Talk:God

Template:WP1.0

Inconsistency

I just noticed that the page on Superman starts, "Superman is a fictional character." Why doesn't the page on God start the same way? I know this is not supposed to be discussed here, but I am arrogant and feel my views should take precedence over others' views, since I am arrogant, and have been shown through special powers the entire knowledge of the world. Oh wait, doesn't that mean I also believe in the supernatural? Oh boy, I'm such a hypocrite; that or I actually do NOT know all the answers to life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.119.54.82 (talk) 17:44, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Neither his existence nor his lack of existence are objective facts. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:35, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Wouldn't it help if we could get a photo of him to run at the top of the article, establishing his (or her) identity for all to see?Codenamemary (talk) 18:36, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

We should probably also get a photo of Homer too, as long as we're talking about disputed entities. OH WAIT. Stop trolling. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.205.7.207 (talk) 03:34, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

But Homer was not alive in a time when cameras were invented. God, however, is eternal and everlasting. So he is still around to pose for a wiki photo. I say we get one. I will pursue this, and get this photo of God, with me in it. Clearly, when I don't succeed, you all will see how pointless my contributions to this discussion are. Codenamemary (talk) 21:11, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Most religions consider God to be incorporeal, unless their pantheistic. Hard to take a picture either way. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:51, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

But if man was made in a (Christian) God's image, He must have looked like something to begin with...?Codenamemary (talk) 22:40, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

The Imago Dei bit is actually in Genesis, which is accepted by Jews as well. Jews and Christians (except Mormons) generally figure that the image of something incorporeal would likewise be incorporeal. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:03, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, as far as Judo/Christianity goes, God has a physical presence when He wants to. See Genesis 3:8 And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden. 9And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou? (ie, God was walking through the garden of Eden and couldn't find Adam and Eve. Which is very physical and not very omniscient.) Then in Genesis 32:24 Jacob was left alone; and there wrestled a man with him until the breaking of the day... 30 And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved. (So with Jacob, God used to be physical enough to physically fight with.) At any rate, it seems God has/had a physical form, so he should be able to pose for a picture. Codenamemary (talk) 01:37, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

As we try to get a photo of God to use in the article, we might have better luck if we assure Him it will be photoshopped to be flattering, if necessary. It's possible there aren't any existing (?) pictures of Him because he's getting older, and is self-conscious about it? If anyone here is on good terms with God and wants to help with this project, please assure Him He will have final photo approval. The wiki article will obviously be more complete if it features a photo of God. Codenamemary (talk) 19:39, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

As I said, Wikipedia does not state as a fact that God would exist. Nor that he wouldn't. Since it is not a fact, it does not require a photo. Myself I am a pandeist, I believe in Deus sive Natura so any photo of some piece of nature would do as evidence of the existence of my God (or photos of people, machines or buildings, since they are part of nature, too). Otherwise, read WP:NOT#FORUM, since your comments, although witty, are not meant to improve the article, and talk pages are meant for discussions about improving the articles. Even in Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous) are discussed only subjects related to Wikipedia. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:13, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Re: << As I said, Wikipedia does not state as a fact that God would exist. Nor that he wouldn't. Since it is not a fact, it does not require a photo. >> I would point out that the wiki article at THIS point has a detail of a Michelangelo painting that depicts God. It seems that finding and adding a contemporary photo of the subject would certainly improve the article, as it would be better than (or a good addition to) merely showing a 16th Century piece of art. Codenamemary (talk) 23:52, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

The article does not give that picture as "THE picture of God," but far later in the article as one artistic representation that's fairly common for how God is represented in western art. It says in the caption right below it "a well known example of the depiction of God the Father in Western art." This isn't a place to be a smartass. If your problem was that there's a painting of God and you thought that it didn't clarify that it's an artistic depiction, you should have tried, oh I don't know, actually stating it. If you honestly thought that that is a real picture of God, we don't need you here. Any more comments that are not about article improvement will be removed. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:35, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Is anyone concerned that my 21:11, 28 November 2011 (UTC) post was vandalized and edited? Setting the photo of God issue aside for the moment, I would hope that disturbs other editors. (I also don't think threatening to delete others comments altogether is really in the rhelm of Good Faith.) Codenamemary (talk) 21:37, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I've hopefully fixed that. Both 198.36.94.35 (talk · contribs) and 198.36.95.12 (talk · contribs) have vandalised comments on this page, but they've now been undone. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:52, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

That is very kind of you. Thanks. I would think vandalizing other editors' posts would be a bannable offense. EDIT: oh dear, vandalisims is still there. I don't know what I originally posted, but I'm quite sure it wasn't << I will pursue this, and get this photo of God, with me in it. Clearly, when I don't succeed, you all will see how pointless my contributions to this discussion are. >> Did Mr. Thomson do that?? Codenamemary (talk) 22:04, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

If you look at the talk page's history, you can clearly see that it was not me. Talk pages are for article improvement. Do you have any comments relating to article improvment in any way? Ian.thomson (talk) 00:22, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

You have left an unsigned comment, so I do not know who you are... Codenamemary (talk) 00:14, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Do you have any comments relating to article improvment in any way? After this, I will remove any further discussion not relating to article improvement. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:22, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, I don't know my way around wikipedia as well as you do, apparently, but IMO, a photo of God would improve the article. I never said I thought that that Michelangelo detail was a photo of God, I just said that if we're showing a depiction of God's face and form in the article, we may as well show the real thing in addition. The Bible states God has a physical form that can wrestle and be seen face-to-face, etc., so if you believe in the Bible, it's not outlandish to think someone can photograph it. But if other editors, or some with an anti-Biblical bias, don't want to be involved in a try, okay. (Also, I don't think we're supposed to remove others' discussion posts without their consent, which I wouldn't give, in my case, as I'm not pro-censorship. If you would like to remove something, perhaps you would be kind enough to put the posts in this thread back into their original forms. The first one reads like it was tampered with, as well.) (I don't want to mess up anyone else's posts by trying to do it myself.) Codenamemary (talk) 20:29, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

That is only if one takes a literalist interpretation of the Bible (which in the grand scheme of things is pretty recent and far from universal), and only if one accepts the Bible's events as historical facts. This site operates off of what peer-reviewed academic sources have to say, and they look for physical evidence first. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:48, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Etymology

There is an error in the Etymological part of the article, it is assumed that the word used by Arab Christians and Muslims is the same, due to nothing more than the sounds of the words, but they are two completely different words, though based on the same proto-Semitic roots. The word Alaha used by Christians is based on the Aramaic Biblical translation of the Hebrew word for God, Elohim (the Lingua Franca of the Middle Eastern Christians was Syrio-Aramaic), the same word in Arabic is Ilah (NOT Allah, which is a completely different later Muslim construct and personal name). The AUDITORY similarities, and that's the limit of the similarities, are due to the fact of close relationship between Syrio-Aramaic (which was a very high cultural language) and much borrowing and development by Arabs for their language, which eventually became "classical" Arabic, Arabic originally being a very low cultural language, with no standardization until well after Islam was established, as well as both political and religious missionary reasons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.250.11.188 (talk) 13:42, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, most Arabs don't speak Hebrew. However, find a reliable source which says that, and you may add it to the article. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:52, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Epitheta: God of Bible not "male"

Contrary to the claim in the Epitheta section, "God is always characterised as male in Biblical sources, except Genesis 1:26-27", both Hebrew and Christian Bibles refer to God using feminine language and metaphors, listed below (see also http://www.womensordination.org/content/view/234).

In the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament:

-Hosea 11:3-4 God described as a mother

-Deuteronomy 32:11-12 God described as a mother eagle

-Deuteronomy 32:18 God who gives birth

-Isaiah 66:13 God as a comforting mother

-Isaiah 49:15 God compared to a nursing mother

-Isaiah 42:14 God as a woman in labor

-Psalm 131:2 God as a Mother

-Psalm 123:2-3 God compared to a woman

In the New Testament:

-Matthew 23:37 and Luke 13:34 God as a Mother Hen

-Luke 15:8-10 God as woman looking for her lost coin

Because the current language in the Epitheta section is inaccurate, I therefore propose the following edit:

From: Throughout the Hebrew and Christian Bible there are many names for God that portray his (God is always characterised as male in Biblical sources, except Genesis 1:26–27) nature and character.

To: Throughout the Hebrew and Christian Bible there are many names for God that portray his nature and character. (God is usually characterised as male in Biblical sources, with some notable exceptions: female in Genesis 1:26–27, Psalm 123:2–3, and Luke 15:8–10; a mother in Hosea 11:3–4, Deuteronomy 32:18, Isaiah 66:13, Isaiah 49:15, Isaiah 42:14, Psalm 131:2; a mother eagle in Deuteronomy 32:11–12; and a mother hen in Matthew 23:37 and Luke 13:34)

--Wikibojopayne (talk) 00:28, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

History is missing

I came to this page looking for the history of the judaic god, his evolution from earlier polytheistic beliefs and so on. Surely a big section has been missed here and I don't see any other pages on Wiki dealing with this, beyond articles on books dealing with the subject, which themselves might make reasonable secondary sources. I am not an historian and could not attempt such a section myself. 86.177.195.186 (talk) 15:49, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

That is discussed in Yahweh. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:25, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Improvement of Article Neutrality and General Objectivity

Wikipedia is intended to be a source of neutral information, not a source of one-sided conjectures. Therefore, in order to improve the neutrality of this article, I propose the following changes: "God is most often conceived" becomes: "God is often believed to be" etc. Conceived means "to bring forth," which inclines human creation and falsehood thereof. "Believed" makes things much more objective. Instead of stating anything about God's Biblically stated gender, I propose the statement be removed entirely. On one side, some Christians would likely agree with the male/female incorporation revision, while others would be offended since they advocate a particular gender, etc. To remove this statement would make the article much more objective, effectively neutral, and much more reliable (due to the removal of possible conjecture) - plus, the statement seems quite out of place from a literary standpoint. According to my propositions I have made such revisions. --Tatoranaki (talk) 03:29, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I have made such edits as stated above in other sections as well to improve neutrality and remove argumental fallacies (statements which incline one side of the argument is "more right" than another). There is much more work to be done, however, before the article is more objective than subjective. (Please note my use of objective refers to the following definition: "not influenced by irrational emotions or prejudices," as subjective "influenced by opinion-driven emotions or prejudices")--Tatoranaki (talk) 03:45, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Your justification is preposterous, see WP:FRINGE. There is no such thing as objective knowledge about God. In this respect, there are just views which some hold as authoritative. See also my answer below. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:18, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Besides, in matters of religion one is in general prejudiced to hold on to the religion of his/her parents, this is generally not a choice made rationally. Also, conversion to a specific religion has more to do with emotions that with a cold analysis of rational arguments. Also, deconversion (becoming an atheist/agnostic) has more to do with emotion than with rational analysis. As Hume said, reason is and ought to be the slave of passions, see http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hume-moral/ Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:56, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Doing away with three major thinkers on this matter as "prejudiced and irrational" is the worst kind of character assassination I have ever encountered. I don't agree with many of their theses, but they still have a place in the history of philosophy and they influenced theology for centuries. You cannot be serious in denying that they lacked critical judgment or rationality. E.g. Strauss and Cropsey have included two of them as relevant in their book upon political philosophy. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:42, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

And another reason: one man's superstition is another man's holy writ. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:54, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Subjective Text Removal

The following passage has been removed: These attributes were all supported to varying degrees by the early [[Judaism|Jewish]], [[Christianity|Christian]] and [[Islam|Muslim]] theologian philosophers, including [[Maimonides]],<ref name=Edwards /> [[Augustine of Hippo]],<ref name=Edwards>[[Paul Edwards (philosopher)|Edwards, Paul]]. "God and the philosophers" in [[Ted Honderich|Honderich, Ted]]. (ed)''The Oxford Companion to Philosophy'', [[Oxford University Press]], 1995.</ref> and [[Al-Ghazali]],<ref name=Platinga>[[Alvin Plantinga|Platinga, Alvin]]. "God, Arguments for the Existence of," ''Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy'', Routledge, 2000.</ref> respectively.

Reasons: -Subjective statement which is capable of: (a) Utilizing an argumental fallacy of appealing to higher authority for authenticity of a particular subjective and often debated idea, conception, or reality. (b) Discounting a particular argument by utilizing sources of higher authority which may be seen in a very subjective light. -Wikipedia standards promote neutrality and objectivity, and this passage has been removed to retain quality in accordance with standards. --Tatoranaki (talk) 03:56, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I think you are misunderstanding Wikipedia policies. WP:SOURCES is a pillar of Wikipedia, as are WP:VER and WP:NPOV. About the latter, you did not prove a violation of NPOV, you just state something as WP:IDL. I suggest that you read these policies before contributing to Wikipedia, otherwise your contributions could be seen as WP:VANDALISM. To cut the story short: there are no facts or objective information about God, there are just philosophical theories and theological opinions and we render them according to their notability. Of course religions as Judaism, Christianity and Islam have very notable ideas about God and definitely they are subjective in doing this, since there is no such thing as objective knowledge about God. We render these views according to their due weight, see e.g. WP:FRINGE. In itself, the idea that there is objective knowledge about God is a fringe theory. No serious theologian or scholar of religion would agree with it. So, we cannot do otherwise than render religious and philosophical authorities who are notable on this subject. This is not a fallacy of appealing to authority, since in this matter there is nothing except statements done by those who are regarded by some as authorities. I have undone your edits. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:08, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I suggest that you also read this, this and Argument from authority. They explain that an appeal to authority isn't always fallacious. In matters of religion, everything depends upon quoting the proper authority (Bible, Pope, notable theologians and so on). There are simply no "supernatural facts" whereupon a consensus could be reached by scientists. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:43, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the information, I'll keep that in mind. I'll stick to writing pages on novels. I apologize for the inconvenience. --Tatoranaki (talk) 20:16, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

The statement "In itself, the idea that there is objective knowledge about God is a fringe theory. No serious theologian or scholar of religion would agree with it." seems an opinion. First, "fringe" implies crackpot, which tends to dehumanize someone you disagree with. Second: Instead of "No serious..." it should say "Few serious...." Paramanhansas Ramakrishna and Yogananda studied many religions and would say there is objective knowledge. Third: Some Hindus, Buddhists, Christians and other religious scholars consider the material world an illusion, therefore the "objective" does not exist; everything is subjective. "I think, therefore I am." 71.22.155.114 (talk) 05:58, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

God the Creator

Seems to me that God the Creator (ex nihilo) is an important aspect that I don't see discussed. You know, "Why is there anything?" "Where did the universe come from?" "What I observe... is it material, vibrational, or illusion?" and "What is the nature of the universe?" The Big Bang-Big Crunch theory doesn't say where the matter came from. If the vibrational, quantum universe has "existed forever" then that's a miracle(s), of about the same order of magnitude as a cosmic embryo, "in the beginning," or the Nasadiya Sukta:

"Who really knows? Who shall declare it here? Whence was it born? Whence issued this creation? Even the Gods came after its emergence. Then who can tell from whence it came to be? None knows when creation has arisen; Whether He made it or did not make it, He who surveys it in the highest heaven, Only He knows, or maybe even He knows not." 71.22.155.114 (talk) 05:45, 11 January 2012 (UTC)