From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article God was one of the Philosophy and religion good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
News This article has been mentioned by a media organisation:

FYI: reminder on avoiding edit warring[edit]

In general, communication is the key to avoiding conflict: follow Wikipedia:Editing policy#Talking and editing. Once it is clear that there is a dispute, avoid relying solely on edit summaries and discuss the matter on the article's talk page. The primary venue for discussing the dispute should be the article talk page, which is where a reviewing admin will look for evidence of trying to settle the dispute. It may help to remember that there is no deadline and that editors can add appropriate cleanup tags to problematic sections under current discussion. When discussion does not produce a conclusion, bringing wider attention to a dispute can lead to compromise. Consider getting a third opinion or starting a request for comments. Neutral editors aware of the dispute will help curb egregious edits while also building consensus about the dispute. When these methods fail, seek informal and formal dispute resolution.

Some experienced editors deliberately adopt a policy of only reverting edits covered by the exceptions listed above, or limiting themselves to a single revert; if there is further dispute they seek dialog or outside help rather than make the problem worse. They revert only when necessary. This policy may be particularly appropriate for controversial topics where views are polarized and emotions run high, and as a result edit warring is more frequent.

The bottom line: use common sense, and do not participate in edit wars. Rather than reverting repeatedly, discuss the matter with others; if a revert is necessary, another editor may conclude the same and do it (without you prompting them), which would then demonstrate consensus for the action. Request page protection rather than becoming part of the dispute by reverting.

Semi-protected edit request on 22 March 2014[edit]

I want to blank the page — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:15, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

God: monotheistic or simply judaic?[edit]

The term God seems to be exclusively used by religions stemming from judaism. Why does the article broadly refer to 'monotheism' when the term seems to be used very specifically by a certain group of religions? For instance, the egyptians had a monotheistic religion around Ra. The word God was not invented yet and i have never heared Ra being referenced as God. On the other hand, all religions with judaic roots these days refer to their god as God. So why not explain in the article that this word, in its capitalized form, is intimately related to a certain group of related religions? It's like saying Shiva is a name for deities in polytheistic religions.— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

No, the word "God" (upper case G) was originally a title for Odin, and was first used to refer to the transcendent deity in Germanic (Gothic in particular) Christian Bibles. It has since become standard in English for transcendent deities of different religions, such as Brahman in Hinduism, Ahura Mazda in Zoroastrianism, Olodumare in Yoruba religion, Ngai among a number of Kenyan groups, the Tai Di in Chinese religions (be it Taoism's Yu Di or Confucianism's Shang Di), and Tengri in Mongolian shamanism. It's possible to find sources that just refer to those beings as "God in X (religion/culture/language)." The worshipers of the previously mentioned figures will usually just say "God" in common discourse in reference to them when speaking English, and most missionaries for Christianity and Islam accept that (barring some screw up by their religions at least a long ago), converts from those cultures are probably going to continue to use a native term for the Abrahamic God instead of the English word -- which is how we got the word "God" in the first place.
The idea of a transcendent deity isn't unique to Judaism. Most religions include it at some point, even ones that try to be non-theistic.
Atenism is probably the monotheistic religion you're thinking, since before (and after, and really during) Atenism, most Egyptians were polytheists. Ra was, according to most temples throughout history, the supreme God in the Egyptian pantheon, however. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:56, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I can tell you for certain from experience that Hindus will tell you that 'God' is simply the Western name for Brahman, or perhaps Vishnu -- it is important to remember that the various 'gods' of Hinduism are regarded as simply aspects of a single true God. And indeed Hindus will tell you even that Jesus and Yahweh and Allah are simply additional aspects of this same God as it has chosen to reveal itself to people of those cultures, all subsumed within Brahman. Even Deism and Pandeism and Pantheism, which reject any notion of intentional intervention by their respective theological loci, may yet call these loci 'God.' DeistCosmos (talk) 04:43, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Correct typo in introductory section; exit -> exist[edit]

"In atheism, God is purported not to exit, while deemed unknown or unknowable within the context of agnosticism."

This should read "In atheism, God is purported not to exist, while deemed unknown or unknowable within the context of agnosticism."

2606:A000:F401:FF01:38C2:2135:CA9:D514 (talk) 02:23, 25 April 2014 (UTC)


The word, "purported", in "In atheism, God is purported not to exist, while deemed unknown or unknowable within the context of agnosticism.", has context. Purported means "claimed, especially within the context of a falsity." Wikipedia is meant to be wholly unbiased in its' descriptions and I think we should replace "purported" with a less suggestive word, such as "believed". (talk) 06:25, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

More to the point, atheism and agnosticism are not "beliefs", they are various degrees of absence of belief. I agree the wording at present is rather odd, but I'm not sure that any of this even belongs at this point in the article. The article is written from a theist perspective (for which there is a very long tradition), so I think this list (from polytheism to atheism) would be better placed in Existence of God for example. Imaginatorium (talk) 07:09, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
I've seen this argued before. There are plenty of atheists out there who actively proclaim the non-existence of God. That looks like a positive assertion of a negative belief. Agnosticism I'm much more ready to accept as an absence of belief. AlexTiefling (talk) 00:29, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes of course, there are many such people, and the distinction between "atheist" and "agnostic" is not in practice very clear cut. But in any case, it is not clear that any of this belongs in this article -- and generally speaking I think this first paragraph is terrible. If you look at Conservapedia:God, the first sentence is a vastly better explanation, if preceded by "In the tradition of the Abrahamic religions" (which is the context of CP). Since the article starts by saying it is discussing God in the context of monotheism, all the other varieties belong under "Deity" or "Existence of God". Imaginatorium (talk) 05:29, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Of course the problem with Conservapedia is that it adopts a position, while Wikipedia tries to be unbiased. In tricky articles like this where the Abrahamic bias of most Wikipedia editors has become intertwined with the word. This causes problems as it would be weird to leave out multiple gods (e.g. the Olympian or Hindu gods) altogether, let alone other monotheistics gods who are not Abrahamic (e.g. Aten). Conservepedia has the easy option here as they go from the position that there is only one true God, the Abrahamic deity. But even if you accept that their introduction heavily emphasizes divine omnipotence and omnipresence in ways that liberal Abrahamic religions and philosophies would not support [1]. Arnoutf (talk) 10:03, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
I am not speaking from religious context. I simply think the wording should be changed to sturdiness, rather than leaning on one side or another. It's not a preposterously biased sentence, but it could offend some. The article also has several other problems which have been talked about on this page. Something simple, such as "Athiesm is a lack of belief in God, where as Agnosticism leans on neither one side nor the other." Something like that. I wouldn't write that verbatim being that I'm only fifteen, but nonetheless "purported" is a strange word to use. (talk) 03:47, 1 May 2014 (UTC) ..... — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:24, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

This article is pretty good[edit]

Very well done! 2602:306:BDA0:97A0:466D:57FF:FE90:AC45 (talk) 08:44, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

God is love, you have a whole article on God and it doesn't mention the most prevalent attribute[edit]

Hi there,

Look this is the most agreed upon attribute of God, whatever religion you are talking about.

People define God as Love.

You could easily link this to an article on love.

Sorry if you think I am condemning you or judging you or something.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gottservant (talkcontribs) 05:32, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

"Most agreed upon attributes" can only be added to this articles if there are reliable (secondary) sources that report on the agreement. So if you think this needs to be added, please provide such sources. Arnoutf (talk) 07:37, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
"God is love"[1]
"[God is] the Loving One"[2]
"Eros is the Greek God of love"[3]
Here wikipedia shows a long list of gods of love in various mythologies[4]
"Saint Tirumoolar in his magnum opus Tirumadiram encapsulates this truth when he declares “Anbe Sivam” (Love is the Supreme God)." Hindu faith [5] Plenty of random quotes there “Here's the paradox. We can fully embrace God's love only when we recognize how completely unworthy of it we are.”[6][7]
“As God has renounced himself out of love, so we, out of love, should renounce God; for if we do not sacrifice God to love, we sacrifice love to God, and in spite of the predicate of love, we have the God – the evil being – of religious fanaticism.” Atheist identifying God as love even in the context of atheism[8]
These preliminary links identify God as love in two major world religions, greek mythology, a hindu text, fiction and atheism. As you know Buddhism remains neutral on all things and is about the closest thing you get to any religion saying "God is not love" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gottservant (talkcontribs) 09:33, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Holy books are not secondary sources, and can not be used without making clear these are primary sources.
Wikipedia is not a reliable source.
The referred to newspaper (the Hindu) quotes a lecture, but does not conclude this itself.
The goodread quotes are about the love of God, not equating God=love.
Ann Tatlock's book is a novel not a reliable source and not intended as such, labelled fiction(!)
Feurerbach's position is probably very outdated, and seems not to be that influential in todays discussion.
Please provide more explicit, more relevant, secondary sources. Also, if you introduce books, please provide the relevant quotes/sections that make these explicit claims, otherwise it is as good as impossible to judge the claim Arnoutf (talk) 15:53, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
  1. ^ the Holy Bible 1 John 4:8, 4:16
  2. ^ the Koran 11:90, 85:14
  3. ^
  4. ^
  5. ^
  6. ^ Ann Tatlock, The Returning
  7. ^
  8. ^ Ludwig Feuerbach’s best-known book, The Essence of Christianity (1841)
Primary sources are not better than secondary??? Sorry, this will have to be a project for someone with genius to understand what you are asking. (talk) 07:09, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
A primary source could in principle consist of the opinions of any person on any subject under the sun. A secondary source, at a bare minimum, shows that some other person thought that opinion worth repeating. Even the notion of what constitutes a holy book is determinable due to secondary sources: no-one would consider my high school notebooks to be Holy Writ, even if I had prefaced each exercise with 'God spake all these words and said:'. In a case like this, the sources you (or Gottservant, if you're not them) have produced contradict each other, and aren't all talking about the same thing. For example, the purported existence of love/sex gods like Eros, Amor or Kama directly contradicts theologies which accept a single unified deity in the sense this article generally means. For the Christian - and it is largely Christian - idea that love and God are in some sense identical, you'd want an article on specifically Christian theology, rather than the more general article you've got here. It would be very misleading to introduce a specifically Christian idea as a main plank of an article that's not specific to Christianity. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:15, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
I have nothing against an edit like "The Gospel of John claims that God is love." This way it is clear who says it and who believes it, the edit is a neutral statement. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:33, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
I wouldn't either provided it's WP:DUE and other equally noteworthy views are presented. Maybe a section on "diverse or secondary attributes," including "God is everything", "God is the Ground of All Being", "God is inconceivable", "God hates us", and "God is AFK". Ian.thomson (talk) 21:47, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for discussing it. (talk) 03:32, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 May 2014[edit]

Christians believe Jesus is also God and the Son of God; that he is the way, the truth, and the life, and that there is no way to the Father but through him; and that The Holy Spirit is also God, the third Person of the Holy Trinity, three Persons in One God. Patzcakes (talk) 04:30, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Red question icon with gradient background.svg 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. Sam Sailor Sing 06:28, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 May 2014[edit]

no one know the god

so dont add picture -_- — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:17, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

no one know you say
so dont bad grammar -_-
Or, if I'm not going to be a dick about it: no one smart enough to read seriously thinks the picture is God. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:24, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Relationship with Dog?[edit]

God is dog backwards. I think we should have a whole separate section on the correlation between the two deities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:15, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I think that would be interesting if we are able to also provide the relation between the words Dnoh Ednuh Neich Orrep and names of God (words are Dog backwards in Dutch, German, French and Spanish). More seriously, random co-occurrence, nothing to it let it be. Arnoutf (talk) 19:25, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
My former dog used to think he was God, so far as I could tell, and I think other former dog owners might have encountered the same sort of thing, but I don't that topic gets a lot of coverage in independent reliable sources. John Carter (talk) 18:02, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

God is not a name, and is not identifier[edit]

In any language:- A Word is with meaning but it is not always a noun. A noun is a word but it is not always a name. A name is a noun and it is always identifying a person or a property or a thing, or etc. In English do you call your cat or dog with word "Cat" or Dog", no I don't think so. The word GOD is not a name but each human calls his/her god some name(s). In real life and in the World we have Humans, Animals, and Gods. Each of those when they are intelligent or important or important-to-someone, they have names in the World. Therefore, how can you call your god as "God", it is not reasonable. Abdusalambaryun (talk) 17:39, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

And what point aimed at improving this article do you want to make with this rather convoluted text? Arnoutf (talk) 18:07, 11 June 2014 (UTC)