Talk:God

Template:WP1.0

Deism in the Conceptions of God Section

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

Psychological Perspectives on the Belief

hi was up!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1This article's Scientific Perspectives section is missing a subsection on psychological theories. A psychological section should address not so much what God is and whether or not God exists, but it should address the belief in God as a psychological phenomenon. There are both theoretical and highly empirical bodies of research that examine aspects of this belief, i.e., believing that spirits exist, believing that events take place for a reason, and believing that a person-like being is the reason why things happen. Again, there is a very rich literature on this, suggesting that the ways in which the brain processes information in biased ways is related to the blief in God. Besides the heavily empirical cognitive literature on this topic, a long-standing psychoanalytic literature (more theoretical then empirical) also exists on the belif in God. This article has not addressed these perspectives adequately. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.126.151.171 (talk) 16:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Controversial Edit

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

Rangeley1029 21:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Fact has a long history of usage in the sense “allegation of fact,” as in “This tract was distributed to thousands of American teachers, but the facts and the reasoning are wrong” (Albert Shanker). This practice has led to the introduction of the phrases true facts and real facts, as in The true facts of the case may never be known. These usages may occasion qualms among critics who insist that facts can only be true, but the usages are often useful for emphasis." [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)

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

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

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

Ok, that is not true at all. You are thinking of a proposition, the definition of which is "A statement that is either true or false", and this excludes opinionated subjects. Then logical definition of a fact is something that is true, period. Prussian725 (talk) 23:14, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Something that can be proved either true or false is a theory (proposition works fine too). While something may be presented as a 'fact', something is only actually a fact if it is true.--Jeffro77 (talk) 19:11, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

What really needs to be realized here is that religion was originally created to explain things early humans had no knowledge about, like how the universe was created for example. Christianity is just a spin on that. God is an opinion an that is that. If The christians god was real, why wouldn't everybody just follow christianity? Or the same with every other religion. We don't know how the universe was created. So god must have done it, right? Wrong. I just proved my earlier point. We don't know how it happened, so some greater power created it. It's the easy way out. The best way to say it i that we don't know how the universe was created and we never will know. There is NO PROOF of a god, a heaven, or also, Jesus. So if you think you can find out how the universe was created by playing 20 questions with God in heaven , it's not gonna happen. And people can have their opinion, i don't mind, it's called the first amendment here in America. But it still goes on to prove my first point. Scientists don't have to explain things to prove that it wasn't "God". God's Wikipedia article,(as well as Jesus's) should be treated the same as, say, Buddah or Muhammad and stick with Wikipedia's Neutrality.

Actually, there is some evidence that Jesus existed, but there is no evidence that he is actually Christ. The article cannot state that god does exist, nor can it state that he does not exist.--Jeffro77 (talk) 19:14, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

First off, you said "should be treated...with Wikipedia's Neutrality.",I agree. This is Wikipedia and therefore it shoul be neutral and unbiased. However you could have just gone ahead and said that instead of trying to prove something you can't prove. This website is for presenting facts and not your opinions. You also said this "Scientists don't have to explain things to prove that it wasn't "God".". This is entirely false, it is not fact, it is your POV, it does not belong here, and if you want to argue about theology than please go to another website for that purpose.--Fizzos98 (talk) 01:35,19June 2008 (UTC)

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

Removed non-topical edits

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

ALFRED ACKLEY 1. you can not deny my experience 2. I haven't experienced God 3. God doesn't exists (you can not deny that)

Logic has nothing to do with personal opinion. Neither does fact.Prussian725 (talk) 19:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Frankly if we are going to go into logical fallacy battles over the existence or nonexistence of God here you might as well rename Wikipedia totse and get it over with.

Discuss the article. Adding things to the article requires neutral, reliable, and verifiable sources. If it's not regarding these things then it doesn't need to be here. Peter Deer (talk) 22:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

actually, I CAN deny that, most of the world does, remember your all powerful scientists are a tiny minority. God DOES exist, and you can deny that, but thats bad for younot me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Metal9383 (talk • contribs) 02:52, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Reliable sources for the term dharmic religions?

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

I propose to use the alternative phrase Indian religions. The number of google scholar results for "Indian religions"+"Indian religion" is (1,970 + 3,050) while it is only for "dharmic religions" + "dharmic religion" (3+5). See 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)

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

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

Etymology and usage

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jehovah

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

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

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

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

history of monotheism

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

"Names" section

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

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

GA Sweeps (on hold)

This article has been reviewed as part of 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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Atheism is a view about God; it can be briefly covered in the article like non-theism is, I feel. Evolution, however, doesn't seem to do much with God IMO (although of course I could be wrong). It talks about how the various forms of life came about, instead of the origin of said life. Midorihana みどりはな 09:22, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I think (being a rabid theist myself.) that Atheism should be included in the article, as the article is regarding the concept of God and Atheism is a belief in the lack of a God based on certain arguments or a perceived insufficiency of evidence or logic. Thus, atheism is an important perspective on the concept. As far as evolution is concerned, I think that largely the issue is with perceived or imagined incompatibilities in the concepts, as well as public scandals regarding the inclusion of religious teaching in education and opposition by adherents to the teaching of evolution. I think that is much less related to the concept of God itself, and I don't see much reason to include it in this article. Peter Deer (talk) 10:11, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

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

I don't know exactly what gave you the impression that I had sources on hand for Spinoza and his god (although I can see how you would come to that conclusion :D ), but here's something from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: [2]. Midorihana みどりはな 04:34, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

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

← Sorry, I thought you wanted a quick reference. :D It's a tertiary source, so it's okay for a summary or overview of the subject (I think, according to Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary.2C_and_tertiary_sources). Midorihana みどりはな 08:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The Abrahamic God

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

Protected tag

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

Nature of article

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

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

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

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

Flawed statements and poor referencing

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

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

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

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

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

Please choose your wording more carefully.

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

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

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

Looking at World Book online [3], 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)

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

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

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

uses, see God (disambiguation)}}

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

God most commonly refers to the deity worshiped by followers of

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

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

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

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

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

Sai Baba about God

• 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)

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

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

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

Capitalization of the term "god" how come?

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

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

• Hindu Concept of God

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

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

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

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

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

EX.

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

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

Wikipedia taken over by jesusfreak fundy types

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

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

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

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

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

That depends on the context. 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)

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

EX.

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

Small article

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

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

Etymology and usage 2

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

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

Move to "God (monotheism)"

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

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

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

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

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

Too much emphasis on philosophy

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

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

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

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

Re-protection

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

God vs god

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why all this controversy about "g" versus "G"? My friend's name is Joe. My dog's name is Fred. The names of various gods are Yahweh, Zeus, Mithra, Odin, Ganesh, etc. The name of the god of Islam is Allah. The name of the god of Christianity is God. What could be simpler and plainer than that? Ericlord (talk) 10:36, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

it might be that simple. If your Friend's name is Joe, and your Dog's name is Fred. Or if your friend's name is Friend.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:08, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Lead/length

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

God is not people

Surely the tag [[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)

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)

• From what I read in the old revisions of the former article Nyame is an Twi (Ashanti language) version of God. So it's God in another language--Angel David (talk) 23:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

How interesting! I had never heard of this language before. Learn something new every day, I suppose. So is there a specific religion which uses that term that we can reference information from? Peter Deer (talk) 23:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

God as ideology / alienation?

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

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

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

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

Contradiction

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

Numbers of gods going down over time?

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

This article...

This article should not summarize societies views towards god- rather it should provide or also provide a specific statement that reflects facts- eg, God is unproven and illogical when subjected to the scrutiny of the scientific method is not a POV but actual fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.167.62.248 (talk) 13:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Uuhhh...that is not true. have you ever heard of Logic? I'm not talking about "common sense" but Logic defined as the "Science and art of Reason", which is not subject to POV either.Prussian725 (talk) 02:19, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Intelligent design citations

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

Merger proposal

Suggest integrating the substance of the orphaned poorly-named article, Christian translations of God.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:06, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

According to Czech Republic#Religion

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

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

"and that map claims [...]". What map? Ilkali (talk) 20:44, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

'god' does not exist, this must be mentioned in the article

Trolling.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Where is the mention of the fact that god does not exist? Since there is not one shred of evidence that god exist, scientifically god does not exist. And Wikipedia claims to be scientific, right? --83.84.46.69 (talk) 00:06, 25 November 2008 (UTC) That's not really how science works. Ilkali (talk) 12:07, 25 November 2008 (UTC) There's not one shred of evidence that He doesn't exist either. The existence or non-existence of a supernatural being is really very much outside the realm of science. There's simply no way to quantify it. You can't set up an experiment that would prove or disprove that sort of hypothesis. L'Aquatique[talk] 22:36, 25 November 2008 (UTC) Anonymous, check. Silly atheist prattle, check. Using the talk page as a forum for idiotic ideas, check. Can we just wipe this section already? JuJube (talk) 23:20, 25 November 2008 (UTC) "Silly atheist prattle, check". Are you trying to offend atheists here? We're not all like this fellow. Ilkali (talk) 23:27, 25 November 2008 (UTC) Might be useful to keep the section and point out that Wikipedia is not about defining ultimate truth, but rather reporting notable views. It is notable that people believe God exists, and notable that people do not, and this article should do both, as well as report what people mean by the term. There is no fact that God does or does not exist; rather it is a fact that people either do, or do not, believe so. Have a great Thanksgiving everyone! Let's at least thank the Turkey for loaning us a leg to nibble on! SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 23:24, 25 November 2008 (UTC) [ec] Don't loans usually get returned? :P L'Aquatique[talk] 23:26, 25 November 2008 (UTC) Yeah sorry, I should have rephrased, most atheists I know are cool, actually. It's just that it seems like the hip thing to do on the Internet these days is loudly shout I AM ATHEIST AND IF YOU BELIEVE IN GOD YOU ARE TEH STUPID. JuJube (talk) 00:28, 26 November 2008 (UTC) Well yeah, if you hang out on a page like Talk:God. Spare a thought for the poor souls who maintain Evolution. Ilkali (talk) 00:34, 26 November 2008 (UTC) Well it's not like God and evolution are mutually exclusive, but that's another discussion entirely. ;) JuJube (talk) 01:30, 26 November 2008 (UTC) Ditto. Evolution and the concept of a superior being are actually complimentary. It's easy to say (and refute) that everything happened because God waved his magic wand. But a being who could have come up with something so complex and beautiful but altogether logical- like evolution- must truly be superior. L'Aquatique[talk] 02:02, 26 November 2008 (UTC) There are logical disproofs toward the existence of "God". In any other article for any other entity it would be mentioned that "God" is fictional. Why should this article be any different? -fatrb38 (12/15/08, 3:54 PM PST)

Do u have any proof, i guess trolls do not belive in God —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.96.235.247 (talk) 11:46, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

The first sentence should be changed.

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

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

You're welcome.--Jeffro77 (talk) 17:36, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Inclusion of Figures like Jesus or Muhammad

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

The "God" page shows Christian prejudice

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

Fictional Character

Being as there is no evidence to suggest existance, shouldn't God be introduced as a fictional character. Yes a few simpletons believe him to exist, but until she was about two, my kid sister was convinced Noddy was real Perhaps the people who believe could be listed under a subsection, a few examples: George W Bush, Peter Sutcliffe and Cliff Richard.Mtaylor848 (talk) 20:13, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Your concerns are covered in the fact that the first sentence of the article states that god is a "deity in ... belief systems". This adequately states that the existence of god is a belief rather than an established fact.--Jeffro77 (talk) 20:46, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

It is absolutely correct to include this article in Mythology, as it's obvious from the description of it in Wikipedia. Vertebreakr (talk) 17:36, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Why is the difference between pantheism and panentheism "subtle"

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

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

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

I move to strike the "subtle" phrase from the article.

• Agree. It's not subtle, and even if it were, it adds nothing to the article to say so, because the difference is already stated.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:44, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:God/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

I strongly believe this article no longer meets the Good article criteria.

First and foremost, there is an {{expand}} template at the top of the article. Thus, this article is incomplete. The lead does not comply with WP:LEAD, as it does not summarize the article as a whole. There are several short and stubby paragraphs and sections throughout the article, which means the article is not well written; there's a lack of broad coverage of the topic as well. There are also several sentences and paragraphs that fail to include inline citation and fails WP:OR and WP:V.

If these issues are not resolved within the next two weeks, I'm afraid I'll have to delist this article. Good luck to those who plan to work on this article. DiverseMentality 22:19, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Care to explain in more depth? &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 02:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Sure. As for the lack of citations, there are many sentences and whole paragraphs without any sources, such as the ones under "Etymology and usage", "Names of God", "Existence of God", "History of monotheism", "Dystheism and nontheism", etc. As for the short paragraphs, there are some paragraphs that are extremely short, some even just a single sentence long (under "Names of God" and "History of monotheism"). The lead also doesn't summarize the article as a whole; it should be written as a introduction and summary of the rest of the article. DiverseMentality 03:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree it fails GA criteria; at the very least, I've spotted something which falls afoul of criterion 2c. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 19:08, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

It has been two weeks and the article still does not meet the good article criteria and is therefore being delisted. Please address any and all concerns before renominating this article for good article status. If you feel this reassessment was a mistake, please feel free to send it to WP:GAR. Thank you. DiverseMentality 19:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

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

Not real?

Why doesn't this article start by saying that 'God is a fictional character' like is written at the start of the articles about Santa Claus, Easter Bunny and similar mythical characters. Unless you have something verifiable to say that he's real then it should be mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xania (talk • contribs) 01:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

• "God is a deity"... I think that pretty much sums it up. Unless you're really here to kick up that useless "people who believe in god are teh dumb" twaddle that atheists love to peddle around here. JuJube (talk) 01:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Might I remind you both, especially JuJube of WP:NPA. Note: "deity" does not in any way imply mythical. From the OED:

1. a. The estate or rank of a god; godhood; the personality of a god; godship; esp. with poss. pron.

b. The divine quality, character, or nature of God; Godhood, divinity; the divine nature and attributes, the Godhead.

2. a. concr. A divinity, a divine being, a god; one of the gods worshipped by a people or tribe.

"God is a deity" is a simple statememt of fact, but one that can lead to various interpretations regarding existence. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 01:40, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I am making a query. No personal attacks here. JuJube (talk) 01:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Uh, "Unless you're really here to kick up that useless "people who believe in god are teh dumb" twaddle that atheists love to peddle around here". That's an ad hom if I ever saw one. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 02:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I should have said some atheists. 'Cause you can't deny that some do. JuJube (talk) 02:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

That would be OK ... losing the word twaddle (a word I happen to love for some inexplicable reason) might be good too, eh?  :) &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 02:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Divine jealousy

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

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

i respectively suggest...

that we include the feminine in the conception of the divine. the god in the bible is oppressive, jealous, arrogant, cruel, manipulative, and controlling....thr real gor is a manifestation of LOVE —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamiejojesus (talk • contribs) 03:31, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Atheism

Why on earth is their no section about the people who hold that there is no god? Till this is added, it cannot be made a good article.Pmlinediter (talk) 10:06, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The Existence of God section, with link to full article on the topic, seems sufficient —EqualRights (talk)

Jack thackary?

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

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

Distribution of belief in God Section

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

God should not be capitalized

What happened to the Neutral Guidelines? Also on the Article it seems to be referring to God as one person when allot of Religions such as Christianity and Hinduism have more than one God. (NothingbutGrains) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nothingbutgrains (talk • contribs) 19:00, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

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

Actually, if you just look a little bit up here, you will see a full discussion about this. Belasted (talk) 06:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Goddess

The first sentiment of religion among humans is related to teh Mother earth, Goddess!! Jackiestud (talk) 13:08, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

God

fart FART , heh, god farts