Talk:God

Template:FAOL

Archives

2001 - 2003 9th January - 2nd November 2003 10th January - 2nd March 2004 12th April - 30th August 2004 30th October - 2nd November 2004 31st October - 15th November 2004 9th November - 16th November 2004 18th November - 20th August 2005 21st September 2005 - 26th April 2006 4th May - 20th August 2006 20th August - 27th September 2006 10th September - 29th September 2006 1st September - 29th November 2006 6th December 2006 - 5th January 2007 8th January - 23rd January 2007 11th January - 29th January 2007 2nd February - 24th May 2007 25th May - 7th June 2007 1st June - 15th June 2007 13th June - 13th August 2007

Psychological Perspectives on the Belief

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

What was that quote that disproved the existence of the Christian God 100%?

God is said to be omnipotent and all loving.

So, if God allows bad things to happen it is either because he is NOT omnipotent -or- NOT all loving. What ever the answer, it disproves God… or the very least a being we shouldn’t look up too.

The quote went something like.

-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.158.83 (talk) 02:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't really disproves God. Christian, Jewish, or Islam God, but it goes "Is [God] willing to prevent evil, but not able? then is he impotent. Is he able, but not willing? then is he malevolent. Is he both able and willing? whence then is evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" For the full article see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_problem_of_evil. Arthur Curry (talk) 01:24, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

There are several uses of wordplay that have been used as an attempt to rationalize the impossibility of a benevolent omnipotent being. But of course, usually the point of such quotes is purely polemic with the intent of pushing a foregone conclusion. There are plenty of similarly flawed arguments used by theists as well, supposedly "proving" their own conceptions of religion. On the antitheist side you'll generally get your omnipotence paradox arguments, your Occam's razor arguments, and your "there is no way a loving God would allow evil to exist" arguments. The fact of the matter is that these are all assertions of individual's own personal beliefs and are based on absolutely nothing but one's own constructed logic, which is exceedingly ironic considering that's exactly the sort of thing that religious adherents tend to get criticized for.. Peter Deer (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 07:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, in my experience, religious adherents usually get criticized for using circular, heavily flawed logic. Occam's Razor, the omnipotence paradox, and the problem of evil are not based on their user's beliefs, and the majority of theistic arguments are. 76.87.253.141 (talk) 00:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Almost all of these principles are used in the belief systems of the individuals who advocate them. Most persons believe that they have at least some understanding of the world around them and a firm belief that the conclusions that they draw are correct. As to "flawed and circular logic" I find it intensely ironic that the omnipotence paradox is considered an example of the opposite. The omnipotence paradox theory is based on a misunderstanding of infinity and of limitations. The basis of the omnipotence paradox is that if something is unlimited in one form it cannot be unlimited in another. Take for example the ever-so-common "can God create a rock so heavy even He can't lift it?" The answer being "No" does not mean that God would be limited in the size of the rock or in the weight that could be moved. It means that the limitations simply do not apply. The "logic" proposed is essentially that "because God can lift an object of any weight it means God is limited in the weight of the object He can create, because God can create a rock of any weight it means He is limited in the weight He can lift." Almost universally these "proofs" are logical fallacies. Peter Deer (talk) 12:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Please remember that this is not a forum for discussing God, as it says above in the tag, thank you. Happy editing, Midorihana^~iidesune? 06:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

True enough. I think the root of the discussion was someone wanted to include the quote that "disproved" the existence of God in the article. Peter Deer (talk) 10:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Can God microwave a burrito so hot that even he cannot eat it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.76.142.137 (talk) 20:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

==

Actually this so-called disproval is by itself and contradiction caused by the assumptions behind the concepts used and the wrong use of logics. The Greek concept of omnipotent causes one of the problem. What does it meant by itself? God can do anything (by His power)! But does it means that God DO do anything? Besides God (as described by the Bible) DOES NOT do anything. He does not sin against Himself. It means God is not "omnipotent" in Greek concept. Besides capable of doing something, does not mean He will do something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.79.96.82 (talk) 18:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it is believed that God allows bad things to happen so that we may be able to enjoy the good things. I believe the concept is called "opposition in all things." Basicly, if there was no bad times then there would be no good times either. Scriptures, such as the Bible and the Book of Mormon, say that without evil then there can be no good. A major belief is that God wants us to be happy,and that we cannot have happiness unless we have experienced sadness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fizzos98 (talk • contribs) 04:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Alright something has to be done. SOMEONE keeps deleting everything I put up. Why? Since science has obviously proven that God does not exist, why is there a need to delete the falseties of some dumb Jesusfreak? Surely there is not any kind of nervousness about the existence of God in the scientific community is there? If there wasn't then offer the "scientific proof" that God does not exist. Here are some points I would like to make about this phantom deleter:

• it makes you look immature.
• it makes you look cowardly.
• it makes whatever you believe a lie since you evidently lack the confidence to debate it.
• it makes Wikipedia look bad, as in looking like a government secret police that silences all views contrary to its own.
• If you are not acting on behalf of Wikipedia then you are merely pushing your own agenda.
• lastly, you need to give your reasons for deleting comments and topics instead of just pretending it didn't happen.

Does anybody else feel this way?

Controversial Edit

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

Rangeley1029 21:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

I agree with the above poster god doesn't exist is a fact so it should be included

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

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

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

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

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

It's a matter of philosophy, and taking either side in a philosophical matter is definitely POV. And before anyone mentions that it's a matter of religion or faith, those are philosophy. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 20:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not advocating taking a side. I'm just saying that the existence of gods is not a matter of opinion. Ilkali 21:27, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I see your point that we cannot actually know one way or the other and I agree. Regardless, unverifiable facts that happen to be the subject of controversy are also POV when stated in a vacuum. Olleicua 16:00, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree, of course. Ilkali 16:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

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

First I would like to point out that a fact need not be true to be a fact. Ummm... what?! JuJube 07:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't be alarmed; the Wikipedia crack pipe confiscation team are on holiday this week. Things will return to some semblance of sanity once they return. Love, Lewis Collard! (rock me mama like a southbound train) 07:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

"Fact has a long history of usage in the sense “allegation of fact,” as in “This tract was distributed to thousands of American teachers, but the facts and the reasoning are wrong” (Albert Shanker). This practice has led to the introduction of the phrases true facts and real facts, as in The true facts of the case may never be known. These usages may occasion qualms among critics who insist that facts can only be true, but the usages are often useful for emphasis." [1] Also note that even on the wikipedia page for fact, "Alternatively, "fact" may also indicate an allegation or stipulation of something that may or may not be a "true fact", (e.g., "the author's facts are not trustworthy"). This alternate usage, although contested by some, has a long history in standard English." Bloxslave 08:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

It is hard to define what is and isn't a fact in this case. This is because while there is no real evidence for God, there is no real evidence against God either. However, if we use the principle of Occam's razor, then God simply cannot exist. Cunfuzzed 18:56, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

You've misinterpreted the razor. Ilkali 20:26, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

--207.6.168.5 (talk) 05:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Taking this into account with the article, should atheism be mentioned? It is a view about God and so should probably be mentioned. Midorihana_{(talk)(contribs)} 08:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that perhaps the question of God's existence should be mentioned but not the atheist movement itself. May you go in God's care. Peter Deer (talk) 22:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Removed non-topical edits

Hi! This talk page is for discussing the article, not for expressing ones personal thoughts on the subject. Removed non-topical entries. See Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Best, --Shirahadasha 04:40, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

ALFRED ACKLEY 1. you can not deny my experience 2. I experience God 3. God exists (you can not deny that)

Logic has nothing to do with personal opinion. Neither does fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.196.76.228 (talk) 16:31, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Reliable sources for the term dharmic religions?

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

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

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

News item?

What are the reasons for adding a non-notable news item to this article? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:07, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I am referring to this: http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Nebraska_Senator_sues_God Funny, but not necessarily notable for this article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:08, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

If it was non-notable Wikinews wouldn't have covered it. I suppose the real question is, "Does Humour Belong in Wikipedia?" --Brianmc 20:30, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

God and Buddhism

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

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

Buddhism simply does not belong in the article.

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

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

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

Etymology and usage

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

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

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

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

Food for thought, Jordalus; consider as you wish: there is a school of thought that says that there are no objects (i.e., no nouns)...only the "unfolding now." Couple that thought with the panentheistic idea that God is all there is, or ever will be, and the thought becomes distilled that the truth lies closer to God being a verb rather than a noun. Again...for your consideration.--71.42.142.238 16:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Nouns and verbs are defined morphosyntactically, not semantically. Ilkali 07:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

Jehovah

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

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

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

history of monotheism

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

"Names" section

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

GA Sweeps (on hold)

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that need to be addressed:

1. The {{fact}} tags in Theism and Deism must be dealt with by the application of inline citations.
2. The last sentence of Theological approaches asserts a possibly controversial claim without an inline citation.
3. Etymology and usage needs inline cites for each specific etymological claim.
4. The last paragraph of Monotheism and pantheism, as well as the Dystheism and Non-theism section, need inline citations.
5. The textual reference to see also Satanism needs to be converted in to a {{seealso}} template link.
6. The External links section needs paring down.

I will check back in no less than seven days. If progress is being made and issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far. Regards, VanTucky ^talk 21:23, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

"The textual reference to see also Satanism needs to be converted in to a {{seealso}} template link." - That would require the link to be at the top of the section, rather than at the end of the paragraph, right? Having "See also: Satanism" under the header "Dystheism and nontheism" might set up bad associations. It might be better to include mention of Satanism within the text? Ilkali (talk) 23:06, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

To my understanding, seealso templates can also be placed between paragraphs and at the end of a section. The beginning is just a custom. However, you could convert it to a regular textual reference to Satanism, which would eliminate the need for a see also link. Whatever you want is fine, so long as it is not an untemplated, inline see also reference like it is now. VanTucky ^talk 23:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Links to Dawkins in the references section?

If we're going to put links in the God article that are clearly against theism, why don't we put a link to the Bible and every other religious text we can think of on the atheism article?24.170.229.78 (talk) 13:08, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Dawkins' books are about theism. The bible isn't about atheism. Ilkali (talk) 18:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

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

The Abrahamic God

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

71.254.201.182 (talk) 17:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

As I understand it, Allah is generally considered an Abrahamic god. Ilkali (talk) 18:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

---

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

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

Protected tag

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

Nature of article

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

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

Flawed statements and poor referencing

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

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

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

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

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

Please choose your wording more carefully.

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

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

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

Looking at World Book online [2], capitalize if you are talking about a singular God, don't capitalize if you're talking about multiple gods. If you say 'the god' there is no capitalization.

Examples (from the world book article)

Don't capitalize:

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

Also don't capitalize:

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

Capitalize:

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

Hope that helps, Midorihana^∫∞ 21:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Their advice is bad advice. Capitalise proper nouns, don't capitalise common nouns. Ilkali (talk) 22:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify, what source are you talking about? Midorihana^∫∞ 03:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm talking about the advice from "World Book online". Ilkali (talk) 07:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Midorihana^∫∞ 08:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Jargon in hatnote

The hatnote at the top of the article currently reads:

This article is about the term "God" in the context of monotheism and henotheism. See Deity, god (male deity) or goddess for details on polytheistic usages. For other uses, see God (disambiguation)

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

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

Images

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

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

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

I saw it also.

This was from cut and paste when signed off.

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

GODS NOT REAL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1 God most commonly refers to the deity worshiped by followers of monotheistic and monolatrist religions

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

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

uses, see God (disambiguation)}}

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

God most commonly refers to the deity worshiped by followers of

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

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

Sai Baba about God

• Thought for the Day

The message for today - 21st February 2008 - says:

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

- BABA

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

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

Atheism

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

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

Capitalization of the term "god" how come?

I'm cuios to know why the term "god" capitalized in the article. Would we write "the God Zeus" or "the god Zeus"? Sorry if this topic has already been covered. There are thousands of mythological gods so is the term "god" always capitalized? We don't capitalize the term "monkey" or "angel" in articles abount monkeys or angels. Just struck me as odd. Angry Christian (talk) 23:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

• Generally, "God" is captalized to distinguish God the all-powerful deity of which the article speaks of, to "god" a word that classifies several different powerful beings of polytheism, or simply a being with superhuman powers (like, uh, Light Yagami of Death Note claims to be. Sorry! ^_^) JuJube (talk) 00:01, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
• It should also be considered that when people refer to God they use the word "God" as His name. And yes, I capitalized, "His" out of personal respect, but while I would think it would be appropriate to capitalize the word God in the article, capitalizing the pronouns seems unencyclopedic to me, as it confers a note of reverence that is not applied to other individuals in articles. In other words, "God" is fine to be capitalized, but "He" "His" and the like should probably be kept lower-case. Peter Deer (talk) 03:25, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

• Hindu Concept of God

Austerlitz -- 88.72.29.72 (talk) 19:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes that is a link. Underline and blue text and everything. Peter Deer (talk) 20:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Check the Manual of Style for guidelines regarding the capitalization of deities. Midorihana^~iidesune? 06:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow. I'm actually surprised that they've specifically made that distinction. Cheers, wikipedia. Thanks midorihana. Peter Deer (talk) 19:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia taken over by jesusfreak fundy types

The very fact that I'm directed to "God" with a capital gee when I type in "god" with no capitals shows christian bias clearly. Hindus don't believe in "God" with a capital gee and in fact Christians are fully outnumbered by "heathens". Anybody check the Buddhism stats lately? Seriously Wikipedians, stop being POV. It's sad.

• Stop being dense. "god" "redirects" here because you can't make a separate article without the first letter being capitalized in this system. JuJube (talk) 02:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Type in 'deity.' And as to what Hindus believe, you need to read your vedas more often, and I think you'll find that there is an omnipotent omniscient omnipresent Being and similarly that hindu gods aren't excluded from wikipedia, they're included under devas, which is the Hindi word as opposed to the Germanic word 'god' which has gained popular usage in the english language. You might as well be complaining that the word "God" doesn't redirect to Allah. If it really makes that big of a difference to you then you should move to disambiguate, but what you shouldn't do is go off making prejudicial accusations because things aren't exactly the way you think they should be. Peter Deer (talk) 03:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I would just like to draw to EVERYONES Attention that God should always have a CAPITAL LETTER.

User:cwatson334 (talk)18:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

That depends on the context. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

2nding this! goodone (talk) 18:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The manual of style on this matter is quite clear. In regards to God the singular Entity as perceived in Abrahamic religion it should always be a capital letter. In regards to the various gods of polytheistic religions it is regarded as lowercase, as the term God applies as though it were one of His names, and god in the polytheistic sense applies in the same form as "christian" as opposed to "Christ." However, pronouns (Him, His, etc.) and terms referring to God (Deity, Being, Divinity) are not capitalized, though the holy books (Bible, Quran, Zend-Avesta, Kitab-i-Iqan, etc.) are capitalized individually, but are not capitalized in their collective form (Scripture, Books, etc.) I hope this clears everything up. Peter Deer (talk) 05:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The specific page that states the policy about the capitalization of deities' names is this page: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters)#Religions,_deities,_philosophies,_doctrines_and_their_adherents. Midorihana^~iidesune? 07:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

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

The article is about the term God in the context of monotheism, as it says at the top of the article. There are separate articles for gods and deities in polytheism. Midorihana^~iidesune? 02:22, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

indeed. Read the disambiguation note. Case closed. dab (𒁳) 16:32, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Small article

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

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

Etymology and usage 2

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

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

Move to "God (monotheism)"

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

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

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

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

Too much emphasis on philosophy

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

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

Re-protection

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

God vs god

my understanding is that God is spelled God when referring to a monotheistic God, and god when referring to polytheistic a god. So if one was to refer to the one true God, it would be spelled God. if one was to compare the God of the Jews to the God of the Muslims, he could talk about the Gods. If one is talking about the possibility of a monotheistic God, they could ask is there a God. does anyone disagree with this? Rds865 (talk) 00:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Only on the notion that the Jewish God and the Muslim God are different things. Ask any Muslim if when they talk about Allah if they are referring to the Being which spoke to Adam and to Moses and to Abraham and they will say "Yes." But in regards to capitalizing the term 'God' as used in monotheistic practice, I agree that it should be capitalized, and in accordance with the Manual of Style that is the capitalization guideline that is recommended. I don't recall this being changed recently. May you go in God's care. Peter Deer (talk) 00:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Common nouns capitalise, proper nouns don't. If the word in question could be replaced with 'deity' without the sentence losing any coherence, you're probably dealing with the common noun form. Ilkali (talk) 06:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)8

Okay, this is probably how it works. Monotheists called Him God and Polytheists reffer to him as a god. And let's not forget the term "goddess" which is a her. just call them God is Monotheist being and a god or goddess if its polytheist being. Simple as that.--User:Angel David ^{Commune with Heaven} Spy on my Angelic Gifts 21:37, 23 April, 2008 (User Talker Contributor)

Wrong. The type of religion that the deity belongs to is irrelevant. Common nouns capitalise, proper nouns don't. Simple as that. Ilkali (talk) 07:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

"When used alone in reference to a specific figure of veneration, start with a capital letter" so If I say my God, or his God it is capitalized. If I say is there is a god, it isn't. As far as the god/goddess thing, monotheistic gods, don't have gender, that would imply reproduction. Just like ships are always feminine, God is masculine. That doesn't make him a male or a female. Rds865 (talk) 18:17, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

"so If I say my God, or his God it is capitalized". No. Common noun. Not capitalised. Ilkali (talk) 18:48, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

read the manual of style Rds865 (talk) 19:06, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I have. It's very poorly worded, but it backs me up. 1) "when used alone..." - What do you think this means? The writer doesn't seem to understand much about syntax, but I think the natural interpretation is that he/she is excluding instances with determiners. 2) "in reference to a specific figure" - In 'my god', the word god isn't referencing any entity, because it's a common noun. It denotes a set of entities, used in combination with a determiner to make a deictic reference. Contrast this with the proper noun God, which is referential by nature. Ilkali (talk) 19:20, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

As a Muslim, the Jews beleive in the same God as us, as the Christians do too. This is His article, and capitalisation must be in His name. A god is just a noun, such as "Neptune was a god in Roman times". Or even, "God is the god of Islam". Even in the Shahada in English, we say "There is no god but Allah". So it is simple English grammar rules, Proper noun = Capitalise, Common noun = lower case. :) Hope that cleared things up a bit. --88.149.117.47 (talk) 01:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

"This is His article, and capitalisation must be in His name". I've no idea what you mean by this. "Proper noun = Capitalise, Common noun = lower case". Yeah, that's what I've been saying all along. Ilkali (talk) 05:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that there's been some misunderstanding here. Ilkali is right on the money regarding capitalization. When it refers to God (as in, God as if it were His name) then it is a proper noun and is capitalized, but when it refers to God as being "a god" or "godly" possessing of "godhead" or His status as a "single creator god of Abrahamic religion" for example, it is a common noun, and is not capitalized. Pip pip tally ho. May you go in God's care. Peter Deer (talk) 06:36, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Oops and I forgot I'd like to note that I personally just capitalize the pronouns and such in my sentences but that's because I'm a crazy religious whackjob coo coo cajoob it's not saying that you should do that in articles. Thanks! May you go in God's care. Peter Deer (talk) 06:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, Rds865, I note that you silently omitted the most important part: "Honorifics for deities, when used alone in reference to [...]". The common noun god is not an honorific, no matter how it's used. Ilkali (talk) 12:44, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

If it's the name a person it's capatilized if its a tiltle or ting it's not capatilized. That's waht it was tought. Just put it the context they use it in.--Angel David (talk) 01:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

There is no debate here, David. The MoS clearly prescribes capitalisation for proper nouns only. Ilkali (talk) 05:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Ilkali and Peter Deer here. Midorihana^{~いいですね? はい!} 07:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

It's very straight-forward grammar. Take Don Coppersmith for example. He is a cryptographer and mathematician. He is not a coppersmith, however, it's probable that at least one of Coppersmith's ancestors was a coppersmith. Therefore, what's this nonsense doing in the intro "The singular, capitalized God of monotheistic religions is commonly contrasted with the gods of polytheistic religions."? JIMp _talk·cont 06:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

The sentence "The singular, capitalized God of monotheistic religions is commonly contrasted with the gods of polytheistic religions."should be removed. There is no real need for it as per above its also a POV that is in effect an OR. Wikidās ॐ 11:49, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Lead/length

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

God is not people

Surely the tag [[Category:Nonexistent people]] is applicable here.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.16.37.251 (talk)

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

God

My website attempts to find God in a new and unbiased manner, using a live wiki. I think it should be mentioned here. The address is: www.EugeneKantarovich.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by EugeneKantarovich (talk • contribs) 19:06, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

See WP:EL. Ilkali (talk) 21:46, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Nyame-- Please Help

Please help. I looked up "Nyame" in Wikipedia's search, but it redirected to this page ("God"). Of course, I can't find the mention of "Nyame" here, and was actually looking for info (its culture of origin-Yoruba?). Anyhow, I am just wondering why someone would redirect the Nyame page here, without explicitly discussing Nyame here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.132.54.222 (talk) 17:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)