Talk:Supreme Being

Conceptual exclusivity?
Is this concept really only Masonic? I know, for example, that alcoholics anonymous has a concept of a Supreme Being. Dave 15:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Alcoholics Anonymous, as well as all other 12 Step programs, believe in a "higher power," but not necessarily a Supreme Being. The 12 Step higher power can be social, political, or a variety of other things, but not necessarily divine. For example, one's social life can be their higher power. -Kingurth 00:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

What to do with this article - delete?
At the moment, this article is a mess. It discusses only one usage of the term Supreme Being (that of Freemasonry). As such, it is a completely unreferenced statement of an individual editors POV as to what the term means to Freemasons (which, without citations amounts to Original Research).

While we could take this article further, and discuss the usage of the term by other groups and in other situations, doing so would either make it a dictionary definition... which is discouraged under WP:NOT... or a repetition of concepts and usages that are better explained in other articles.

I find it interesting that vast majority of edits to this article amount to little more than an edit war over which article it should be redirected to. Look at the edit history (going back to 2004) and you see repeated redirects to God, to Deity, and to Great Architect of the Universe. This tells me that there is a clear consensus that this article is not wanted, but that we can not agree on where to redirect it. I would like to suggest that we cut the gordian knot and actually put it up for deletion. I will, however, wait a reasonable time for comments before doing so. Blueboar 16:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, I note that (finally) some references have been provided. Great... however, I still find that the article says little that is not already stated in more detail in other articles. It now seems to be a repetition of what is stated in the Freemasonry article. The citations may save it from deletion, but re-open the question of where to redirect. Thoughts? Blueboar 14:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I have an issue with any redirection to something which implies a singular G*d, in a masonic sense the term is not that restrictive. I've objected to that in the past and would continue to do so, taking that position effectively excludes Hindu and Buddhist brenthren. -Unsigned
 * On rereading the second paragraph needs thinking about, because it only alludes to one usage. OTOH having reread the FM article I'd agree that it's pretty much a restatement of what's said there, so I'm reasonably ambivalent, but I think you'd struggle to find consensus to redirect to that article. ALR 15:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, I can understand that ... I guess that is why none of the redirects ever seem to stick. I think that this could make for a decent article if it became something more than an article that simply explains one of Freemasonry's entry requirements, and if actually talked about the concept behind the term "Supreme Being", its usages and history etc.  I look at what we were able to accomplish with the Great Architect article and the Eye of Providence article once we broadened it away from talking about just Freemasonry. I will attempt to do some rewiting to pull in more general usages and meanings. -Unsigned

Expanding on article
I have begun the process of moving this article beyond just a discussion of the requirements to join Freemasonry. A lot more needs to be done, but it is a start. Blueboar 15:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Islamic reference
I would like to point out that singling Islamic scholars as apparently being the only one holding the terms "Supreme Being" and "Allah" as synonyms is incorrect, as Arabic-speaking Christians also use "Allah" to refer to god. I think it needs to be clarified that "Allah" is a generic Arabic-language term that designates any Supreme Being, be it Christian or Muslim. Judaism uses other specifically mentioned words which are transmuted into English(or any other language for that matter) as well, when refering to god from a Jewish perspective, words such as "Adonai", "JHWH", "HaShem" or "AdoShem". The conclusion would be that from a secular point of view, Allah=God=HaShem, Adonai, JHWH, HaShem. Sufitul 05:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Feel free to clarify this in the article if you really think it is needed. The point of the paragraph is not to say that Muslims are the only people to use the name "Allah" to refer to God... it is to demonstrate that some Islamic scholars have used the term "Supreme Being" (at least when writing in English). If you can word that better, please do so. Blueboar 12:25, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Definitions and imaginations
referring to highest priciple of the Divine, in German language, by Swami Omkarananda. Austerlitz -- 88.75.75.71 (talk) 14:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The term "being"
According to The Collins German Concise Dictionary being refers to existence as well as to that which exists. Does the term Supreme being in English refer to being with form or without? www.lionsroar.name "being: Sanskrit: bhava, lifer, becoming. Tibetan: srid pa; existence" Austerlitz -- 88.75.75.71 (talk) 16:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * In this case, the word 'being' is a noun... as in an entity. So "that which exists" is closer to the correct meaning. Blueboar (talk) 21:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Categorization issues
We seem to be in a minor edit war over whether to include this article in the category "Masonic symbolism". I think this is a miscategorization. "Supreme Being" isn't a symbol, it is a term. In Masonry this term is used to refer to whatever individual conception of God a Mason may have. Masonic symbols are things such as the Square and Compasses, or Jacob's Ladder. They are emblems and tools that are given symbolic and allegorial meanings. Blueboar (talk) 15:19, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Devine?
The word 'devine' is used in the deism writeup, is this supposed to be divine? Tyciol (talk) 15:29, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I would assume so... it would be nice if Wikipedia had a spell check. Blueboar (talk) 21:41, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah I just wasn't sure since it's DEism so I thought maybe someone based it on that. Tyciol (talk) 02:06, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Buddhism?
Is the SB term ever used in buddhism? Do masons accept that? Tyciol (talk) 02:06, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * According to our article on God in Buddhism, it depends on which sect of Buddhism you are talking about. Apparently, some Buddhists do have a concept of a Supreme Being, while others do not.  As far as Masonic acceptance goes, since there are Freemasons who are Buddhists, I would say at least some form of Buddhism is acceptable.  A lot depends on the Jurisdiction.  Some are more open to "philosophical" concepts of Deity than others.  In most US Jurisdictions the only religious question that a petitioner is asked is: "Do you believe in Deity?"  If the petitioner answers "yes", then he can join.  The fraternity does not ask him to explain his belief. Blueboar (talk) 13:39, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

The Linguistic Value
Doesn't appear to mention the abstract concept, the limit superlative of comparative Superior Being, the objective reality of the primitive projection, i.e as distinct from personifications, etc.. Lycurgus (talk) 08:49, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Please explain further... your comment contains too much techinical jargon for the average reader (or editor) to understand. Blueboar (talk) 13:58, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * As in treatments like that of Steven Brams in Superior Beings: If They Exist, How Would We Know? Game-Theoretic Implications of Omniscience, Omnipotence, Immortality, and Incomprehensibility. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1983. Rev. ed., 2007 (Springer)., and historically, e.g Plato, etc. i.e. the Non-Religious philosophical concept analogous to the Non Religious views &sect; of God . 72.228.177.92 (talk) 16:39, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Having not read that book... that does not help. ... what does Steven Brams have to say about the use of the term "Supreme Being" (and note... the article is about the use of the term Supreme Being... not the concept of Superior Beings... is this the right article for what you are talking about?) Blueboar (talk) 16:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Corrected typo in first sentence of this thread which aside from assuming full English proficiency, is without jargon or the assumption of knowledge especial. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 13:07, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Scope of the article
I am confused by the scope of this article... are we discussing religions that contain a concept of a supreme being (which would be just about all of them)... or are we discussing religions that use the term "Supreme Being". I was under the impression that the article was about the latter, but people keep adding things that relate to the former. Blueboar (talk) 00:16, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Judaism?
How come this article does not include a section on the Jewish view of God?--174.91.80.32 (talk) 23:21, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Note that the article is not about various "views of God" (there are other articles for that) but about the term "Supreme Being". Do Jews regularly refer to God as the "Supreme Being"?  if so please add a section on it (properly cited of course). Blueboar (talk) 23:34, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Yoruba
We seem to be in an edit war over the Yoruba section... so let's discuss rather than reverting each other. This article is about the term "Supreme Being"... the focus is on how that term is used by various peoples (usually in reference to their particular concept of God). The source given confirms that the term is sometimes used in reference to the Yoruba god Olorun. And I have no problem including that fact in the article... but we have to phrase it as a sentence about the term "supreme being"... and not a sentence about Olorun. This is in keeping with how we phrase all the other uses of the term in other religions. Blueboar (talk) 14:21, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Capitalisation
I edited this page, in an attempt to explain to readers why the term Supreme Being is capitalised in the article, but it was reverted. The term should only be capitalised when used as a noun; essentially when it's used used as a name for a specific deity. There's nothing intrinsically wrong with the article title being capitalised, but without some explanation of this, there's potential for confusion. In the opening sentence, for example, it says "Supreme Being is a term for God used by theologians and philosophers of many religious faiths, including Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Judaism, and deism". 'God', being capitalised, is a reference to a specific supreme being, but the supreme being worshiped by Hindus is not the same as that worshiped by Christians. I've made a small edit to clarify things, if any editors here don't like it, feel free to tweak the wording, but some clarification is required. Obscurasky (talk) 15:37, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * This is an article about a religious concept... not a style guide on how to capitalize the English language term for that concept. It may well be that the term should be presented capitalized in some cases, and uncapitalized in other cases... but the article does not actually need to say that.  Blueboar (talk) 21:50, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure it's strictly accurate to say that the article is about a religious concept - which only goes to demonstrate the importance of clarification. The page is capitalised and is, therefore, an article about the title Supreme Being, not the concept of a supreme being. Nothing wrong with that, and the page is largely written accordingly, but it does need to be clear to the reader to avoid confusion. Obscurasky (talk) 23:00, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You need to initiate a move discussion. I don't think there is a problem with normalising the capitalisation, but there is a proper way of doing it. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 23:53, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I think that, on reflection, the title is best left as it is. Changing the capitalisation would mean rewriting the article to one about the general concept of a supreme being - and that's already covered by the page God. There's nothing wrong with an article about the title Supreme Being, so long as readers understand that's what it is. This was the reason for my edit.Obscurasky (talk) 00:30, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Merge
Should this article be merged to God? Editor2020 (talk) 03:03, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * My justification: it's primarily a colloquial term used to avoid constantly repeating the phrase "God". The article states that it used in Christian theology, but it appears nowhere on that page, and to my knowledge, is not used as a name for God in the Bible. Similarly, it's used in other faiths to generalize the term, and does not have a unique meaning. The references on the page about obscure cults can or already appear on those specific pages. Hare Krishna. UpdateNerd (talk) 03:11, 18 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Note: The discussion should likely occur at Talk:God (that is the talk page both templates point at). — Paleo  Neonate  – 10:18, 18 August 2018 (UTC)