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 72.74.114.109 (talk) at 02:52, 9 December 2009 (→‎God as a metaphor). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Former good articleGod was one of the Philosophy and religion good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
November 22, 2005Featured article candidateNot promoted
December 13, 2005Good article nomineeListed
February 15, 2009Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article

Template:VA

Template:WP1.0

WikiProject iconSpoken Wikipedia
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.


The article is using theism for two different conclusions when it could be better expressed using agnostic-theism and gnostic-theism.

"Conclusions reached include: "God does not exist" (strong atheism); "God almost certainly does not exist"[16] (de facto atheism); "no one knows whether God exists" (agnosticism); "God exists, but this cannot be proven or disproven" (theism); and "God exists and this can be proven" (theism). There are numerous variations on these positions."

It's using theism for two completely different views.

"It is often put forth as a middle ground between theism and atheism,[1] though it is not a religious declaration in itself and the terms are not mutually exclusive. Agnosticism refers to knowledge, while atheism and theism refer to belief" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism

So with that it should be:

"Conclusions reached include: "God does not exist" (strong atheism); "God almost certainly does not exist"[16] (de facto atheism); "no one knows whether God exists" (agnosticism); "God exists, but this cannot be proven or disproven" (agnostic-theism); and "God exists and this can be proven" (gnostic-theism). There are numerous variations on these positions."

Anthropomorphism (Xenophanes' mockery)

A quick note ... that I have (awkwardly:) responded to the insertion of mention of Xenophanes' mockery of the concept as the 1st sentence of an existing 1st paragraph on the concept by pulling it up into a new first "paragraph" (while it is determined how to work this into the topic).Why? Because a disjointed (unflowed) criticism of a conception should certainly not just be jammed onto the front of an existing first paragraph.

In general, there is a (understandable) tendency to be lazy about sentence flow when inserting information—but inserting a critical perspective at the beginning of a topic could be perceived as rhetorical.

I.E., Let us ponder how this information/perspective/commentary should be worked into the section. Proofreader77 (talk) 19:39, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up: Removed because of topic (see below). Proofreader77 (talk) 20:48, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE "Scientific positions regarding God"

Whether "Anthropomorphism" should be a subtopic of "Scientific positions regarding God," is an interesting question ... but at this time it is, and the discussion is (apparently) covering "scientific" sources. Since Xenophanes' mockery is philosophy rather than science, I have removed it at this time. Proofreader77 (talk) 20:48, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quick question... (note: "Dumnezeu" redirects here)

[EDIT TO ADD NOTE TO TOPIC TITLE] Proofreader77 (talk) 16:43, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What religion/language is the name Dumnezeu out of?

I started typing in random letters in Google, and that popped up.

Decided to Wikipedia it, because as we know, everything is in Wikipedia, and it redirected here...without any other mention of the name.

So...what's it out of? Fruckert (talk) 07:23, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: Googling it would give you the link to the ro.wikipedia entry (Romanian language Wikipedia) ... "Dumnezeu" is (apparently) the Romanian word for God. Google translate will give you a sufficient English language translation of that article to answer the question.
When you searched with "Go" in en.wikipedia (this, English Wikipedia) ... you arrived at this article because there is a "redirect" of that word to this page. (See top of article page underneath "God"). The person who created the "redirect" did so because it is the Romanian word for God. NOTE: If you click the small word "Dumnezeu" that will take you to the redirected page. If you check the history of that page, you will see that the previous version was not a redirect, but a few words saying it's the Romanian word for God. The reason it was changed to a redirect (which can be confusing) rather than the more understandable short sentence is a somewhat complicated matter. BOTTOM LINE: This (en.Wikipedia) is the English language Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a dictionary and certainly not a "foreign language" dictionary :) ... Which is to say that there shouldn't be article about the Romanian word for God in the English language Wikipedia. LOL (So complicated) Proofreader77 (talk) 16:38, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

--Ggggchen (talk) 02:25, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Correction under NAMES OF GOD. Elohim is used incorrectly.

Elohim does not mean strong or strengh rather its use acts as an ordinary plural of the word Eloah (אלוה), and refers to the polytheistic notion of multiple gods (for example, Exodus 20:3, "Thou shalt have no other gods before me.").

This may reflect the use of the word "Elohim" found in the late Bronze Age texts of Canaanite Ugarit, where Elohim ('lhm) denoted the entire Canaanite pantheon (the family of El אל, the patriarchal creator god)El ats as an ordinary singular word for one. GOD is ONE THEE ONE AND ONLY. Thee all mighty GOD. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.212.58.26 (talk) 03:57, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Elohim is also used to show the trinity of God (God, Jesus, Holy Spirit), which is why it is plural when describing God. Αδελφος (talk) 14:29, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gentlemen/Ladies, please take into consideration that there are millions of opinions on how the Bible should be interpreted, what certain things mean, and we could go on forever fighting over the words. This is why Wikipedia has policies for inclusion, so unless what is said here is something that will reflect notable, reliable, neutral, verifiable, third-party citations continuing along this train of thought will be useless from an encyclopedic perspective, regardless of what insights it may provide you personally. Wikipedia is not a forum, so postulation and debate are not really going to be fruitful. Peter Deer (talk) 19:34, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Except that those were not OR, you know. Those are existing sourceable interpretations of Elohim, as anyone can prove by searching Google Books or just reading the Wiki article Elohim. It is wrong to mention only one interpretation, and probably not one of the most prominent ones, in this article; I'm inclined to think that one should either mention at least the principal ones or delete mention of the whole business altogether.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 21:19, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology and usage

You also need to mention that the term God can be derived from to the term Goda of the (Y)Ezids (X = G in the Kurdish spelling). This group has a lot of similairities with Judaism and have probably the same background. Today Kurds as wel as Persians name the lord als Goda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Freedomwrighter (talkcontribs) 17:25, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

bb —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.3.192.13 (talk) 23:06, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

God as a metaphor

For the atheist or the soft believer; the term "God" is a metaphor for nature.

God Metaphor (talk) 00:26, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What?--Sushi Shushi! (talk) 15:04, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He is reffering to Pantheism. Which is not atheistic, since it holds faith in a God (yet different form).--72.74.114.109 (talk) 02:52, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]