If it's the name a person it's capatilized if its a tiltle or ting it's not capatilized. That's waht it was tought. Just put it the context they use it in.--Angel David (talk) 01:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no debate here, David. The MoS clearly prescribes capitalisation for proper nouns only. Ilkali (talk) 05:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Ilkali and Peter Deer here. Midorihana ~いいですね?  はい! 07:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

It's very straight-forward grammar. Take Don Coppersmith for example. He is a cryptographer and mathematician. He is not a coppersmith, however, it's probable that at least one of Coppersmith's ancestors was a coppersmith. Therefore, what's this nonsense doing in the intro "The singular, capitalized God of monotheistic religions is commonly contrasted with the gods of polytheistic religions."? J IM ptalk·cont 06:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The sentence "The singular, capitalized God of monotheistic religions is commonly contrasted with the gods of polytheistic religions."should be removed. There is no real need for it as per above its also a POV that is in effect an OR. Wikidās ॐ 11:49, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Why all this controversy about "g" versus "G"? My friend's name is Joe. My dog's name is Fred. The names of various gods are Yahweh, Zeus, Mithra, Odin, Ganesh, etc. The name of the god of Islam is Allah. The name of the god of Christianity is God. What could be simpler and plainer than that? Ericlord (talk) 10:36, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * it might be that simple. If your Friend's name is Joe, and your Dog's name is Fred. Or if your friend's name is Friend.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 13:08, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Lead/length
The lead isn't really GA worthy, and especially not FA worthy. It's just not long enough; three paragraphs of solid length would be appropriate. To be honest, the whole thing seems quite concise; I would have expected it to be about twice as long. Using summary style is a good move, but the summaries are very succinct, perhaps slightly too much so. Richard001 (talk) 11:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

God is not people
Surely the tag is applicable here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.16.37.251 (talk)
 * If this statement is in reference to a belief in the nonexistence of God, or an assertion that God is or is not a person, then I suggest you acquaint yourself with Wikipedia's neutrality guidelines. If there is a meaning behind this statement that I do not see please forgive me and elaborate if you will. Peter Deer (talk) 21:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Nyame-- Please Help
Please help. I looked up "Nyame" in Wikipedia's search, but it redirected to this page ("God"). Of course, I can't find the mention of "Nyame" here, and was actually looking for info (its culture of origin-Yoruba?). Anyhow, I am just wondering why someone would redirect the Nyame page here, without explicitly discussing Nyame here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.132.54.222 (talk) 17:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC) How interesting! I had never heard of this language before. Learn something new every day, I suppose. So is there a specific religion which uses that term that we can reference information from? Peter Deer (talk) 23:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * From what I read in the old revisions of the former article Nyame is an Twi (Ashanti language) version of God. So it's God in another language--Angel David (talk) 23:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

God as ideology / alienation?
What about this article saying something (or something more) on the idea of God as a form of ideology / as a form of alienation. That is, on the argument about how (certain) humans make God and bestow their product with the “highest possible” attributes of humankind (e.g. nobility, intellect); that (certain) humans fail to recognise God as a human creation, seeing instead God as creator (i.e. an inversion of the actual process) and thereby bestowing God with independence and the power of creation. This inverted process makes man ‘created’ and ‘lower’ than God. Now it’s about power relations (between creator and created) and the hierarchy and structure of Being - hence God is ideological.

I’m very brief here (and brevity demands a degree of simplification). But I think the contributions of such thinkers as Feuerbach, Strauss, Bauer, Marx, etc, are relevant to this article - as their work in this context aims to offer an explanation on the existence and role of God, something which is of importance to an article on God. I’m not suggesting speculative comment, but well referenced discussion on the contributions of these 19th century philosophers - since their work continues to be influential, especially in scholarly circles. Prof. Philips (talk) 02:52, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I guess you could do something like that but, in all freindliness, be prepared to create a HUGE list. It will probably take a great deal of time.  Also, be prepared to deal with flak from all directions.  I have found that people who say they believe in God but are not firmly grounded in it are the ones who want to keep articles such as this one clean of any contradicting view.  So, as some would say, "be bold"!Prussian725 (talk) 15:24, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I would suggest starting either by adding a material sourced from a monograph or article introducing the perspective as a whole and people sharing it, or by adding the views of one particularly important thinker, clearly sourced. It would be a mistake to attempt to synthesize the views of multiple people into a composite oneself. I would start with a short, simple paragraph and work up from there. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 00:29, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Contradiction
Under the etymology section, it says the word god was first used in the 6th century. However it then goes on to attribute the capitalised form to Wulfila, who lived during th 4th century. -Zahd (talk) 01:33, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Numbers of gods going down over time?
Is the evidence that the number of gods have been going down almost universally over time due to our fears / unexplained things being explained, and thus no longer having the need to invent gods to explain them (ie. god of thunder, god of the oceans, etc) a popular enough idea to be included in the article? Here's some background info on it: http://www.thelastgod.info Elfguy (talk) 17:33, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

This article...
This article should not summarize societies views towards god- rather it should provide or also provide a specific statement that reflects facts- eg, God is unproven and illogical when subjected to the scrutiny of the scientific method is not a POV but actual fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.167.62.248 (talk) 13:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Uuhhh...that is not true. have you ever heard of Logic?  I'm not talking about "common sense" but Logic defined as the "Science and art of Reason", which is not subject to POV either.Prussian725 (talk) 02:19, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Intelligent design citations
I removed some of the references that are repeated from intelligent design. It doesn't make sense to repeat all those citations here. And in my opinion, these massive lists of citations are not really that helpful to the innocent reader, but rather serve as barriers for POV-pusher. If one would only cite one ref, then some ID proponent would demand that the fact is attributed and presented as mere opinion. However, in this article, the paragraph in question is just a summary of the consensus reached on intelligent design, so there is no need to repeat all the citation here. Right? Vesal (talk) 09:43, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Pictures
There are only 3 pictures on this page, which i feel is not enough. Surely michelangelo's painting, and the muslim symbol for god arent the only significant depictions of god or depictions related to god? Furthermore, the third picture shows the belief in god in europe. However, such surveys are questionable because there are many, many different views on what constitutes as God, so that it is very hard to get a clear picture. Add to that the fact that the picture shows only Europe - if you are going to include such a picture, then it should atleast show the whole world. The third picture should be removed, while others should be added. Omegastar (talk) 17:02, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Psychological Perspectives on the Belief
This article's Scientific Perspectives section is missing a subsection on psychological theories. A psychological section should address not so much what God is and whether or not God exists, but it should address the belief in God as a psychological phenomenon. There are both theoretical and highly empirical bodies of research that examine aspects of this belief, i.e., believing that spirits exist, believing that events take place for a reason, and believing that a person-like being is the reason why things happen. Again, there is a very rich literature on this, suggesting that the ways in which the brain processes information in biased ways is related to the blief in God. Besides the heavily empirical cognitive literature on this topic, a long-standing psychoanalytic literature (more theoretical then empirical) also exists on the belif in God. This article has not addressed these perspectives adequately. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.126.151.171 (talk) 16:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Devicus (talk • contribs) 20:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I support this! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.203.37.69 (talk) 23:47, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed!--UnnaturalSelection (talk) 22:07, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. Psychological explanations of religious beliefes have largely faded out of the science of religions in favour of anthropological, sociological and linguistically oriented theories. Our focus should thus be on promoting the "state-of-the-art"-view in the scientific community, not what a lot of laymen (and psychologists) believe. Cheers! Melpomenon (talk) 00:22, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Merger proposal
Suggest integrating the substance of the orphaned poorly-named article, Christian translations of God.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 11:06, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Sounds like a fine idea. Midorihana   みどり  はな  06:35, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Merge is a good idea. You may want to add merge tag.--SkyWalker (talk) 08:22, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The percentage of people in European countries who said in 2005 that they "believe there is a God".
According to Czech Republic


 * The Czech Republic, along with Estonia, has one of the least religious populations in all of Europe. According to the 2001 census, 59% of the country is agnostic, atheist, a non-believer or a non-organized believer

"agnostic, atheist, a non-believer or a non-organized believer" is a much larger group than just atheists, and that map claims the country's atheism level alone is about 80%. If all three categories are 60%, how could one alone be 80%? That's quite a disparity, and makes me question the reliability of this whole map. 68.46.139.114 (talk) 20:14, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * "and that map claims [...]". What map? Ilkali (talk) 20:44, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe this bunch of words (in the "Religion" section) is the map.Civilizededucation (talk) 08:25, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

The first sentence should be changed.
Believing in God does not mean one has to worship God. One can believe in Christianity and choose not to worship God, or one can simply believe in a deity, but not worship it feeling it is unnecessary, like deists do. The beginning sentence is phrased in such a way that God is fiction.. This should be a third-person view of God, not an atheist's. It should read like the following: "God is the idea of a deity that created the universe." It should not include anything about "worshiping," this should be saved for discussing religion later in the article.


 * Please specify exactly the text you disagree with and how it carries the implications you suggest, because it sounds like you're arguing against something other than what I'm seeing. At the moment, the first instance of the word worship is halfway through the article, not in the lead. Edit: Oh, it was changed. This is another reason why you should specify the text in your complaint! Anyway, I don't agree with your criticisms of the text, but the new version seems fine too. Ilkali (talk) 16:59, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You're welcome.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 17:36, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The new version is better, not perfect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.56.202.3 (talk) 08:11, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, this article should be included in the category of Mythology, as it's perfectly fitting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.166.22.79 (talk) 19:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Inclusion of Figures like Jesus or Muhammad
I know this article focuses mainly on the figure of God, but isn't it a huge part of the understanding of God to understand the figures such as Jesus or Muhammad or other figures such as these two? Now I'm not saying even an entire section dedicated to this, but shouldn't we at least mention them? Christianity is the largest religion on Earth, which revolves around the Trinity, and both God and Jesus are part of the Trinity. I just think this would be a positive addition to the article, and not necessarily biased because they are important to the understanding of God. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.159.115.200 (talk) 05:38, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * As long as the fact that Muhammad was a mass murderer, rapist and warmonger is mentioned I have no problem with it.--80.56.229.245 (talk) 20:48, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

The "God" page shows Christian prejudice
Under the title "Names of God" we are told of many synonyms for "God" in the "Bible" Well thanks alot, I growing up in the west am already know the Christian and Jewish attributes of "God", but all this is meaningless unless we trace the usage of the word God, which was taken from Gotama, and after Buddhist fled India, hundreds of years before our calender, they implanted their hero among the Goths and Scythian tribes as Gautun —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xoblohtnem (talk • contribs) 14:53, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Your history is wrong and and your own edits show your Buddhist prejudice, stop editing Wikipedia Ishmaelblues (talk) 19:18, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Fictional Character
Being as there is no evidence to suggest existance, shouldn't God be introduced as a fictional character. Yes a few simpletons believe him to exist, but until she was about two, my kid sister was convinced Noddy was real Perhaps the people who believe could be listed under a subsection, a few examples:  George W Bush, Peter Sutcliffe and Cliff Richard.Mtaylor848 (talk) 20:13, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Your concerns are covered in the fact that the first sentence of the article states that god is a "deity in ... belief systems". This adequately states that the existence of god is a belief rather than an established fact.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 20:46, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

It is absolutely correct to include this article in Mythology, as it's obvious from the description of it in Wikipedia. Vertebreakr (talk) 17:36, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Woh woh woh what the fuck is this? "Yes a few simpletons believe him to exist"That is big time violation of personal attacks, against  A "FEW BILLION PEOPLE"--Ssteiner209 (talk) 06:38, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Whilst it's certainly trolling, you can't have a personal attack against several billion people. A personal attack has to be against one person - thats what makes it personal...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.107.198.247 (talk) 01:37, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Why is the difference between pantheism and panentheism "subtle"
After stating a clear difference between pantheism and panentheism in 6.1, the article claims that the difference is "subtle" without supporting the claim:

"Pantheism holds that God is the universe and the universe is God, whereas Panentheism holds that God contains, but is not identical to, the Universe; the distinctions between the two are subtle."

I don't think the difference is subtle at all, but that's beside the point; the point is that this is a controversial claim that is not supported by citations or any other justification.

I move to strike the "subtle" phrase from the article.
 * Agree. It's not subtle, and even if it were, it adds nothing to the article to say so, because the difference is already stated.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 11:44, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

How long will it take to make the change? If it's not made, I'd really like to find out why the change isn't made -- it's giving people biased, unsupported information.71.86.117.92 (talk) 12:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Not real?
Why doesn't this article start by saying that 'God is a fictional character' like is written at the start of the articles about Santa Claus, Easter Bunny and similar mythical characters. Unless you have something verifiable to say that he's real then it should be mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xania (talk • contribs) 01:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * "God is a deity"... I think that pretty much sums it up. Unless you're really here to kick up that useless "people who believe in god are teh dumb" twaddle that atheists love to peddle around here. JuJube (talk) 01:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Might I remind you both, especially JuJube of WP:NPA. Note: "deity" does not in any way imply mythical.  From the OED:
 * 1. a. The estate or rank of a god; godhood; the personality of a god; godship; esp. with poss. pron.
 * b. The divine quality, character, or nature of God; Godhood, divinity; the divine nature and attributes, the Godhead.
 * 2. a. concr. A divinity, a divine being, a god; one of the gods worshipped by a people or tribe.
 * "God is a deity" is a simple statememt of fact, but one that can lead to various interpretations regarding existence. &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 01:40, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I am making a query. No personal attacks here. JuJube (talk) 01:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Uh, "Unless you're really here to kick up that useless "people who believe in god are teh dumb" twaddle that atheists love to peddle around here". That's an ad hom if I ever saw one. &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 02:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe I should have said some atheists. 'Cause you can't deny that some do. JuJube (talk) 02:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That would be OK ... losing the word twaddle (a word I happen to love for some inexplicable reason) might be good too, eh? :) &#0149;Jim <font face="Times New Roman" color="F4C430">62 <font face="Times New Roman" color="000000">sch&#0149; dissera! 02:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Divine jealousy
What prominent theologian, other than Richard Dawkins, ascribes jealousy as one of the central qualities of God? Richard Swinburne, which is the cited source, does not ... Vesal (talk) 23:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I removed it. The reason I hesitated is that it has been in the article for over a year, which is sufficient time for an omniscient omnipotent being to notice and have it removed. Vesal (talk) 00:11, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Er...last I heard, Richard Dawkins was a biologist, not a theologian. Kind of a difference, you know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.228.1.20 (talk) 05:04, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

i respectively suggest...
that we include the feminine in the conception of the divine. the god in the bible is oppressive, jealous, arrogant, cruel, manipulative, and controlling....thr real gor is a manifestation of LOVE —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamiejojesus (talk • contribs) 03:31, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The god in the bible is alot of shit man, he gives and takes life, but he takes it more often then gives.--Ssteiner209 (talk) 06:41, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

While I agree that the feminine should be included in the conception of the divine, I fail to see what in the hell being 'oppressive, jealous, arrogant, cruel, manipulative and controlling' versus 'a manifestation of love' has to do with being feminine or masculine... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.228.1.20 (talk) 05:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Atheism
Why on earth is their no section about the people who hold that there is no god? Till this is added, it cannot be made a good article.Pmlinediter (talk) 10:06, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The Existence of God section, with link to full article on the topic, seems sufficient —EqualRights (talk)

Jack thackary?
I don't understand where that name comes from and I would like to ask the editor to replace it throughout the article by the word "God". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Periklis Kordolaimis (talk • contribs) 19:43, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The vandalism in question was removed hours before you made this post. Ilkali (talk) 20:02, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Distribution of belief in God Section
I think it this section be more appropriate in religion article. Also the phase "Most of these religious beliefs involve a god or gods" at the end of the section seems out of place and potentially confusing to the reader, as it gives no indication of whether a religion in the section is monotheistic or polytheistic, or the meaning or implications of the word "most": do the certain religions listed sometimes or always not have a belief in gods or god, and which religions are these if any. The phasing in this section feels ambiguous, yet i am unsure on how to correct it appropriately. Jsorr (talk) 21:45, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Deism in the Conceptions of God Section
The Conceptions of God section is missing an important definition. Deism: A Supreme Creator exists but is evidenced only by the creation itself and has nothing to do with organized religion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.70.99.101 (talk) 01:28, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

God should not be capitalized
What happened to the Neutral Guidelines? Also on the Article it seems to be referring to God as one person when allot of Religions such as Christianity and Hinduism have more than one God. (NothingbutGrains) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nothingbutgrains (talk • contribs) 19:00, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't know all the history of this, but I can add a couple of cents here. I don't even believe in a god, but "God" is a personal noun nonetheless when he/she/it is mentioned. Fictional characters may not exist, but they still deserve capitalization for their names. Belasted (talk) 06:35, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, if you just look a little bit up here, you will see a full discussion about this. Belasted (talk) 06:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * In the English language, the capitalization continues to represent a distinction between monotheistic "God" and "gods" in polytheism. Found this in God. Both the cited sources are tertiary sources and thus unsuitable for making a statement. Since we don't have a reliable source to make this statement, it should be edited out of the article.Civilizededucation (talk) 18:25, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Does anyone actually disagree with that statement? Ilkali (talk) 19:01, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Ilkali, where is the need of disagreeing with the statement when we do not even have a proper source for it? Rather than discussing on it's agreeability, I think it is best to just edit it out. If we find a reliable secondary source, we can see what it says and discuss it's reinclusion.Civilizededucation (talk) 19:22, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * There're a lot of unsourced (or improperly sourced) statements on Wikipedia. Removing them all, without anybody even challenging them, would be harmful and against recommended practices. What we're talking about here is a plain, uncontroversial fact. It should be removed if and only if: 1) There is a coherent challenge, and 2) ample time is given for a citation to be produced. Ilkali (talk) 21:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Dictionaries should be reliable sources on spelling, capitalization, etymology, etc. What other sources would you suggest for it? --h2g2bob (talk) 23:05, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It would be difficult to find a dictionary that doesn't make the distinction of 'God' versus 'god'. It seems unlikely that any meaningful challenge to its usage could be raised. One of the more prominent dictionaries could be cited as a source.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 09:17, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi guys, I am mostly agreeable to the views expressed so far. I am concerned about the statement because the cited sources do not have a formulated sentence in the way we have put it. How do we know that this is what they actually mean. Another basis for making the distinction between God/god may be Supreme being (all powerful) / deity presiding over some portion of worldly affairs (not all powerful). The cited sources also appear to be saying something to this affect.
 * By making the basis of distinction as monotheistic / polytheistic, we may be seen as being partial or prejudiced towards one set. That is what the first post seems to be indicating. This is why I want to nuke the statement until we get a reliable source that would actually discuss the reasons and logic of making the distinction.Civilizededucation (talk) 07:15, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It's not showing partiality, but simply following normative English usage regarding proper and common nouns. See Proper_noun: "Sometimes the same word can function as both a common noun and a proper noun, where one such entity is special. For example the common noun god denotes all deities, while the proper noun God references the monotheistic God specifically." In English, monotheists are less likely to give a name for their object of worship, since there are no other objects of worship to distinguish from, and out of respect.  The title "god" thus turns into a proper noun in the same way the title "dad" would turn into a proper noun when making an address.  But the difference is even more extreme in a monotheistic culture that does not even conceive of the possibility of other deities.  Thus, one does not capitalize "my dad" because there are other "dads" to distinguish him from.  In a monotheistic culture one capitalizes "my God" because there aren't any other deities to distinguish the title.  Is that biased?  Sure.  The English language is biased that way.  But we aren't rewriting the English language.  We're simply reporting it and using it to report.  "An atheist does not believe in God."  "An atheist does not believe in any god."  Both statments follow normal English usage.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 11:11, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Goddess
The first sentiment of religion among humans is related to teh Mother earth, Goddess!! Jackiestud (talk) 13:08, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thats why there is a goddess article?--Ssteiner209 (talk) 06:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

What??
When I searched for "God" in your encyclopedia, it returned a page that dealt with a number of deities worshiped by different people. These should be placed in a separate article called "Idols". The page titled "God" should be dedicated to the one true God. Please revise this immediately. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.213.40.199 (talk) 17:39, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your theological opinion. However, the article is meant to present the broader conceptions of 'god', not your preferred concept of it.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 23:14, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * A small revision may be called for. After all, this encyclopedia is here for the readers.  One reader has expressed a concern that what s/he was looking for was not found where expected.  I went looking for what the OP was expecting and, after eight links on the ninth page, I finally found God in Christianity, which is not in the dab.  While a new hatnote would be grand from a Christian perspective, after that would come another hatnote and another and another.  So perhaps the best solution would be to include the "God in Christianity" link in the dab, which I have done.    .`^) Painediss`cuss (^`.   03:28, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Skip to TOC template
I added the template to the top of this Talk page for those who want to "get right down to it". .`^) Painediss`cuss (^`.  03:40, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I archived through Sept 08. Athanasius • Quicumque vult  10:15, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

'God' is a word, ...
... hence another symbol that refers to whatever its reader may like to think of. So any serious study/discussion concerning the word 'god' should start with a clear definition of it, much like it is done in any scientific analysis. For example the whole applied theories in Geometry are based on what it may be called a 'geometrical dot' though, practically speaking and based on its definition, this dot cannot exist other than in one's mind only. My preferred definition of 'God' is: God is whatever could be a source for knowledge that helps a human being to live towards his best. Obviously 'God' based on this previous definition DOES exist for ALL beings but at the same time it might refer to any set of knowledge that suits better the reader's priorities in life (which, actually, are not the same for all people). I may add, that in real life, a human being is able to see 'his God' thru his own image only. That is why, with time, many different sources are claimed to be of 'god' to please all possible kinds of humans. Even for an Atheist, he is just a person who has found his own resources of knowledge (his god) to assist him live his best, therefore he doesn't need to think of any of the many other gods offered on the world table. MKAKJBF (talk) 10:16, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not for discussion of our own personal views. See WP:NOTAFORUM. Ilkali (talk) 10:29, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't get your point very well. Do you mean that all members, even in Wikipedia (excluding its founders of course), have to be just followers to other's views only? I thought you will be kind to show me where I may be wrong in any logical point I wrote (not only in this page), so I can learn from you... or, as you said, from your preferred human being's views. Because if your previous comment is a REAL wikipedia rule to prohibit the participation of thinkers then I have to agree with you that "You and I, are not allowed HERE to think and see if our earth is flat or not by ourselves". In other words, if I cannot be welcomed here as I am then I have no choice but to depart out of your house and... "shake off the dust of my feet"... a useful hint I learnt from Jesus Christ. MKAKJBF (talk) 17:33, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * MK, I think what he meant is that Wikipedia isn't a discussion forum. Even the article talk pages are to be used to help the article.  There are also guidelines about what goes into an article.  For instance, let's say that you noticed that the evidence for "dark energy" was based on a wrong analysis of the evidence.  That's great.  But you can't publish your findings here.  You have to publish it elsewhere, it has to be peer reviewed, and it has to become known enough for Wikipedia editors to be able to independently find it.  Even then it needs to be a notable enough view that at least some people in the field are persuaded to adopt it as a viable alternative.  All that Wikipedia is designed to do is to summarize notable and verifiable information from established sources -- and to point to those sources.  It's not designed for original research or forum discussion.  Hope that helps.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 17:43, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

You are both right, and I am sorry for the misunderstanding. You know, as a newcomer, I didn't have time to read all important notes on Wikipedia. Thank you. And I forgot to add... Should I delete all what I wrote on Wikipedia so far? Or the managers can do this when necessary? MKAKJBF (talk) 17:57, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the note -- it will probably get archived soon enough. I wouldn't worry about it.  And welcome to Wikipedia!SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 19:27, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

ACHAMÁN
In mythology it is called Guanche Achamán think important to add in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.36.122.141 (talk) 19:31, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Mother goddess
What abt Goddess a Moterh goddes and "See also" ??Jackiestud (talk) 22:03, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * There doesn't need to be a see also section. The template on the right of the article has links to the relevant stuff including a page on God and gender. <font color="Green">Sifaka <font color="Green">talk  18:56, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Category
Should Category:Islam be added to the article, as Muslims believe in the Abrahamic God too? I know the article isn't entirely about the Abrahamic God, but the Christianity and Judaism have categories on this page. Cooltrainer Hugh (talk) 22:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Bias
I type "god" (not even with a Capital letter) in the search field, and for some reason I am directed to the specifically monotheistic (and "henotheistic", blah-blah) concept, split into a separate article from the polytheistic one. That's despite the fact that the English word "god" refers to both concepts - as happens to be the case also in Greek, Latin, and all the Romance, Slavic, and Germanic languages. If there must be two articles and no common one, then should lead the reader to a disambiguation page, allowing them to choose between the two - otherwise the encyclopedia is clearly manifesting a monotheistic bias.

I said "if there must be two articles" - while it does make sense to make detailed articles about different varieties or understandings of X, there should also be an article about X itself, and the search for <X> should lead to it. Otherwise, it's similar to having articles for "white people" and "black people", while not having an article for "humans" in general, and redirecting "humans" to "white people". Not having such a common article is a way to suggest that there is no common concept unifying a monotheistic God and a polytheistic god, that these are basically two words that just happen to sound the same, or two completely distinct concepts whose convergence in one word is just a curious case for etymology. This is a view that I'm sure monotheists would love - after all, the polytheistic divine entities are just amusing children's stories, aren't they, whereas the monotheistic Creator is something unique, and abstract, and oh so deeply real; that the two should be somehow connected, let alone being two varieties of the same thing, is a thought embarrassing and offensive to the noble and sophisticated spirits of enlightened Christians.-- 91.148.159.4 (talk) 20:46, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

A separate issue is that since the monotheistic "God" is a type of "god" or deity (as the article deity readily acknowledges), and since the word "god" can refer to both the more general and the more specific concept, the search should lead to the more general one rather than the more specific one. While the English word "fox" refers most frequently to the European red fox, it is clear that a search for "fox" should lead to the more general sense, and then the general article should contain links to articles about specific varieties. --91.148.159.4 (talk) 20:56, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It is not uncommon on Wikipedia for an ambiguous term to lead directly to one of the candidate articles, with a note at the top directing users to a disambiguation page. The question is: What are most users looking for when they type "God" or "god" into the search box? Ilkali (talk) 10:57, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

That's not the only relevant question. Another one is what is the basic, general, culturally neutral meaning of the term. Sure - the single largest religion in the world is Christianity, the wealthiest countries with the greatest number of Internet users are mostly Christian, and English-speaking countries are predominantly Christian, so it is indeed quite possible that most current users are looking for monotheistic "Mr God" with capital G - actually no, what they're really looking for is the "real", i.e. Christian God. By this logic the page should direct them to God (Christianity). But going along with this would be a clear case of Systemic Bias and POV. More similar examples:


 * Most English wikipedia users searching for "West Coast" are probably thinking of the West Coast of the United States, yet directing everybody to it would be blatant Americanocentrism and an affront to all the other "West Coasts" (see the article West Coast).


 * Most of our users searching for THE Civil War mean the American Civil War.


 * People typing "Decembrists" (19th century Russian conspirators) are more likely to mean the Oregon indie pop band named after them.


 * Those typing opera may be more likely to mean the browser (it's the first hit on google).


 * As I said, it is very possible that most (non-US) users only mean the red fox when they type "fox", many may not even know that there are other foxes but Vulpes vulpes in the world, yet for some reason we are directing them to the biologically accepted, general meaning of the term.


 * Jurassic Park is a cool movie, right? What novel?


 * Vampires are cool super-sexy huge-fanged supermen, that's what I'm searching for. Why are you bothering me with these disgusting ruddy inflated Serbian corpses?


 * In my family, we've always been devout Catholics, and now I'm suddenly told that "Catholic" is defined as "an adjective derived from the Greek adjective καθολικός (katholikos), meaning 'universal' ... with several usages", and "Eastern Orthodox, Anglican, Lutheran, and some Methodist" churches may also be considered "catholic" in the original sense? Everybody who searches for "Catholic" means "Roman Catholic"! These stupid usages should be linked to in a disambiguation page, and the word "Catholic" should lead directly to "Roman Catholic"! The others who call themselves "catholic" (meaning "universalists") are impostors and pseudo-catholics anyway.


 * In my family, we've always been Orthodox believers, and now I'm told that Orthodox Christianity is a term that may refer to five different things? Most people who type Orthodox Christianity (Russian "Православное христианство") in the search field certainly mean Eastern Orthodoxy, the world's second largest Christian communion. That's what Orthodox Christianity should link to. (BTW, who cares if this implies that all other forms of Christianity are "Heterodox" = "Heretical"?)

I could think of many more examples, but I guess you get the picture.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 14:51, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

objectional article that clearly states God is not real....That is not a fact you can prove.
How can an article on God be written by someome who does not believe nor has any interest in the subject?

This article is really an argument for the non-existence of God.

Words for the sake of words by someone who probably spent five minutes investigating (cutting & pasting) the subject.


 * Any specific criticisms? Ilkali (talk) 15:45, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

"God's Name"
This section in your article is incorrect. While the translation of YHWH can be Yahweh, the "usual" and correct translation of this is Jehovah. If this information was left out because of a bias toward Jehovah's Witnesses then I suggest you read most bible translations published prior to about 1960. In Pslam 83:18 you will find the name Jehovah clear for all to see. I can not understand why the facts of God's name and the reason it has been removed from some copies of the bible have not been discussed correctly in this article. Jnyuta —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jnyuta (talk • contribs) 07:55, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Would you care to provide a citation to any modern, non-JW scholar who supports that idea? Athanasius • Quicumque vult  19:07, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Could someone please paraphrase the following sentence, for correction of wrong translation?
Could someone please paraphrase the following sentence, as I think there is a mistake in translation in the Japanese version of the article "Chosen people".

Although the paragraph about "Roman Catholicism", which was added by RK by copying from the God article, has been deleted by Rchamberlain, it still remains in the Japanese version of the article and needs clarification.

The question is that in the sentence shown at the bottom, the word "nor" is used to negage the noun phrase "the possibility of asking to be baptized"; then, what is the first instance of negation which introduded the word "nor"?

The paragraph in question is as follows:

"Roman Catholicism had traditionally taught that all non-Christians would not be saved. Today many within the Roman Catholic Church teach that salvation is not ruled out for those who have not had the Gospel proclaimed to them, nor the possibility of asking to be baptized."

PS: Please be reminded that this does not concern legitimacy or authenticity of the article, but concerns the correctness of the translation.

Thanks in advance.--YOSHIYUKI OGAWA (talk) 07:20, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm absolutely sure that in the sentence as quoted, the first instance of negation has to be "salvation is not ruled out" (and not "who have not had the Gospel proclaimed to them"). I.e., neither salvation nor the possibility of being baptized is ruled out. I'm convinced that this is the only grammatically correct and semantically plausible interpretation. Note, however, that I'm not a native speaker of English.
 * Although grammatically this is unequivocal, I understand your uncertainty, because the claim that follows from this interpretation is amazingly stupid. One is allowed to become Catholic even if one hasn't been Catholic before - Geez, what unique open-mindedness and tolerance on the Catholics' part. --91.148.159.4 (talk) 16:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

'God' does not exist, this must be mentioned in the article
Where is the mention of the fact that god does not exist?

Since there is not one shred of evidence that god exist, scientifically god does not exist. And Wikipedia claims to be scientific, right? --83.84.46.69 (talk) 00:06, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


 * That's not really how science works. Ilkali (talk) 12:07, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * There's not one shred of evidence that He doesn't exist either. The existence or non-existence of a supernatural being is really very much outside the realm of science. There's simply no way to quantify it. You can't set up an experiment that would prove or disprove that sort of hypothesis. <font face="Georgia"><font color="#3c3c3c">L'Aquatique <font color="#5c9e83">[<font face="Monotype Corsiva"><font color="#5c9e83">talk  ] 22:36, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Anonymous, check. Silly atheist prattle, check. Using the talk page as a forum for idiotic ideas, check. Can we just wipe this section already? JuJube (talk) 23:20, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * "Silly atheist prattle, check". Are you trying to offend atheists here? We're not all like this fellow. Ilkali (talk) 23:27, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * If you're going that far, you have no shred of evidence that the flying spaghetti monster isn't real either. Or that pokemon aren't real. I can use the very same excuses for those 2 as you would. What you're asking me to prove that pokemon are real ? Look at all the pokemon episodes we have! (referring to how you guys constantly say "god is real, it says so in the bible") At any rate, even though I don't agree with OP that there should be a "there is no god" section, but I am 100% for a section where it says that there is no scientific evidence to support god. At any rate, if you haven't already, look at the Invisible pink unicorn pages and the flying spaghetti monster. (I'm not signing this because I don't have a wiki account, now because I'm a coward). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.250.11.28 (talk) 13:19, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Might be useful to keep the section and point out that Wikipedia is not about defining ultimate truth, but rather reporting notable views. It is notable that people believe God exists, and notable that people do not, and this article should do both, as well as report what people mean by the term.  There is no fact that God does or does not exist; rather it is a fact that people either do, or do not, believe so.  Have a great Thanksgiving everyone!  Let's at least thank the Turkey for loaning us a leg to nibble on! SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 23:24, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * [ec] Don't loans usually get returned? :P <font face="Georgia"><font color="#3c3c3c">L'Aquatique <font color="#5c9e83">[<font face="Monotype Corsiva"><font color="#5c9e83">talk  ] 23:26, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah sorry, I should have rephrased, most atheists I know are cool, actually. It's just that it seems like the hip thing to do on the Internet these days is loudly shout I AM ATHEIST AND IF YOU BELIEVE IN GOD YOU ARE TEH STUPID. JuJube (talk) 00:28, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well yeah, if you hang out on a page like Talk:God. Spare a thought for the poor souls who maintain Evolution. Ilkali (talk) 00:34, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well it's not like God and evolution are mutually exclusive, but that's another discussion entirely. ;) JuJube (talk) 01:30, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Ditto. Evolution and the concept of a superior being are actually complimentary. It's easy to say (and refute) that everything happened because God waved his magic wand. But a being who could have come up with something so complex and beautiful but altogether logical- like evolution- must truly be superior. <font face="Georgia"><font color="#3c3c3c">L'Aquatique <font color="#5c9e83">[<font face="Monotype Corsiva"><font color="#5c9e83">talk  ] 02:02, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * There are logical disproofs toward the existence of "God". In any other article for any other entity it would be mentioned that "God" is fictional.  Why should this article be any different? -fatrb38 (12/15/08, 3:54 PM PST)

Do u have any proof, i guess trolls do not belive in God —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.96.235.247 (talk) 11:46, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Ha! Awesome... Flash Man999 (talk) 01:17, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that the atheist point of view is represented in this article by the Scientific positions section.

--Trelawnie (talk) 13:30, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

How do you disprove the existence of an almighty being? If He does exist and is almighty, trying to disprove His existence is futile. Proving His existence is also futile unless He decides to provide such proof. Faith is not based on evidence. If it was, it would not be faith. This homepage is here to provide information to the user. To do this in as good a way as possible, it needs to be neutral. Being neutral is hard. Saying "God does not exist" is not neutral. Saying "God does exist" is not neutral. Saying... Actually, I can't think of anything. I'm not good at being neutral. Point being, unless you can throw your own beliefs out the window and look at God from a completely neutral standpoint, please don't say anything and leave it in the hands of the select few capable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.67.250.88 (talk) 11:46, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Although god is not proven to exist, you can't go the full ten yards and say he doesn't exist. We could add the word mythical to the opening sentence, as in "God is a mythical deity in theistic and deistic religions and other belief systems, representing either the sole deity in monotheism, or a principal deity in polytheism.[1]". The article "mythical" has citations that explain that use of the term generally does not refer to truth or falsity, while at the same time explains that it is a collection of stories. Would that be sufficient? // Mark Renier (talk) 14:13, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


 * re: Suggestion/proposal to add "mythical" qualifier for deity
 * Are their mythical deities and non-mythical deities? (i.e, deity does not require qualification).
 * In the lede/lead sentence of an encyclopedia entry especially, the common meaning of a word (rather than a possible e.g. academic meaning) would be implied and expected.
 * Describing deities as mythical is highly contentious ... and does not have consensus in Wikipedia.
 * I.E., adding the word "mythical" in front for "deity" would not have consensus. Proofreader77 (talk) 15:55, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Those are good points. The first one is humorous, even...'are there non-mythical deities'. However, when I look at the article on Zeus, it mentions "in Greek mythology,... ". We could apply that standard to this article also: "In Christian mythology...".  This may help satisfy these contributors. // Mark Renier (talk) 17:13, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Quick response for now:
 * In Christian mythology, Jewish mythology, Islamic mythology ... (doubt you mean this:)

In Christian mythology, Jewish mythology, Islamic mythology etc God is a deity in theistic and deistic religions and other belief systems, representing either the sole deity in monotheism, or a principal deity in polytheism.
 * I.E., In various mythologies, God is a deity in various religions? (Surely not what you are suggesting.)
 * Zeus is listed in mythological categories (see bottom of Zeus page)
 * God is NOT listed in mythological categories (see bottom of God page)
 * If "mythical" "mythological" does not mean "does not exist" (which you are saying it doesn't), then it will not "satisfy" the people who want to say "God does not exist." Or are you suggesting we trick them into believing it does, so they can be happy? :-)
 * Exactly how things get categorized in certain ways is a complex matter, and conflation (sensible and otherwise) certainly happens ... but "religion" and "mythology" are different categories.
 * BOTTOM LINE The descriptor "deity" should not have an adjective inserted in front of it just to placate people who want to make sure that all intelligent people know there is no such thing, but are not intelligent enough to know that the adjective doesn't mean that. :) Proofreader77 (talk) 23:29, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Fundamental reason "God does not exist" is not prominently pointed out in article: This is a social sciences article, not a natural science article or other page specifically talking about the 'real world'. Sociological articles are concerned with beliefs; we do not waste time on Thor asserting Thor's nonexistence. We just say "Thor is the red-haired and bearded god of thunder in Germanic mythology and Germanic paganism"; ontological issues are left aside. They'd be left aside completely on this page too, if God's existence wasn't a noteworthy topic of discussion in its own right, both in philosophy and in the past few centuries of back-and-forth debate between 'atheists' and 'theists'. But in even that respect, we're still treating the matter sociologically, by reporting on the social phenomenon of philosophers and laypeople debating the issue (and hence reporting on their views on the matter); we aren't concerned with the matter of fact of 'who's right', because if God doesn't exist, it's not like he's especially nonexistent or particularly imaginary &mdash; he's in the exact same boat as every other deity and creature of folklore.

In other words: Nobody has satisfactorily established, to the standards of intersubjective verifiability, that God exists, so we can't say he does; and if he doesn't exist, that's so trivially true that it seems silly to point it out while not pointing out the nonexistence of Santa Claus or Poseidon, so it's pointless to say he doesn't; but on the other hand, whether (and why) people think he does or doesn't exist, is an absolutely fascinating issue, irrespective of God's ontology. So this is what Wikipedia concerns itself with. -Silence (talk) 22:29, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Let me just say one thing: absence of disproof (of god) is not proof (of god), as many theists contend. The entire concept of an "unseeable, unknowable, intangible god" was invented to discourage rational arguments against theism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.90.55.168 (talk) 08:04, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Intelligent Design
The article states that intelligent design is a new argument for the existence of god. It's not--it's simply the clock maker argument warmed over. If a person finds a watch on a beach, the person assumes that there was a watchmaker. Similarly, because of the apparent design of the universe, there must be a designer. These arguments always neglect the fact that by adding a designer, one is positing a more complicated universe in that the universe and it's designer now exist, and positing an infinite regress in that if the universe needs a maker, then who made the maker? Occam's razor suggests these sorts of arguments be tossed out.68.25.16.4 (talk) 00:01, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That's addressed in the second sentence about ID - It is a modern form of the traditional argument from design, ... KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 00:23, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Anthropomorphism (Xenophanes' mockery)
A quick note ... that I have (awkwardly:) responded to the insertion of mention of Xenophanes' mockery of the concept as the 1st sentence of an existing 1st paragraph on the concept by pulling it up into a new first "paragraph" (while it is determined how to work this into the topic).Why? Because a disjointed (unflowed) criticism of a conception should certainly not just be jammed onto the front of an existing first paragraph.

In general, there is a (understandable) tendency to be lazy about sentence flow when inserting information&mdash;but inserting a critical perspective at the beginning of a topic could be perceived as rhetorical.

I.E., Let us ponder how this information/perspective/commentary should be worked into the section. Proofreader77 (talk) 19:39, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Follow-up: Removed because of topic (see below). Proofreader77 (talk) 20:48, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * NOTE "Scientific positions regarding God"

Whether "Anthropomorphism" should be a subtopic of "Scientific positions regarding God," is an interesting question ... but at this time it is, and the discussion is (apparently) covering "scientific" sources. Since Xenophanes' mockery is philosophy rather than science, I have removed it at this time. Proofreader77 (talk) 20:48, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Quick question... (note: "Dumnezeu" redirects here)
[EDIT TO ADD NOTE TO TOPIC TITLE] Proofreader77 (talk) 16:43, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

What religion/language is the name Dumnezeu out of?

I started typing in random letters in Google, and that popped up.

Decided to Wikipedia it, because as we know, everything is in Wikipedia, and it redirected here...without any other mention of the name.

So...what's it out of? Fruckert (talk) 07:23, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * NOTE: Googling it would give you the link to the ro.wikipedia entry (Romanian language Wikipedia) ... "Dumnezeu" is (apparently) the Romanian word for God. Google translate will give you a sufficient English language translation of that article to answer the question.


 * When you searched with "Go" in en.wikipedia (this, English Wikipedia) ... you arrived at this article because there is a "redirect" of that word to this page. (See top of article page underneath "God"). The person who created the "redirect" did so because it is the Romanian word for God. NOTE: If you click the small word "Dumnezeu" that will take you to the redirected page. If you check the history of that page, you will see that the previous version was not a redirect, but a few words saying it's the Romanian word for God. The reason it was changed to a redirect (which can be confusing) rather than the more understandable short sentence is a somewhat complicated matter. BOTTOM LINE: This (en.Wikipedia) is the English language Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a dictionary and certainly not a "foreign language" dictionary :) ... Which is to say that there shouldn't be article about the Romanian word for God in the English language Wikipedia. LOL (So complicated) Proofreader77 (talk) 16:38, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

--Ggggchen (talk) 02:25, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Correction under NAMES OF GOD. Elohim is used incorrectly.
Elohim does not mean strong or strengh rather its use acts as an ordinary plural of the word Eloah (אלוה), and refers to the polytheistic notion of multiple gods (for example, Exodus 20:3, "Thou shalt have no other gods before me.").

This may reflect the use of the word "Elohim" found in the late Bronze Age texts of Canaanite Ugarit, where Elohim ('lhm) denoted the entire Canaanite pantheon (the family of El אל, the patriarchal creator god)El ats as an ordinary singular word for one. GOD is ONE THEE ONE AND ONLY. Thee all mighty GOD. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.212.58.26 (talk) 03:57, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Elohim is also used to show the trinity of God (God, Jesus, Holy Spirit), which is why it is plural when describing God. Αδελφος (talk) 14:29, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Gentlemen/Ladies, please take into consideration that there are millions of opinions on how the Bible should be interpreted, what certain things mean, and we could go on forever fighting over the words. This is why Wikipedia has policies for inclusion, so unless what is said here is something that will reflect notable, reliable, neutral, verifiable, third-party citations continuing along this train of thought will be useless from an encyclopedic perspective, regardless of what insights it may provide you personally. Wikipedia is not a forum, so postulation and debate are not really going to be fruitful. Peter Deer (talk) 19:34, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Except that those were not OR, you know. Those are existing sourceable interpretations of Elohim, as anyone can prove by searching Google Books or just reading the Wiki article Elohim. It is wrong to mention only one interpretation, and probably not one of the most prominent ones, in this article; I'm inclined to think that one should either mention at least the principal ones or delete mention of the whole business altogether.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 21:19, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Etymology and usage
You also need to mention that the term God can be derived from to the term Goda of the (Y)Ezids (X = G in the Kurdish spelling). This group has a lot of similairities with Judaism and have probably the same background. Today Kurds as wel as Persians name the lord als Goda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Freedomwrighter (talk • contribs) 17:25, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

bb —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.3.192.13 (talk) 23:06, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

FALSE INFO PLEASE EDIT
"The Germanic words for god were originally neuter—applying to both genders"

Under etymology.

This is not true. neuter does not mean "applies to both genders" but rather "neither gender" - i.e. neither masculine nor feminine. Why does this matter? Because it could be seen as implying that proto-germanic "god" was androgynous, which is retarded.

please change this.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/neuter —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.237.160.217 (talk) 03:30, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

God as a metaphor
For the atheist or the soft believer; the term "God" is a metaphor for nature.

God Metaphor (talk) 00:26, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * What?--Sushi Shushi! (talk) 15:04, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

He is reffering to Pantheism. Which is not atheistic, since it holds faith in a God (yet different form).--72.74.114.109 (talk) 02:52, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect use of "deistic" should be changed
In the introduction of this article, it says "Gods is a deity in deistic religions...". Deism refers to the belief that there is several Gods and Goddesses, rather than any divine creator as would be implied here. As such, it should be removed from the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.105.149.62 (talk) 03:29, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but deism is the belief in a non-interfering God, unlike theism, which accepts gods who perform miracles and interact with the world in ways such as answering prayers. I don't think it is related to the quantity of Deities. InternetGoomba (talk) 20:30, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect use of "whom" should be changed to "who"
In the introduction of this article, please change the use of "whom" to "who". "Whom" is incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nooccar (talk • contribs) 16:43, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Either remove the reference to distribution or do it the way it should be done, this is theology mongering and is linked to REAL theological terrorism.
Is it your intend to scare moslems, budhist, hindu´s and other theological belief systems through conglomeration of what are clearly distinct and seperate facets, mainstream and sects, of cristianity? Bigger might be better if you want that to become a social target and unite all other theologies against cristianity. If that is your intend, then we need to be ready for a theological war and prepair the Knights Templar and Knights Counter-Templar. Let me know.(Fractalhints (talk) 15:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC))

More significant relationships.
It would be nice if you added the relationship of the significance of god as a reference to chief/parent, angels as combatting forces in favor of god, adam and eve as civil society. These days, Cat and Dog have more relevance, especially as a symbolic reference to man and woman. Demons and Angels as symbolic references to the same. We are not living in the middle ages or in those times when the literate could pull the wool over anyone´s head and conglomerate opinion was forced on the population by a select few or through the premasticated opinion of one or two media writs as reference for the whole. Do check the relevance on polytheism, multiple distinct cristian sects IS polytheism, each depiction is sufficiently distinct to cause god to be distinct. The same name does not imply the same deity. If you need proof of this, I´ll be more than glad to provide similitudes of any name in relation. You are not the carrier of the only name of your sort. (Fractalhints (talk) 15:34, 6 January 2010 (UTC))

We Live In God —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.65.193.27 (talk) 22:00, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

OR
Stubbing this thread for the tag (placed by user:Rednevog), perhaps someone can point out what is OR and what isn't. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 21:58, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The article is pretty short and obviously is continually reworked, so if someone can point out what specifically is OR, it can be addressed. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 10:57, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Distribution of belief in god
Using Abrahamic as a conglomeration is misleading. Abrahamic has to do with a ´father´ figure orientation. Older people are given the title abraham. Abrahamic is sinonimous to rulership by the ancients, the old or older (no wisdom or intelligence required). Most, if not all, theologies include references of respect to elders, abrahams. That would include the chineese, budhism, hinduism. The percentage of abrahamic theologies is close to 100%. Usage of abrahamic solely for cristianity, moslem and (sic) judaism (they know better), is a clear demarkation of the usage of abrahamic as a marketing ploy. Theologies are regional dependancies, impacted and molded through distinct ethnical, social, cultural and environmental conditions of the times when they where created through, and to, the current times. Almost all of them are abrahamic through necesity.

The worship of Maria, a maternal basis, is cristian and definitely not abrahamic.

(Fractalhints (talk) 14:26, 28 December 2009 (UTC))


 * A de-vile/ment, villagers, has been detected. Blasphemous, des-picable, not worthy of de-mon/ation.


 * Thou arth certains that chode is not the equivalent of toad, warths of hog and trolloping?


 * (Fractalhints (talk) 17:43, 5 January 2010 (UTC))


 * Not sure what you're saying. By "Abrahamic," this article is referring to the three "Abrahamic Religions": Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. Your definition is different than that. However, if you are saying that belief in a single God is not exclusive to those religions, than you are correct. 98.198.83.12 (talk) 16:57, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

This section title needs corrected or the entire section removed. The section title should read "Distribution of belief in a god" as it refers to multiples gods and religious beliefs. If the title is not changed, the entire section should be removed as it in appropriately infers that there is a belief in ONE god (mono=theism) which is not correct.Alexkraegen (talk) 06:04, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Adding Notice to Article
It's good to hear that the article has been locked; when in religion or politics, one must always be careful of mudslinging/vandalism. However, I also suggest, even for the more mature readers of the article that this be put at the very top of the article:

Or something like that; I don't know; whatever that was similar. 71.118.39.219 (talk) 06:45, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Like the next one, and for the same reason, the complaint of this this thread is spurious. See also my comment on Talk:Supreme Being as the subject of this article is essential a POV on the subject of that one. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 12:57, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

What page????
Please, can you give a page number for reference number 1? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.239.198.80 (talk) 21:24, 1 April 2010 (UTC)



definition of god
Regarding the term god there should be an unbiased and neutral approach. I feel, God should be defined as a phenomenon by virtue of which, the survival of life is endless. This way we will find a neutral way to search ourself. Above definition gives us the simplest and abstract God, available every where. The survival of life is endless. This can be easily confirmed with the help of many factual observations made by human beings about living beings. Many things can now be explained easily for example now we can explain sin. Any activity done by a living being in a particular set of circumstances is a sin in that set of circumstances if it results against the phenomenon(God) i.e. survival of life. Example destroying trees is a sin in todays set of circumstances. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Satkaran03 (talk • contribs) 13:42, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

The article is using theism for two different conclusions when it could be better expressed using agnostic-theism and gnostic-theism.
"Conclusions reached include: "God does not exist" (strong atheism); "God almost certainly does not exist"[16] (de facto atheism); "no one knows whether God exists" (agnosticism); "God exists, but this cannot be proven or disproven" (theism); and "God exists and this can be proven" (theism). There are numerous variations on these positions."

It's using theism for two completely different views.

"It is often put forth as a middle ground between theism and atheism,[1] though it is not a religious declaration in itself and the terms are not mutually exclusive. Agnosticism refers to knowledge, while atheism and theism refer to belief" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism

So with that it should be:

"Conclusions reached include: "God does not exist" (strong atheism); "God almost certainly does not exist"[16] (de facto atheism); "no one knows whether God exists" (agnosticism); "God exists, but this cannot be proven or disproven" (agnostic-theism); and "God exists and this can be proven" (gnostic-theism). There are numerous variations on these positions."

Bravo! By bravo I mean you speak nonsense.--209.80.246.3 (talk) 19:03, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, but we might offend some atheists who say that atheism is not a belief. Or some agnostics who say that agnosticism means "not taking a position because it's impossible to know" Or you might take my route, and see no purpose in the terms "agnostic-theism" or "gnostic-thesm," since they are both, for all intents and purposes, the same thing since belief exists (what follows does not change the fact they believe in God or not). Or maybe I'm overthinking it. 98.198.83.12 (talk) 16:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Why the insistence on the use of "god" in the singular when describing agnosticism and atheism? A more proper description would be "gods do not exist" instead of "god does not exist".  It is not accurate as currently worded and implies that the source of contention is confined to the existence or non-existence of a monotheistic god, not the existence or non-existence of gods, more generally. Nusumareta (talk) 01:07, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

scientific method and god
Per WP:BRD here the discussion.

The simplified line The existence of God cannot be proven or disproven using the scientific method.[4][5]

Is nonsense. It has no meaning and is verifiably outside any relevant discussion with regard to the Scientific method. The line The existence of water cannot be proven or disproven using the scientific method.[4][5]

Is equally nonsensical. The scientific method proposes a starting hypothesis and an alternative. Neither hypothesis can ever be proven (therefore any reference to "proven" in relation to the scientific method is nonsense). The only thing the scientific method can do is making one hypothesis more likely - and that is all the proof you can get. That is actually the strength of the scientific method. We start with our current understanding and a new more advanced theory. It the new theory is better than the old, we reject the old theory and are closer to the truth. However, the new theory will never be accepted as the whole truth as an even newer and more advanced theory may actually be proven to be even closer to the truth. In the meantime our new theory however is the most likely explanation we have and therefore the one we use.

Simplifying the scientific method in simple terms of proving or disproving is similar to simplifying the whole issues of God to a white-bearded person sitting on a cloud (stunning art as that may provide, I guess we all agree that is oversimplification). At best we could say something like:

No evidence for the existence or non-existence of God can be provided using the scientific method.[4][5]

Which is much more modest in tone than proving the matter.

Arnoutf (talk) 12:59, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I thought that the scientific method is based on evidence, and doesn't actually provide any.

The source uses the wording "prove" and "disprove". "Affirm" and "deny" are also used. <b style="color:blue;"> Flash </b> 13:19, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It uses evidence to disprove hypothesis. The replacing hypothesis is than affirmed (proven) for the time being, but can than be disproven by evidence from yet a new theory. Arnoutf (talk) 13:36, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * So the scientific method can disprove hypothesis? The only output of the scientific method is a conclusion.  The scientific method does not generate evidence. <b style="color:blue;"> Flash </b> 13:42, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The standard scientific approach is to set up 2 hypotheses. The Null hypothesis (the one to be nullified also called H0) and the alternative hypothesis (also called H1). Then a test is developed that is tailored to make the difference between H0 and H1 as large as possible. The test is run, evidence is collected. If the evidence shows that H0 does not work in a situation tailored for H1, we find support for the alternative hypothesis (H1), and the Null hypothesis (H0) is rejected. If the evidence does not show that H0 does not work, H1 is rejected. (Note that this is asymmetric, for H1 to carry the day, H0 has to be shown not to work, while if both Hypotheses do equally H0 is maintained). This does however not mean that proof for either is definitive. For example the theory of Copernicus replaced the view of earth as the centre of the universe with one where the sun is the centre and planets orbit in circles (at that time the 'most' true theory). Kepler replaced that view with elliptical orbits, an nowadays the sun is no longer seen as the centre of the universe. Were Copernicus and Kepler wrong? Yes and no. No as in they both provided evidence that their view was closer to the evidence than the prevailing opinion. Yes in that their solution (which became mainstream opinion a while later) was only halfway there, subsequent scientific evidence rejected their explanations for even better.
 * One of the big, if not the biggest problem with God and the scientific method is how to come up with acceptable evidence for or against God, compared to the hypothesis that there is no God. Arnoutf (talk) 13:56, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * One of the biggest problems is also that the existence of God is not testable; the bottom line is that the scientific method cannot reach a conclusion, which is what the main objective of the scientific method. Why do you propose to phrase the sentence around evidence when the point of the scientific method is to draw conclusions? <b style="color:blue;"> Flash </b> 14:11, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * So if the existence is not testable, you will not get any evidence either for or against gods existence. With that the whole issue is outside the remit of the scientific method. However at a more abstract level even in the presence of evidence the scientific method warns against the use of definitive proof, as you may always miss some essential evidence (e.g. law has the similar - beyond reasonable doubt, which is much more modest than proof). Arnoutf (talk) 14:20, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * the phrasing "affirm" or "deny"? <b style="color:blue;"> Flash </b> 14:27, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Why don't we just remove the sentence entirely as the scientific method clearly isn't relevant when discussing the existence of god?Wikiposter0123 (talk) 17:04, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Exactly to source that "clearly isn't relevant". -- Cycl o  pia  talk  18:53, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I did not insert the text, but edited initially because it had a typo; when I looked at the main source, the individual was a PhD scientist who went on to train as a theologian and vicar. The words he uses are quite precise and significant.  That the existence or non-existence cannot be adjudicated through scientific method.  A scientist (who is not a theologian and agnostic or atheist) would say any argument about the existence of God is unscientific, because it there is nothing which would falsify it (high-school logic); it goes without saying, that the converse is also the case.  The point is, though, that this argument has been made - by two theologians.  It may be trivial, yet they have felt the need to make the argument, in one case in countering Dawkins.  the significance of the statement is not that God's existence cannot be proven, nor even that it cannot be disproven, but that scientific method is incapable of answering the question of whether God exists or not.  That is because God's existence is understood through faith.  I see no problem with this being in there, but if it is included, it needs to reflect the source accurately.  That the tools are unable to help adjudicate on this question - not that they neither prove nor disprove anything. -  Mish Mich  -  Talk  - 18:36, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: some people have been stating the wording that "biblical scholars" don't believe that the scientific method can be used to prove or disprove God. This is irrelevant, only what scientist believe on the scientific method is relevant. If no sources can be added by scientists on whether or not the scientific method can prove or disprove God then I move to deleting the sentence entirely as giving the viewpoint of science from theologians is about as relevant as giving the viewpoint of scientists on church doctrine.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 19:40, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Disagree. One of the theologians is also a scientist - and this was what I added when it was attributable to a single source - that the theologian who said this was a scientist.  I am not keen on removing relevant, reliable, sourced material attributable to notable scholars simply because editors do not like it.  That is not how we do things in the encyclopedia. -  Mish Mich  -  Talk  - 21:21, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * We need to find references of scientists asserting this and just remove the theologians entirely as no they are not relevant.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 21:53, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The McGrath reference cites directly Stephen Jay Gould on the subject. But that's not the point. I fully agree that having scientists' quotes as well is important. But what theologians think on the issue is usually considered relevant when dealing with the existence of God. While I personally, being an atheist, don't have a very fond opinion of theology as a discipline, it cannot be denied that they constitute a large part of the debate. And more importantly, if they think that science can't prove God, it means that even sources biased towards its existence acknowledge that science can't say anything on the subject. -- Cycl o  pia  talk  22:05, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Bleh, why not just write then "Scientist and theologians agree: the scientific method cannot yet prove or disprove the existence of God."Wikiposter0123 (talk) 22:19, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Bleh? Because of the WP:SYNTHESIS this statement would be, given the sources so far. -- Cycl o  pia  talk  22:22, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You don't say bleh in Italy? It would be common sense as everyone knows that science cannot prove or disprove God.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 22:25, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No. It doesn't sound nice. -- Cycl o  pia  talk  22:58, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * They do not agree that it cannot yet prove or disprove this. What is said is that scientific method is not capable of judging whether God exists or not.  So far, what we have sources for is a theologian and a scientist who is also a theologian who say this.  If you want to say that scientists and theologians say this, then you need to find another source where a scientist who is not a theologian says this.  From what I can see, the source that cites Gould does not show him saying this, but something slightly different - so it would be synthesis.  I am not sure where common sense comes into it, as common sense may not be something we all hold in common - what was common sense for Bishop Berkeley may not have been common sense for Erasmus, for example. -  Mish Mich  -  Talk  - 22:34, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * "They do not agree that it cannot yet prove or disprove this." No offense, but your post defies common sense as everybody is aware that science cannot yet prove or disprove God and nobody except those on the fringe would dispute this.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 22:45, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * First, no, "everybody" doesn't know that, and no, there are a lot of non-fringe people disputing this. Ever heard of this very scientific argument by Richard Dawkins for example? Second, your "common sense" requires sources, otherwise it is original research. If you find sources that guarantee that it is consensual that science can't disprove God, we can rediscuss. We don't write things in articles because they're common sense. We source them. -- Cycl o  pia  talk  22:58, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * There are a number of arguments on both sides regarding the existence of God. specified complexity and argument for design for example, so it would be inaccurate to say as a fact that science and God are mutually exclusive. <b style="color:blue;"> Flash </b> 23:47, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * per wp:BRD, I've moved this from the article until there can be some consensus statement. Arguments attributed to a single person should not be in the lead. Furthermore, I don't think a consensus statement can be made that science has nothing to say on the existence of God.


 * Some theologians, such as the scientist and theologian A.E. McGrath, argue that the existence of God cannot be adjudicated on for or against by using scientific method.  <b style="color:blue;"> Flash </b> 00:06, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * This is not a good reason for moving accurate sourced material out of the article. If there is a consensus version accurately based on WP:RS arrived at here, then that should replace the text - that does not mean the text be removed in the mean time, especially as we seem to be agreed that scientific method cannot establish this.  I agree that the lead is not appropriate, so I have put it back in the appropriate section, which deals with the existence of God.
 * There is a world of difference between what scientific method can provide evidence for, and that scientific method cannot yet provide evidence. Nobody is arguing that one day scientific method will provide this evidence - so the 'yet' is misleading.
 * The argument is not about what science can prove or disprove, it is about whether scientific method can yield the necessary evidence to prove or disprove this. If it were about what science can prove, then I would not believe there is any god in heaven, because all I have to do is step into my garden and look through my 8" reflector, scan the skies, and see that there is nothing out there but planets, satellites, stars, nebulae, galaxies and empty space.-  Mish Mich  -  Talk  - 01:04, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Mishmash your arguments are totally irrelevant and misleading. The scientific method is unable to at this time prove or disprove the existence of God, this is common knowledge and does not need to be sourced. For example do we need to source that the major component of the oceans is water? No. Now are you still going to argue that there is some scientific thing out there that has proven god or disproven him that the rest of the world just isn't aware of yet but you? Wikiposter0123 (talk) 01:16, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Let me restate this in a nicer, easier to follow way. Mishmash do you agree with this statement:
 * "It is common knowledge that at this point in time science has not proven or disproven the existence of God."
 * And if you do agree, why are you arguing with me?Wikiposter0123 (talk)


 * We source common knowledge too. Yes, we need to source that the major component of the oceans is water as well (not that it is difficult to source that), but in any case the two things are not on the same level, by far. That the scientific method doesn't have a bearing on God existence is by no means common knowledge -you can find lots of arguments on both sides by reputable thinkers. It is a majority view, but by far it isn't "common knowledge" on the level of "the sky is blue". And if instead it's common knowledge, then it should be trivial to find a source about that. -- Cycl o  pia  talk  02:26, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * You are absolutely wrong in thinking that there are reputable thinkers who think that science has either proven or disproven the existence of God. By the mere fact that you believe science has either proven or disproven God I would immediately refuse to acknowledge such a person as a reputable thinker. If you think I am wrong then cite at least one "reputable thinker" who believes they have proven that God does or doesn't exist through science.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 03:24, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * As for "It is common knowledge that at this point in time science has not proven or disproven the existence of God." I am not aware that science has ever set out to prove or disprove the existence of God - so I guess the answer is no, I do not agree.  It is a statement of the order of "Where were you when you murdered your wife?" - it begs the question that a wife was murdered by somebody, while purporting to establish some other information.  This begs the question that science has tried to prove/disprove this, which is certainly not the case since science could be called science in the modern sense (i.e., conducted using scientific method).  Looking at your response to Cyclopia above, you seem to have confirmed that nobody has done this.  So, it is not a question of whether science has tried to prove/disprove this - nor that science might one day be capable of doing this - but that scientific methodology is not capable of yielding any relevant result that would satisfy the question about the existence of God. It may be that one day scientific method changes in a way that it allows for evidence of supernatural entities, just as at one time it used to accommodate alchemy and astrology, but right now it does not - and there is not source that says that it might do one day, so 'yet' is a WP:OR/WP:SYNTH gloss placed upon the sources.  And do not try to patronise me, you will end up looking stupid if you do.  Appeals to 'common sense' tend to be a rhetorical device an individual uses to establish their view as the one that makes sense over and above the views of others; it is similar to when somebody argues from "As any reasonable person can see" (to which I would respond, who this reasonable person you talk about); so how do you establish that this common sense you keep on about is what it you say it is? -  Mish Mich  -  Talk  - 07:33, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

That was the worst series of justifications I have yet heard(you're dropping to Noloop's level). "As for "It is common knowledge that at this point in time science has not proven or disproven the existence of God." I am not aware that science has ever set out to prove or disprove the existence of God - so I guess the answer is no, I do not agree." So you disagree that because science has never tried to prove or disprove the existence of God that they must have either proved or disproved the existence of God? Do you notice something illogical about that? "It is a statement of the order of "Where were you when you murdered your wife?" - it begs the question that a wife was murdered by somebody, while purporting to establish some other information." You're just showing that you don't understand what a loaded question is(seems to be going around a lot lately). Saying whether or not science has proven or disproven the existence of God doesn't demand the assumption that science has tried to prove or disprove God(although it has and I don't know where you've been during the history of science attempting that) just as saying that Buddha has not declared whether or not going to Mars is immoral obviously doesn't presuppose that Buddha had given serious thought to whether or not going to Mars is immoral(is that example good enough?). "And do not try to patronise me, you will end up looking stupid if you do." Now you're presupposing that I am going to start patronizing you? Uh no, I wouldn't dream of it. Don't worry I could never try to get away with patronizing someone so clever and bold as you. Not in million years.(you see what I did there, I started sarcastically patronizing you) "so how do you establish that this common sense you keep on about is what it you say it is?" Uh, I planned to establish it by the fact that I believed everybody would just agree on it. I never thought I'd have to defend this point of view by someone who has been living under a rock his whole life because apparently he disagrees that science has neither proven nor disproven the existence of God as opposed to the rest of us who know and are willing to state that it hasn't. I'd like to just say this in the article because I thought nobody would disagree and because it's obvious, but now I'm pointlessly defending my suggestion to an rhetorically challenged reference-mongerer.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 18:03, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

tl;dr - Wikiposter, whatever you continue to rant: you think it's "common knowledge", yet on 3 editors we are, you're only one who thinks so. While this is a very small sample, it seems that less than 50% of persons agree with you. So the very notion that it is "common knowledge" is most probably false. It also seems we are also not exactly uneducated chavs: I am a Ph.D. working at the University of Cambridge, and Mish seems also to be university educated, judging from her userboxes. So, if I were in you, I would begin to consider the (admittedly terrible) possibility of being wrong on the notion being "common knowledge". -- Cycl o  pia  talk  19:15, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Half of it is just quoting the post above and making a resonably sized response. It's hard to declare something ranting if you have not actually read it although I know your Ph.D I'm sure you think entitles you to special powers. Thanks for linking to the word chavs as I otherwise would no have known what it meant.
 * Anyways, disagreeing with me about whether or not something is common knowledge to be argumentative and then using your disagreement as proof that I'm wrong is a pretty tacky and an "admittedly terrible" justification for your argument. The average person knows that science has not proved or disproved God and your contention that if you all just disagree with me that it is therefore no longer true is as foolish as it is dishonest. Note you could just admit that it is common knowledge(as you already know, but are deluding yourself into thinking you do not know), and I don't know why you havn't.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 19:36, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note you could just admit that it is common knowledge(as you already know, but are deluding yourself into thinking you do not know), and I don't know why you havn't. - Lol. Either you are a troll, or your theory of mind has really serious problems. I hope for you the first; to be really completely unable to realize that other people do not share your opinions and knowledges is would be a pretty terrible condition. Have a nice day. -- Cycl o  pia  talk  19:49, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

You can't even find a single person who thinks God has been proven or disproven by science yet you still hold to your belief that the average person thinks otherwise. Not believing it is common knowledge is incorrect. Continuing to argue that point even though it's clearly wrong because you don't want to loose an argument is dishonest. Deluding yourself into thinking that you're right and that you're not just arguing to win a conversation even when the point you are making is wrong is being deluded. Now maybe you are just incredibly disconnected from people and believe that everyone thinks that science has proven or disproven God's existence(which they don't), but it's much more likely that you're just holding onto your argument because you don't want to appear to change you're mind(and that you've actually started believing you're own argument *rolls eyes*). I'll ask one more time, just to be fair to you, do you really believe that the average person is so dumb that they do not know that God has not been proven or disproven by science?(and I'm willing to bet you won't agree just because you can't handle "loosing" despite the fact that no one here but you views this as a "win or loose" argument) Please answer, I just want to make sure this is actually your opinion.(if you still disagree then I will admit you are not deluded)Wikiposter0123 (talk) 20:30, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It is actually my opinion that it is a widely held view, but not something that I would call "common knowledge". And the correct verb is "to lose", not "to loose". About the rest of your comment, please read WP:AGF: that someone disagrees with you doesn't mean being dishonest or deluded or "incredibly disconnected from people". -- Cycl o  pia  talk  20:46, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not a "view" it is knowledge. Saying that the knowledge that the sky is blue is not common knowledge it's a common "view" is just... really? Arguing against people like you is a waste of time.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 21:41, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The feeling is absolutely reciprocal. -- Cycl o  pia  talk  21:51, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I think this discussion is ended, because Wikiposter is bordering on incivility now. Just stick to the sources, and do not assume that because you think something, everybody does.  I am happy to have something along the lines of "Theologians and scientists who have addressed this agree that scientific method is unable to answer the question of whether God exists or not" - but not weasel-like synthesis that says that science had been unable to prove or disprove the existence of god (when there would be no point) and especially with the word yet thrown in - as that is counter-factual, counter-common-sense, and unsubstantiable using WP:RS; however, by sticking to what the sources we do have say, we avoid such problems completely. -  Mish Mich  -  Talk  - 19:29, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with the wording as you have chosen(which is basically the same as the wording you have rejected), and opening admit to bordering on incivility(which I think applies to many), and will accept that you disagree(probably because of the way I have argued it) that the fact that science has not proven the existence or lack-there-of of God, but it still is self-evident that the vast majority of the average person does not believe that science has either proved or disproved the existence of God.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 19:36, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * It is not at all the same, but if you like to think so, that is fine by me - I appreciate some people have save face when backed into a corner while maintaining a preposterous position. What matters is whether others agree to the suggestion, or not. -  Mish Mich  -  Talk  - 20:10, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The irony here is that is exactly what I have been thinking about you two. Maintaining that the average person believes God's existence has been proving or disproven by science is ridiculous as is the contention that if the average person does know this that it isn't common knowledge. Can you at least acknowledge how to me that sounds totally irrational?Wikiposter0123 (talk) 07:09, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

"You can't even find a single person who thinks God has been proven or disproven by science yet you still hold to your belief that the average person thinks otherwise." & "lease answer, I just want to make sure this is actually your opinion." The answer is that what I have said is what is I mean - not your construction of what you think I mean projected as some delusion I hold. It is not me who has to provide a source to refute something you maintain - it is you who has to provide WP:RS to verify what you claim is correct. That is the way this works.-  Mish Mich  -  Talk  - 21:59, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Surly you can understand the difficulty of finding public opinion polls on common knowledge. How am I supposed to find as poll of people saying that they believe science has not proven or disproven the existence of god when such a poll is just as likely to be asked as a poll on whether people believe the sun exists or not. It's a hard claim to prove but it's easy one to disprove, just show a significant amount of people who think otherwise and that would demonstrate it as not being common knowledge. If you could provide a core group of people that believe God has been proven or disproven to exist by science then I would readily accept this fact as not common knowledge, but it is likely that no such group exists, thus the commonly held belief is correct and it is correctly referred to as common knowledge. Do you at least understand the point I'm making?Wikiposter0123 (talk) 07:09, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Still you persist in arguing something nobody else is discussing. No point including anything about what science has or has not proven, as this is not stated anywhere.  Please stop this digression.  We have sources that scientific method is not capable of demonstrating the existence or non-existence of God.  We can leave it at that.  Unless you have a source that argues scientific method can demonstrate this? -  Mish Mich  -  Talk  - 08:05, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You're just as persistent in arguing as I am, how about let's both leave?Wikiposter0123 (talk) 08:11, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Abrahamic religions
Um, this article's mention of the "three" Abrahamic religions leaves out faiths such as Baha'i, which is of Abrahamic heritage through the Bab and Bahaullah, and there are also various other New Religious Movements which could claim Abrahamic derivation as well (including UFO cults with obvious Jewish and Christian content, etc.) Sikhism, while not usually considered Abrahamic, has some origins in Islam as well as Hinduism, making it an Abrahamic/Vedic hybrid. So why refer to them as the "three" Abrahamic religions? 192.12.88.26 (talk) 21:17, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

IP complaint
Slightly off base I suppose. When I wrote a page about a classic death metal band (in the death metal section) my page was refused by the powers that be, even though I do a band sanctioned tribute site for them. I hadn't 'cited my sources'. Sources for early underground death metal are extremely hard to come by, so I had to rely on people such as myself and others who had thorough knowledge/memory of them. This band never got chance to do an LP, and most of this cite seems to work from bands existence coming from their having an LP (they never existed before one) CD whatever. My page was rejected. OK, whatever. Now, you come to a page about god?? CITE YOUR SOURCES. ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.109.43.168 (talk • contribs)
 * New stuff goes at the bottom, sign your posts with four tildes ( ~ ). Please read our verifiability policy, our guideline for identifying reliable sources, and our notability guidelines for bands (plenty of bands get albums, noone cares, we only care if they're mentioned in non-trivial outside sources like newspapers, magazines, or books).  We do not accept personal knowledge (no matter how accurate it is), as that would allow all kinds of crackpots to put all kinds of bullocks up with the 'justification' "I know it's true."  Also, you see those small blue numbers in brackets throughout the article?  Try clicking on one, or try looking God and God, where the sources are cited.  Perhaps next time you could try knowing what sources actually are before complaining about your article getting deleted for a lack of sources and attempting to point out a supposed lack of sources in this article.  Ian.thomson (talk) 18:26, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Urantia book
seems to be a lot of space in a short article given to this obscure book from an obscure sect -is it a wind up ?--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/Stalk 05:28, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that that was too much material about a specific minority belief, so I removed that paragraph. This is a summary article; if we had one paragraph on each variety of monotheism it would be enormous. Hence, material here should either be relevant to monotheism as a whole or to broad categories of monotheism that represent a plurality of monotheists (meaning mainstream Christianity, Islam, and Judaism, mostly). Overemphasis on one small sect is undue weight. — Gavia immer (talk) 06:20, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

This article exemplifies a good feature of Wikipedia
Who sees Wikipedia as a ground for vandals? I see that at 8: 44 one morning in February 2011, some one vandalised this article. It only took ONE MINUTE for this vandalism to be corrected (let us be thankful to ClueBot!)ACEOREVIVED (talk) 00:20, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

GOD Exists
I have seen GOD and I have talked with her.GOD is now not happy. She is asking worships from all over the world.

proposed simple definition
GOD - all the physical realms that are known of the universe--Ryans.lewis3365 (talk) 22:39, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That's rather specificially pantheist, which excludes most of Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Zoroastrianism, various pagan religions, Dvaita Hinduism... It's also rather materialist, so Gnosticism and Advaita Hinduism would not quite work as well. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:45, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Merge proposal
The words "god" and "deity" mean exactly the same and are used interchangeably. One word derives from a germanic root, the other from a romance root. The existing fork suggests a difference in definition that does not in fact exist. The only issue might be that American Christians use the term "god" to refer to their own deity in contrast to other deities, but that is of course highly subjective and has no relevance to the subject matter. These two articles MUST be merged. <span style="padding:0px 8px 0px 8px;background-color:#eeeedd;border:1px solid #ddddcc;color:#880000;font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Arial;font-weight:bold;text-shadow:0 0 7px #666666;">&#9798; CUSH &#9798; 11:26, 11 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Absolutely not. The word "God" with a capital "G" has enough of a distinction to warrant its own article. It generally refers to the neo-Platonic conception which was appropriated by Christianity, Judaism, and Islam to varying degrees. But it retains enough distinction of its own and deserves an article with this title. See the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy: http://www.iep.utm.edu/god-west/ Hammiesink (talk) 15:15, 12 April 2011 (UTC)


 * @ Cush, your right the word god and deity do mean the same thing. This article is about God though in a sense its the proper noun and god is the grouping noun. There is quite the obvious difference in definition and that fact does exist. Seems to be quite the pushy pov talk post there. Only issue might be that American Christians use the term god?, uh no they use the name God. So its quite different. a god is different from God. To some God is a god or a name of a god. God is a term not just used by American Christians, thats quite a narrow view. Here http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy&hl=en&q=african+Christians&aq=f&aqi=g5&aql=&oq=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=524f32e4dee1b3fc thats Christians in Africa, Here is Asia http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy&hl=en&q=Asia+Christians&aq=f&aqi=g-c1g-sx1g-msx2g-b1&aql=&oq=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=524f32e4dee1b3fc let alone Jews, Muslims, etc. Also the very top of the article wiki handles it nicely "This article is about the term "God" in the context of monotheism and henotheism. For the general polytheistic concept, see Deity. For other uses, see God (disambiguation)." No reason for merge. Its a through lenghty article on it's own on an individual subject. No reason at all. Might as well start grouping anything specific back with a grouping with that logic. Xiahou (talk) 21:38, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Doing some digging and this has already been handled, an entire section under manual of style on how to handle this. It's quite obvious by early concensus when making those rules it was separate. If they stated it then enough to have rules of style for it. It's a non debate now.-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(capital_letters)#Religions.2C_deities.2C_philosophies.2C_doctrines_and_their_adherents Xiahou (talk) 22:21, 12 April 2011 (UTC)


 * There are already articles on the Abrahamic deity at Yahweh and El. And "god", capitalized or not, does also refer to Zeus, Odin, Krishna, Manitou and any other major or minor deity in all of the world's faiths. The very obvious and ubiquitous bias in favor of Judaism and Christianity on Wikipedia has to stop.
 * Oh, and someone who confuses "you're" and "your" has no business editing Wikipedia articles. <span style="padding:0px 8px 0px 8px;background-color:#eeeedd;border:1px solid #ddddcc;color:#880000;font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Arial;font-weight:bold;text-shadow:0 0 7px #666666;">&#9798; CUSH &#9798; 08:46, 13 April 2011 (UTC)


 * "God" generally refers to the neo-Platonic conception which was appropriated by Christianity, Judaism, and Islam to varying degrees. But it retains enough distinction of its own and deserves an article with this title. See the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy: http://www.iep.utm.edu/god-west/ Hammiesink (talk) 15:58, 13 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Well it seems obvious now someone has an agenda and an attitude. Lovely, lets not be constuctive lets be insulting. Well let's see, you didn't counter any of the points brought up. I don't think you are understanding, God capitalized does not refer to Zeus unless its at the beginning of a sentence. Zeus is a god not God. God is the name, pronoun. Let me put it this way. Cush is human, A person with the name "Human" is a human, BUT Cush is not Human. Let alone the Rules of style already cover this which you avoided discussing. Or Hammiesinks link. Your not winning over concensus so far that's for sure. I for one say we poll it now to see if we should remove the tag after polling on merge. You haven't countered anything shown you, and yet you keep misstating the difference. Let alone being unconstuctive and insulting. Stick to the discussion. So to make it official as far as merge

Strongly Oppose it for reasons stated in posts above by myself and user Hammiesink. Xiahou (talk) 01:53, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * This is ridiculous. The user wanting to merge has already shown his agenda here, let alone insulting to editors as if this helps. He tried the same type of thing with another article (Set) and was told no. The article is about a specific being to be merged with the noun form not specific is foolish. It obviously deserves its own article. It seems to come down to not knowing the difference between the name God and a god, and the difference of those words. There are wiki rules of style covering this. Even though its a small sampling, concensus says no. I am removing the tag. Xiahou (talk) 23:12, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

bias against polytheism
This article has a very strong bias against polytheism, effectively assuming monotheism throughout almost the entire article. It would take a lot of work to fix it. Fundamentisto (talk) 20:23, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


 * It's an article about a monotheistic deity. I suppose you would not say that the article Zeus has a strong anti-monotheistic bias. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:38, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

No census
"The percentage of population in European countries who responded in a 2005 census.... "

This was not a census. A census asks EVERYONE within the population. Consider using 'Survey'. Marco 74.211.91.75 (talk) 05:12, 6 June 2011 (UTC)


 * You're correct. The description page of the picture doesn't even mention 'census'. I've changed it to 'survey'. <span style="font-family:lucida console, courier new, terminal;color:#009911;">BytEfLUSh &#124; <span style="font-family:courier new, terminal;color:#004411;">Talk!  23:30, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

God
God became conceptualized, by humans, a long time ago. This conceptualization, I believe, came about in order to explain the beginnings and the source of the harmony of the natural world. In such ancient times, very little of the world had been known, by any group that attempted to explain the unknown source of the world. Such peoples had no idea that evolution could produce species variation; therefore, EVERYTHING had to be created by some greater power; thus Man became created as a completely evolved Adam. The power, then, known as God, became an omnipresent being and 'who' some claimed to 'know', to some extent. This God, being omnipotent, came to be credited with various aspects of reality that could be explained by no other means available. note* in the French translations, God, (le dieu), being a masculine noun, became a male being; the church (l'eglise), being a feminine noun, became a feminine 'being'. note**The existance of God is not in the realm of science because the subject of the idea of 'God' is the total of all that results in the world and the universe; such 'God', therefore, exists, without any need of scientific proof. 74.198.12.6 (talk) 02:01, 16 January 2011 (UTC)Monty Newhook BEd74.198.12.6 (talk) 02:01, 16 January 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.198.12.6 (talk) 01:47, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If God is outside the realm of science as you claim, then there is no justifiable and logical reason to believe he exists then. Science deals with evidence, the only path we have to discern fact from fiction.  Therefore, if God cannot be examined by science, then he shares all the same characteristics of anything that does not exist and it is unjustifiable to believe he does exist.  This isn't to say that he 100 doesn't exist, just that his existence (using your logic) is unverifiable and believing in God is, by definition, illogical.  As anyone familiar with wikipedia knows, it's not about "truth", it's about verifiability. For example, 2000 years ago, there was no justifiable reason to believe electrons existed and if someone went around saying they did, it STILL wouldn't be justifiable to accept that claim due to the lack of available empirical evidence.

Oh, and if God is outside the realm of science, then it is, by definiton, impossible for you, or anyone, to claim to understand ANY of his/her/it's characteristics including the very statement "God is outside the realm of science". Therefore, provide evidence for your claims, not just posit a claim, that's what the article should stick toSuperAtheist (talk) 20:03, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

The fact that God does not belong to the realm of the scientific method does not invalidate arguments for the existence of God. Mathematics, logic, morality, aesthetics, and other metaphysical areas (such as the existence of other conscious minds, an external world, and past events) cannot be proven by the scientific method, yet are held to be properly basic beliefs. The arguments for the existence of God do not refute the scientific method, but rather extend it to metaphysical truths that can be upheld through logic and reason, not the scientific method. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CyberKarl (talk • contribs) 20:34, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't understand your reasoning. 1) It does invalidate some arguments for the existence of God (eg: the Argument from Design). 2) Your statement that mathematics, logic et. al. "are held to be properly basic beliefs" is nonsensical, as mathematics, logic, morality and aesthetics are not beliefs (although some aspects of morality may be beliefs). 3) The arguements for the existence of God do not "extend metaphysical truths" to the scientific method at all. For one thing, they are not indisputably "true". 4) Very few of the arguments for the existence of God can be upheld through logic and reason. There is an enormous field of philosophical literature concerning this, and for every argument that monotheists have made for the existence of God, there has been at least one counter-argument. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.75.84.78 (talk) 06:58, 8 May 2011 (UTC)


 * In matters of mathematics, any fantasy becomes "real" as long as you are coherent and provide rigorous proof (hint: you choose your assumptions accordingly). In some logics, coherence is not even required (source). In general, logics is not a science, but a set of beliefs of a logician who seeks to define what is correct thinking (according to each logician, since other logicians could disagree with him/her by inventing or advocating other logics). In matters or morals and aesthetics there are simply opinions, more or less respectable/tasteful, since there are arguments for women wearing Islamic clothing being morally right or beautiful as well as arguments for the Islamic clothing being morally wrong or ugly. The same applies to wearing mini-skirts, death penalty, abortion, kitsch, high brow culture and so on. The existence God can be both advocated and negated by philosophers, since in matters of philosophy there is no consensus, therefore each philosopher is entitled to his own view in this respect. I think there isn't any idea/thesis whereupon all philosophers would agree. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:34, 9 June 2011 (UTC)