Talk:God/Archive 24

Archive 20

←

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Existence: not NPOV

The recent edits by LogicandProportion (specifically at 13:22, 15 January 2016) seem wildly non-NPOV to me. I quote:

"Recent findings in the fields of cosmology, evolutionary biology and neuroscience, have provided compelling evidence that God is an imaginary entity only, with no basis in reality.[69][70][71] A single, omniscient God who is imagined to have created the universe and is particularly attentive to the lives of humans has been imagined, embellished and promulgated in a trans-generational manner.[72] Despite the lack of evidence for the material existence of such a God, and extensive evidence to the contrary,[73] belief in God has persisted in many cultures. It has been beneficial for the cohesiveness of many communities and the populace of countries to believe in a God that "watches over us" and directly affects our lives, and to indoctrinate children and other subordinates into such beliefs.[74][75][76] On the other hand, the dissolution of mental boundaries between reality and a world controlled by God has resulted in violent actions of many individuals and extremist terrorist groups.[70]"

The references are to common atheist sources such as Dawkins. Does it need to be said that these are controversial interpretations, even among philosophers? I think this entire paragraph should be removed, but will leave it to somebody with more (any) seniority to do so. 76.121.187.193 (talk) 07:46, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Material removed. While covering atheist views is appropriate, they should be covered as views instead of being treated as as some divine gospel only rejected by heathens. Ian.thomson (talk) 08:12, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Material removed as it advocates views instead of simply describing them. It also WP:UNDUE-ly applies arguments against specific interpretations of God to the general idea. It is no more appropriate to treat a New Atheist POV as plain facts (instead of claims) than it is to treat any other religious fundamentalism's claims as fact.

If it was reworked to indicate that that that's the New Atheist interpretation of the matter, that might work (though WP:DUE still applies). But that wasn't the case, as can be seen. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:16, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Now I am confused, the section did not refer to New Atheism. As I read it, it just offered some science supporting the theory that there is no god(s) and counter balanced the preceding theory that there are gods. Unibond (talk) 14:20, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I have tried to edit the article to make the two sides of the argument more distinct, IMO there still needs to be a little more in the not exists section for it to be better balanced, it still seems top heavy. Unibond (talk) 14:37, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

The inclusion of Harris and Dawkins pretty obviously places it in the New Atheism camp. It was not simply offering some science, it was presenting interpretations from opinionated commentaries on select scientific findings as established scientific facts. It's no different than presenting the ideas of Vladimir Vernadsky, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, Theodosius Dobzhansky, and Frank J. Tipler in the "arguments for" by only saying "findings in biology and physics provide compelling evidence for the existence of God." Were they established scientific facts (from Wikipedia's perspective), there would be a variety of tertiary sources specifically dedicated to science that covering the matter (instead of mostly primary sources).

The issue wasn't at all that they weren't distinct, and at no point did anyone imply that that had anything to do with the problem.

I have made the following changes to better fit NPOV and NOR:

• Replaced "provide compelling evidence" with "are interpreted by atheists (such as Lawrence M. Krauss and Sam Harris) as" -- This is in line with the "arguments for" section, which does not take one of those arguments and say "this is a compelling argument," it clearly states whose argument it is.
• Changed "Despite the lack of evidence for the material existence of such a God, and extensive evidence to the contrary," to "Richard Dawkins interprets various findings not only as a lack of evidence for the material existence of such a God but extensive evidence to the contrary." -- Again, separating ideas and properly attributing them.
• Dropped material that is not concerned with existence or non-existence as the usefulness of belief -- not relevant. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:00, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

As a rule of thumb, the affirmation "science proves that God does not exist" should be considered patent nonsense. Also, "science proves that God does exist" should be considered patent nonsense. God is simply put not a scientific problem. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:06, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I am not sure about the "compelling evidence" either way, but part of the removed material touched on a rather important subject. The cultural and sociological role of this God in modern societies and the needs it fulfills. Why is this considered non-important? This is far from nonsense. Dimadick (talk) 16:20, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

The material appears still to be there, Dimadick; just in a more NPOV manner. Incidentally, Ian, there remains a typo -- "Recent findings... have are [sic] interpreted...." 76.121.187.193 (talk) 06:11, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I think Dimadick was referring to the material I removed about why people might believe in a deity, which either isn't relevant to the issue of whether or not there is one, or, if it is, is being used as synthesis (a theist could just as easily argue that those reasons are benefits of belief).

I agree that it could be useful in another part of the article (especially with additional sourcing, preferably secondary and tertiary sources that summarize the general consensus of journal articles instead of specific and potentially cherry-picked nigh-primary-source journal articles) -- but it's not relevant to the issue of existence. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:02, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

god is infinite space-time.

space-time dictated by the uncertainty principle generates the multiverse which is an "infinitely" evolving fractal feedback loop through the quanta of all our minds which are folds of spacetime. our minds are themselves tachyon particles simply because we can visualize potential future states before the light of that event occurs in reality, if you believe multiverse theory you can reasonably assume that future state manifests in a parallel universe even if not in your own, our mind is a fold of spacetime where the purely abstract mathematical truth of a wave meets reality in the form of consciousness. necessarily the mind is also a superposition or 'entangled' with the 'abstract' uncertainty|certainty of the 'real' past|future, always obeying the uncertainty principle of information. through the uncertainty principle your mind is semi-randomly phase transitioning a novel worldline through the multiverse, helping to generate infinite complexity. perfect randomness is itself perfect infinity. to put it simply you dont know what you dont know and- everything is a resource. The5thForce (talk) 03:12, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

(1) What is the specific point you want to make with this statement. (2) Where are your reliable sources (3) What do you want us to do with the article based on your input? Arnoutf (talk) 11:34, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Also, please do not change previous texts (in any substantial way) after a comment has been posted. That may put the editor writing the response in a difficult spot as the comment may seem off-topic. (Not a problem in this specific case by the ways as your addition of 600+ characters did not address any of my points above. Arnoutf (talk) 14:44, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

 Done The5thForce has been blocked indefinitely for comments like those. --mfb (talk) 11:53, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Globalize

I tagged the article with the globalize/west template because most of the pictures and general info seem to deal primarily with Western Christianity (particularly Roman Catholic anthropomorphic depictions of Go), with NO mention of Orthodoxy or Orthodox "Eastern" Churches such as the Eastern Orthodox Church, Coptic Church, etc. This is important as, for example, icons in the Orthodox tradition almost *never* depict God the Father as human appearance or at all given the infinite nature of God. Is this fair?--Sıgehelmus (Talk) |д=) 17:11, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

There are actually two problems. On the one hand, the western church is just much larger than the eastern churches (rough estimate about 3 to 4 times as large). So you would expect this proportion to be reflected in proportion of images; that is, about 3-4 western images of God against every eastern image of God (and it should include proportional amounts of muslim images of God for that matter). Still the current listing is heavily western biased. To overcome this, we should replace western images of God with eastern (or muslim) images of God. That bring me to the second and probably more problematic issue. As you state above there are just much fewer eastern images of God in eastern rite (and in islam). So it will be very hard, if not impossible to replace western images of God with alternatives (as they are likely lacking). But that in turn would suggest the images of God presented does provide a globally unbiased overview of depictions of God (however the number of depictions themselves are Western biased).

All in all I would say this is not an easy issue to solve. It would help if some alternative pictures of God from Eastern rites would be presented with this proposal, so that we have some idea what the implementation of this idea would result in. Arnoutf (talk) 18:50, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree, it is quite difficult to describe something in an image that is not (or is not supposed to be) there. I could add a section or sub-section(s) concerning depictions of God the Father in Eastern Orthodoxy and possibly other religions (although I have more experience and knowledge in the former). I get very antsy when making huge changes, especially on popular articles. Also, it is interesting to note that there is a an article called Depictions of God in Western Christianity, but not for Eastern or Islam. What do you think?--Sıgehelmus (Talk) |д=) 19:03, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

As far as I know it is strictly forbidden to make images of God in Islam (but I am no expert), which would explain there is no such article. I am no expert in the Eastern Christian beliefs, so I don't know how strictly the non-imaging of God is there. Arnoutf (talk) 19:21, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Well I personally use OrthodoxWiki and OrthodoxInfo whenever I need to check on something, so you might find that interesting although they are not perfect at all. Fr. Vladimir Moss and Seraphim Rose have some great books also on the matter. Anyway I'm going to attempt to perhaps write something for Eastern Orthodox, Coptic Orthodox, and Islamic depictions of God. Any help is appreciated.--Sıgehelmus (Talk) |д=) 19:27, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

I found this, there are more Orthodox icons of the Trinity at Commons. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:07, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

That is a very unusual and non-standard icon. Not just for depicting the Father as a bearded human, but the artstyle itself seems overtly Latin. It comes from Turkey, do you know if this was made during the Frankokratia?--Sıgehelmus (Talk) |д=) 21:47, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

I was born in a preponderantly Orthodox country, and I saw some icons depicting Trinity, so it does not look that odd to me. See e.g. [1]. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:01, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

I was also born in a predominantly Orthodox area, and I have been on a few forums and listened to some priests who explained God the Father explicitly is not shown in most icons, and when the Father is depicted He is, well I should provide some examples. I'm busy but will come back with some photos.--Sıgehelmus (Talk) |д=) 22:14, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Concerning the image on the top of the article

This article contains many different point of views about the God: and I think that using a picture with specific ideology on the top of this article is clearly POV-pushing and not respecting the neutral point of view: that's why I removed [2] the first image [3] per WP:NPOV and WP:VECTOR. I don't know why my edit got reverted [4] though. I want to resolve the content dispute here, rather than edit warring. Anyone concerned about this dispute is welcome to discuss and explain his edits. Ttt74 (talk) 12:14, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

It is unclear to me what the argument is around WP:VECTOR as that page is inactive. WP:NPOV may apply to some extent, however we should take into account that not having a picture of God can be considered as much non-neutral for those in traditions of depicting God, as having a picture for those in traditions of not having an image of God. This is actually pretty close to the religion argument in WP:CENSOR; which seems to closely address the problems with mutliple points of view on religious issues.

In other words, the argument reguires better exaplanation than provided in the edit summaries (and should have been given after the first reinstatement of the image and before the second removal if we follow the suggestions outlined in WP:BRD.

So please bring forward a coherent suggestion why you think that this specific image should be removed and what should come in its place. Arnoutf (talk) 14:44, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. I'm not against using that picture on this article. What I'm suggesting is moving any picture on the main section of this article, to a different one: because the use of any picture as the main one seems biased and with POV-pushing background; This article discusses many different point of views, and articles on Wikipedia should be written with the neutral point of view. BTW, what do you mean by "that page is inactive"? Ttt74 (talk) 15:42, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

I think what Arnoutf's getting at about WP:VECTOR (please check the link) is that it's a skin for the site (i.e. not something related to article content at all), and on top of that it has been the default skin for the site since 2010 and so the implementation page is nothing more than a historical record. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:59, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't check the link, it's just because I thought it was a shortcut for Wikipedia:Verifiability. I meant Wikipedia:Verifiability. Again, I don't have a problem with the picture, but my problem IS where to place the picture. Ttt74 (talk) 17:01, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

I think verifiability is very problematic here as all religious scriptures and art are not reliable sources. The only thing we can say here is that this is a picture of God as imagined by the artist. Which is already verifiable by the mere existence of the painting. Arnoutf (talk) 17:59, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

What I mean, is that there is no universally agreed representation of the God: that's why I think this picture should be moved from the main section to another: So what's wrong with this? Ttt74 (talk) 18:16, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

I have reverted your edit as there is clearly absolutely no consensus for the change. Theroadislong (talk) 22:51, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Well who did disagree with this recent change [5]: it's only you. Can you explain why you disagree? Ttt74 (talk) 22:57, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Nobody has agreed with you either? You appear to have made a unilateral decision that your version is prefered? Theroadislong (talk) 23:04, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

I asked you firstly, you need to answer before asking. Ttt74 (talk) 23:11, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

You appear to be censoring Wikipedia, I agree there is no universally agreed representation of this God, but the image illustrated the content of the lede, and has done for some time.Theroadislong (talk) 23:37, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

I kept the image on my recent edit [6], and it has not been deleted from the article: I think that your censorship claim is inappropriate. Ttt74 (talk) 00:07, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

I would prefer that the article has some kind of infobox rather than a normally edited figure in the top right corner. The God series template may be that; but it is one of the very few such infoboxes that has no image (even Atheism which is the denial of the existence of God has some image). (PS Ttt74, the mere fact that 3 different editors reverted your removal of the picture should be a clear sign there is no consensus for deletion) Arnoutf (talk) 08:16, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

I have undone the deletion. And I'm not against keeping this picture on the article. But, I'm against using any picture in the top right corner: and I think that you agree with this. There is no common symbol about the god: so I don't think we need an image for the infobox. Ttt74 (talk) 10:47, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

On not believing in God and deities.

Charlesdrakew, we seem to be having a moderate disagreement on logic and language. This article on God is about monotheism, or so it says at the top of the article. One can be a monotheist and not be a polytheist. That is, one can believe in a God but not believe in "deities". Alternatively, one might be a polytheist and believe that there are, specifically, "deities" -- that is, that there is actually more than one god and not just a God. Acknowledging that these are beliefs that people have, then, to be an atheist is to be neither a monotheist nor a polytheist -- that is, and in the context of this article, one should say that an atheist does not believe in "deities" and, also, does not believe in God. Why we need to go around on such an issue is not clear, but here I am trying to be clear. My edits are, I believe, are thoughtful. I ask you to consider them. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 23:20, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

It should be obvious that to single out any particular god as distinct from gods in general is non-neutral. It is nothing to do with poly/monotheism. Would you want our article on Odin to include the phrase "deities or Odin"? I suspect not.Charles (talk) 09:11, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

I think this fall under the idea that an atheist is a monotheist who believes in one fewer god/deity. No need to name that single god. Arnoutf (talk) 18:22, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Gonzales John/GreenessItself sockpuppetry

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gonzales John Doug Weller talk 16:04, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 April 2016

'Vaishnavism, a tradition in Hinduism, has list of titles and names of Krishna.' This statement is totally incorrect and absurd. Hinduism is a term which sprouts out around the 10th Century as the Mughal invaders could not pronounce the word Sindhu (with reference to the Sindhu River). What's more there is no such word as Hindu in the Vedic scriptures. This statement needs changing as it is wrong. It needs changing to: 'Vaishnavism, has lists of titles and names of Krishna' or 'Hinduism is a religion which originates from Vaishnavism. The Vedic scriptures has a list of titles and names of Krishna.' Please also see http://iskconnews.org/are-iskcon-devotees-hindus,3322/ 2A02:C7D:5B6C:7D00:2016:ED3B:3E12:C39B (talk) 19:34, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Do you have a scholarly book that summarizes this? That would be useful. Thank you, Isambard Kingdom (talk) 19:45, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

 Not done the request is getting stale, and the ip did not respond with additional reliable sources. Also check the article on Vaishnavism, which suggests it's a "tradition" of Hinduism.  — Andy W. (talk · contrib) 03:47, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Globalize/West

I noticed the "globalize/West" header complaining that the article is biased with a Western perspective. I think an article entitled "God" should encompass all historical deities, i.e., what the Deity article is now. For views from specific religious I'd suggest God (Judaism) or whatever. Horatio (talk) 01:27, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Actually these other articles already exist, God in Judaism, God in Christianity, God in Islam. Whether an article is also needed for this "monotheistic God in general" and what it should be called I don't know. Horatio (talk) 01:33, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm probably silly for commenting here, since this has surely been beaten to death somewhere in the 24 pages of archives. Actually it's already discussed in archive 1, and it was argued there that the article should be with a Western monotheistic viewpoint. I can't say I find that convincing, but maybe there's something better in the other 23 archives. Horatio (talk) 02:21, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Moreover, "God", as such (as a consolidated/abstracted superstition, distinct from "god", the singular of "gods") is essentially an artifact of the Rise of the West. For that reason the tag is spurious. Primitive peoples make up stuff because a long ascent thru such confabulations is necessary to reach the level of scientific culture, as yet nowhere fully attained on the Earth. The many obviously false confabulations are reacted to and that happened on the main land mass in the period 3500-1500 ya. In India atheist Buddhism and later the synthesis of Hindu polytheism resulted. In China there was an abandonment of superstition generally by the literate classes in the Classical period, the reason today religion is not the problem there it is elsewhere. It was also (in the middle of this period) that after a long process, the Jews actually became monotheistic, after a considerable period where they were not although that fact seems to be little known among the masses. In the West there was a consolidation in a single abstract "God", the intellectually least defensible of the three major developments, although obviously two of these things are similar and one is not like the others. For this reason the tagging is oblivious, errant. It is likely that had the ancestors of the modern northern Europeans not been as backward as they were when they engulfed European classical civilization, or Graeco-Roman society shown the same properties of cohesion and ability to dominate and absorb foreign elements as Han society did, a better result would have been obtained there. For this reason, and the others stated, the globalize tag should be removed. 108.183.102.223 (talk) 07:49, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, that whole God concept is pretty much Western, particularly European. Not like it was ever found in Egypt, Mongolia, Iran, Kenya, or Nigeria. Yeah, China rejected that God idea pretty quickly, especially any Western version of it, thanks in part to Buddhism (which is absolutely non-theistic). Ian.thomson (talk) 12:22, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Man, I'm glad that my feelings are confirmed. It is absurd for an article about a concept found mostly in the West to complain that it lacks any Eastern views of the concept.Gonzales John (talk) 17:08, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Acknowledging the apparent sarcasm by Ian.thomson above. It seems weak, to say the least. I am not, of course saying that the impulse to make bullshit up is not universal to early culture or an artifact of the West, what I said is the opposite of that. Rather I am saying that the consolidated God of Abraham, works on the plane of belief systems as an element of its role in bringing about the current world system/culture. The rest of the riposte seems to be support for what I said, so ty. Lycurgus (talk) 23:14, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

I acknowledge that "The God of Abraham" is effectively a Western(ized) portrayal (with origins southwest Asia); but yeah, the idea of a universal God (of which the Abrahamic one is a particular representation) is found in a variety of cultures and it wasn't simply the insistence of missionaries or the Interpretatio graeca of colonialists, but argued by indigenous peoples as well (sometimes to the consternation of missionaries and colonialists). Ian.thomson (talk) 04:06, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Good, so here's my suggested course of action on this highly sensitive article: post merge tags for God in Abrahamic religions into here, then redact during merge so that what you've just made clear is also clear in the merged article. 108.183.102.223 (talk) 15:13, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

...But that's not really in line with the sources at all. The Abrahamic God is a Western conception of a universal God, as Tengri/Tian (related) an Asian conception of a universal God, Ngai a Kenyan conception of a universal God, Ahura Mazda a Persian conception of a universal God, and so forth (which, though through sarcasm, my first post strongly pointed out). If one prefers to chalk that universality up to parallel evolution in philosophy, fine, but the point remains that those cultures share a common idea with their own unique variations. Our articles (or rather, their sources) back this up. Those non-Abrahamic conceptions did not derive from the Abrahamic one, as any WP:RS on the subject would attest. Likewise, the Abrahamic conceptions have historical distinctions from other conceptions of God. If we were to merge God of Abraham into this article, we'd also have to merge those other conceptions into this article as well.

We're not going to merge this with just the Abrahamic view based on your personal beliefs about history (especially since they are not in line with mainstream academic sources on theology and religious studies). Ian.thomson (talk) 16:18, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

You've misread my recommendation but I'm not going to spend more time on this. It was one of two ways I've suggested to resolve the issue. 108.183.102.223 (talk) 16:37, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Just following up on my original point, by all means have articles like Universal God (amusing redirection) and God in Abrahamic religions. However this article is titled "God" and should encompass all usages, including non-Western and polytheistic. Horatio (talk) 01:47, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Also, I was just reading on Lucretius, in the Encyclopedia of Philosophy, his single remaining work, and elsewhere, and following up, I certainly was not suggesting that the basic truth above be the basis of the suggested merge, I've been an editor here for a long time and I don't work that way, I work within established social and site conventions. The basic truth however, fairly commonly well known, is that by the time of Christ, religion was not taken seriously, i.e. the matter of fact of the Roman pantheon was not taken seriously (as attested in e.g. Tusculanae Disputationes) although a civil piety very roughly comparable to Confucian ancestor worship was taken seriously for its role in maintaining establishing civil order. With a better outcome an essentially secular culture might have emerged in Rome as it did in China a few centuries earlier. None of this am I suggesting for the front matter of this article and it's unlikely any substantive redact can withstand the likely blow back. The larger truth here and the just mentioned pragmatic reality is however a reason to just remove the damn tag. A 3rd way would be to move/retitle, into a less conspicuous point in this already crowded space of articles, or a scoping disclaimer in the opening of the lede. 108.183.102.223 (talk) 18:12, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 May 2016

God is the point of light.

117.205.149.86 (talk) 17:04, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

 Not done, no request specified. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:44, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 July 2016

The lead currently states Furthermore, some religions (such as Judaism) attribute non-physical "gender" to God. and then, to support this, cites two sources that state that masculine terms are used for god in Hebrew out of pure grammatical convenience and that the concept of gender does not apply. The very same quotation is even used in the Gender of God page to support the claim that Jewish philosophy does not attribute to God either sex or gender! Can someone remove this sentence?

165.234.252.11 (talk) 18:29, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

 Not done pls be more clear --Varun ☎ 16:56, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

are you for real -165.234.252.11 (talk) 16:25, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

I have corrected it: the source claims that the gender of God in Judaism is only a matter of grammar. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:33, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. -165.234.252.11 (talk) 17:58, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Derivation of the word

Dear Doug, Thanks for you reply herewith request you to clarify about the word god in Viki it has been mentioned that it has derived from Sanskrit I need your opinion on what basis they allowed as the word God derived from Sanskrit that means the editor of that bags has no idea about the history of the language as I understand Sanskrit It self created around B.C 5th century only from the language called TAMIL, BRAHGRATH & BAALI, but the word கடவுள் is used from the age of stone in Tamil, moreover if you analyse 2 out of 5 words of Sanskrit is from Tamil. How you people can accept that the Sanskrit is the ancient language of India, for your kind references i would like to inform you that the name India itself from 65 years only if you wand to know the earlier name the subcontinent you have to come to the ancient language of Tamil only. If you are a true researcher please revisit the research and identify the true history of Languages.

Thanks and Kind regards Amir Ali (அமீர் அலி) Amiralif80 (talk) 17:16, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Dear Doug, Thanks for you reply herewith request you to clarify about the word god in Viki it has been mentioned that it has derived from Sanskrit I need your opinion on what basis they allowed as the word God derived from Sanskrit that means the editor of that bags has no idea about the history of the language as I understand Sanskrit It self created around B.C 5th century only from the language called TAMIL, BRAHGRATH & BAALI, but the word கடவுள் is used from the age of stone in Tamil, moreover if you analyse 2 out of 5 words of Sanskrit is from Tamil. How you people can accept that the Sanskrit is the ancient language of India, for your kind references i would like to inform you that the name India itself from 65 years only if you wand to know the earlier name the subcontinent you have to come to the ancient language of Tamil only. If you are a true researcher please revisit the research and identify the true history of Languages.

Thanks and Kind regards Amir Ali (அமீர் அலி) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amiralif80 (talk • contribs) 17:17, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

From my talk page: :User:Amiralif80 No, Tamil is Dravidian, Sanskrit Indo-European, they derive from different language families. I am not 'you people'. The name India derives from Indus, as does Indies. I don't know who told you the name India is only 65 years old as that is obviously wrong. See for instance [7] where I see a book from 1813. Doug Weller talk 18:13, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Root Word of India

Good morning Dough. As you mentioned India is derived from Indus is correct as far as some researcher but Indus is not a palace it is represents the river only and also there is thought that India name is derived from Indira which is the name of old king of the subcontinent. Whatever it is the Indus name is for some rivers area only not for whole of the land which is there now as India and also the Indus name itself given by Paris people who invented in to that area what about before? Amiralif80 (talk) 03:52, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Misvalue

as in miss. value .Remember God is Sometimes female. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:301:7751:160:1D1C:5C29:ED0:86C0 (talk) 02:57, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 October 2016

Oh well, I just wanted to write that it should say that God is commonly known as Jesus, if it hadn't already been there.

Yoshidx (talk) 02:19, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

 Not done That's only the case in in Christianity. There are other religions on the planet. Ian.thomson (talk) 06:21, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 21 October 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. This nomination has a snowball's chance in hell of being accepted. (non-admin closure) Debresser (talk) 17:19, 22 October 2016 (UTC) Debresser (talk) 17:24, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

---

God → Deity (monotheism) – God could not only mean the deity in monotheism but also mean the deity in polytheism. In wikipedia,the word "God" only means deity in monotheism, that is not fair. So I believe the content of this article should have a new title "Deity (monotheism)", and the title "God" should be redirected to "Deity". MacArthur1945 (talk) 11:17, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose the title is the common name for the concept under discussion and the hatnote provides any clarification that is needed. MrStoofer (talk) 13:18, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose verbatim as MrStoofer, sorry. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:41, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose per commonname. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:41, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Thank you for this excellent introductory and review article

Not exactly sure how to "post a comment" here -- but I simply wanted to say that I see this "God" article as excellent, comprehensive and balanced -- and I don't really want to see its diverse facets "spun off", as I think someone has suggested, into diverse or separate articles. This piece is not overly long, and sets a high standard in a subject area that is -- of course -- absolutely vulnerable to bottomless dispute. The entire Wikipedia approach to God and religion has evolved in graceful and illuminating ways. Please don't let this very articulate approach be fragmented by confused or short-sighted or fashion-minded scholars who somehow find a holistic or survey approach to be misleading or biased. Thanks!

Bruce Schuman (talk) 05:30, 13 November 2016 (UTC) Bruce Schuman

Circled dot

Might I ask the other editors, which is preferrable, the older entry (Monad image) or the new one (Sun symbol) inserted User:Unibond? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sexperson (talk • contribs) 01:47, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Not a big difference. Why are you asking? Did you have something to do with the previous version? Isambard Kingdom (talk) 02:42, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm asking because the Sun symbol looks weird and a little too much like the circled dots that everyone sees everyday.Sexperson 03:06, 17 November 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sexperson (talk • contribs)

I thought the previous symbol wasn't clear/strong enough but I have swapped it back now Unibond (talk) 10:13, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

I take 'God' to mean '(G)enerational (O)rthogonal (D)iazapam' (GOD) in Standard Linear Geometry, does that have any correlation to the circled dot?194.61.223.53 (talk) 14:43, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on God. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130303003725/http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P17.HTM to http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P17.HTM
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140219020335/http://www.whataboutjesus.com/grace/actions-god-series/what-trinity?page=0,0 to http://www.whataboutjesus.com/grace/actions-god-series/what-trinity?page=0,0

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:25, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 February 2017

HolyJohn (talk) 16:25, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:26, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Godai

Our culture is so saturated with trinitarian christianity, that no real monotheistic reconstruction of the term "God" seems to be wellknown. Monotheism is ofcourse what real religion, and revelation was about. Even this page states "Gudan" as an earlier variant of God, that reflects a trinitarian mindset, even if no such thing existed then. You probably should consider "Gotan" instead, and remember, it is supposed to be desireless. A modern day reconstruction might be close to "Godai". "Godai is óne", but then ofcourse without the trinity, and deification of Jesus. (Like muslims). Also ofcourse "Mazda" is Lord rather than female, and probably based on revelations to Zoroaster which was Abraham / Ibrahim Zeradust. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sky Letter (talk • contribs) 15:59, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

@Sky Letter: Please see WP:NOTFORUM. Do you have a concrete suggestion on how this article could be improved? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:08, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

In my opinion, it is very loosely written, and should be rewritten as a whole, from a monotheistic perspective. It is rather a jumble. My comment is really a concrete commentary on this.Sky Letter (talk) 16:15, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Omniscience

At the beginning, "omniscience" is defined as "infinite knowledge", but it should be "knowledge of everything". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.97.6.12 (talk) 11:13, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Which comes down to more or less the same thing, but okay, you're right. Debresser (talk) 14:04, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Problem with the Images Used

Why exactly is it that an article about "the concept of a supreme "God" in the context of monotheism" chooses to use three depictions of Hindu deities when illustrating different depictions of God. On one hand it gives undue weight to have one religion occupying 3/4 of the range of depictions of God presented. Surely there are other monotheistic religions which ought to be represented in this image box. On the other hand, choosing Hinduism in of itself is problematic. While I am aware that Hinduistic conceptions of God can at times be what the west would classify as "monotheistic" the religion really doesn't fit squarely into that box. The Wikipedia article on Hinduism clearly admits that "Hinduism is a diverse system of thought with beliefs spanning monotheism, polytheism, panentheism, pantheism, pandeism, monism, and atheism among others, " furthermore, most scholarly sources tend to classify Hinduism as a monistic religion, not a monotheistic one. In fact, I have been unable to find a credible scholarly source which lists Hinduism as solely monotheistic. As such it really doesn't make all that much sense to use Hindu depictions as three quarters of the depictions of God, especially when the entities being depicted don't really depict "the concept of a supreme "God" in the context of monotheism." I propose that the image box being drastically edited or eliminated altogether. R3D October (talk) 02:26, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

God point. The only solution I see is to delete the image. No other images available... Debresser (talk) 17:14, 20 December 2016 (UTC) Puny typo in my previous comment was unintended, but I'll leave it as being to funny to remove. Debresser (talk) 17:44, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, it's odd to have 3/4 images be of such similar (to each other), yet unconventional branches of (mono)theism. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 16:49, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Within Hinduism, there are various forms of montheism, including several where pretty much all the gods are avatars of one or another god. I don't remember all the details, but it gets confusing. Islam and Judaism really don't have widely useful images to add there (I think - feel free to contradict me if I'm wrong). Ahura Mazda has a few images available, although they may not be as pretty. Some of the other gods of monotheism, as per that page, seem to have some as well. While I understand that one of the big discussions in Hinduism is which god all the other gods are avatars of, I think it might be useful to remove two of those images and replace them with images from other monotheistic faiths. John Carter (talk) 17:03, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

How about the image from the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel? Or is there a similarly iconic image used in Judaism? Of course Islam forbids images of God, and inserting one of their images would likely be offensive. Steve Sibbald (talk) 12:20, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Let's add File:La salle dAkhenaton (1356-1340 av J.C.) (Musée du Caire) (2076972086).jpg depicting the veneration of Aten, the first monotheistic deity. Pandeist (talk) 19:32, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

agree, Aten would be a good image to use for the concept of a god, avoids contemporary specificity Unibond (talk) 22:38, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi, just started reading this. I'm a new editor. How about not using an image at all since it causes so much controversy? Soli58 (talk) 06:07, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia is not censored. Ian.thomson (talk) 06:57, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Capitalisation

I've edited the section Etymology and usage because this sentence is a potentially misleading explanation of why the word is sometimes written uncapitalised;

"In the English language, the capitalized form of God continues to represent a distinction between monotheistic "God" and "gods" in polytheism".

It's true that capitalisation represents a distinction between the monotheistic "God" and "gods", but this is not the reason for capitalisation/non-capitalisation - it's a consequence of the rule that the capitalised form is used for names by which a god is known (including 'God'). See here; Capitalization #Nouns. Obscurasky (talk) 16:30, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 April 2017

Under "See Also" "God in Gnosticism" directs to "Abraxas" not Gnosticism. This is sort of like a link to "Nutrition" going to a page dedicated only to "Bologna." Abrax is sort demon like thing, Gnosticism is about early Jewish and Christian book not included in the bible, like The Gospel of Paul and Thomas. 75.171.132.208 (talk) 09:43, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

(Not saying yes or no) Eh... Abraxas was considered the name of God in Basilidean Gnosticism (but not all Gnosticism), and was only later labelled a demon. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:47, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. —MRD2014 📞 contribs 02:23, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 April 2017

I would like to give a definition for the term "GOD". 190.197.39.20 (talk) 20:05, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. - Mlpearc (open channel) 20:08, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

References to a single, unified, concept of God.

Following on from the previous section; I'm unsure how to proceed with this. The article contains poor phraseology, in that it contains references to 'God' as one single and unified entity - when actually the references really apply to all monotheistic gods (conceived or otherwise).

So starting at the beginning, the second sentence says "The concept of God, as described by most theologians, includes the attributes of omniscience.........." The problem here is that there's no such thing as a concept of 'God', in the sense of 'God' being one single entity. Each religion has a concept of its own god and, whilst it's fine to list shared attributes, a sensible wording needs to be found which explains that these attributes apply to different conceived gods, not one single conception. Suggestions anyone? Obscurasky (talk) 17:58, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

No changes please. All of the attributes listed in the sentence are completely generally agreed upon by religions and philosophies, although they may remove or add (only up to a few) attributes as they see fit would fit logic better. Music314812813478 (talk) 21:59, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Also, what all concepts completely have in common is that God is a singular object of worship whose characteristics are debatable.Music314812813478 (talk) 22:21, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand you, but in any case, the point here is that 'God' (in the context of this article) is not a singular object or conception; it's is a reference to all the conceived monotheist gods. Obscurasky (talk) 23:14, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

But pretty much everyone and every sources talk about God like he is something that is singular but whose characteristics are debatable. While they developed in different areas, people have always identified their concept of God with that of other tribes, despite notable differences. Tribes would insist that they were the ones who are correct abour God, which is how religious disagreements begin.Music314812813478 (talk) 00:06, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

There may well be some theologians who believe that all gods are the same entity, but I very much doubt there is consensus on the matter. Do you have a reliable citation to show that "pretty much everyone and every sources talk about God like he is something that is singular" Obscurasky (talk) 11:55, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

i never said "all deities", I said all "Gods with the qualities of omnipresence, etc." Whil e do not have any citation that explicitly says this, it is pretty obvious from reading different sources. They consistently say "According to Christians, God is..." not "the Christian God." We should follow the way they speak about God per the rules.Music314812813478 (talk) 21:08, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Changes to opening sentence.

I'm unhappy with Music314812813478's reversion of edits in the opening sentence (and their 'instructions' to other editors are inappropriate). To avoid an edit war it's going to be necessary to establish consensus here;

1. Interpreting the term 'faith' as a general reference to 'trust' is too wooly and requires qualification. Clearly the term is used in the context religious belief ('a faith') and I propose it should therefore be linked accordingly.

2. The capitalization of supreme being is wrong because the term is only capitalized when used as a name or formal title. The article Supreme Being is an article about the name 'Supreme Being', not the description 'supreme being'. I propose it should be written uncapitalized, in the same way that 'principal object' is written. Obscurasky (talk) 23:10, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

1. This is how "faith" is used in the source: faith is clearly a term used in religion to refer to trust in God in this context, as the article in faith says. You are obviously wrong in this regard.

2. Supreme Being should be capitalized because that is always how it is done.Music314812813478 (talk) 00:10, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Also, there is a reason wikimarkup allows for instructions to other editors.Music314812813478 (talk) 00:11, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

By the way, Supreme Being may be used as an alternative to "God", but it is not a name even though it is always capitalized because the word "the" always precedes it.Music314812813478 (talk) 00:13, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

I concur with Obscurasky on the first point. Linking to faith is quite unhelpful to the reader because that article is way too broad; one might as well link to the Wiktionary entry. I have no opinion on the capitalization issue, but linking to the Supreme Being article seems almost circular, thematically. Incidentally, at Wikipedia we generally use hidden text to make suggestions rather than issue instructions. In any event, like visible text, hidden text is also subject to consensus. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 05:29, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

The link now goes to the Religious Views section, so now there is no reason to worry about excessive topic broadness.Music314812813478 (talk) 06:49, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

So now we're back to the issue of 'faith', in the first sentence, apearing to describe one single and unified belief system. Using the qualifier 'a' gets around this problem and for the life of me I can't see what your objection is.Obscurasky (talk) 11:48, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

With regard to Supreme Being being capitalized - it certainly is not 'how it is always done'. I have found capitalized examples (when the term is not being used as a name/title) but this is done to show reverence, and only by the religion concerned. It is not a custom we need to follow in an encyclopaedic context.Obscurasky (talk) 11:48, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

I wasn't even instructing editors in the first place. I was just suggesting that they take into consideration the reasons for how the sentences are the way they are.Music314812813478 (talk) 11:27, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

I gathered that, but you used the word "instructions" in your comment above. No biggie. About that link...I think Belief#Religion works better than Faith#Religious views. The latter has no prefatory summary but just dives directly into cataloguing various faiths, while the former summarizes the topic in a way that expands on the content of this article. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 15:45, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

My issue with the lede "This article is about the concept of a supreme "God" in the context of monotheism" is that in monotheism there is only the one god so it's a bit odd to say he is the supreme god. Supreme being defined as highest in rank or authority / very great or the greatest. Unibond (talk) 16:16, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

What it means is that he is supreme and unmatched (marking a distinction between this deity and the polytheistic deities, which are finite creatures), and is called "God". It does not imply that he is above other lesser gods, becasue "God" is capitalised.Music314812813478 (talk) 21:11, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

My objection is that it does not imply,even now, that there is one unified faith! It talks about trust, which every religion agrees upon! Why would you think it imples a unified faith is beyond me.Music314812813478 (talk) 21:14, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

"Faith" should be used, because a.) Believers are required to trust in God, and "belief" does not give that connotation, and b.) "faith" is the official term. Even "belief" is nowhere near as used in religious texts, by religious people, or when discussing religion.Music314812813478 (talk) 21:17, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

It would only imply a unified faith if it was talking about religion. The way the sentence uses at term, it clearly does not.Music314812813478 (talk) 21:19, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

(It's quite unnecessary to indent further when adding to your own thought.) "Believers are required to trust in God". Which believers and of what religion? That seems like a generalization. "Even 'belief' is nowhere near as used in religious texts, by religious people, or when discussing religion." Source, please. "Belief" is widely used in the field of religious studies, when discussing religion dispassionately, as this article ought to do. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 22:31, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

"Belief" is distinct from "faith", and thus putting belief instead of faith would change what the source says. We should avoid original research in articles.

All religions encourage believers to trust in God. That should be obvious from the start. As for a source, I do not provide any, but your statement is likewise equally invalid, just so you know. Furthermore, we do not have to cite sources for assertions in the talk page.

"Belief" is not in the source, and refers to attitudes towards practices, religious texts, etc., and can be split to fundamentalism, liberalism, and so on. It is even MORE broad than just "faith", which immediately suggests "God". "Principal object of belief" sound like religions encourage that people should put more belief in God's existence than other things, which is an absurd misrepresentation of Religion's claims. What "principal object of faith" means is that people trust that God will do stuff for them more than they expect other beings to do so: a far more accurate and precise description.Music314812813478 (talk) 00:26, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Besides, the first sentence describes how believers think of God from their point of view, not the attitude of believers towards God. Believers conceive of God as someone they put trust into, and they automatically think God is real, so the sentence must use faith and not belief. And the sentence is not biased either-quite the contrary in fact, because it says "in monotheism", suggesting that God exists only in monotheism.Music314812813478 (talk) 00:36, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I'll show here and now why faith is fine. Bank could mean a river bank, or a bank for money, just as faith could mean either confidence or religion. It would be absurd if I asserted "He is swimming at the bank" should be changed to "He is walking at the bank", because the "bank" in the original sentence obviously means a "river bank", right? Likewise it is absurd to assert that "the principal object of faith" implies the existence of only one faith, because it obviously refers to "confidence" or "religious trust", and not "religion", right?

Also, ironically, Obscurasky introduced a problem similar to the one he was trying to correct

"principal object of a faith" implies that believers concieve of God as being the principal object of a single faith!Music314812813478 (talk) 00:53, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Hmm, no, I'm afraid most of that went over my head. I'm not particularly invested in this article, however, so I'm going to let others continue the discussion with you, if they wish to. A couple points before I go, if I may.

You're very new here, and that's great. Welcome. Please take it in the helpful spirit it's intended when I say that you're not making your points very persuasively. Comments such as "Furthermore, we do not have to cite sources for assertions in the talk page" aren't exactly helping. I asked for a source because you made a claim in support of one of the arguments you made, and I wanted to verify if your claim was true. That's how it works on talk pages. If you're shooting the breeze on a user talk page, that's something else again, but when you're talking about changes to an article, asking for a source is perfectly appropriate. People routinely ask for sources in talk-page discussions, and sometimes they even get them. You seem very impassioned about all this, and that's great too, but you also seem quite certain of everything you're saying, and that always makes me a little wary. I, for one, am far from sure about any of it, and I'm willing to be persuaded by reasoned arguments.

One more thing. Since subtlety didn't work, I'll be direct: please stop it with the indentation changes. The left margin jumping all over the page is making me dizzy. Help:Using talk pages and WP:Talk page guidelines provide guidance on best practices for formatting. Good luck! Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 03:42, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I am sorry for the indentation changes, you only suggested that it is unnecessary. You never expressed the suffering you endured, so I have to give myself some credit, and suggest that it is partly your fault.Music314812813478 (talk) 04:02, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Also, thanks for the advice.Music314812813478 (talk) 04:03, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Photo

Seriously, 3/4 of the depictions of the capital G monotheistic God are of sects of Hinduism? While calling Hinduism monotheistic is controversial on its own, disregarding that it still seems like undue weight. 03:33, 18 June 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by R3D October (talk • contribs)

Gods are mythical the article should be unbiased and state this

Call pixies myths, call Santa legendary, Fairy are both, Bigfoot is folklore, religions have no better evidence of existence than pixies! So why why the anti pixie,Santa,Fairy/pro religion stance on these pages. Its just POV and biased!--TobyWongly (talk) 03:07, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Dont want to upset the god pretenders is not a valid excuse to not follow Wiki Rules!--TobyWongly (talk) 03:08, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Please cite professionally-published mainstream academic sources for specific claims. Wikipedia is not a pulpit for you to preach from, talk pages are not forums either. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:14, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

I would say the use of the word "conceive" in the opening line of the article already shows that we are talking about the notion of God in monotheism, not an objectively verifiable entity. This notion of God is undeniable and it is upheld by many in current society and remains undeniably important. In short I do not see the problem. (If you think this is unfair to pixies, the pixie article would be where changes should be proposed). Arnoutf (talk) 11:23, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Oh, forgot to mention, OP has been blocked as a troll. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:29, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

OP's comment is not completely without merit and the article certainly does speak about 'God' as one single (and real) entity. The word God (capitalized) is essentially a name used by any given religion for their god (uncapitalized), it should not be used when referring to more than one god, but the article breaks this rule frequently. Obscurasky (talk) 15:56, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

The article for any given god is Deity. This is specifically for the (not a, the) supreme being that many religions agree upon the existence and even major attributes of (e.g. omniscience), even if particular religions have an additional attribute or two the rest disagree with (e.g. Trinitarianism) and even if all religions disagree over which one this deity favors. The term "God" (capital G) is applicable to Allah/YHWH, Ahura Mazda, Brahman, Nzambi a Mpungu, Olorun, Shangdi, Tengri... Any singular transcendent being within a religion who is regarded as the omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent ground of all being or source of existence; but not non-transcendent figures (unless they are considered avatars or incarnations of transcendent or pantheistic figures, like Krishna). Ian.thomson (talk) 00:00, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello Ian. You're correct when you say the term "God" (capital G) is applicable to any singular transcendent being within a religion, but the point I was making is that it's wrong for the article to use uppercase when not speaking about a 'singular' god. To give an example; the sentence "There are many names for God......." is incorrect (and untrue) because it's using uppercase when referring to God generically. There are, of course, many gods with different names - not one god with many names. Obscurasky (talk) 21:25, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Ah but you are using logic, you cannot mix reason with irrational beliefs ;-) Unibond (talk) 11:24, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I think you mean "Ah but you're using original research, you cannot use original research on Wikipedia." Ian.thomson (talk) 11:57, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

There are, of course, many gods with different names - not one god with many names. -- That's your belief, and one that's not shared by most theists and theologians. Ian.thomson (talk) 11:52, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I misspoke. Should have said adherents believe in many gods, with different names - not one god with many names. In any case the point I was making remains valid - capitalization is inappropriate where the article refers to more than one god (perceived or otherwise) - you can't use the word 'God' (capital G) to talk about the Abrahamic god and Ahura Mazda at the same time. I would also point out that, whatever most theists and theologians believe, Wikipedia is exclusively encyclopaedic.Obscurasky (talk) 19:15, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Except that this article is about what theologians have written about God -- if you don't understand that, you should be working on a different article. That you can say "the Abrahamic god" is an indication that religions believe that they share a deity in common. Ahura Mazda has been equated with Yahweh and it's not a new thing. We still have individual articles on Yahweh and Ahura Mazda for historical specifics tied to those names, this article is for the generalities that have been affirmed across religions. Your unsourced arguments really sound like suggesting that we scrap the Bread article because Naan and Baguettes aren't the same thing. That or you're being so unclear as to what exactly it is you're suggesting that I have to (rhetorically) ask why you're bothering. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:14, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

@Ian.thomson Please try to remain civil, and refrain from telling editors which articles they should or shouldn't edit. Wikipedia is a community project, open to all. Debresser (talk) 13:29, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

also @Ian.thomson, this article is about the concept of a supreme "God", of course theists and theologians take a view on this concept but so do many rational thinkers as well, indeed it could be argued that the position of almost all theists and theologians is inherently biased Unibond (talk) 13:54, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

The problem of taking a strictly rational approach to this article would reduce the article to: God is the name for a mythical deity (or something similar). The rest of the strictly rational view would be very limited as most arguments are better served in other articles such a religion, deities and atheism. However the wealth of cultural and societal imagery of God cannot be denied and deserves a detailed place on Wikipedia. And yes that wealth is heavily biased by theologian and theist view but that is simply how it is; and that is what you get with more than 3000 yrs of monotheistic state religions (starting to my knowledge with Akhenaten around 1350 BCE). Downplaying that history (albeit biased by theistic dominance during most of it's history - including today) would not be encyclopedic in my view. Arnoutf (talk) 16:16, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Arnoutf, as Unibond says; this article is about the concept of "God". There's no reason why it should be reduced to 'God is the name for a mythical deity' - besides, God (word) already exists. Otherwise, I completely agree with you; the wealth of cultural and societal imagery of God (as conceived by various religions) does deserve a detailed place on Wikipedia, and I certainly wouldn't want downplay that history.

Ian.thomson, The term "Abrahamic god" is an indication that some religions believe that they share a common god, it certainly isn't an indication that they all do. Some theologians may believe 'all gods are the same God', but I'm not aware of any consensus on the issue - so I maintain that the article is wrong to use the word God (capitalized) when referring, generically, to more that one god. That's not an 'unclear' statement Ian, that's exactly what it says it is. Obscurasky (talk) 18:26, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

God (with a capital G) means the unique god postulated by either monotheism, deism or pantheism, or the main god of henotheism. Other than stating this upfront, you are parsing words. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:33, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Saying that God is mythical would ignore philosophy. God is not just a mythical archetype or a worship object; the concept extends to philosophy as well.Music314812813478 (talk) 22:02, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

"God" with big G, is not used in any original revelation. Translations simply put it there, from cultural use. It seems its etymology goes back to Gotan. And since it is a two-tree religion, seems to further be traceable back to Thor and further to Tengri religion, which has this distortion. And probably even earlier, Dingir. The original proto-indo-european one-tree version (Adam), actually used the name Diaus, for The Divine. (which the word stems from aswell). We can still see Diaus in some of christianity, and the word Diabolical probably can be traced back to the two-tree version who claimed they "became God" by the second tree. The Quran also is a one-tree version, and states it retells the stories in the right form, "no becoming god" here, so definately Allah has a pure monotheism, and that actually is the name in the revelation aswell.Sky Letter (talk) 17:55, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Gender

God is most often held to be incorporeal (immaterial),[3] and to be without gender,[4][5] yet the concept of God actively creating the universe (as opposed to passively)[6] has caused[dubious – discuss] many religions to describe God using masculine terminology, using such terms as "Him" or "Father". Given that God is (as admitted) frequently referred to using masculine terminology, wouldn't it be more accurate to say that God is held to be without sex rather than without gender? Iapetus (talk) 09:03, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on God. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070109162529/http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=53 to http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=53

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:11, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

This article should be corrected in light of evidence that God is not all-knowing. God knows less about Biology than a 9th grader. God thought Bats were Birds and Whales Fish!

"Now the LORD had prepared a great fish to swallow up Jonah. And Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights."

"3 And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray,

14 And the vulture, and the kite after his kind;

15 Every raven after his kind;

16 And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind,

17 And the little owl, and the cormorant, and the great owl,

18 And the swan, and the pelican, and the gier eagle,

19 And the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat."

In light of these passages, we should remove the claim that God is all-knowing, as this claim fails to cite a reliable source. I have just proven that God is not all-knowing. God did not know that Bats and Whales were mammals. Therefore, there was at least one thing that God did not know. Please update the article accordingly to remove all claims of omniscience. 47.16.205.142 (talk) 22:34, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

@47.16.205.142: The system of classification of animals was invented by the Greek philosopher Aristotle in the fourth century BC. The passage from Leviticus 11:14-19 that you are quoting comes from the Priestly Source and was likely written during the sixth century BC while the Jews were living in captivity in Babylon, roughly two hundred years before Aristotle. Trying to apply Aristotelian classifications to pre-Aristotelian texts is ridiculous. The definition of what makes a "mammal" is not a God-given mandate; it is just something we humans have made up for the sake of categorization.

Similarly, the Book of Jonah was likely written in the late fifth century BC, also before Aristotle, meaning that the author could not have possibly heard of him. Furthermore, the Hebrew word used in the Book of Jonah is דג גדול (dag gadol), meaning "big fish." There is controversy regarding whether or not this phrase is supposed to refer to a whale or if it is simply referring to a giant fish. You seem to have taken for granted that the phrase is referring to a whale, but, since the Book of Jonah was likely intended as a work of satire and since there is no reason to suppose that the anonymous author had ever seen a whale or even knew what a whale was, it is more likely that the creature in question is an imaginary giant fish.

Finally, your request for us to "remove the claim that God is all-knowing" is a non-sequitur. The article never states that "God is all-knowing"; all it says is that most adherents to monotheistic religions believe that God is all-knowing, a fact which is verifiably true and has no bearing in regards to whether or not that belief is misplaced. --Katolophyromai (talk) 23:21, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello. While I am not a Christian, I was interested in the passages you were referencing because of how you introduced a taxonomic term (such as mammal). I consulted an arbitrary version of the Bible with the passage-in-question here and I'm not sure as to how you gleaned what you have.

Specifically, this passage seems to provide the followers a rudimentary guide as to what can be eaten, and what can not. It does not state, nor imply, that this rough guide is supposed to be applicable to binomial classification, which was introduced by the great (Christian, I believe?) Carol Linnaeus

Frankly, I do not know how you mustered the courage to assail the followers of the all-knowing, omniscient, Observer when the passage is about what living things can be eaten according to Christian theology (again, feel free to correct me).

Also, excuse me if I come across as terse on the last point I want to make, but: You sound very young, which means you are learning concepts introduced centuries ago, which were not available to many individuals who are cited in the Bible (again, feel free to correct me if I"m wrong).

While you are completely entitled to confidently espouse tripe that seems to be unrelated to your main point (using a rudimentary guide for what life can be eaten as a way to challenge God's knowledge), I would urge you to keep an open mind as you grow older.

You will quickly learn that the early years are those that imbibe the most fruitful and robust scientific knowledge, and their respective discoverers/teachers were followers of the very God you assail (in a discussion such as this, they would almost assuredly consider themselves Christians before their respective denomination).

I urge you, child, to keep an open and tempered mind for the world that lies ahead of you, as your current skills suggest you will stand to benefit most from such a suggestion.

Bless. 209.182.115.214 (talk) 23:01, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

The material he's quoting isn't simply Christian, it's also part of the Jewish Bible. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:46, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

• Y'all, this ain't a forum. I also have reservations about feeding a troll (even if he is currently blocked). If he was sincere, there's issues of translation: Hebrew does not line up with English one-to-one (the word translated as "fowls" might very well be better translated as "flying creatures" or "winged creatures," as is the case with Genesis 1:20). Also, nevermind that many Abrahamic adherents would not say that God personally handwrote the Bible so much as inspired it. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:46, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree, and furthermore suspect that maybe it is fruitless trying to reconcile all the different perspectives of monotheistic gods into one article. Maybe this whole page should be scrapped and changed into a disambig page linking to the different monotheistic gods ? Unibond (talk) 13:54, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

If we're just gonna post stuff that doesn't have anything to do with the thread, I should get Taco Bell for lunch. It's been too damn long since I've had one of their "chalupas." Wonder if they still have the baja sauce. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:07, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

If your comment was in response to "the material isn't simply Christian," then agreeing with that is counter to the idea that the monotheistic, pantheistic, and henotheistic religions' agreement on the existence of a transcendent, omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent ground-of-all-being is somehow too irreconcilable to discuss in a single article. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:18, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

No, I was simply agreeing with "this isn't a forum". Unibond (talk) 14:42, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

God is "usually" thought to not have a physical/visual form?

What is the basis for the statement << Although God is usually thought of as an intangible spirit, and thus has no physical or even visual form..." underneath one of the images at the right? I imagine that when believers plan to "stand before their maker", they expect to see someone. I understand that some believe "god(s)" lack a physical body...but what is the basis for contending that this is the "usual" belief? Codenamemary (talk) 02:53, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

"No physical form" is all but synonymous with "incorporeal" and "metaphysical," which are supported with sources and something that pretty much any non-Mormon theologian would immediately agree with. Just because something can have a mental image does not mean that it is necessarily physical -- otherwise the only genre that would exist would be non-fiction. Ian.thomson (talk) 11:32, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

that's not what 'metaphysical' means.47.16.205.142 (talk) 17:41, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Metaphysics, by definition, concerns subjects outside of physics. Although considering your other (not removed) post, you're probably just trolling. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:38, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Oh, you were the user who previously asked why we don't have a photo of God... Yeah, the idea that God is an invisible bearded man somewhere in the sky is something that theologians have been shaking their heads at for centuries. The Copernican revolution was the final nail in the coffin, but even people in the Middle ages, antiquity, and even earlier held that God could not be understood in so limited a fashion. The idea that God has a physical form is regarded as idolatry by Jews and Muslims, and (except for Jesus) by many educated Christians. Ian.thomson (talk) 11:50, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm on the fence about this, but it is worth pointing out that monotheism encompasses more than just the Abrahamic religions. Some monotheistict branches of Hinduism, for example, have very clear imagery depicting what God looks like. Obscurasky (talk) 17:47, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but those sects would say that it's a representation (as Christianity, the least iconoclastic Abrahamic religion, would say of its artwork), typically on the basis that all that physical form is an illusion. Based on OP's previous posts here, she's under the impression that we should be able to go out to somewhere in this material universe and photograph a tangible God. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:34, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

What I am also reacting to is the part "thus has no...even visual form". I haven't quizzed everyone in the world, obviously, but I just don't imagine people think that should there be life after death, that their maker wouldn't be something they could SEE. Otherwise, all art depicting gods would be rejected; viewers would simply say "No, that's not right, we cannot SEE God." The depictions -- or lack of them -- would have evolved in a different way (?) I don't rule out that there could be something after death...but I would certainly think that SHOULD there be someone/something there, it would be a full experience...sight, sound, etc. In American culture, which is predominantly Christian, we're told that man was made in God's image (Genesis 1:27). So, it's never occurred to me that people would think God did not have an image, himself. (When or why he would choose to reveal it is a whole separate issue.) So the statement << God is usually thought of as an intangible spirit, and thus has no physical or even visual form >> just rings as way too much of a blanket statement...to me, anyway. If it were stated that "is usually thought of BY THEOLOGIANS as..." it would be more believable...but the way it's stated now, it includes all the masses upon masses of ordinary people (your average person on the streets), and that just isn't my impression of how my fellow man thinks. That view is just too intellectual for your average person. Codenamemary (talk) 06:45, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

I do see your point Codename, but I think the word 'usually' is enough to demonstrate that this is not a universally held belief (even amongst adherents). If you want change 'usually' to 'generally' or 'commonly' I wouldn't object, but I don't see this as an issue worth pursuing further. Obscurasky (talk) 08:27, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

You might want to see Talk:God/Archive_22#Inconsistency and Talk:God/Archive_23#Picture_of_God, which includes choice quotes from OP like Wouldn't it help if we could get a photo of him to run at the top of the article, establishing his (or her) identity for all to see? and I still don't understand why we don't attach an actual photograph of God. It could clear up a lot of misconceptions. We don't have to accommodate a single user who refuses to engage in abstract thought and who doesn't cite anything beyond uninformed speculation, especially when they're pushing for an idea that even some medieval peasants would have balked at. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:21, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Otherwise, all art depicting gods would be rejected - Here is a painting titled "The Persistence of Memory". Does that mean that memory is really a bunch of melting clocks or does that mean that the human race is capable of assigning symbolic images to represent abstract concepts?

we're told that man was made in God's image (Genesis 1:27) - And theologians have been saying for centuries that the concept of the Imago Dei means that God and humans are rational, not that God has two arms, two legs, a torso, and head. Colossians 1:15 states that, aside from Jesus, God is invisible (i.e. cannot be seen).

it's never occurred to me that people would think God did not have an image, himself - Have you tried abstract thought? It's only a few millennia old but it helps with theology a lot.

that just isn't my impression of how my fellow man thinks - You have no source whatsoever for that impression. Wikipedia does not use original research, which means your "impression" doesn't matter.

That view is just too intellectual for your average person - Just because you seem to refuse to grasp the concept doesn't necessarily mean it's a problem for others. God not having an image is very much a required belief in Islam, which is a quarter of the world's population. Ian.thomson (talk) 11:49, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Re: << that just isn't my impression of how my fellow man thinks / You have no source whatsoever for that impression. >> My OP was "What is the basis for the statement 'Although God is usually thought of as an intangible spirit, and thus has no physical or even visual form...' " So, what is the source for this? If it's documented that the majority of people feel this way, then obviously I am wrong. But, where is the basis for that statement? Thank you. Codenamemary (talk) 08:04, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

I only had to go four sentences into the article before I found it supported by Swinburne, R.G. "God" in Honderich, Ted. (ed)The Oxford Companion to Philosophy, Oxford University Press, 1995. This borders on a "the sky is blue" kind of citation. Ian.thomson (talk) 10:44, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Jesus referenced in "names of God"

Jesus testified that He is the Almighty God in Revelation 1:8. The Bible is an excellent source. In the introductory paragraph describing the names of God, Jesus should be referenced by His name to accurately differentiate Him. There are other "sons of God" referenced throughout Scripture, but no one else is the Almighty. Camille G. Weston (talk) 14:49, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

@Camillegweston144: New sections go at the bottom. Wikipedia avoids primary sources to prevent original research, and for the sake of neutrality only presents what is written about religious belief (without any value judgments). That said, I'm pretty sure there is a professionally-published mainstream academic source out there states that Jesus (or some variant thereof, like Iesu or Yeshua) is the name by which Christians refer to God, and the section does list the perspectives of Judaism, Islam, and Hinduism. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:58, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

@Ian.thomson: Thank you for your reminder about the proper location of new sections, I apologize. I have yet to see a Wikipedia article including concepts of Christian theology that does not cite the Bible, including this article presently being discussed. It is evident that Wikipedia frequently cites the Bible as a reliable source. Let us also consider that the quotation in Revelation 1:8 is the testimony of Jesus, as witnessed by John the Apostle. I am comfortable with finding an additional published source that references Jesus' testimony in Revelation 1:8. I believe that this would make that newly found source a third party source to John's eyewitness account (second party source) of Jesus' direct quoted testimony. Am I correct? Camille G. Weston (talk) 15:23, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

The Bible, as a whole, is regarded as a primary source.

We do not directly cite religious scriptures except to verify quotes because religious texts require interpretation, and interpretation requires independent sources or else goes against our policies on original research. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:39, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

I am providing 3 excellent examples to the contrary, for public perusal of this discussion.

1) God, the category of "Gender" Deuteronomy 32:11–12 (a mother eagle);

2) Abrahamic religions the category of "Significance of Abraham" is a role model of faith, Heb. 11:8–10;

3) Christianity the category of "Death and Resurrection" Christians consider the resurrection of Jesus to be the cornerstone of their faith (see 1 Corinthians 15).

Apparently, the Bible is currently being used in the same way that I am using it by other editors on Wikipedia. Please stop reverting my edits, exclusively, when I source the Bible. Otherwise, you will be reverting all day to keep this balanced and unbiased. Camille G. Weston (talk) 16:20, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

The existence of a policy violation in one place does not justify a similar violation somewhere else. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 17:06, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

your examples above mostly do not use the bible as a reference except to verify quotes etc. Theroadislong (talk) 18:36, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

I do not believe that all the editors citing the Bible as a reliable source on Wikipedia are in any way violating policy. I believe that the recent aversions to Biblical citations and subsequent reversions of editorial content are subjective and discriminatory. I do believe that it is time for a decision on this to be clearly articulated by an administrator, so that the work of theological research can continue on Wikipedia. Thank you for understanding. Camille G. Weston (talk) 18:55, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

As said above. The bible is to be considered as a primary source. It is perfectly fine to use a primary source to verify an undeniable fact, or to provide a reference to the content of that primary source (see WP:PRIMARY). However, beyond that use primary sources should be used with utmost care as they require interpretation.

The quoted bible verse is problematic for two reasons. First of all, this article is not only about the Christian (or even Abrahamic) God - so specific texts from a single faith should be taken with some care. Secondly the verse definitely requires interpretation as it cannot be taken literally (unless you would claim that Jesus testifies he is in fact two Greek letters (alpha / omega)). This makes it unsuitable as reference in this article. Arnoutf (talk) 19:46, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on God. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131014174102/http://en.islamtoday.net/artshow-426-3787.htm to http://en.islamtoday.net/artshow-426-3787.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:11, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 October 2017

Change "I am who I am" to "I AM WHO I AM" in all caps to quote the exact verse in the Bible Johsnde (talk) 22:57, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Not done: The typography is not part of the exact verse and varies from version to version. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:00, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

The Christian section under Depiction is too long

That section makes it seem as if the wiki page is about Christianity's understanding of God. The section under Islam can be just as large if not bigger but it has a little and the rest is referred to another page. The same should be done to Christianity. It should be the same size as the Judaism, Islam and Zoroastrianism sections. Remove/reduce most of the section and the referral to "God in Christianity" should be put in that section. Restored a tag that was removed. The other sections shouldn't be made as long, they should instead refer to another page.CaliphoShah (talk) 16:45, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

The Christianity and Islam sections should be roughly equal size, but per WP:DUE, those two sections should probably be larger than the Zoroastrianism section. Ian.thomson (talk) 11:40, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Zoroastranism doesn't have an article about the view of that religion on God. Therefore, it seems fair to increase the section of Islam to be bigger and at the same time reduce the Christianity section. Zoroastrianism has about 80 words. Getting the Islam section to 100 to 200 and reducing Christianity section to the same range seems like a good thing. CaliphoShah (talk) 20:49, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

200 for Christianity, 200 for Islam, and 80 for Zoroastrianism would be 41.5% Christianity, 41.5% Islam, and 17% Zoroastrianism. That's not terribly far off in the approximation of what percentage of the world is Christian or Muslim, but Zoroastrianism currently makes up less than 1% of the world's population. It's only because of its historical influence (and discussion in academic sources relating to more common religions) that gives its own subsection.

That said, looking a bit more at the Christianity section in more detail, it probably just needs to be trimmed of any original research or unreliably sourced material, and then anything beyond that shuffled off to another article (probably God the Father in Western art and Depiction of Jesus). Ian.thomson (talk) 02:56, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Sounds fair. I'll try to trim original research and unreliable sourced material and move what seems to be more historical into the proposed separate pages. CaliphoShah (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:24, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

It seems many of the text is verbatim from the God the Father in Western art article as if someone was doing a copy paste. There doesn't seem to be further info lost from trimming that section but it seems best to verify just in case. CaliphoShah (talk) 23:53, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

off-topic, this is not a forum for general discussion of monotheism
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Any knowledgeable person considers these religions the same, and about monotheism. The article should rather cancel unnecessary factors, and sum it up as being about one divine, "Thé God" and a typical set of moral structures. SkyBluenezz (talk) 15:39, 10 October 2017 (UTC) Sky Letter, monotheism is the belief in only one god - it does not mean all monotheists believe in the 'same' god. Whilst the Abrahamic religions can be said to share the same god, there are many knowledgeable Sikhs, Hindus and other monotheists who would take exception to your claim. Obscurasky (talk) 11:40, 5 September 2017 (UTC) Be enligthened. They are all about the same. You see, monotheistic logic implies that anytime you have one god alone, it is the same as anyone who worships the one god. And social science dictates that for any evolutionary society to exist, there must have been a revelation of reality among them. Without this harmonization with reality, only jungle mentality exists. Since our culture, and all cultures all over the world knows more advancedness than this, it must be so. SkyBluenezz (talk) 15:38, 10 October 2017 (UTC) What you have written above is your belief. You are, of course, free to believe whatever you want, but you should recognise too that not everyone agrees with you. It's ok to state, in an article, that a particular belief exists, but it's not ok to report the belief itself as a fact when consensus does not exist. Obscurasky (talk) 18:53, 5 September 2017 (UTC) I think I expressed myself, clearly and universally. If learnedness is not what you are about, and real facts, you should not be discussing a major article like "God". SkyBluenezz (talk) 15:46, 28 September 2017 (UTC) I'll bear it in mind. Obscurasky (talk) 23:55, 6 September 2017 (UTC) All faiths like to be treated equally in this regard. Equal space for every framework. Pandeist (talk) 00:01, 12 September 2017 (UTC) It really is a similar philosophical space. In the context of "philosophy" this is often understood. Philosophers within each "religion" is considered dealing with similar topics. Politics is really just derivations of interpretations, of revelations. And "God" is a germanic concept, based on Odin (Wotan/Gotan) which in turn is based on the proto-indo-european concept Dyaus. In these times, associated with pantheism by people such as Einstein aswell, and later ofcourse the whole estoeric/new age/similar. Allah is a 1:1 culturally corresponding conceptm in Arabic culture, without the idolaterous associations. That would be a good and scholary viewpoint, that sees "God" as a pointer to something universal, and that learned men know much about. SkyBluenezz (talk) 15:38, 10 October 2017 (UTC) The user "Doug Weller" seems problematic and keeps changing article and moderating this discussion, in a direction that is very obscure. If this is the way wikipedia is going, it is useless. SkyBluenezz (talk) 01:46, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Why I removed the Adonai=Aten etymology from the lead

As I explained in my edit summary, Adonai comes from the Semitic word adōn, meaning "lord," which is most likely derived from Proto-Semitic *'adan, meaning "to judge." The name of the Greek god Adonis is probably derived from the same Semitic root, but the name of the Egyptian god Aten is probably etymologically unrelated. The hypothesis that Adonai is derived from Aten was proposed by Sigmund Freud, who was a psychologist, not an expert on ancient Near Eastern languages. The other sources cited to support the hypothesis are just reporting what Freud himself argued. While Freud's etymology is plausible, it is certainly not probable and, even if it were true, it would be WP:UNDUE to put it in the lead. --Katolophyromai (talk) 17:16, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 January 2018

Please ensure all uses of "he" or "his" are lower case except of course if they begin a sentence or are part of a title or quote. This is for consistency and per Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Religions, deities, philosophies, doctrines. The only examples I have been able to find are a "He" in the section "Names" and three "His"'s, one in each section of "Judaism", "Christianity" and "Islam". Thank you. 2A01:388:289:150:0:0:1:4C (talk) 00:53, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Done per MOS:ISMCAPS Spintendo ᔦᔭ 01:54, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Classical Theism and Theistic Personalism

They are very obviously relevant and should be mentioned.ScepticismOfPopularisation (talk) 22:54, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree. I have added them to the See also section. Please try to work them into the article. Editor2020 (talk) 23:30, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

I see they were already in the article. I have made the links more noticeable. Editor2020 (talk) 23:40, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 March 2018

God is purported not to exist 210.10.210.38 (talk) 04:34, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: See God#Existence NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:36, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 April 2018

Remove supreme Nuk3Rob (talk) 01:28, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: Per the inlink, Supreme Being is a recurring title within many religions — IVORK _Discuss 01:37, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Truth

If you have truly written about God, remove the pictures. Please listen to me. God is not a deity or an idol. Remove the pictures God the Almighty is not to be compare to anyone. Realtimesongs (talk) 16:31, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Won't do, see WP:CENSOR. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:00, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Grammar

The following sentence includes a comma splice. Someone fix it. "Other religions have names for God, for instance, Baha in the Bahá'í Faith,[13] Waheguru in Sikhism,[14] and Ahura Mazda in Zoroastrianism.[15]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.110.241.177 (talk) 09:47, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Lede

At the moment it only reflects one of the 3 major world views, my proposed additional text after the theist view is ...

In agnostic thought, the existence of God is unknown and/or unknowable. In atheistic thought, there is absence of belief in the existence of any gods.

Unibond (talk) 14:55, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Your edit was challenged, and it is your job to respond to my concerns on the edit history of this article. Don't make it look like that this edit was originally proposed here, when it fact I objected to this well ago in fact, my objection is the reason this discussion even exists.ScepticismOfPopularisation (talk) 21:31, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

You changed the article and requested it to be taken to talk. So in response I started this talk on the 15th of April. You did not challenge the edit here and neither did anyone else. If you wish to challenge please explain why and how would you propose to reword it. Unibond (talk) 16:55, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

I explained why an edit before I reverted you; please check that out and respond to that first. The "older" button exists for a reason.ScepticismOfPopularisation (talk) 21:42, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

What is your proposed wording for the lede to reflect the three world views of God ? Unibond (talk) 14:51, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Once again, please respond to my concerns.ScepticismOfPopularisation (talk) 03:37, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

As I understand it your concern is that it is replicated in the body of the article but using that reasoning the existing lede is also redundant. Unibond (talk) 13:02, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

You don't understand my concerns at all. My concern is that it is replicated in the LEAD itself.ScepticismOfPopularisation (talk) 05:50, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

At the moment the lede only reflects one of the three major world views on God. Do you have any wording better than what I have proposed ? Unibond (talk) 11:16, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Once more,and for the last time, respond to my concern. I am DONE playing this game of ignorance with you.ScepticismOfPopularisation (talk) 11:53, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

You wrote "Already mentioned in more appropriate section below, no need to be reiterated here where only the definitive should be". My proposed definitive wording for the other two perspectives is - In agnostic thought, the existence of God is unknown and/or unknowable. In atheistic thought, there is absence of belief in the existence of any gods. I fail to see what the issue is here Unibond (talk) 15:24, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Then that is simply your fault. This does not change the fact that your edit is bad for this article.ScepticismOfPopularisation (talk) 07:38, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by ScepticismOfPopularisation (talk • contribs) 01:49, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Why McGrath image?

Can see no reason for his photo to appear. Appears far too self-aggrandizing and same picture appears anyway in his own entry. Many famous and eminent names are cited in this article and only Newton appears in image form. Maybe even he too should disappear.

agree, done. Ceoil (talk) 21:26, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

I have removed the image again, the critic of a critic is too tenuous a link to justify an image Unibond (talk) 13:08, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

There is no reason to remove the image. Counter-criticism is not linked to "tenuous"ity to the article.ScepticismOfPopularisation (talk) 05:48, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Counter criticism of criticism is already of dubious relevance, perhaps should we have a reference and image for counter criticism of the counter criticism of the criticism ? Unibond (talk) 07:55, 13 May 2018 (UTC

Please explain how criticism of criticism of something is somehow less relevant than criticism of that thing. They're both about that thing, so there is no "degrees of relevance" here.ScepticismOfPopularisation (talk) 05:42, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

To be blunt, the reason there is no section of counter criticism is because in encyclopedias, only the basic stuff is to be worded- this does not in any way make counter criticism any less relevant. Even so, many articles here contain responses to criticism.ScepticismOfPopularisation (talk) 05:45, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Removed again. I agree with Unibond. I'm not sure McGrath should be even mentioned here, not to mind pictured. Who cares, in this context, what he looks like. Re counter criticism, we should be presenting broad overviews of philosophical positions over the centuries, not he said she said in 1983, which the picture encourages. Ceoil (talk) 15:44, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

The article already does that, and this image does not ruin this work of the article. "Who cares what he looks like" is a boorish, emotional argument that ignores his notability; in fact he is far more qualified and academically notable than Dawkins, who while a pop celebrity, is neither a theologian nor a philosopher and probably shouldn't even be mentioned. If Dawkins is mentioned so should McGrath.ScepticismOfPopularisation (talk) 07:46, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

"Who cares what he looks like" is inelegant but precisely the point, and I believe it is you who is being emotional ("while a pop celebrity, is neither...") and seems to wear their POV on their sleeve. Ceoil (talk) 07:50, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Bro, what are you DOING? Pointing your emotional fingers at me with a completely unemotional quote followed by a ridiculous accusation of POV? Fact is, Dawkins is neither a theologian nor a philosopher, and McGrath is more qualified than he is.ScepticismOfPopularisation (talk) 07:58, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

I'd quote your own username back at you if I thought you had the capacity for self awareness. Ceoil (talk) 08:00, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

No personal attacks. If you're right, then stating the triviality of a pop celebrity is supporting popularisation, which is clearly nonsense.ScepticismOfPopularisation (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:08, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Why does being a philosopher or a theologian have more relevance than being a scientist ? That maybe your opinion but it is not the one held by Atheists and Agnostics. Unibond (talk) 10:46, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Precisely. "pop celebrity" is also an opinion but primarily a ruse and strawman; what does it have to do with the inclusion of the McGrath photograph, now back in post an ScepticismOfPopularisation lead edit war, which ended with the misleading rational "per talk". Such dishonesty is one thing, but please don't call me "bro" from here. Ceoil (talk) 12:50, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Speaking for all agnostics is one thing, but Dawkins is not even the most notable of scientists, and God, while a question that can involve scienticfic discoveries, is not the main reason science, which is about the natural world, exists for, unlike philosophy (of which science is just an extension of) or theology-which is why many scientists don't give a fuck about religion. And who do you think you are? From your user page I get very negative vibes, and for someone who claims to be "respectful", this is some disgusting snobbery you are showing here, which only makes you look pathetic since obviously you can't even understand that Dawkins is a pop celeb. And don't think for a second that "don't call me bro" is not a personal attack.ScepticismOfPopularisation (talk) 01:43, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Also, speaking of dishonesty, the "edit war" did not end with my putting back the image but you removing it- and you have the audacity to post the message after you removed the picture.ScepticismOfPopularisation (talk) 01:48, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Pop celebrity is not my opinion, nor is it a ruse or a strawman. As far as I know, he did NOT discover the scientific facts that he cites, and tell me what scientific breakthroughs did he discover that compares with that of Hawking? with that of Francis Crick? That's right, none.ScepticismOfPopularisation (talk)

If you're wondering why I keep reverting you back, Wikipedia is not a vote, nor is it a democracy, and unanimity, while ideal, is not consensus. I had not thought of pointing that out-it seemed so obvious. And let me remind you that you were the one who started the edit war, because you were not willing to wait for consensus.ScepticismOfPopularisation (talk) 02:05, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

"Why does being a philosopher or a theologian have more relevance than being a scientist ? That maybe your opinion but it is not the one held by Atheists and Agnostics. " is a completely dishonest argument, since a)not all theists think the same b)-not all agnostics and atheists think the same and c) someone from your like-minded party (Divonnais) was willing to remove Newton despite him being much, MUCH more notable than Dawkins. In fact his suggestion to remove Newton but not Dawkins indicates this is all really about pushing your common, shared POV onto this article. Man there is so much wrong with the arguments that you put forward here, it's a good thing that voting is not consensus, otherwise this encyclopedia would be overrun by fools and tricksters.ScepticismOfPopularisation (talk) 02:18, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't know why McGrath is more deserving than any-other scientist or scholar etc, but the image presents a bias and should be removed. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 20:14, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Absolutely no reason to include this photograph. It's irrelevant in the context of this page. Obscurasky (talk) 20:57, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

R User:JudeccaXIII:It might be fair to remove McGrath, but before we do, at the very least we should rewrite the last two paragraphs of the section in order to focus more on the Biggest philosophical issues-THEN we could remove McGrath.ScepticismOfPopularisation (talk) 23:09, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

? Obscurasky (talk) 23:12, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Don't you understand? Richard Dawkins, a pop celeb, is here but Bertrand Russell is not? If we are going to do that, we should remove Richard Dawkins, replace him with Bertrand Russell and the like, and then we could remove McGrath.ScepticismOfPopularisation (talk) 23:51, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

There's no photo of Dawkins in the article. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:04, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

True, but I think this is a good time for us to improve on the article, and, as you might be able to see, we wer ealso talking about the mention of McGrath, just as we were talking about his image.ScepticismOfPopularisation (talk) 00:41, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

The McGrath image should go. Why is it so important to include it in the article? So far only one editor wants to keep it. How is that consensus? Antique Rose 09:14, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree, the image should go. It adds nothing and is distracting in this article. Cheers. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:03, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

User:AntiqueRose to answer your question, WP:VOTE states that the majority vote-even unanimity-, does not make a "consensus". What makes a consensus is the addressing of every editor's concern, and so far no one has addressed my concerns over the content of this section (particularly, the last two paragraphs)ScepticismOfPopularisation (talk) 21:58, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

The image obviously needs to go. It's completely unnecessary and can very easily be seen as promoting a specific point of view. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:00, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Rewriting last two paragraphs of Existence

It is ridiculous that Richard Dawkins is mentioned but Bertrand Russell isn't; we have to rewrite the last two paragraphs all over.ScepticismOfPopularisation (talk) 22:00, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Ridiculous? Naahh. If you feel like adding another view, go right ahead. Don’t be surprised though if someone reverts you. — JudeccaXIII (talk)|

"Naaah" is not an argument. Oh well.ScepticismOfPopularisation (talk) 22:47, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

And do you even know that Bertrand Russell is an atheist? Why would someone revert me for adding his view?ScepticismOfPopularisation (talk)

Your comment seems to indicate a Conflict of Interest on your part.ScepticismOfPopularisation (talk) 22:51, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Conflict? Naaah — JudeccaXIII (talk) 22:54, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

It sickens me to the core that people here would prefer to insert Richard Dawkins over real atheist thinkers like David Hume an dThomas Paine. This is the kind of thing (not just limited to religion but also to material that isn't controversial in real life) is what is wrong with Wikipedia I guessScepticismOfPopularisation (talk) 22:55, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Isn’t that just your opinion though? You don’t need to remove Richard’s view to add another. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 22:59, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

@ScepticismOfPopularisation: Thomas Paine was not an atheist; he was a Deist and if you had actually read his Age of Reason you would know that. In it, he clearly and unambiguously states that he believes that in a Deity who created the universe, but not in any kind of specific revelation. David Hume probably was not an atheist in the modern sense either; he was critical of organized religion, but he does not seem to have outright rejected the existence of God, and many modern scholars think his views were probably similar to those of his Deistic contemporaries. Generally speaking, true atheism was extremely rare prior to the publication of Charles Darwin's On the Origins of Species in 1859 because, until that point, there was no way to explain the complexity of life without invoking some kind of Creator. As a result, Deism was a far more common position among proponents of naturalistic worldviews. --Katolophyromai (talk) 02:04, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

It is pretty obvious that you don't have the sincerity to engage in legitimately improving content in this case. If you want to keep on committing fallacies in front of so many people, I won't stop you. And yes, I don't need to remove Richard's view for another, the same way an editor can choose to contribute or not; also, discussions are BUILT on editors offering their opinions, so "just an opinion" holds no water. And you better offer actual arguments for why Dawkins should stay here instead of reverting me like an idiot.ScepticismOfPopularisation (talk) 23:02, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Richard Dawkins is popular amongst the academic community. People want to know his opinion despite what others might think of it. So yeah, that’s a good enough reason not to remove Dawkins views. And it’s quite obvious you despise him, and I hope this isn’t retaliation for removing McGrath’s picture. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 23:13, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Please provide a source for your claim. And yes I despise Dawkins, but this isn't really "retaliation". And that is clearly not a good reason why we should insert his view over Denis Diderot, Karl Marx, and the like, who are STUDIED by the academic community. ScepticismOfPopularisation (talk) 23:18, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

@ScepticismOfPopularisation: I think I should also point out that Diderot was a deist like Paine; he was not an atheist. In fact, several of his books contain explicit arguments against atheism. Just because someone is not a Christian or is critical of organized religion does not necessarily make that person an atheist. Be more careful about this distinction in the future. (P.S.: Karl Marx and Bertrand Russel were both 100% bona fide atheists, so you were actually right about them, but two out of five is not a very high accuracy rating.) --Katolophyromai (talk) 04:31, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Katolophyromai. I appreciate your concern.ScepticismOfPopularisation (talk) 04:52, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

@ScepticismOfPopularisation: Correction: I did some more reading and it turns out Diderot's views changed throughout the course of his life and he actually was an atheist for a period of his life. I had incorrectly assumed he was a deist throughout. --Katolophyromai (talk) 04:43, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Even you already know Dawkins is famous. And yes, this is retaliation for removing McGrath’s picture. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 23:29, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

fame=/=notability. I put enough WP:good faith in you that I thought you would acknowledge that. Pop culture movies are exponentially more famous than films like Citizen Kane, but that does not mean that pop movies are more notable or important. And that is not retaliation but rather a sincere suggestion to make the article fit WP:NOTABILITY's standards-especially since McGrath is more notable than Dawkins.ScepticismOfPopularisation (talk) 00:07, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

What’s wrong with having both of their views? — JudeccaXIII (talk) 00:10, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Simple: Dakwins simply does not compare in notability with any of the atheist thinkers mentioned above. ScepticismOfPopularisation (talk) 00:26, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

We have already been through all this. Sceptic, I think you may misunderstand consensus, or are ignoring that your arguments have already been debunked, and its not for the majority to explain to a lone voice the same points over and over until they are convinced (which I suspect you will never be). I note your argument is also rather one dimensional...you are looking to include the picture of McGrath (ILIKEIT) because the article mention Dawkins (IDONTLIKEIT). Ceoil (talk) 21:34, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Do you even realize that removing Dawkins is a separate argument from including mcGrath. And do you even realise which this section is about?ScepticismOfPopularisation (talk) 03:25, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

And where here do I say that we should remove Dawkins because "I don't like it"? And do you even know what "one-dimensional" means when referring to something personal?ScepticismOfPopularisation (talk) 03:28, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Also, I didn't notice Katolophyromai's comment, so I am not pushing through without consensus.03:32, 26 May 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ScepticismOfPopularisation (talk • contribs)

no wait. YOU misunderstand consensus. The policy itself, WP:CONSENSUS, states that unanimity is not consensus, and by debunked you mean no rebuttal offerred. Stating "my arguments have already been debunked does not make it true, nit sure what you are trying to achieve by that. And you even posted that message before Katolophyromai's comment, so you are wring one very regard. And one more time, this is NOT the same argument above, and no one offerred any rebuttal against removing Dawkins, either in the section above or here aside from Judecca-you are talking about imaginary rebuttals and one is not a "majority" (you have yet to offer you rebuttal kf how Richard Dawkins is somehow as notable as Karl Marx. For someone who doesn't even know what's going on, you sure are acting in a triumphalist way.ScepticismOfPopularisation (talk) 03:57, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

An unwillingness to hear the reasoned opinions of others, does not disavow you from the burden of adhering to consensus. You created the strawman of either McGrath or Dawkins; we have been going round in circles since. As I said at the outset, I could care less about inclusion of either, the positions are larger and more widely held than with any individuals, it was the pic that was the issue only for me. Ceoil (talk) 23:34, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

That is not a strawman. It is just an argument I offered. (How you could get to this is beneath human comprehension.) Also, how many individuals have commented on Dawkins' removal? That's right, two (me and Judecca). You are pulling data out of nowhere. If you don't care then you have no business here. If you want to rant about my ignoring consensus, then post it on the section above where it actually happenned, not here.ScepticismOfPopularisation (talk) 02:01, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Removal of atheist and agnostic views sentences

@ScepticismOfPopularisation: You asked me on my talk page to help resolve a dispute between you and Unibond regarding two brief sentences in the first paragraph of the lead about atheist and agnostic views on God. Now, as best as I can see, there is really no logical reason for having these sentences in the first paragraph of the lead, for several reasons. The first is the same one I gave in my edit summary here on 26 May, which is: "Usually, when describing a religious belief, you start out by describing what people who believe in it think, not what people who do not; our article about Thor does not say "Christians consider Thor to be imaginary" in the first paragraph."

The second reason is because the following paragraph already appears in the third paragraph of the lead:

In theism, God is the creator and sustainer of the universe, while in deism, God is the creator, but not the sustainer, of the universe. In pantheism, God is the universe itself. In atheism, God is not believed to exist, while God is deemed unknown or unknowable within the context of agnosticism. God has also been conceived as the source of all moral obligation, and the "greatest conceivable existent".[3] Many notable philosophers have developed arguments for and against the existence of God.[7]

Why, then, should we mention atheist and agnostic views on God twice in the lead, first in the very first paragraph and then again just two paragraphs later along with theism, deism, and pantheism? It does not make sense. My view is that we should keep the third paragraph explaining the definitions of theism, deism, pantheism, atheism, and agnosticism, but remove the two sentences from the first paragraph, which, in my view, are undue there, because having them there is essentially introducing a religious concept by talking about what people who do not believe in it think of it before fully explaining what the people who do believe in it think. We do not treat any other religious subject like that: not even Scientology, since that article does not mention criticism of its subject until the third paragraph, despite the fact that Scientology has received criticism aplenty. Do not misunderstand me; it is absolutely essential that we mention atheistic and agnostic perspectives in this article, but doing so in the first paragraph is not the right place in my opinion. --Katolophyromai (talk) 02:23, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Katolophyromai, it does not need to be defined twice in the intro. In fact the agnostic/atheistic divide is also defined twice more in the article, once in the Existence section, and later in its own mini section. I think it is strange that there is debate about it occurring twice in the intro, yet overall it is unduly repeated and emphasised in the body of the article. I propose it should be specifically discussed once in the intro, 3rd para, and again in its own subsection. Other mentions then are ok as e.g. characterising the views of some people.

TonyClarke (talk) 03:07, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

As an outsider view, I read the first paragraph, and found the last two sentences helpful, as way of contrast for understanding. (Yin & yang. "Cold" cannot be understood outside of "hot". "Empty" outside of concept of "full". Etc.)

And am I surprised the two recent proponents of cutting out early mention of agnostic/atheist thought in lead, display their religious beliefs on their User pages? Nope. --IHTS (talk) 03:57, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

@Ihardlythinkso: I think you are missing the point of my explanation above. By putting these two sentences in the first paragraph, we are introducing atheism and agnosticism before we even fully explain what God's traditional attributes are. I think that descriptions of those positions do need to be in the lead without a doubt, but we need to fully explain what "God" is traditionally conceived as before we can start talking about different perspectives on whether or not such an entity exists. Also, it certainly does not make sense to explain atheism and agnosticism twice in the lead; it is just redundant. Plus, it makes sense to define all the different viewpoints together, which I think the third paragraph is the optimal place for. --Katolophyromai (talk) 04:32, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

The lede paragraph should incorporate the three major world views, theist, atheist and agnostic. As a good example of an article with differing world views look at Homeopathy. The pro and counter views are stated quite clearly in the article lede paragraph Unibond (talk) 11:42, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

+1 for including in the lead. +1 for not including twice, although the bit that comes first that should be removed, and not the bit that comes second. As much as both Theists and Atheists might often like to imagine they are the yin and yang of the debate, they're just two parts of a many sided discussion, one which has many more than three major world views. These belong in the paragraph on equal footing with pantheism and deism. GMG^talk 11:52, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

So three people independent of the original dispute have come out to delete one of the definitions of the agnostic/atheistic dichotomy in the intro. Why should it be defined twice in the intro, indeed four times overall in the article? The case needs to be made for that, given three-person independent verdict against multiple definitions (myself, GMG^talk, and Katolophyromai): there is also no clear independent support for the opposite view . Our readers are intelligent enough to know what atheism/agnosticism is, especially after one definition. But why then have three more? That is unnecessary from any point of view. I will revert the last edit, and if warring continues we will need formal arbitration.

TonyClarke (talk) 13:24, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Well, if it's in the lead then it needs to be in the body, although not necessarily visa versa. But with only about a hundred words explicitly committed to both agnosticism and atheism in the body, no, I don't think that warrants two mentions in the lead. It fits thematically into both sections it's currently in, although yeah, it's a little awkward having about as many words in the body collectively devoted to Dawkins, Sagan, and Hawking as we do to Thomas Aquinas. I mean, I like Dawkins, he's a good writer and puts forth a solid argument. I've read probably half his books. Read a couple of Sagan and Hawkings too I'm sure if I dug them out, but are they really collectively as impactful on the history of theology as Aquinas? Eh... GMG^talk 14:10, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Repetition in the article

I think the last paragraph of the intro more properly belongs in the first section of the body of the article. It mentions the use of the word in different religions, but this is already veered in the subsequent article in the body (Etymology and usage). Separately, the intro should ideally contain no more than three paras, and not go into the level of detail which it does here. TonyClarke (talk) 08:52, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

I disagree, you are making a value judgement here, diminishing the World view of God of Atheists and Agnostics by excluding it from lede and only including the Theist viewpoint Unibond (talk) 13:42, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Hmm? They're both still in the lead. They're just not in the lead twice. And FWIW, MOS:LEADLENGTH caps the lead at four paragraphs, not three. GMG^talk 13:51, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm referring to the lede para which only references the Theist view of God, it should contain the 3 major world views, Theist, Atheist and Agnostic. I do agree that Atheist and Agnostic views do not need to be mentioned further in the lede. Unibond (talk) 14:12, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

The problem there is that there are many more than three major worldviews on the issue. As examples, we have Theism, Deism, Atheism, Agnosticism, Henotheism, Monotheism, Pantheism, Dystheism, Omnism, Negative and positive atheism, Antitheism, Apatheism, Transtheism, Nontheism... this list goes on for a while. I'm sure 500 million Buddhists would like to know why they're not part of the "3 major world views". GMG^talk 14:24, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

@GreenMeansGo: No, those are sub-types of the three major categories of worldview, existence, non-existence and unknown existence, all of the examples given above fit into those three categories. Unibond (talk) 17:02, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Some of them are; some of them aren't. Deism is not a subgroup of Theism, and neither is Transtheism or Pantheism. Apatheism is not a subgroup of Agnosticism, and is a more fundamental form of non-answer, because it makes no epistemic or existential claims whatsoever. "I don't care" is not a subgroup of "I don't know" or "it is not knowable". Trying to create balance among the "three major categories" is based on the incorrect assumption that there are three major categories. GMG^talk 17:17, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

@Unibond: We are not imposing a value judgement here at all. This article is simply not about the existence of God; it is about the notion of God as a metaphysical concept, which means most of the article ought to be primarily devoted towards defining what exactly people believe that "God" is. We have a whole separate sub-article about the existence of God and it would be perfectly reasonable to include atheism and agnosticism in the first paragraph of that article, but it does not really make much sense in this article, which deals with the much larger issue of how God has been envisioned throughout history and in contemporary times.

This article is about the deity; whether or not the deity exists is only a sub-issue, better dealt with more extensively in the article existence of God and its many sub-articles. An encyclopedia does not typically introduce a concept by saying "Some people don't believe in it." Indeed, I do not believe in the literal existences of Athena, Inanna, Aphrodite, or Enlil and yet none of the articles I wrote about them make any mention of whether or not the subject of that particular article exists. I am not suggesting this article should do the same, since, obviously, a lot more has been written about the question of whether or not God exists than the question of whether or not Aphrodite exists, but my point is that we should not turn the question of existence into the primary focus of this article, especially since we have another article specifically devoted to that purpose.

I think if we were to introduce atheism and agnosticism in the first paragraph of the lead, then we would also need to at least introduce deism and pantheism, which are also relatively common and historically significant views. If we only include atheism and agnosticism as alternatives to traditional theism, then we would promoting these two particular views as more significant than all the others. In fact, if we were going to include two views other than theism in the lead, it would actually make more sense to discuss deism and pantheism, because these are actually views about what God is, rather than whether or not He exists and are hence more directly relevant to the definition of the word. As I have said before, though, I think the best possible solution would be to not mention atheism and agnosticism in the first paragraph and introduce them in the third paragraph along with all the other non-theistic views on God, which is more neutral and also puts the traditional definition of the concept before the introduction of alternative perspectives. --Katolophyromai (talk) 15:29, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

@Katolophyromai: Correct, this article is not about the existence of God but the concept of God, and there are three major concepts of God, Theist, Atheist and Agnostic. None of the three should be given additional weight over the other two. Unibond (talk) 17:02, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

@Unibond: No. Atheism and agnosticism are not concepts of God; they are positions on whether or not God exists, which is completely different. Examples of actual conceptions of God include: theism (the belief that God created the universe and continues to intervene in it), deism (i.e. the belief that God created the universe but does not intervene in it), pantheism (i.e. the belief that the universe itself is God), or pandeism (i.e. the belief that, in creating the universe, God became the universe). Atheists, on the other hand, do not believe in God, so they do not try to create their unique definition of what "God" is. When an atheist speaks of "God," he or she speaks of Him in terms of what a believer thinks God is. Likewise, agnostics believe that God's existence is unknown or unknowable and therefore do not try to draft their own definition of what "God" is either. Saying that atheism is a conception of God is like saying that Christianity is a conception of Thor, because Christians do not believe in Thor. That is not how it works. --Katolophyromai (talk) 19:50, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

The Conceptions of God article already exists. Atheism and agnosticism are indeed positions on whether or not God exists and are, therefore, valid in this article. Obscurasky (talk) 20:33, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

@Obscurasky: You seem to be responding to an argument I never made. I never said that this article should not discuss atheism and agnosticism; in fact, I said exactly the opposite. What I was trying to argue is that we should explain what God is traditionally conceived as before we start introducing positions on whether or not such an entity exists. Unibond responded by arguing that theism, atheism, and agnosticism are the main "concepts" of God and must therefore be introduced immediately. My explanation above is a response to that argument, pointing out that atheism and agnosticism are not "concepts" of God, but rather positions on whether or not God exists. --Katolophyromai (talk) 01:09, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

@Katolophyromai: A conception is something that is conceived, ie an idea, by your own reasoning above Theism is the idea that there is a God, Atheism is the idea that there is not a God. Thor is a mute point as Thor is almost universally regarded as being mythical. The article on Thor references mythology about 20 times unlike the article on God. There is no group of people who hold the distinct belief that there is no Thor ie Athorists however if there is such a significant group then they should be mentioned in the Thor article. This article is not written in a way that the mythological nature of God is clear, indeed I would suggest it is even heavily represents the Theist perspectives Unibond (talk) 20:51, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

@Unibond: You are responding to an argument I never made. Whether or not God or Thor is mythical is entirely irrelevant to the point I was trying to make in my argument above; the purpose of my argument was to show that saying something does or does not exist is not a "concept" of that thing but rather a position on whether or not the thing exists. A concept of God is a definition of what God is and a description of His attributes. To give a non-religious example, if I say "ducks exist" or "ducks do not exist," neither of those statements is a "concept" of a duck. A concept of a duck is what I think of when I hear the word "duck." Simply saying whether or not ducks exist is not an explanation of what a duck would be if one did exist.

Furthermore, I did not define theism as "the idea that there is a God"; that is entirely your definition, not drawn from any of my statements above. Although the word theism is often used with that meaning, in its strictest, most technical sense, it actually refers to "the belief that at least one deity exists, who created and sustains the universe," because theism has long been contrasted with deism, which is the position that "God created the universe, but is longer involved with it." Deism has never been grouped as a subclass of theism, because the two beliefs are regarded as substantially different, both in practice and in philosophical outlook.

It is entirely suitable, in my view, that most of this article should be devoted to describing what various traditions that believe in God teach about Him. Objectively speaking, everything that an atheist believes about God can be entirely summed up in one sentence: "I do not believe in God," because, if God does not exist, then there are no divine attributes or characteristics that need to be explained; whereas, in any belief system that affirms the existence of God, there are a whole host of them. The only other aspect of the atheist's perspective on God that could possibly need more explaining are the reasons why he does not believe what he does not believe, which generally vary from person to person. Nonetheless, given the amount of writing that has been devoted to this subject, major objections against the existence of God probably do deserve to be briefly summarized here, but they are really more directly pertinent in articles like atheism, existence of God, or any of the many various articles we have devoted to specific arguments against the existence of God than in an article about just plain "God."

I do think it is entirely reasonable that we should have a section briefly summarizing the controversy over whether or not God exists, but most of the article should be devoted to summarizing perspectives on God from different religions, along the lines of the article deity, only, in this case, dealing with exclusively monotheistic deities (i.e. "God") in particular. This is more or less along the same lines as the point I was trying to make with my initial comment about Thor in my original edit summary. Once again, whether or not Thor really exists is entirely irrelevant, and so is your point about very few people believing in him. The point I was trying to make is that, when describing a religious concept, an encyclopedia-writer is primarily explaining what the people who believe (or believed) in it believe (or believed) about it.

Furthermore, the writer ought to describe these beliefs objectively, not commenting on whether they are right or wrong. (For future notice, in its formal, academic definition, the word "mythology" does not necessarily connote whether the subject is true or not, but rather is used to refer to a body of stories, usually passed through oral tradition, with cultural or religious significance, the truthfulness of those stories notwithstanding. This definition comes from the original Greek meaning of the word μῦθος (mythos), which literally just means "story" or "account.") Naturally, an encyclopedia-writer does not explain a religious concept from a believer's perspective of "this is what God objectively is" or from a nonbeliever's perspective of "all these beliefs are objectively wrong" because neither of those perspectives are neutral. Likewise, the writer would not list "these are the attributes of God that atheists do not believe in" because (1) that is not neutral and (2) the number of attributes that atheists do not believe in would be infinite because they do not believe in the notion of God itself. --Katolophyromai (talk) 01:09, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

I apologize for the lengthiness of my comment above and the deviation from the actual topic of discussion; I thought about cutting parts of it out, but decided to post the whole thing in the hopes that this will clarify the general nuance of the position I am coming from. I am not saying that atheism or agnosticism should not mentioned in the article; I am, however, saying that we should primarily devote this article to explaining the definition and concept of God as it appears in different monotheistic traditions and philosophies. An article about "God in atheism" or "God in agnosticism" would not be much of an article at all. --Katolophyromai (talk) 01:42, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, the article should primarily be about the different concepts of God and most of the different concepts of God are Theist and thus will occupy most of the article. My issue is that the clearer and more succinct concepts of God of Atheists and Agnostics such as I proposed should be given equal weight in the initial paragraph. After that I don't feel there is any need to further reference any non Theist viewpoints at all as a) they are well covered in other articles and b) would add no further counterbalance to the infinite spectrum of Theist concepts Unibond (talk) 02:52, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 June 2018

Change to sources - book newly out

Almond, Philip C., God: A New Biography (London: I.B. Tauris, 2018) Repalmon (talk) 04:57, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: Unless something was specifically mentioned in the article from the book, it need not be noted here.  spintendo  06:34, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Hat notes

@Realphi: when reverted, you are expected to discuss the issue in order to form consensus instead of restoring your edits (please see WP:BRD, WP:ONUS and WP:CONSENSUS). I'll however let your edit stand for other editors to assess it. If someone reverts it, here is where you should justify why these should be in the top hatnote. To me, these appear redundant with the right navbox which includes links to Creator in Buddhism and God in Jainism. It is also unclear why the hat notes should point to such general articles (as opposed to the more specific aforementioned links). I also don't understand why we should select Buddhism and Jainism links without also including the others (which again the navbox already has, for balance). Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 19:52, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

@Obscurasky: as another editor who recently edited the hat notes, your input is also welcome here. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 07:27, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

@Obscurasky: , @PaleoNeonate: : Jainism is the only other non-monotheist religion (with the exception of lds ) that has the concept of omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent "personal supreme being" and that is not my fault. Realphi (talk) 19:38, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

@Realphi:, please remember the definition of monotheism is the belief in one god. Concepts of omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent personal supreme beings have no bearing on that definition. You may find it helpful to read the article Monotheism. Regards Obscurasky (talk) 08:29, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

@Obscurasky:, I agree. That's the reason Jain god is in hat notes, not in main article.

Definition of pantheism

Would a more accurate definition of pantheism than the one offered here be the doctrine that everything is God?Vorbee (talk) 16:40, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't know. God is everything, thus every thing is part of God. So, by pantheism I don't understand "my watch is God". Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:14, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Because “my watch is God” is a category error if claimed to describe pantheism/pandeism. Hyperbolick (talk) 14:15, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Merge

Should Supreme being be merged here? Editor2020 (talk) 03:10, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

I think so, they're essentially talking about the same thing and any variation can ironed out easily enough. Obscurasky (talk) 10:46, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Agree, more disparity within the article itself on God than between God and supreme being. Unibond (talk) 13:26, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

I thought I’d oppose this but after reading the other article I do not. Hyperbolick (talk) 14:13, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

I processed the merge after the unanimous responses here. One note is that there may be a few citations to pull from the page history, but not related to God so much as the specific cults referenced. UpdateNerd (talk) 04:17, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Isn't there supposed to be sufficient time allowed for community involvement/comment/discussion? Unanimous or not, how can a day be enough time... Shearonink (talk) 04:36, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

I'd agree on a procedural point, but WP:SNOW. Is there really any reliably sourced and noteworthy use of "Supreme Being" that does not also completely overlap with some reliably sourced and noteworthy definition of (uppercase G) God? Ian.thomson (talk) 04:38, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

I also support the merge, but have pointed UpdateNerd at WP:MERGECLOSE in case it's contested again. —PaleoNeonate – 04:42, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Images

All images representing God should not be removed. We use name[s] for God although He has no name as same as he has no appearance, so it is analogous. --Obsuser (talk) 02:07, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

But if a god "had no appearance", how could man be made in its image? Codenamemary (talk) 20:50, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

As we've been over way too many times, there are these ideas called "abstract thought" and "symbolism" which the rest of humanity is able to grasp and use to refer to God. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:54, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

It is still, unfortunately, a conundrum. Legally, I also wonder if it is wise to publicize a picture as being of a notoriously reclusive celebrity without their written consent. It could all just end very badly. I would hate to see that happen here. Codenamemary (talk) 21:28, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

It's a picture of God because someone makes a picture and says "That's God," and then for many many years, people look a that picture and say "Nice God you got there." It's not an advanced theological exercise to look at The Creation of Adam and go "God". Wikipedia is agnostic to iconoclasm, and is not the place to debate the issue. GMG^talk 21:35, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply.Codenamemary (talk) 22:19, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

@Codenamemary: It can be made because He is Almighty and knows everything, at least according to the (islam [system of]) belief (and when I want to get up from my chair, I believe I will do that successfully – I cannot know I will for sure; so I think everything is about correct belief). --Obsuser (talk) 21:21, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

• Before responding further to Codenamemary, see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Topic_ban_needed_for_Codenamemary. That user has either been trolling or failing to grasp the concepts "abstract thought" and "symbolism" for several years. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:39, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Is 34 edits in the past four years worth an ANI thread these days? GMG^talk 21:57, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

All of their contributions to this topic engage in behavior that's either trolling or a WP:CIR case. If they did not have contributions elsewhere, I'd go ahead and block. Do you think that'd be a better idea? Ian.thomson (talk) 22:00, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Well at this point an outright block would be a little awkward. An hour ago it may have been a better decision to swat the fly away, ignore its buzzing, and carry on. I don't particularly care either way. It just seems a little silly. GMG^talk 22:33, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Good morning to all.

About the page preview in the search toolbar, some may agreee that the actual picture https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/God#/media/File%3AMonad.svg

is a scandal, as it may readden as blasphemous. Probably, there is no SYMBOL of any single religion that may be universal. The best thing would be to avoid any image in the preview, because some religions don't allow them at all. This is a"most-read" website in all the Web, and the article is actually blocked. I strongly recommend to put it as the last picture (or delete it).

2nd point) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/God#/media/File%3ALord_Muruga_Batu_Caves.jpg It is worst than the one linked before.

I suggest and ask, please, to delete or move'x' the first and second picture.

Hope in the intervention of a burocrat or administrator. Thank for Your attention.Micheledisaverio (talk) 05:17, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored and nondenominational (secular). But the above posts on the same topic may also help to understand why the images are used. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 05:35, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Paleoneonate: hopefully it is not censored, as SO is free and open. Monads aren't a common view of God, man and world, or not so diffused to justify its position at the top of the article. Even if for some people and faiths may be an holy image, the "perceived message" will be probably very different (like blasphemy):

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/God#/media/File%3ALord_Muruga_Batu_Caves.jpg

2nd) referred to the Most Holy Trinity, I was highly impressioned by the following:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8EMBvtYwFmYb3N2dndwQ2txRjQ/view .

It shows how that each of three divine Persons have a relation and communion wit the others (John chapter 10, verse 27), and not uniquely in the unique God. It can also be found at the following link: the first picture of this collection: it seems to be in the public domain and not a WP:copyright violation. It has the same tradition of the Shuoed of Trinity compared with this example

3rd) since WP is a collaborative project and I am not an administrator, I can't modify the picture, without looking for a (new) reverted edit. I think in this case it shall apply Wikipedia#Common sense and decision making and WP:IARM.

4th) the merge with the Supreme Being doesn't solve this type of graphical issue.Micheledisaverio (talk) 08:27, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Many Wikipediaa are using images of the Sistine Chapel (City of Vatican). I would like and wishthe image of the Mesha Stele, which is the oldest archeological evidence for the name of Yahveh.Many Wikipediaa are using images of the Sistine Chapel (City of Vatican). I would like to suggest the insertion of the Mesha Stele, which is the oldest archeological evidence for the name of Yahveh.

It may the first (or sec9nd) picture of the article, in order to give a rapresentation for Hinduism and Abrahamitic religions.Micheledisaverio (talk) 14:48, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Supreme

"God" and "Supreme Being" are semantically equivalent, and so the article should state

God or [the] Supreme Being is..

This is also because Supreme Being now redirects. -Inowen (nlfte) 04:36, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

The first sentence already states that God (proper noun) is the supreme being (description). Making it bold and capitalizing it distracts from the more commonly known name, so I don't think the change is needed. UpdateNerd (talk) 07:18, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Start

The article should mention more the idea of God being the creator of life; currently it just refers to him as the creator deity, which is insufficient. Also mentioning Carl Jung in the introductory paragraph seems out of place. -Inowen (nlfte) 23:21, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

"God" or "their God"?

Just a passing comment as links to other religions brought me to this website today, and this question relates not only to this topic but broadly across a number of religious topics.

In use, should the Wikipedia really assert "God" as if it was a singular, universally agreed upon concept or, relating to various religions, should it not be "their God" or something like "according to the xxx concept of God"?

For example, take Judaism where it leads with "which holds that God revealed his laws".

Now, clearly, the Jewish god and his laws are not the same as the Christian god, Hindu gods, and every other religion's god, and their law. Many religions like to claim a monopoly over "God", or that their God is the only true god etc but, in the real world, religions are nowhere near agreeing all gods being the same god, which the current use suggests.

Should article really be written to assert and reinforce element of faith rather than fact?

I appreciate that a) it might be a little word but a sentence such as "the xxx [insert religion] concept of God" could fit in the lede, to be followed by a shortened "their God" in the rest of the topic; and b) this is probably more of an editorial policy issue to be discussed somewhere else as it would apply widely, but I thought it was worth raising.

It may, of course, "offend" the monotheistically inclined who like to believe their god is the only god and live in some kind of denial about all the other gods but I think it is more neutral.

Ditto, I would have a problem with someone of the gods in the first image being represented as "the God" as, within context, they are only "a god" to those who use them, ie the pluralist Eastern religions.

Thanks.

(I don't have an editing account and am not sure if it is worth me making one if this is not going to be discussed seriously.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.243.231 (talk) 11:26, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Birth and evolution of God

It would be nice to have a section on how God first arose, and how s/he/it evolved over time.PiCo (talk) 23:00, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Do you mean the birth and evolution of the concept of God? That would warrant its own set of articles, in my opinion, and is one of the functions of theology - so that conversation would fit within the theology article. If you are talking about the birth and evolution of the being of God, that would fit under Conceptions of God as each faith tradition has their own interpretation of God's birth and evolution. Just my own thoughts. M4CD0N4LD-D4N (talk) 05:09, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

We know archaic humans had religious ideas, and the idea of an uncaused cause to kickstart everything that is intelligent isn't hard to grasp, even little babies like age 2 and 3 naturally have an idea of the supernatural powers and of god. However people do tend to focus on the creation more and of the lesser spirits, as seen in polytheism and animism, than in the Supreme Being, though some cultures get around this such as African ones, where God is too powerful tot be contacted directly and needs lesser spirits (like angels for those who believe in the Bible) to do that. Native Americans have the Great Spirit, Ancient Greeks had Zeus, Hindus have Brahmin, which is divided into the Hindu Trinity, the Australian Natives have an eldest being I think, and so forth. Even in the most primitive cultures there is a spirit that rules over others, so the idea of a Supreme Being aka God is near universal.137.118.103.153 (talk) 06:30, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

"even little babies like age 2 and 3 naturally have an idea of the supernatural powers and of god"

Really? Sources, please. BTW, perhaps you mean "Brahman" rather than Brahmin (the priest caste) but I would be careful not to present Hinduism as one religion. It's many religions not all agree with each other.

I'd say the best evidence suggests that concepts of gods arose because the ancients did not understand meteorology and natural events such earthquakes. How and for what purpose monotheism arose is a whole other debate. 82.132.243.231 (talk) 11:54, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Carl Jung

The first paragraph of this article refers to Carl Jung as a psychoanalyst, but after his break with Freud, Jung termed his school of psychology "analytical psychology". Vorbee (talk) 17:03, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

"Too specific"?

I don't understand why this user reverted a whole of an edit because it is "too specific"? Why doesn't he make that simpler instead of deleting all of the material?

It's disruptive (WP:DISRUPT), anyway... — MusenInvincible (talk) 01:44, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

- I too wondered if the addition was appropriate for the article - per WP:NOTEVERYTHING - "A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details" - I didn't feel it was a significant addition to the article and leaving it out does not make the article worse - but if others feel that it was a significant addition, then the edit can be reinstated - cheers - Epinoia (talk) 02:00, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

- it might be more appropriate for the article God in Islam rather than an article on God in general - Epinoia (talk) 03:35, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

:: Because the article is about the concept of a supreme "God", your edits are really about the actions of that God Unibond (talk) 02:04, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Of course I do think that the addition is important and significant, since it contains the Islamic (world major religion) thought about the relationship between human and his God referred to the holy scripture (Al-Qur'an) read by the community around the world. But If you (Epinoia) think that my edit is more appropriate for God in Islam article, you must read the article carefully that many other Islamic perspectives are included in the article, and keep in mind that I also wrote about children of Israel (who are the special people narrated both in Bible and Al-Quran as the main scriptures in Jewish, Christian, and Islam faith) as people who are chosen by God, indicating the close relationship between God and his creation (human) while Moses, as the notable leader of children of Israel, is also mentioned both in Bible and Al-Quran. In fact, there are numerous verses in Bible (I have provided them as the references) talking about this relationship.

As for @Unibond:, Did I put the addition in the "concept of God" section or "(God's) Relationship with creation" section? the God article is not only talking about an aspect (concept) anyway, It covers broader aspects from etymology to theological approaches. But If you object that my edits "are really talking about God's actions in an article titled God", then what's wrong with that? as long as the addition is relevant and coherent with the title and its content (WP:COHERENCE) Wikipedia does not prohibit it to be included in the article.

If my edits seem too specific for a topic (about relationship God and children of Israel), I think the solution is adding a new sub-section on "Relationship with creation" titled "Relationship with children of Israel" or "Relationship with chosen people" because children of Israel is mentioned as the chosen ones in the scriptures, which looks more fair rather than removing the edits
Lastly, I have provided my addition with several reliable sources, notability (WP:NRV), Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV), Verifiability (WP:V), No original research (WP:NOR) in order to follow the core content policy of Wikipedia article. Therefore, If I have followed the rules of Wikipedia to improve content of an article, then why does this significant improvement completely removed and treated like a blatant vandalism addition???

It is an obvious disruptive (WP:DISRUPT) anyway... — MusenInvincible (talk) 13:21, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

- please do not accuse people of being abusive ("Response to the abusive revert") or disruptive when they have not been - thanks - Epinoia (talk) 14:48, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

It states quite clearly in the lede "this article is about the concept of a supreme God" as you wrote yourself above your edits are specific relationships within specific religions not concepts. If you wish to make those edits they should be made on the pages of those specific religions. Unibond (talk) 15:40, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

I am not accusing, It is based on the facts. I am just following the concept of a characteristic of an Wikipedian user who limit the improvisation of an article that might be categorized as (WP:DISRUPT) disruptive user:

Disruptive editing is a pattern of editing that may extend over a long time on many articles, and disrupts progress toward improving an article or building the encyclopedia... Editors may be accidentally disruptive because they don't understand how to correctly edit, or because they lack the social skills or competence necessary to work COLLABORATIVELY.

"concept of a supreme God" could be from many specific religions' thoughts or other perspectives. As you can see that Jewish, Christian, and Islamic views are frequently cited in various places of God article. Then, If you wish that I should move those edits to the pages of those specific religions, why you did not remove the views of the other specific religions in many sections of the page (especially several religions' views on sub section God#Depiction) to those specific religions.
Are you (Unibond) the owner (WP:OWN) of the article, that you can dictate to another editor as you wish about what the editor should do or shouldn't do in content article to hinder the progress in "the free encyclopedia"? Do not be un-collaborative, Wikipedia belongs to everyone who want make it improved over time. — MusenInvincible (talk) 14:27, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

- there is no evidence of either myself or @Unibond: engaging in "a pattern of editing that may extend over a long time on many articles," so there is no disruptive editing. Just because someone does not agree with you does not make them "un-collaborative." Please do not make unjustified accusations (see WP:5P4). Wikipedia depends on consensus (see WP:CONS). The question is, does your edit improve the article? I don't believe it does, it's unnecessary. WP:NOTEVERYTHING says, "A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject" and "Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful." This is an overview article and not every detail can, or should, be included. - Epinoia (talk) 15:21, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Although it is not 'a pattern of editing that may extend over a long time many articles,' I could say that the behavior of Unibond (In this case not -Epinoia- actually) is 'disruptive' (adjective of disrupt word) in real sense when he disrupted (or impeded or interrupted) my effort to add some information into an article merely because he thinks my edit is "too specific".
I don't think that my edit is detail or complete enough to write everything (WP:NOTEVERYTHING) about God-human relationship, since it is only a single sentence addition concerning with Islamic view while there are only six sentences to cover several points related to children of Israel and Moses according to numerous verses in Holy Bible, when the page Jews as the chosen people could give me much more detail about this subject.
As I explained earlier, an addition with several reliable sources, notability (WP:NRV), Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV), Verifiability (WP:V), No original research (WP:NOR) [as core Wikipedia content policies] is qualified to be added in Wikipedia article. (even you may say it is unnecessary)
You (Epinoia) talk about WP:5P4 that I shouldn't make unjustified accusations, but you might forget that reverting an edit when unnecessary and removing a well-sourced content addition with several references is totally not Respecting your fellow Wikipedians, even when someone disagree.
I don't mind whenever I have different opinions or when I disagree with other editor. But it is very unacceptable for me (who was trying hard to give a significant contribution according to what I learned and understood about God-human relationship in Abrahamic religions) that my contribution is eliminated entirely in a few seconds, not because it is vandalism or serious problem, but simply because a mere reason (too specific) which actually could be solved without reverting the edit which discouraging me as the contributor.
To answer your objection about "collaborative" or "un-collaborative" (Unibond) please consider this comparison: Is it someone who allows all inputs and ready to help to correct the mistakes of another, Or is it someone who easily deny any input and do nothing to fix the errors of another, who deserved to be called as "un-collaborative"?

If he or anyone thinks wisely when there is an edit is either too specific or too particular, the easiest solution is making that edit becomes not too specific and be more general, by paraphrasing or summarizing the wordy sentences without deleting the references or the point of the edit.

Often when an article version contains more than one disagreeable passage, it is easy to revert to a previous version. This gets rid of all the "mistakes" in a few seconds, but it also can eliminate "good stuff", discourage other editors, and spark an edit war...If 50% of an edit is bad, but the other half is good, please do not revert 100%. It's better to mine the old version for good stuff and selectively keep it. Just throw out the bad stuff.

— Wikipedia:Restoring part of a reverted edit

If you have a goodwill to fix the problem, let us do it collaboratively, but if you insist on eliminating the input from another without any constructive solution, then am I wrong to consider the action as un-collaborative? — MusenInvincible (talk) 13:00, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Problem reduction

MIT, Artificial Intelligence (watch courseware)

• Is there god?

  god: personocentric demiurge and physics controller (god is necessarily a person, not simply a path of life and divine field like the tao; otherwise we simply distort the definitions of nouns/proper nouns - Confusion doesn't cancel the semantical questions. Even if we distort all the nouns, we still have to answer to what we really mean when we explain it analytically via rigorous elaboration. Also the tao is not a person, but a personophile; under the right conditions beneficial towards persons in a manner not strictly explained within science (scientific proof and/or reasoning).

• resulting question: Is personhood more fundamental than the universe? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.84.210.201 (talk) 17:23, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Is there some actual relevance here to the article that I'm missing? GMG^talk 17:25, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Gender

"Some religions describe God without reference to gender, while others or their translations use sex-specific terminology. Judaism, for example, attributes only a grammatical gender to God, using terms such as "Him" or "Father" for convenience.[6]" This is dubious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.99.3.109 (talk) 19:55, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Allness

Please don't remove this section without explanation here... --Obsuser (talk) 14:55, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

It is of dubious value, removed Unibond (talk) 15:04, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

- I appreciate that English may not be your first language, but the addition on Allness was almost incomprehensible - when you say, "By Christian belief, God is the All itself" it sounds as if this is a belief of all Christians, and when you add "thus" you are stating a conclusion which may not follow from the premise - the onus (WP:ONUS) is on you to prove that this is a significant concept and to provide citations to reliable sources (see WP:RS and WP:VERIFY) - the Jeff Kober blog is not a reliable source, and neither is a self-published book, and the online church websites are questionable and count as primary sources - we need citations from reliable secondary sources (WP:PSTS) - and you need to show how Mesmerism is related; simply saying it is, is not enough - Epinoia (talk) 15:59, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

add on a main chart the characteristics

• Species: Personotropic spirit

It isn't a done deal that God would be a Person, nor that he would be a Spirit. Tgeorgescu (talk) 06:01, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 August 2019

Please add the following immediately after the sentence that includes "the Five Ways of Aquinas.":

Three of Aquinas's Proofs come from Aristotle, and one, the Argument from Necessity, is seemingly so compelling that a recent British philosopher, Antony Flew, renounced atheism because of it. A French atheistic philosopher, André Comte-Sponville, rejects with easy reasons all the other proofs but finds this proof so powerful that he vacillates and says it is better to accept absurdity than this proof Explaining how a correct interpretation of Aristotle's Metaphysics allows us to reject the Argument from Necessity that involves the so-called Unmoved Mover (sometimes called God) without being driven to absurdity, a specialist in Aristotle demonstrates that the Stagirite renounced the Unmoved Mover as he matured in favor of a more powerful "proof" that relies simply on the infinite past and a correct understanding of necessity, possibility and impossibility. PlatoLover62 (talk) 22:59, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose - the anecdotes about Antony Flew and André Comte-Sponville tell us nothing about the argument itself, WP:NOTEVERYTHING. The work cited by Gregory L. Scott is self-published by Scott's self-publishing imprint, ExistencePS Press, WP:RSSELF - the citation to Scott's self-published book has been added to a few other articles and may constitute WP:REFSPAM, using Wikipedia to promote the book - Epinoia (talk) 01:22, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Marking this as  Not done, per the above. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 03:17, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 26 September 2019

Please link infinity in "... is simultaneously infinite and, in some way, present in the affairs..." because it is not linked anywhere currently (replace "is simultaneously infinite and, in some way, present in the affairs" with "is simultaneously [[infinity|infinite]] and, in some way, present in the affairs").

Also, remove "infinitely" from divine simplicity destinated link in "... Catholic theology holds that God is infinitely simple..." because infinity has no mention in Divine simplicity article and is unrelated with that entity (replace "Catholic theology holds that God is [[divine simplicity|infinitely simple]]" with "Catholic theology holds that God is infinitely [[divine simplicity|simple]]").

--5.43.99.155 (talk) 04:42, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

 Done, except that I linked Infinity (philosophy) as apparently more appropriate here (there's been some talk that these two articles shouldn't be separate, but for now, I think the philosophy one relates more). –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 23:33, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 October 2019

The good news newspaper did an article on "What is God" and I thought it would be a strong addition to add to the references below. It is being answered by a person who has a PHD and it was published in the paper. https://www.goodnewsfl.org/what-is-god/ Johnhelpsyou (talk) 17:20, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

 Not done. The reference list is automatically generated from inline citations; it's not a general bibliography. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 18:00, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Perennial philosophy in opening

This opening of the article presents perennial philosophy without expressing opposing views. Do we agree this should be changed? MagicatthemovieS (talk) 15:00, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Changed to what? HiLo48 (talk) 23:59, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Changed so that an opposing ideology is presented.MagicatthemovieS (talk) 00:30, 13 April 2020 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS

Such as? HiLo48 (talk) 00:37, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

- you could say that all the other conceptions of god presented, monotheism, deism, theism, etc. are opposing views to perennial philosophy - MOS:INTRO says, "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article..." - perennial philosophy is not mentioned elsewhere in the article so it could be moved to the See Also section - omnitheism is also not otherwise mentioned in the article and does not have an article of its own - Epinoia (talk) 00:53, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Epinoia.MagicatthemovieS (talk) 00:58, 13 April 2020 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS

Yes, that makes sense. HiLo48 (talk) 03:23, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 August 2020: Syntax issue.

For correct syntax,the word ‘are’ should be between the word ‘there’ and the word ‘divine’.

Change "Śramaṇa religions are generally non-creationist, while also holding that there divine beings (called Devas in Buddhism and Jainism) of limited power and lifespan." to "Śramaṇa religions are generally non-creationist, while also holding that there are divine beings (called Devas in Buddhism and Jainism) of limited power and lifespan." Miwiki Takara (talk) 20:58, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

 Done –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 00:26, 11 August 2020 (UTC)