Talk:God

FYI: reminder on avoiding edit warring

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

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

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

Male and Female is part of Creation

According to Genesis, the Judeo-Christian God created male and female ("male and female he created them" Gen. 1:27c). Therefore God precedes, and is above, sex and gender. Our use of pronouns referring to God as "He" or "Father" has to do with the limits of human language and human understanding.--Margaret9mary (talk) 00:40, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

While I personally believe God is beyond gender, I have to point out that you are, once again, engaging in original research based on primary sources. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:32, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Why do we only have pictures of *male* Gods on the page? This is phallocentric in the extreme, and has more to do with the tyranny of the penis than with religion. We need a non-gender interpretation, or at least one which takes into account the vagina and the importance of sisterhood (earth mother etc). Once more, we seem to have Wikipedia as a men-only club, with the penis thrust into our faces once again and issues emanating from this and other articles borderline offensive to women. Why, for instance, should I be told what to do or not to do with my body by men? From the abortion debate to the depiction of God as a man, I feel more and more encroached upon by a violent and macho culture passed down from the early Christian church. I'm going to take a straw poll at my next support group and get a feel for what would be a non-offensive depiction of an almighty deity that is not an elderly male with a beard. Why not, for instance, an early African earth mother clay figure, or an etching of the Great She Wolf, or perhaps a more contemporary representation suggesting the channelling of deity rather than deity itself? For instance, a photograph of Mother Theresa or Germaine Greer. Everyone's God is different in a gender-neutral pluralistic universe, so why constantly fall back on Michaelangelo's interpretation. This whole thing makes me very angry indeed. I'm beginning to believe we need a separate Wikipedia for women in order to get some balance.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.135.202.213 (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia is not to blame for the sexism of traditional Christianity. We just report what is in the sources. This article is specifically about the Abrahamic god. You will find other gods at Deities.--Charles (talk) 18:02, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually, this article does detail the deity of Deism, Sikhism, and Zoroastrianism; and touches on how God is viewed in Hinduism as well. Abrahamic God is actually a different article.

The limitations of patriarchial cultures' languages would be the problem (Christianity got most of it's views of God from Judaism, and the mystic traditions in both acknowledge that God is ultimately beyond gender even if limited gendered language is traditional). The Early Church hardly forced a chauvinistic view of God, the Holy Spirit in both Greek and Hebrew had a feminine name. The Catholic Church's catechism clearly states "God transcends the human distinction between the sexes. He is neither man nor woman: he is God." Judeo-Christian mysticism's obsession with the Shekinah and Sophia shows a rather feminine side to the Abrahamic God. This Christian bashing not only goes against WP:NOTFORUM, but it goes against any studied understanding of historical Christian belief (sexists of either gender would have a sexist vision of God whether they called It Yahweh, Odin, Mithra, or Sol Invictus; that is the problem, not Christianity).

Also, could the IP please name a particular "early African earth mother," instead of projecting their wishes on an extremely broad number of cultures? Of the figures I know of to include in this article, Cagn, Ngai, Nyame, and Waaq aren't goddesses. As for the "Great She Wolf," I cannot find any evidence for any such historical deity, just a figure in a Dungeons & Dragons campaign setting specifically using the name "Great She Wolf," and some neopagans emphasizing wolf-ish aspects of often lower-ranking goddesses from cultures that had absolutely no communication with each other.

I would be quite open to including the feminine interpretations of the divine in this article, provided they were historical interpretations instead of stuff hippies made up because they didn't bother to do their homework.

Mother Theresa and Germaine Greer would be as inappropriate to include as Martin Luther King Jr or Carl Jung. There are no notable claims that any of those people is the Deity more than anyone posting here.

As for "more contemporary representation suggesting the channelling of deity," please read WP:No original research.

As for "Everyone's God is different in a gender-neutral pluralistic universe," Wikipedia articles are not for people to share their personal feelings on subjects, but to summarize sources on shared or notable conclusions that different people have. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:19, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Scope, Revisited

I feel it should be addressed that some people do use the term "God" in a rather benign and generic way. A person my call on God, or have some other indicator of God in speech, or thought, but may not understand who, or what, their God is. In no way would I suggest this become a place for any type of spiritual counseling, but I do believe that some kind of line needs to be drawn so that people have some kind of understanding of what and who God is - but possibly also what God is not. Feedback on this is appreciated, and I thank you in advance for it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.184.105.70 (talk) 02:55, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Who and/or what God is or isn't is the main reason why theistic religions are so diverse. The best we can do is give a general overview of what the majority of religions and philosophies can agree on (omnipotence, omniscience, etc), and major notable distinct views, but we cannot give definitive views without favoring one religion over another (which isn't fair), or detail different religions' conceptions of God (which we already do with articles like God in the Bahá'í Faith, God in Christianity, God in Hinduism, God in Judaism, etc, etc). Ian.thomson (talk) 03:03, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 24 November 2012

Please let me use a picture that mostly represents God (a Celestial Light), not a man in the sky. That is highly offensive to Christianity and all other faiths that know of God's nature; genderless and not human at all - Dizzzer

Pff, my god is a level 5 shape shifter and can look like an old man in the sky whenever he wants.67.200.143.138 (talk) 21:37, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Einstein's beliefs

The additions of: 06:07, 15 November 2012‎ Dethranity indicating the beliefs of Einstein should be removed. The paragraph is, in essence, providing an extremely simplistic view of Einstein's beliefs that do not actually add to this article in any significant degree. The arguments for Einstein's faith are ambiguous at best - he is noted as refuting a 'personal god' which is precisely what this article is discussing. If Einstein's opinions are considered important enough to be in this article, it would make sense to link directly to Religious views of Albert Einstein which gives a greatly more comprehensive analysis. --Mdb23b (talk) 05:38, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Done. KillerChihuahua^?!? 06:12, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the line about Einstein which was removed was inaccurate. But I disagree that Einstein's beliefs are "ambiguous at best" or that this page is only about a personal god. Einstein was an agnostic who believed in "Spinoza's God". Spinoza - arguably the most popular version of God among philosophers - was not mentioned in this article, so I have added a paragraph about Einstein and Spinoza. Allisgod (talk) 02:13, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

A user undid my edit citing "no consensus on this issue", evidently because of my above disagreements? Note that the God article is NOT exclusively about a personal god. That's not a disagreement, it's just a fact. Also, Einstein's views are clearly laid out in Religious views of Albert Einstein and linked to the added paragraph, which is essentially a summary from that page. These were corrections, not disagreements. Allisgod (talk) 09:01, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

The information is about Einstein's beliefs, and belongs in that article. It is not about the God of this article, and therefore does not belong here. Simple enough. See the top of the article, where it is stated:

This article is about the term "God" in the context of monotheism and henotheism. For the general concept of a "god", see Deity. For God in the context of specific religions, see an index of pages beginning in "God in". For other uses, see God (disambiguation).

For discussion of the existence of God, see Existence of God

KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:12, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't think Einstein's views are appropriate for this article. He's a smart guy and all, but theology wasn't his field. And as far as I know, his views weren't peer reviewed or formally published, which is what we normally require for Wikipedia sources. ~Adjwilley (talk) 18:29, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Adjwilley, I did mention in my edit summary when I removed that content that he was not a theologian and we don't include random opinions. Looks like we're in agreement here. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:57, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Monotheism includes pantheism, which is the view of Spinoza, Einstein and many individuals who use the term God (capitalized nonetheless). This information belongs in the article. Also, there are many non theologians mentioned in the article. Einstein is not just a 'smart guy and all', he proposed the theory of relativity based out of his fundamental view of unity - which he called God. I believe deleting/limiting this kind of information on this page is not appropriate nor is it helpful. If you limit the page to the God of Abrahamic religions, that's one thing and it should be clearly stated, but this is a page about the God of monotheism/henotheism which includes this view. Allisgod (talk) 22:23, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

His expertise was physics, not theology or philosophy. His opinion is not appropriate for this article. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:43, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Then why is Steven Hawking's opinion included? There are also other names in the article who are not philosophers/theologians. Allisgod (talk) 00:17, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

He wrote an entire book about how God does not exist, and is an evangelical atheist. Please show me where Einstein wrote such a book or entered into such crusading. KillerChihuahua^?!? 02:35, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

There are dozens of books about Einstein's religion and great interest in his views on the subject, which he wrote and spoke about extensively. It's laughable to suggest Hawking's opinion is more valuable to this article than Einstein. Hawking himself would disagree with you since he - like most physicists and astrophysicists - cite Einstein more often than any other scientist on the subject of God/religion. Allisgod (talk) 03:08, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

By the way who decided that a major theoretical physicist's opinion on God is not an "expert opinion"? Society is even talking about the search for the "God particle" and you want to limit this article to what, PhDs in philosophy and theology? Then why are there psychologists, biologists, anthropologists, astrophysicists, other physicists, and even fiction authors and politicians within this article. I count well over a dozen names. Allisgod (talk) 00:35, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Now you're just getting argumentative. If you wish to examine the reason why any of those are in the article and they fail the Notable on This Subject test, then feel free to bring it up on the talk page. But how come other stuff is here is not a good argument for inclusion. And the "god particle" has absolutely nothing to do with any deity, real or imagined, that ever has or ever will exist. It's a nickname. KillerChihuahua^?!? 02:35, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

No, I just defeated your ridiculous point that only expert theologians or philosophers belong in the article. Try again. Allisgod (talk) 02:55, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I did not make that point, although I can understand your confusion given the brevity of my edit summary. One cannot make fine distinctions in an edit summary. Insofar as to who needs to "try again", why that would be you, as 1) Policy is against you per WP:NPOV, 2) Consensus is against the edit, and 3) the onus is on you to persuade and provide adequate sourcing for content you wish added. You will have to provide a source which adequately assures editors of this page that Einstein was a theologian; a religious activist; or was otherwise notable for his religious views; any other type of notability is insufficient to make his opinion any other than irrelevant in this particular article. KillerChihuahua^?!? 03:06, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Again, dozens of books, articles about Einstein's religious views. If your strict standards were applied to this entire article, then over a dozen names and their related opinions on God would need to be removed. What is your agenda here? Allisgod (talk) 03:12, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Woah, nobody's got an agenda. KillerChihuahua is correct. You are responsible for providing secondary reliable sources that support your edit, and for building consensus on the talk page. Accusing people of having an agenda is not going to build consensus, and I haven't seen any compelling arguments for why Einstein's views are notable in this context. ~Adjwilley (talk) 04:27, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

The entry I added, which you removed, was the following in the "Existence of God" section:

Theoretical physicist Albert Einstein, whose religious views continue to be of interest to many, called himself an agnostic.[34] He rejected a personal God, but said he believed in Baruch Spinoza's version of God.[35] For Spinoza the whole of the natural universe is made of one substance, God, or its equivalent, Nature.[36] Einstein said, "I am fascinated by Spinoza's pantheism. I admire even more his contributions to modern thought. Spinoza is the greatest of modern philosophers, because he is the first philosopher who deals with the soul and the body as one, not as two separate things."[37]

This entry is as much about Spinoza's version of God as it is about Einstein's support for Spinoza's God. Spinoza is regarded as one of history's greatest philosophers so his version of God is obviously notable and is not discussed in this article at all. I am not here to 'build consensus' as if this is a political campaign. I'm just trying to add some facts that are not in the article. Allisgod (talk) 05:58, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Spinoza's views are probably fine. Also, you may want to take a minute to read WP:Consensus if you haven't already. ~Adjwilley (talk) 06:11, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Agreed we might want to have a sentence on Spinozism; "Spinoza's god" has been shorthand for years. I also think Spinozism should be at Spinoza's god, per COMMOMNAME, but that article needs more help than I can give it KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:05, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I think you should read it yourself since you are so quick to remove well sourced material rather than discuss the addition. I suggest you read WP:OWN Allisgod (talk) 06:17, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Nevermind the sharp tongue on my part. I just found it abrasive the way my additions were undone. I will just stick with the issues. I want to point out that there are sources (including direct quotes from Einstein) which suggest that Einstein's particular view of God was a necessary understanding for him to get to the theory of relativity, arguably the most important theory in science today. His faith in Spinoza's God (a unified God) helped lead him to pursue a unified theory of everything. I think that's a pretty notable addition to the God article, especially for the pantheist perspective. But I didn't go into any of that, all I tried to add was his general support for Spinoza. Here's an even more watered down two sentence version that I'll propose after Stephen Hawking's view, which is more about Spinoza than it is about Einstein but remains a natural segue:

Physicist Albert Einstein rejected a personal God, but said, "I believe in Spinoza's God, who reveals himself in the harmony of all that exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and the doings of mankind."[36] For philosopher Baruch Spinoza the whole of the natural universe is made of one substance, God, or its equivalent, Nature.[37] Allisgod (talk) 07:28, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Having a source is required for content, it is not a guarantee a particular snippet will get into an article. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:05, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

thanks, but nobody suggested otherwise. Allisgod (talk) 13:48, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I am addressing your assertion, two posts up, " I want to point out that there are sources" which is basically the only argument you offer in that post, to which I was directly replying, for inclusion of Einstein's beliefs on this article. My point is that you must make a better case than "I want to point out that there are sources" and your twice-repeated "there are dozens of books, articles..." in order to persuade. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:13, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

@Allisgod, It's not that I have anything against Einstein (I am a physicist after all) but would it be possible for you to phrase a sentence or two about Spinoza's god, leaving Einstein out of the picture? ~Adjwilley (talk) 16:56, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

A few points. One, one of the best recent reference works relating to religion in general, the Eliade/Jones Encyclopedia of Religion has a substantive article on "Albert Einstein and religion," which indicates to me that Einstein's views on science and religion are among the more important subjects regarding the relationship between science and religion; Having said that, there is a difference between "god" and "religion". Ask any Jain or Buddhist, who in general have what is called a "religion" but do not necessarily believe in a "God". On that basis, I tend to think that while Einstein's views are probably extremely important to Science and religion (which I think is probably what that article should be called here), I am far less convinced that his views are necessarily specifically relevant to this article. I might say the same about Hawking as well. I did read that book, some time ago, and remember that the philosophical arguments made in it have been regarded as being, well, weak, by those in the philosophy field. I do not remember however whether he was addressing "religion" in a general sense or the existence of "God" more specifically, and would be very appreciative if someone who did know that would indicate as much. John Carter (talk) 17:16, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Yes, since Einstein's beliefs may be summarized as "Hey, I like Spinoza's view of God," if we're going to discuss Einstein's view at all, shouldn't we just discuss Spinoza's view instead of namedropping to only indirectly discuss the actual belief? It's not really any different from going on and on about Niels Bohr to indirectly discuss the philosophy and theology of Søren Kierkegaard. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:21, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I can include a line or two about Spinoza. Glad to hear John acknowledge the notability of Einstein on "science and religion", and agree that it makes no sense that Einstein's religious position on God, whose God is specifically Spinoza the philosopher's God, should be left out of the God article while Hawking (and a bunch of others) are in the article. The standards here are arbitrary if that is the case so on that point maybe we should first establish standards of being included in this article since there are many entries which should be removed if Einstein has no place here. Einstein's relationship with the word God is actually well developed and you are correct, Hawking's view gets very little attention from philosophers. Just consider this statements from Einstein:

"religious geniuses of all ages have been distinguished by this kind of religious feeling, which knows no dogma and no God conceived in man's image; so that there can be no church whose central teachings are based on it. Hence it is precisely among the heretics of every age that we find men who were filled with the highest kind of religious feeling and were in many cases regarded by their contemporaries as atheists, sometimes also as saints."

Also consider how many entire books are written about Einstein's ideas about God. Most of these are scholars and this is just from a 5 minute search:

• Albert Einstein's quest as a scientist and as a Jew to replace a forsaken God; Jason Aronson, 1997
• God's Equation: Einstein, Relativity, and the Expanding Universe; Amir D. Aczel - 1999
• E=mc2 the God in Einstein and Zen: A Skeptic's Search for the Meaning of Life and Personal Redemption
• God in the Equation: How Einstein Transformed Religion; Corey Powell - Free Press 2003
• Einstein and Religion: Physics and Theology; Max Jammer - 2002
• Putting God Into Einstein's Equations; Jerry And Marcia Pollock - 2012
• Knowledge of God: Calvin, Einstein, and Polanyi; Iain Paul - 1987
• Einstein's God: Conversations About Science and the Human Spirit; Krista Tippett - 2010
• The Experiment at Philadelphia: Did Einstein Discover God?; Kurt B. Bakley - 2010
• God in the equation: how Einstein became the prophet of the new religious era; Corey S. Powell, Free Press, Aug 21, 2002
• Subtle is the Lord: The science and the life of Albert Einstein; A Pais - 2005
• The language of God: A scientist presents evidence for belief; FS Collins - 2006

So what are the standards for inclusion in the article? Let's specifically consider Stephen Hawking's vs. Albert Einstein's inclusion/exclusion. Allisgod (talk) 21:14, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Why on earth would we do that? Consensus is clear; a brief bit of Spinoza is ok, Einstein is not. This is bordering on WP:IDHT now. What we should be discussing now is what verbiage to use for Spinoza's view, and what sources. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:04, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Maybe you ought to read WP:OWN a few times. You are not the moderator here, you are a participant like all of us. 2 of us have agreed that Stephen Hawking's inclusion with Einstein's exclusion makes little sense. There is no consensus on this issue. You are one person and your disagreement with this position has been noted. This issue is only a few days old. Relax. Allisgod (talk) 20:56, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I am quite relaxed, thank you. Your patronizing instructions for me to read a policy I have helped write is noted. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:16, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Practice what you preach. I'll take note of being patronizing and hope you will take note of being condescending. Nevertheless, I'm sure you are a better volunteer to Wikipedia than I am and glad you are here despite some disagreements. Allisgod (talk) 21:35, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if I am or not, but I *do* know that your unfortunate habit of citing "own" to people when they disagree with you (twice so far on this page alone in this past week, to two different editors) will not encourage other editors' genuine attempts to try to work with you. You have shown yourself to be sarcastic, patronizing, and insulting, quick to assume (and that one's linked to ABF, not AGF, in case you're ignoring my links) ill of others. You cite policy to people who have been here considerably longer than you and you do with phrasing that makes it appear you are using policy as a weapon, not reminding others or citing policy as rationale for your position. You must know you aren't instructing anyone here except the ill-mannered IP. And here, you're showing a 'tit-for-tat" approach. I say "don't be patronizing" and you don't address that assertion at all; you toss it right back like "Oh yeah! Then what are YOU" like a childish argument at grammar school. I'm not name calling, whatever you may think; I'm trying to help you here, but you seem resistant to any and all guidance and advice or feedback. You may feel this is not a popularity contest, and indeed it is not, but one must at least be civil to a minimal degree, and one must work with others. I advise you to examine how your own words appear to others. You may not realize how nasty and snotty you sound; you know your inner thoughts but all we see are the bare words. I think you could be an outstanding contributor to Wikipedia; but I think you need to adjust how you deal with other editors first. One puppy's opinion. And now I suggest if you have anything else bitchy to say to me you bring it to my talk; this is becoming article talk page misuse. KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:15, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

In one paragraph you say you are "not name calling" and proceed to call me: "sarcastic, patronizing, insulting", "childish", 'not civil', "nasty", "snotty", "bitchy" and many other suggestions. You're out of control. Allisgod (talk) 19:22, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Pardon me. I meant, of course, that your edits read as sarcastic, patronizing, insulting, and not civil. I certainly never said your edits were childish, I merely compared your response to a childish argument, because you don't address concerns, you merely toss them back at the person (in this instance, me) who voices a concern. I assure you I am not only not "out of control" I am merely trying to educate you on how to behave to other editors on Wikipedia. I reiterate that I am only trying to help you. You may follow my guidance or not, of course, but I think if you don't learn to moderate your attitude towards others then you will not have a long, happy tenure here. One puppy's opinion. And finally, if you ignore my advice to continue this elsewhere rather than here, I will not be responding to your posts at all here. This is about your lack of civility, not about the God article, and should not be continued here. Puppy has spoken, puppy is done. KillerChihuahua 12:07, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I reread this thread and acknowledge ignoring your guidance at first. The problem is your guidance often includes overbearing language, you are too quick to throw around Wikipedia policies and you make definitive declarations like an autocrat. Now if I'm reading you correctly you're making a threat? I acknowledge I have made mistakes on this thread. But I stand by my statement that you are at this point still out of control (or perhaps trying to completely control would be more accurate) and require guidance yourself in civility. Allisgod (talk) 21:08, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Replying on editor's talk page. KillerChihuahua 19:22, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Picture of God / Gender

I notice dissent about the male pictures of God. I looked back and noticed in mid March someone added the Michelangelo God picture and placed it on the very top of the article without any explanation or debate. This picture suggests a specific interpretation of God. The problem with this is that the very first sentence of the article mentions pantheism as one definition of God, which would obviously not be fairly represented by Michelangelo's male anthropomorphic God. The art picture is beautiful and I am not opposed to it being in the article, but the neutral God box is what should be on top of the article since the word God - even within monotheism/henotheism - is not at all fairly represented by the picture. I would hope editors be careful about allowing someone to put a contentious image on top of the article in the future. I have put the God box back on top and moved down the Michelangelo image to the section regarding Gender (I think it would also be appropriate to place it in the section about anthropomorphism if someone things that's a better fit). Allisgod (talk) 01:18, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I have tried desperately to both highlight and discuss this point, but have been quite frankly bullied out of the debate by two men, Ian Thomson and Charlesdrakew who have targeted me and censored my contributions. It's not as if I have tried to change the main article. These two men not only clearly think the Michelangelo depiction of God you speak of is the right one, but that they - as men - have between set up by God to decide in this instance who can and cannot make a contribution to the Talk element of this page. Because I am a woman, and have made comments alluding to the possible gender of God, they have labelled me "sexist" even though their very patronising and heavy handed ganging up on me is by itslef a working definition of sexism. I am not going to let this matter rest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.180.31 (talk) 11:46, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Just a couple suggestions: Register with Wikipedia so you can sign your name on posts. It gives you a more credible voice here. Also, better to stick with the issues than to get into personalities because arguments and edit wars do not get anybody anywhere. I am a man and agree the God picture is inappropriate to be the lead picture for this article. Allisgod (talk) 07:55, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

The picture was put up without discussion in March and even without an edit summary, which is inappropriate. Now suddenly users want a discussion to preserve the "status quo", despite recent objections to the picture. Well, here are the problems with the picture being the lead: 1) The lead picture shows a representation of the Catholic version of God. 2) The lead picture shows a male God 3) The lead picture is an anthropomorphic or personal version of God 4) There was no lead picture in prior years 5) The God box (on the Wikipedia God page of all pages) is being demoted below a highly biased male Christian personal God picture. What's going on here? Allisgod (talk) 09:20, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

86.159.180.31, for the hundredth time, this has nothing to do with you being a woman! Actually read my posts instead of assuming that I'm only disagreeing because I have a penis! YOU are the only sexist here! Your posts were removed because they did nothing but make sexist attacks on other editors and had nothing to do with article improvement! You also did not make the same argument that Allisgod originally made about the pics, you started off by calling everyone a sexist opperating the sexist and idiotic assumption that if you're a woman, everyone else must be evil. That was sexism on your part, not others. I pointed out that the Christian bashing was wildly innacurate, and that Judeo-Christian mysticism had more feminine theology than the new age claims you were making, and you have the gall to call me sexist and continue to insist that Christianity is sexist? Drop the bullshit, grow the fuck up, and examine your own words and actions, you genital-obsessed bigot.

As for the move of the picture, when a reasonable explanation was provided, notice that Charlesdrakew and I made no objections! "This represents a specific sectarian view of God" is a perfectly acceptable reason. "I'm a (whatever gender, doesn't matter), so everyone else must be stupid and evil" is something only a bigot looking for a fight would say. Notice also that Allisgod did not suggest including pics of figures that he cannot demonstrate were historically worshiped! Quit trying to use a persecution complex to get your way. Argue actual issues, present reasons, and you'll be treated like an adult. This has nothing to do with gender, it has to do with you acting like a spoiled child. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:41, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

"Drop the bullshit, grow the fuck up, and examine your own words and actions, you genital-obsessed bigot." This is how you actually communicate on a public page that will be read by many people, including children? And you tell other people to grow up? You set yourself up as a self-styled editor and moderator here, and you use language like that? And MY opinions get deleted because you disagree with them, but your foul and offensive language is allowed to remain simply because YOU say so? Perhaps, to simplify things, we should just have a picture of YOU on the article as God? I'm not sure what your underlying issue is, but I can assure you that this is one "little lady" you won't be pushing around. My voice *will* be heard.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎86.159.180.31 (talk • contribs)

My underlying issue is that you keep telling baldfaced lies about what I've said, despite the damn obvious evidence to the contrary. Nowhere have I claimed to be a moderator. If I removed stuff just because I disagreed with it, I'd've removed far more, but I did not. I did not ever suggest that my word was divine, simply pointed out that your word was mortal. I did not make this about gender, you did, and you are the one continuing to make it about gender. I suppose there's no point in arguing with a blind psycho like you. I hope you get the help you need. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:09, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I do not have strong views about whether that image goes at the top or lower down but as God has historically been portrayed as male for thousands of years it is perfectly reasonable to have it there. 20th/21st century modifications to the nature of God are a minor part of the overall article and should not be given undue weight. That would be WP:Recentism. The behaviour of the IP is however totally unacceptable and is likely to end in blocking if it continues. The IP must learn to assume good faith and avoid personal attacks on other editors.--Charles (talk) 18:21, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

• You both (Ian and IP) need to dial it back a little, IMO. The answer to the question regarding why the image is of a man is answered at least as far back as 2009, had you bothered to read the archives. The answer is that this is the God article and not the Goddess article. See Talk:God/Archive_21#Goddess Now, it is certainly true that the English word for Goddess is a derivative of the word for God, and that's a crying shame, but Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs. Wikipedia reports what is, as it is covered in reliable sources, not what should be, and we cover it according to the weight it is given in the real world. It is plain to anyone not a complete imbecile that this is a man's world, and has been for all of recorded history, with a very few pockets like Hawaii before the Europeans came and screwed them up. Sorry, but that's how it is. Not how it should be, maybe, but as I said, we don't write how it should be. See WP:NPOV. Now, that's the answer, and I hope we're now done. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:26, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

While it's convenient to view my assertiveness as "aggression" and being out of place because I am a woman (I notice that Charlesdrakew has threatened to "block" me after the earlier censorship he deployed, not really sure why the heavty-handedness is aimed at me, or what his problem is but I can assure him that if he blocks me he won't hear the end of it) my only aim was to try to get a little bit of balance in this article, which - everyone can agree I think - mainly reflects the western Christian view of God. It's the first thing anyone coming to the page will see - a picture of an old white man with a beard - which is not only a cliche but a phallocentric reinforcement of the kind of thing which Wikipedia should be ironing out over time. The Internet does reach beyond the white, male dominated West. It's not about righting wrongs, its about trying to portray a simple, balanced truth. My own recent research on this leads me to believe that throughout 99% of human history and pre-history the concept of (lets loosely call it) the Earth Mother was a far more common belief than a paternal, male God. My own experience and beliefs in the Great She Wolf have been passed down to me through millenia and predate not only Christianity but every trace of the paternalistic Abrahamic religions and indeed the pagan gods of the earliest civilisations. Is it too much to ask that the nature of God on Wikipedia is not decided simply by the fact that the overwhelming majority of editors are men, mainly pushy, "snippy" men who use Wiki as an outlet for their own sense of powerlessness and whose instinctive response to an independently minded woman is to gang up on her and try to shout her out? Even a gender neutral God - a God of energy and light - would be less of a slap in the face than the old man with the beard. It's like something out of Star Trek V. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.180.31 (talk) 17:48, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Do you have any specific suggestions for an alternative? A female God picture would probably not be the best replacement, while a "God of energy and light" is a little hard to portray in an image. Also, the Michelangelo may or may not be "cliche'", but if it is, that is not sufficient reason to remove it. Wikipedia by nature follows other sources. It does not spearhead agendas or ideas, regardless of whether or not they are good, right, or true. If Wikipedia had been available around the fourth century B.C., it would have reported the view that the Earth is flat as a fact and without qualification. (See WP:FLAT) If other sources use the Michelangelo to portray God, Wikipedia should probably follow suit. (I'll admit I'm not terribly familiar with what other depictions of God exist.) ~Adjwilley (talk) 18:11, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

There are religions - the Jewish and Islamic faiths spring to mind - where it is taboo to even portray an image of God (which is logical when you think about it, why should people decide what God looks like if they are his/her creations and not the other way round). The very depiction of the face of God in this article is probably offensive to them, but that's not my battle. I know I have been portrayed as some hysterical, screaming militant feminist by certain contributors on here, but even I am not actually requesting a God of either gender. I no more insist that God is a woman than I accpet that God has to be a man. In putting together an article about a person (or entity) who is both unknown and unknowable, it is surely meaningless and unhelpful to post a picture of something or someone which is almost certainly not accurate. The man in the picture is a painting. It is not God. If you have an article on the Empire State Building, it is perfectly proper to show a photo of the Empire State Building. But no one knows what God looks like. To further propagate the view of people who think they know what God looks like (again, an old white man with a beard) is simply wrong. And I shouldn't be asked to accept it just because men and the Church have been in charge for centuries. Can you imagine how the men castigating me on here for complaining about a male God have reacted if they'd clicked on the article and found a picture of a black God at the top of the page? They would have had kittens. So perhaps no picture of God is the best option? My own belief in the Great She Wolf doesn't involve a picture of an actual wolf - it's concept wherein pictorial representation is unhelpful.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.180.31 (talk) 18:37, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

So your suggestion is to replace it with nothing? One of requirements for being a "Good article" is that the subject is illustrated with images. Do you have any other specific suggestions for replacement? (The Arabic script for Allah might be one possible option, but I doubt we could get consensus for that.) ~Adjwilley (talk) 19:01, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

A few questions about the Good article requirement - 1) where does this requirement come from? 2) is it necessary for the picture to be on top? 3) can this really apply to abstract concepts where pictures are unhelpful or convey a bias? Just to reiterate, my suggestion is the God box as a replacement and for the picture to remain but be brought down some. Allisgod (talk) 06:04, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Good article criteria is found here, but it is not terribly specific; and GA is often not a high bar to shoot for. Featured article (which is the gold standard on Wikipedia) criteria is found here. Images and other media are required "where appropriate". There is no requirement for an image in the lead; however, those who watch FA know that an image in the lead is virtually a requirement in order to gain FA status. Back in 2006, there were a group of us who had hopes of making God a featured article, but we all eventually gave up. Too much partisan bickering here; too many POV pushers, too few who are dispassionate about the subject. Still, it is a question to ask oneself when editing; Will this edit move the article closer to FA? KillerChihuahua 15:33, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Agreed that some sort of image is probably all but required for possible, eventual, FP candidacy, and that all articles which could remotely be seen as ever qualifying for such status should be edited in such a way as to make that ultimate possibility more likely. Maybe, and this is just a maybe, one thing which might be useful would be to consult the relevant most highly regarded reference sources which discuss this topic and to an extent try to determine content of this article. We would also, of course, have to take into account any direct subarticles either those sources or wikipedia have relating to the topic of "God", which might be itself a bit difficult, but that is a bit of a different matter. I do have to agree that there is good cause to believe that the inclusion of some such image would be required for FP status, and I think that is sufficient cause for inclusion of an image. Acknowledging that there are individual faith traditions which object to any form of representative images of some subjects, the religious beliefs of those comparatively small number of traditions to specific images is not I think considered sufficient basis for not including such images in content in general, or necessarily for determining where such images are placed in articles. John Carter (talk) 17:12, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Michelangelo Sistine Chapel Picture of God: On Top or Further Down in Article

Let's get back to the issue please:

1. The picture was put up without discussion in March and even without an edit summary, which is inappropriate.
2. The lead picture shows a representation of the Catholic version of God. [not pantheism, not Islam, etc.]
3. The lead picture shows a male God
4. The lead picture is an anthropomorphic or personal version of God
5. There was no lead picture in prior years
6. The God box (on the Wikipedia God page) has been demoted below a male Christian personal God picture.

I propose putting the God box back on top, with the picture in the Anthropomorphic or Gender section. I think this is a reasonable request. Allisgod (talk) 22:39, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, There was no lead picture? Yes, there has been, This argument is an old one, and generally eventually goes back to some version of the Sistine chapel image. A quick perusal of the talk page history will show that. A few examples:

• Mar 2005 Images; God's face? Talk:God/Archive_8#the_image
• June 2006 God is not an old white man with a penisTalk:God/Archive_10#I_have_reversed_the_images.21.21
• Jan 2007 God is not white Talk:God/Archive_16#God_cannot_be_illustrated
• Jan 2007: Can we remove the Michaelangelo image and have a symbolic sun image?Talk:God/Archive_15#Photo_.40_top
• July 2007: Image of Michaelangelo complaint.Talk:God/Archive_20#Just_a_question

That's not to disagree with any of your other points, but There was no image is demonstrably erroneous. Not that it matters much; Consensus can change after all. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:58, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I stand corrected on that point. I didn't look back that far. Allisgod (talk) 00:05, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I didn't either. I simply used the handy search box. I thought, Image must have been discussed before, so I typed in "Image" hit search, and scrolled through and read the ones that seemed relevant. I find if I do that on article talk pages which have a Search archives function, I don't waste people's time so much. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:35, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

---

Points addressed one by one:

1. The image has been used on and off since before 2005 when editors were arguing about it on this talk page, so it was a restoring of an image, not simply adding an image. I agree the image has been controversial.
2. The image shows Michelangelo's depiction of God, which is arguably Catholic, Christian, or Judeo-Christian. It is unarguably a work of art.
3. Agreed, the image is male. This is the God article not the Goddess article.
4. Lead image is indeed anthropomorphic. Whether it is personal depends on your interpretation of the term "personal God" and whether you feel it applies here. I suggest ditching that debate as non-constructive.
5. Already shown to be false, for over 7 years.
6. Agreed.

I see merit in the argument that the image is a narrow representation, originally intended to represent the Christian God, who was understood to be also the Jewish God. One cannot call it the "Catholic God" because at the time there was no other Christian sect. The question is, is this the God who is primarily spoken of in this article? KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:15, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

"[I]s this the God who is primarily spoken of in this article?" is not exactly the question I would ask. Although I think the answer to that would actually be inconclusive since, for example, Islam would find this picture offensive. But I think in this case, a monotheistic (or henotheistic) God is an abstract concept that is pictured (and not pictured) in dramatically different ways. So having the lead be a picture of one group's vision suggests that the page is about something more specific than it actually is. I think it's like a page on Political Parties putting the Democratic party symbol as the lead image because it is the majority party. That's not the way it ought to work here. Allisgod (talk) 00:05, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

You are in error. We do not give equal weight, we give due weight, per NPOV, a core policy. You will not be able to change that core policy from this article talk page. KillerChihuahua^?!? 02:38, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I didn't say give equal weight. You're making a straw man argument. Allisgod (talk) 02:49, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

If my reply did not address your post, then I misunderstood what you were saying. KillerChihuahua^?!? 02:52, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry you don't understand. Your earlier statement, for example, that this is a God and not a Goddess page suggests you lack an understanding of an abstract version of God that does not fulfill your anthropomorphic bias toward the word. If this page is about the Christian God, then the picture makes sense. That picture as a representation of God offends Muslims, pantheists, and other monotheistic individuals and groups. It does not belong on top of a page with such a broad subject matter. Lets wait for other opinions. Allisgod (talk) 03:18, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

You haven't the faintest idea what I believe or don't, and I'll thank you to cease your snide and inaccurate guesses. Both your beliefs and mine are completely irrelevant to this article. KillerChihuahua^?!? 03:21, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Agreed and I apologize for getting snippy. I'm rephrasing the topic to get us back on track Allisgod (talk) 07:46, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

And I've changed it right back, per WP:REDACT; don't change your own comments if someone has already replied to them. Strike out and add text underlined or a different color if you must, but do not simply change with no indication left it was ever different. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:13, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

• Allisgod, you may wish to read Wikipedia:I'm sorry you screwed up as well as Wikipedia:Apology#Non-apology. You may not be aware of it, but whenever you say "I'm sorry you" tht is generally taken as an attack on the other person. You may wish to avoid such phrasing in the future. KillerChihuahua 16:31, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Offensive to Muslims

I'm giving Allisgod's argument that the image might be found offensive to Muslims its own section. We rarely have the subject come up, however, we've had arguments about images of Muhammad on Wikipedia for years. It seemed settled in 2008. In 2009, it was brought up on the Village Pump again. This past year, it has gone up to ArbCom, who topic banned a couple of editors and ordered an Rfc. The links go to the specific discussions, not the general pages. The consensus is that as Wikipedia is not censored, we do not worry overmuch about people who are offended by images of Muhammed, except that we offer a method for them to hide images if they don't want to see them. The same logic applies to images of God, or images of the human form, of Angels, of any sentient life, which is also prohibited by Islam. Human has images of people, for example, as do almost all biographies. You will be unable to gain traction for not having an image with the argument that it offends someone for a religious reason. Wikipedia is a secular encyclopedia; we ignore Islamic prohibitions on images. And finally, the image, as has been noted by Allisgod his/herself, is in a Catholic church, and is meant to be a representation of the Christian view of the Abrahamic God. Puppy has spoken, puppy is done. KillerChihuahua^?!? 04:03, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Again, you're making yet another straw man argument. The image being in the article is not at issue. Having a picture of God in itself being offensive to Muslims is not the issue. Having a Christian God as a lead picture of the article IS the issue. Allisgod (talk) 06:19, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Then you should stop using it as an argument. You said specifically "That picture as a representation of God offends Muslims" [1] and this is a direct response to your concern. I fail to see how replying directly to what you said is in any way a "straw man argument" but I suppose you might use the term "straw man" differently than I have ever heard. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:15, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

@Allisgod: So basically the point you make is that if we put up a picture of the Muslim God that would be ok with you and would not be offensive to Muslims? Please provide such a picture with a similarly iconic value as the Michelangelo painting and I am sure we can discuss. Arnoutf (talk) 13:57, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Nope, that is not the point and I didn't start this topic. Muslims are just one example of why I believe it's inappropriate to have the Christian God picture on top rather than lower down. Allisgod (talk) 21:16, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

• Pictures do not belong in this article at all. Claritas § 23:54, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Care to explain why not? IRWolfie- (talk) 00:10, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Puppy is right. The RfC and ArbCom have established that point. Some people might disagree, understandably. But those individual disagreements, based on individual POV, are not and never have been sufficient grounds to change content. As KC indicated, the image is a representation of the Christian view of God, not of the concept of "God" in general. I do think that consultation of the most recent Encyclopedia of Religion by Lindsay Jones will help establish taht there are, in fact, sufficient grounds for an almost incredible number of articles on the concept of God (the single omni-everything direct creator of the universe) as well as individual deities (which, apparently, is the term used in academia to specifically describe those divinities who do not meet the criteria of the previous parenthetical clause). Inclusion of specific images in those subarticles is another matter entirely, and best addressed at those pages. John Carter (talk) 00:16, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Summary

There are some faiths in the lede of monotheism which are also monotheistic. Also, the first paragraph mentions God is all-seeing and omnipotent, although deists (who are generally monotheistic) do not believe that. Pass a Method talk 11:41, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I put a qualifier in the previous sentence. I think that solves this issue. NaturaNaturans (talk) 08:56, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Reverted by KillerCh with reasoning: "added distinction is between theologians who study God, & who study ?" ... the answer is *theist* theologians who study God versus deist and pantheist theologians (which are actually commonly referred to as philosophers). In any case, I added the qualifier "theistic" conceptions of God as an alternative even though I think the first edit is more relevant to the issue, but I have no energy to get into an edit war with this person. NaturaNaturans (talk) 17:41, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I think the phrase “theologic view of theistic concept” just doesn’t make sense. Kiatdd (talk) 20:58, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

NaturaNaturans: Please either say KC or KillerChihuahua or Puppy; I find KillerCh very annoying, thank you.

Regarding the edit: theologians study God(s), Theist and Theology come from the same root. Saying, on an article about a singular deity, "theologic view of theistic concept" or "theologians who identify as theists" is not only wrong, it's wrong twice. One, since they're theologians, they study God. They don't have to be theists to do so. Secondly, having theologic or theist to describe what they do is like saying wet water. As opposed, I suppose, to the dry kind? So whichever of the two meanings you were trying to convey with your edits, it doesn't work. KillerChihuahua 22:52, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Pass a method's original point above is valid. The descriptions of God as "the most common" do not apply to deism nor do they apply to pantheistic eastern traditions. Instead of challenging the idea that those versions of God are "the most common" (says who?) I thought it would be prudent to qualify the statement that we are talking about conceptions arising from those who are speaking of theism. NaturaNaturans (talk) 00:58, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Pass a method has excellent points; your edit addressed none of them. You left in "most common" and instead tried to add qualifiers to theologian. I suggest we modify "the most common" to "common" or "some of the", which would address the issues. I look forward to feedback here. KillerChihuahua 12:44, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Eh, just trying to help. If it works for pass a method, it works for me. NaturaNaturans (talk) 20:46, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Revision

It says, "Other religions have names for God...", but it would be more enlightening to word this as, "Other religions have names for their perception of God". --173.63.254.74 (talk) 02:53, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

The names are their names for God, not for their perceptions of God. I disagree your suggested edit would be an improvement; IMO it would conflict with the neutral point of view policy. KillerChihuahua 22:53, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Other "languages" have other words for God. --E4024 (talk) 22:56, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

An English-speaking Muslim would say Allah, an English speaking Christian would say God, and an English speaking Sikh might say Waheguru or Ik Onkar, and English speaking (conservative) Jews won't say "God" at all, they say Adonai which means "lord" or they might simply use a euphemism; and so on. It isn't a language difference so much as it is a religion difference. While different languages do have different words, that isn't what this sentence is talking about. Generally speaking the word for God travels with the religion, and does not change with the language. KillerChihuahua 00:08, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

It's a bit more complicated than that: I've known many English-speaking Muslims who say 'God' in everyday conversation, and conversely, I'm aware that Arabic-speaking Christians refer to God as Allah. But I agree with you that the proposed change does not help. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:32, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Ismism (philosophy) and the lead sentence

The lede sentence has problem and has been discussed many times in the talk page, it goes like this: God is a "deity", in the page deity, deity is defined as a "being", in the page being, being is defined as "an extremely broad concept"! the article is written by philosophers with many "ism"s and is impossible to understand. at least we can have a simple, intelligent, readable leading sentence. Kiatdd (talk) 16:25, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree that this is a problem. However, we need to make sure that whatever definition we put up is actually found in the source we attribute it to. I'd be happy with a first sentence that omits both 'deity' and various -isms, providing that (a) it does at least clearly use some expression like 'supreme being', (b) it avoids saying whether or not such a being really exists, and (c) it avoids the 'refers to' problem. I'm happy to discuss. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:36, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

The lede doesn’t seem to be from Oxford companion to philosophy. which page of the book is this quote on? Kiatdd (talk) 17:34, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

...

The previous lead sentence ,"god is monist diety in pantheism...", is not the best possible introduction. I checked and I am pretty sure that it cannot be found in the reference (the Oxford companion to philosophy by Ted Honderich). Surprisingly, the same source (page 314) mentions: " God is the supreme reality ... generally regarded as a personal being, bodiless, omnipresent, creator and sustainer of any universe there may be ... a source of moral obligation; who exists eternally ... God is the greatest conceivable being ... God is creator and sustainer of any universe..."

Another reference is oxford dictionary [2] which defines "the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being."

if you want to put the previous definition back please write your source first, the name of your source with the page number.Kiatdd (talk) 20:35, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree the previous lead sentence had no reliable source. But to be more precise, I took the attribute, "creator and sustainer of the universe" and applied it specifically to theism in a second sentence, because it leaves out both deism and pantheism. I added a summary of those in following short sentences (deism was previously not included in the lede and the sentence on pantheism's "monist deity" in the previous version had no source and is an obscure description). I think this way provides a better summary arrangement of the sections to come. Allisgod (talk) 01:24, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Huge improvement overall. I changed the monotheism from "God is considered identical to a single deity according to monotheism." to "God is considered a single deity according to monotheism." as the previous verbiage is recursive. It might be better to reverse the order (Monotheism defines God as...), or change monotheism to monotheists, piping to monotheism. I remind everyone that the lead is supposed to summarize the article, and sources are not required in the lead, as the content is sourced in the body. Linked content may be sourced at the target article, such as the definition of monotheism being sourced at that article. KillerChihuahua 15:17, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

-Just wanted to say that "creator" seems to be more than an "optional" attribute, Alllisgod mentioned that too, and this is why rejecting this aspect proves to the most effective argument for atheism. Kiatdd (talk) 20:05, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow your point. KillerChihuahua 21:30, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Signs and 'coincidences' that are viewed as signs in relation to existance of God

Should it be mentioned that some people view signs and 'coincidences' that are viewed as signs as a prove of Existance of God? For example, a person A met his long forgotten friend B in Chicago for the first time in 3 years. He said hello and went to New York and have met him again a few days since the first meeting. Then he went to Italy and week later met his friend in Milan. And fourth time he met him in Thailand after two weeks.

Every such consecutive meeting makes it look less and less probable to happen. So some people think that such happenings can prove the existance of God logically and mathematically, because it comes that the total probability of all the meetings (events) is or close to 1/infinity (one divided by infinity). Ryanspir (talk) 16:28, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

No, it should not be mentioned. Such coincidences have nothing intrinsically to do with the subject of this article. AlexTiefling (talk) 23:38, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

agree, there is also an error in his calculation, the probability of that coincidence is not 1/∞, it must be 1/(a large number) which is not zero and therefore not improbable.Kiatdd (talk) 04:11, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Offensive

This is an offensively poor article, that includes an idolaterous image, when "God" forbids such things, and should be the most general of knowledge. Unfortunatley due to wikipedia moderation such as in the style of "Doug Weller", it is hard to write an article based on my 10++ yrs of research, without claims and reverts of edits, that only suit the retarded. I can do a new article, that is intelligent, but based on my experience with moderators here, it will probably not stay long, unfortunately.

Ah well it seems it is "protected" too. Which says a lot about wikipedia aswell. Who would want to protect this garbage. Here is the article how I would write it, according to 10++ yrs of reserach, that can be read at www.paradoxuncreated.com in (maybe somewhat raw) blog-format.

GOD

God is a universal entity, that controls the universe and earth. The earliest known concept of God, is Zi (life) of Animism, a force that animates everything. Commonly known religion has its root in EA, a creator, that creates with thought and word. EA develops into Yawhe, and is generally more known as this, but other traditions has branches of the concept EA aswell, such as Ptah of egyptian polytheism, or Iao, of gnosticism. Psychedelic drugs, are early believed to have something to do with God, and so EA gets distorted into a fishgod, a "god of the waters", which really means orgasm. And the female gods, such as fertilitygods, also appear. Idolatry seems to be associated with God, because the drug is believed to have something to do with God, and often called "elixir of life/soma" etc. The name probably originates from early original monotheism, where The Tree Of Life, is an allegory, to that God has created everyone with a divine "soul", some of God himself, and so "branches" on the tree of divine life. Yahwe today also has its associations, such as "God moved upon the waters", which clearly is the same psychedelic theme. The well known Abraham, founds Hinduism, and no doubt is a gnostic that experiences God on his own, and restates that "the word created everything", and teaches about a divine soul. Buddha, maybe mostly known for such esoteric themes today, also again later reiterates this thought, and is said to be a gnostic. Many wordings of this universal concept exists, and so there have probably been many gnostics, who have worded themselves for the people of their time. Lao Tzus "Dao" is also a similar concept, and immanence, or "soul" is described as "within". The greek philosophers also know it as The Word, and the fundamental animator of the universe. (primum movens) Jesus reiterates it, and is said to be "a word", and states that he "is in the father, and in you, and you in me", and that "the word is life", as a way of understanding what is now considered esoteric religion. The foundations of religion are indeed the esoteric EA, and religion grows more "exoteric", as idolaterous religion needs to be conquered, and so monotheism (true religion) is using words and phrases to defeat idolaterous symbolism. The final expression of Abrahamic fath, and the inheritance of EA, is Islam, which is very finely worded exoteric religion, with fine esotericism aswell.

And so "God" is a universal concept, really with basis in what is now known as esoteric religion, that is "within all". Since religion tries to defeat "the other", of polytheism (external gods), one can emphasise that God is the same in everyone, and regain original monotheism.

Religion also comes to emphasise "godconsciousness", to believe correctly, and be aware of God. This because correct godconsciousness defeats idolaterous symbolism (suggestive images), and extends consciousness above the regressed states of idolaters, that is the result of psychedelic symbolism, that is mostly about sex and "earthly" (lower) consciousness.

A modern variant of Godconsciousness and monotheism, is "God controls the universe and earth". In a modern time we know much more about the universe, and so this knowledge also defeats idolaterous symbolism. However atheists often assign infinity (paradox) to objects, and really just reiterates assocation and idolatry, of simpler people.

Correct Godconsciousness gives peace, and removes the agendas and "evil spirits" of polytheism, and so establishes a modern society, of justice and decency.

Evil spirits, the ghosts and mental duplicates of polytheistic religion, gives the believer invasive thoughts, and bothers them, in the form of "afroditical" sexfantasies, where idols torment her mind, sexually and morally, and closely related to what we call madness now.

To act on this is wrong, and to act "on the spirit of satan".

Good religion can change a whole society. 360 idols was removed, in favour of Allah, in Arabia, at the time of Mohammed, and Allah is the same universal concept of God.

Today ofcourse "Islam" itself has its distortions, and is unfortunately mostly known for causing disturbance. This is due to their emphasis of external texts to their holy books, and like many religions, they have started worshipping people outside this book, and become idolaters.

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.211.28.14 (talk) 07:26, 4 March 2013 (UTC)