Jump to content

Talk:God

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Arthur Curry (talk | contribs) at 01:24, 10 February 2008 (→‎What was that quote that disproved the existence of the Christian God 100%?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Good articleGod has been listed as one of the Philosophy and religion good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
November 22, 2005Featured article candidateNot promoted
December 13, 2005Good article nomineeListed
Current status: Good article
Archive
Archives
  1. 2001 - 2003
  2. 9th January - 2nd November 2003
  3. 10th January - 2nd March 2004
  4. 12th April - 30th August 2004
  5. 30th October - 2nd November 2004
  6. 31st October - 15th November 2004
  7. 9th November - 16th November 2004
  8. 18th November - 20th August 2005
  9. 21st September 2005 - 26th April 2006
  10. 4th May - 20th August 2006
  11. 20th August - 27th September 2006
  12. 10th September - 29th September 2006
  13. 1st September - 29th November 2006
  14. 6th December 2006 - 5th January 2007
  15. 8th January - 23rd January 2007
  16. 11th January - 29th January 2007
  17. 2nd February - 24th May 2007
  18. 25th May - 7th June 2007
  19. 1st June - 15th June 2007
  20. 13th June - 13th August 2007

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

God is said to be omnipotent and all loving.

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

The quote went something like.

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

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

Controversial Edit

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)[reply]

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

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


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

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]


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)[reply]

News item?

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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))[reply]


  • 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 (talkcontribs)
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)—–[reply]


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)[reply]

Jehovah

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 (talkcontribs) 21:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Webster's online does state the use of capitalization, I believe. In the following text, the G- denotes the capitalization:
4. [G-] in monotheistic religions, the creator and ruler of the universe, regarded as eternal, infinite, all-powerful, and all-knowing; Supreme Being; the Almighty
Looking at World Book online [2], capitalize if you are talking about a singular God, don't capitalize if you're talking about multiple gods. If you say 'the god' there is no capitalization.
Examples (from the world book article)
Don't capitalize:
Gods of nature. In the Shinto religion of Japan, gods are thought to reside in particular trees, rocks, and streams.
Also don't capitalize:
In Hindu tradition, the god Krishna is portrayed as a lovable and intimate human being, especially in stories about his childhood.
Capitalize:
Personal Gods. In many religions, people believe that a supreme God has been revealed as a friendly human being.
Hope that helps, Midorihana 21:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Their advice is bad advice. Capitalise proper nouns, don't capitalise common nouns. Ilkali (talk) 22:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, what source are you talking about? Midorihana 03:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm talking about the advice from "World Book online". Ilkali (talk) 07:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks. Midorihana 08:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jargon in hatnote

The hatnote at the top of the article currently reads:

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]