Talk:God

Template:WP1.0

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."

Bravo! By bravo I mean you speak nonsense.--209.80.246.3 (talk) 19:03, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but we might offend some atheists who say that atheism is not a belief. Or some agnostics who say that agnosticism means "not taking a position because it's impossible to know" Or you might take my route, and see no purpose in the terms "agnostic-theism" or "gnostic-thesm," since they are both, for all intents and purposes, the same thing since belief exists (what follows does not change the fact they believe in God or not). Or maybe I'm overthinking it. 98.198.83.12 (talk) 16:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Why the insistence on the use of "god" in the singular when describing agnosticism and atheism? A more proper description would be "gods do not exist" instead of "god does not exist". It is not accurate as currently worded and implies that the source of contention is confined to the existence or non-existence of a monotheistic god, not the existence or non-existence of gods, more generally. Nusumareta (talk) 01:07, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

What page????

Please, can you give a page number for reference number 1? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.239.198.80 (talk) 21:24, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 05:16, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

definition of god

Regarding the term god there should be an unbiased and neutral approach. I feel, God should be defined as a phenomenon by virtue of which, the survival of life is endless. This way we will find a neutral way to search ourself. Above definition gives us the simplest and abstract God, available every where. The survival of life is endless. This can be easily confirmed with the help of many factual observations made by human beings about living beings. Many things can now be explained easily for example now we can explain sin. Any activity done by a living being in a particular set of circumstances is a sin in that set of circumstances if it results against the phenomenon(God) i.e. survival of life. Example destroying trees is a sin in todays set of circumstances. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Satkaran03 (talk • contribs) 13:42, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

scientific method and god

Per WP:BRD here the discussion.

The simplified line

“ The existence of God cannot be proven or disproven using the scientific method.[4][5] ”

Is nonsense. It has no meaning and is verifiably outside any relevant discussion with regard to the Scientific method. The line

“ The existence of water cannot be proven or disproven using the scientific method.[4][5] ”

Is equally nonsensical. The scientific method proposes a starting hypothesis and an alternative. Neither hypothesis can ever be proven (therefore any reference to "proven" in relation to the scientific method is nonsense). The only thing the scientific method can do is making one hypothesis more likely - and that is all the proof you can get. That is actually the strength of the scientific method. We start with our current understanding and a new more advanced theory. It the new theory is better than the old, we reject the old theory and are closer to the truth. However, the new theory will never be accepted as the whole truth as an even newer and more advanced theory may actually be proven to be even closer to the truth. In the meantime our new theory however is the most likely explanation we have and therefore the one we use.

Simplifying the scientific method in simple terms of proving or disproving is similar to simplifying the whole issues of God to a white-bearded person sitting on a cloud (stunning art as that may provide, I guess we all agree that is oversimplification). At best we could say something like:

“ No evidence for the existence or non-existence of God can be provided using the scientific method.[4][5] ”

Which is much more modest in tone than proving the matter.

Arnoutf (talk) 12:59, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I thought that the scientific method is based on evidence, and doesn't actually provide any.

The source uses the wording "prove" and "disprove". "Affirm" and "deny" are also used. Flash 13:19, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

It uses evidence to disprove hypothesis. The replacing hypothesis is than affirmed (proven) for the time being, but can than be disproven by evidence from yet a new theory. Arnoutf (talk) 13:36, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

So the scientific method can disprove hypothesis? The only output of the scientific method is a conclusion. The scientific method does not generate evidence. Flash 13:42, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

The standard scientific approach is to set up 2 hypotheses. The Null hypothesis (the one to be nullified also called H0) and the alternative hypothesis (also called H1). Then a test is developed that is tailored to make the difference between H0 and H1 as large as possible. The test is run, evidence is collected. If the evidence shows that H0 does not work in a situation tailored for H1, we find support for the alternative hypothesis (H1), and the Null hypothesis (H0) is rejected. If the evidence does not show that H0 does not work, H1 is rejected. (Note that this is asymmetric, for H1 to carry the day, H0 has to be shown not to work, while if both Hypotheses do equally H0 is maintained). This does however not mean that proof for either is definitive. For example the theory of Copernicus replaced the view of earth as the centre of the universe with one where the sun is the centre and planets orbit in circles (at that time the 'most' true theory). Kepler replaced that view with elliptical orbits, an nowadays the sun is no longer seen as the centre of the universe. Were Copernicus and Kepler wrong? Yes and no. No as in they both provided evidence that their view was closer to the evidence than the prevailing opinion. Yes in that their solution (which became mainstream opinion a while later) was only halfway there, subsequent scientific evidence rejected their explanations for even better.

One of the big, if not the biggest problem with God and the scientific method is how to come up with acceptable evidence for or against God, compared to the hypothesis that there is no God. Arnoutf (talk) 13:56, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

One of the biggest problems is also that the existence of God is not testable; the bottom line is that the scientific method cannot reach a conclusion, which is what the main objective of the scientific method. Why do you propose to phrase the sentence around evidence when the point of the scientific method is to draw conclusions? Flash 14:11, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

So if the existence is not testable, you will not get any evidence either for or against gods existence. With that the whole issue is outside the remit of the scientific method. However at a more abstract level even in the presence of evidence the scientific method warns against the use of definitive proof, as you may always miss some essential evidence (e.g. law has the similar - beyond reasonable doubt, which is much more modest than proof). Arnoutf (talk) 14:20, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

the phrasing "affirm" or "deny"? Flash 14:27, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Why don't we just remove the sentence entirely as the scientific method clearly isn't relevant when discussing the existence of god?Wikiposter0123 (talk) 17:04, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Exactly to source that "clearly isn't relevant". --Cyclopia^talk 18:53, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I did not insert the text, but edited initially because it had a typo; when I looked at the main source, the individual was a PhD scientist who went on to train as a theologian and vicar. The words he uses are quite precise and significant. That the existence or non-existence cannot be adjudicated through scientific method. A scientist (who is not a theologian and agnostic or atheist) would say any argument about the existence of God is unscientific, because it there is nothing which would falsify it (high-school logic); it goes without saying, that the converse is also the case. The point is, though, that this argument has been made - by two theologians. It may be trivial, yet they have felt the need to make the argument, in one case in countering Dawkins. the significance of the statement is not that God's existence cannot be proven, nor even that it cannot be disproven, but that scientific method is incapable of answering the question of whether God exists or not. That is because God's existence is understood through faith. I see no problem with this being in there, but if it is included, it needs to reflect the source accurately. That the tools are unable to help adjudicate on this question - not that they neither prove nor disprove anything. - MishMich - Talk - 18:36, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Note: some people have been stating the wording that "biblical scholars" don't believe that the scientific method can be used to prove or disprove God. This is irrelevant, only what scientist believe on the scientific method is relevant. If no sources can be added by scientists on whether or not the scientific method can prove or disprove God then I move to deleting the sentence entirely as giving the viewpoint of science from theologians is about as relevant as giving the viewpoint of scientists on church doctrine.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 19:40, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Disagree. One of the theologians is also a scientist - and this was what I added when it was attributable to a single source - that the theologian who said this was a scientist. I am not keen on removing relevant, reliable, sourced material attributable to notable scholars simply because editors do not like it. That is not how we do things in the encyclopedia. - MishMich - Talk - 21:21, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

We need to find references of scientists asserting this and just remove the theologians entirely as no they are not relevant.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 21:53, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

The McGrath reference cites directly Stephen Jay Gould on the subject. But that's not the point. I fully agree that having scientists' quotes as well is important. But what theologians think on the issue is usually considered relevant when dealing with the existence of God. While I personally, being an atheist, don't have a very fond opinion of theology as a discipline, it cannot be denied that they constitute a large part of the debate. And more importantly, if they think that science can't prove God, it means that even sources biased towards its existence acknowledge that science can't say anything on the subject. --Cyclopia^talk 22:05, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Bleh, why not just write then "Scientist and theologians agree: the scientific method cannot yet prove or disprove the existence of God."Wikiposter0123 (talk) 22:19, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Bleh? Because of the WP:SYNTHESIS this statement would be, given the sources so far. --Cyclopia^talk 22:22, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

You don't say bleh in Italy? It would be common sense as everyone knows that science cannot prove or disprove God.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 22:25, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

No. It doesn't sound nice. --Cyclopia^talk 22:58, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

They do not agree that it cannot yet prove or disprove this. What is said is that scientific method is not capable of judging whether God exists or not. So far, what we have sources for is a theologian and a scientist who is also a theologian who say this. If you want to say that scientists and theologians say this, then you need to find another source where a scientist who is not a theologian says this. From what I can see, the source that cites Gould does not show him saying this, but something slightly different - so it would be synthesis. I am not sure where common sense comes into it, as common sense may not be something we all hold in common - what was common sense for Bishop Berkeley may not have been common sense for Erasmus, for example. - MishMich - Talk - 22:34, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

"They do not agree that it cannot yet prove or disprove this." No offense, but your post defies common sense as everybody is aware that science cannot yet prove or disprove God and nobody except those on the fringe would dispute this.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 22:45, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

First, no, "everybody" doesn't know that, and no, there are a lot of non-fringe people disputing this. Ever heard of this very scientific argument by Richard Dawkins for example? Second, your "common sense" requires sources, otherwise it is original research. If you find sources that guarantee that it is consensual that science can't disprove God, we can rediscuss. We don't write things in articles because they're common sense. We source them. --Cyclopia^talk 22:58, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

There are a number of arguments on both sides regarding the existence of God. specified complexity and argument for design for example, so it would be inaccurate to say as a fact that science and God are mutually exclusive. Flash 23:47, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

per wp:BRD, I've moved this from the article until there can be some consensus statement. Arguments attributed to a single person should not be in the lead. Furthermore, I don't think a consensus statement can be made that science has nothing to say on the existence of God.

Some theologians, such as the scientist and theologian A.E. McGrath, argue that the existence of God cannot be adjudicated on for or against by using scientific method. Flash 00:06, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

This is not a good reason for moving accurate sourced material out of the article. If there is a consensus version accurately based on WP:RS arrived at here, then that should replace the text - that does not mean the text be removed in the mean time, especially as we seem to be agreed that scientific method cannot establish this. I agree that the lead is not appropriate, so I have put it back in the appropriate section, which deals with the existence of God.

There is a world of difference between what scientific method can provide evidence for, and that scientific method cannot yet provide evidence. Nobody is arguing that one day scientific method will provide this evidence - so the 'yet' is misleading.

The argument is not about what science can prove or disprove, it is about whether scientific method can yield the necessary evidence to prove or disprove this. If it were about what science can prove, then I would not believe there is any god in heaven, because all I have to do is step into my garden and look through my 8" reflector, scan the skies, and see that there is nothing out there but planets, satellites, stars, nebulae, galaxies and empty space.- MishMich - Talk - 01:04, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Mishmash your arguments are totally irrelevant and misleading. The scientific method is unable to at this time prove or disprove the existence of God, this is common knowledge and does not need to be sourced. For example do we need to source that the major component of the oceans is water? No. Now are you still going to argue that there is some scientific thing out there that has proven god or disproven him that the rest of the world just isn't aware of yet but you?Wikiposter0123 (talk) 01:16, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Let me restate this in a nicer, easier to follow way. Mishmash do you agree with this statement:

"It is common knowledge that at this point in time science has not proven or disproven the existence of God."

And if you do agree, why are you arguing with me?Wikiposter0123 (talk)

We source common knowledge too. Yes, we need to source that the major component of the oceans is water as well (not that it is difficult to source that), but in any case the two things are not on the same level, by far. That the scientific method doesn't have a bearing on God existence is by no means common knowledge -you can find lots of arguments on both sides by reputable thinkers. It is a majority view, but by far it isn't "common knowledge" on the level of "the sky is blue". And if instead it's common knowledge, then it should be trivial to find a source about that. --Cyclopia^talk 02:26, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

You are absolutely wrong in thinking that there are reputable thinkers who think that science has either proven or disproven the existence of God. By the mere fact that you believe science has either proven or disproven God I would immediately refuse to acknowledge such a person as a reputable thinker. If you think I am wrong then cite at least one "reputable thinker" who believes they have proven that God does or doesn't exist through science.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 03:24, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

As for "It is common knowledge that at this point in time science has not proven or disproven the existence of God." I am not aware that science has ever set out to prove or disprove the existence of God - so I guess the answer is no, I do not agree. It is a statement of the order of "Where were you when you murdered your wife?" - it begs the question that a wife was murdered by somebody, while purporting to establish some other information. This begs the question that science has tried to prove/disprove this, which is certainly not the case since science could be called science in the modern sense (i.e., conducted using scientific method). Looking at your response to Cyclopia above, you seem to have confirmed that nobody has done this. So, it is not a question of whether science has tried to prove/disprove this - nor that science might one day be capable of doing this - but that scientific methodology is not capable of yielding any relevant result that would satisfy the question about the existence of God. It may be that one day scientific method changes in a way that it allows for evidence of supernatural entities, just as at one time it used to accommodate alchemy and astrology, but right now it does not - and there is not source that says that it might do one day, so 'yet' is a WP:OR/WP:SYNTH gloss placed upon the sources. And do not try to patronise me, you will end up looking stupid if you do. Appeals to 'common sense' tend to be a rhetorical device an individual uses to establish their view as the one that makes sense over and above the views of others; it is similar to when somebody argues from "As any reasonable person can see" (to which I would respond, who this reasonable person you talk about); so how do you establish that this common sense you keep on about is what it you say it is? - MishMich - Talk - 07:33, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

That was the worst series of justifications I have yet heard(you're dropping to Noloop's level). "As for "It is common knowledge that at this point in time science has not proven or disproven the existence of God." I am not aware that science has ever set out to prove or disprove the existence of God - so I guess the answer is no, I do not agree." So you disagree that because science has never tried to prove or disprove the existence of God that they must have either proved or disproved the existence of God? Do you notice something illogical about that? "It is a statement of the order of "Where were you when you murdered your wife?" - it begs the question that a wife was murdered by somebody, while purporting to establish some other information." You're just showing that you don't understand what a loaded question is(seems to be going around a lot lately). Saying whether or not science has proven or disproven the existence of God doesn't demand the assumption that science has tried to prove or disprove God(although it has and I don't know where you've been during the history of science attempting that) just as saying that Buddha has not declared whether or not going to Mars is immoral obviously doesn't presuppose that Buddha had given serious thought to whether or not going to Mars is immoral(is that example good enough?). "And do not try to patronise me, you will end up looking stupid if you do." Now you're presupposing that I am going to start patronizing you? Uh no, I wouldn't dream of it. Don't worry I could never try to get away with patronizing someone so clever and bold as you. Not in million years.(you see what I did there, I started sarcastically patronizing you) "so how do you establish that this common sense you keep on about is what it you say it is?" Uh, I planned to establish it by the fact that I believed everybody would just agree on it. I never thought I'd have to defend this point of view by someone who has been living under a rock his whole life because apparently he disagrees that science has neither proven nor disproven the existence of God as opposed to the rest of us who know and are willing to state that it hasn't. I'd like to just say this in the article because I thought nobody would disagree and because it's obvious, but now I'm pointlessly defending my suggestion to an rhetorically challenged reference-mongerer.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 18:03, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

tl;dr - Wikiposter, whatever you continue to rant: you think it's "common knowledge", yet on 3 editors we are, you're only one who thinks so. While this is a very small sample, it seems that less than 50% of persons agree with you. So the very notion that it is "common knowledge" is most probably false. It also seems we are also not exactly uneducated chavs: I am a Ph.D. working at the University of Cambridge, and Mish seems also to be university educated, judging from her userboxes. So, if I were in you, I would begin to consider the (admittedly terrible) possibility of being wrong on the notion being "common knowledge". --Cyclopia^talk 19:15, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Half of it is just quoting the post above and making a resonably sized response. It's hard to declare something ranting if you have not actually read it although I know your Ph.D I'm sure you think entitles you to special powers. Thanks for linking to the word chavs as I otherwise would no have known what it meant.

Anyways, disagreeing with me about whether or not something is common knowledge to be argumentative and then using your disagreement as proof that I'm wrong is a pretty tacky and an "admittedly terrible" justification for your argument. The average person knows that science has not proved or disproved God and your contention that if you all just disagree with me that it is therefore no longer true is as foolish as it is dishonest. Note you could just admit that it is common knowledge(as you already know, but are deluding yourself into thinking you do not know), and I don't know why you havn't.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 19:36, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Note you could just admit that it is common knowledge(as you already know, but are deluding yourself into thinking you do not know), and I don't know why you havn't. - Lol. Either you are a troll, or your theory of mind has really serious problems. I hope for you the first; to be really completely unable to realize that other people do not share your opinions and knowledges is would be a pretty terrible condition. Have a nice day. --Cyclopia^talk 19:49, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

You can't even find a single person who thinks God has been proven or disproven by science yet you still hold to your belief that the average person thinks otherwise. Not believing it is common knowledge is incorrect. Continuing to argue that point even though it's clearly wrong because you don't want to loose an argument is dishonest. Deluding yourself into thinking that you're right and that you're not just arguing to win a conversation even when the point you are making is wrong is being deluded. Now maybe you are just incredibly disconnected from people and believe that everyone thinks that science has proven or disproven God's existence(which they don't), but it's much more likely that you're just holding onto your argument because you don't want to appear to change you're mind(and that you've actually started believing you're own argument *rolls eyes*). I'll ask one more time, just to be fair to you, do you really believe that the average person is so dumb that they do not know that God has not been proven or disproven by science?(and I'm willing to bet you won't agree just because you can't handle "loosing" despite the fact that no one here but you views this as a "win or loose" argument) Please answer, I just want to make sure this is actually your opinion.(if you still disagree then I will admit you are not deluded)Wikiposter0123 (talk) 20:30, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

It is actually my opinion that it is a widely held view, but not something that I would call "common knowledge". And the correct verb is "to lose", not "to loose". About the rest of your comment, please read WP:AGF: that someone disagrees with you doesn't mean being dishonest or deluded or "incredibly disconnected from people". --Cyclopia^talk 20:46, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

It's not a "view" it is knowledge. Saying that the knowledge that the sky is blue is not common knowledge it's a common "view" is just... really? Arguing against people like you is a waste of time.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 21:41, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

The feeling is absolutely reciprocal. --Cyclopia^talk 21:51, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I think this discussion is ended, because Wikiposter is bordering on incivility now. Just stick to the sources, and do not assume that because you think something, everybody does. I am happy to have something along the lines of "Theologians and scientists who have addressed this agree that scientific method is unable to answer the question of whether God exists or not" - but not weasel-like synthesis that says that science had been unable to prove or disprove the existence of god (when there would be no point) and especially with the word yet thrown in - as that is counter-factual, counter-common-sense, and unsubstantiable using WP:RS; however, by sticking to what the sources we do have say, we avoid such problems completely. - MishMich - Talk - 19:29, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm fine with the wording as you have chosen(which is basically the same as the wording you have rejected), and opening admit to bordering on incivility(which I think applies to many), and will accept that you disagree(probably because of the way I have argued it) that the fact that science has not proven the existence or lack-there-of of God, but it still is self-evident that the vast majority of the average person does not believe that science has either proved or disproved the existence of God.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 19:36, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

It is not at all the same, but if you like to think so, that is fine by me - I appreciate some people have save face when backed into a corner while maintaining a preposterous position. What matters is whether others agree to the suggestion, or not. - MishMich - Talk - 20:10, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

The irony here is that is exactly what I have been thinking about you two. Maintaining that the average person believes God's existence has been proving or disproven by science is ridiculous as is the contention that if the average person does know this that it isn't common knowledge. Can you at least acknowledge how to me that sounds totally irrational?Wikiposter0123 (talk) 07:09, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

"You can't even find a single person who thinks God has been proven or disproven by science yet you still hold to your belief that the average person thinks otherwise." & "lease answer, I just want to make sure this is actually your opinion." The answer is that what I have said is what is I mean - not your construction of what you think I mean projected as some delusion I hold. It is not me who has to provide a source to refute something you maintain - it is you who has to provide WP:RS to verify what you claim is correct. That is the way this works.- MishMich - Talk - 21:59, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Surly you can understand the difficulty of finding public opinion polls on common knowledge. How am I supposed to find as poll of people saying that they believe science has not proven or disproven the existence of god when such a poll is just as likely to be asked as a poll on whether people believe the sun exists or not. It's a hard claim to prove but it's easy one to disprove, just show a significant amount of people who think otherwise and that would demonstrate it as not being common knowledge. If you could provide a core group of people that believe God has been proven or disproven to exist by science then I would readily accept this fact as not common knowledge, but it is likely that no such group exists, thus the commonly held belief is correct and it is correctly referred to as common knowledge. Do you at least understand the point I'm making?Wikiposter0123 (talk) 07:09, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Still you persist in arguing something nobody else is discussing. No point including anything about what science has or has not proven, as this is not stated anywhere. Please stop this digression. We have sources that scientific method is not capable of demonstrating the existence or non-existence of God. We can leave it at that. Unless you have a source that argues scientific method can demonstrate this? - MishMich - Talk - 08:05, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

You're just as persistent in arguing as I am, how about let's both leave?Wikiposter0123 (talk) 08:11, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

DO YYOU BIELVE IN JEBUS!!!

Abrahamic religions

Um, this article's mention of the "three" Abrahamic religions leaves out faiths such as Baha'i, which is of Abrahamic heritage through the Bab and Bahaullah, and there are also various other New Religious Movements which could claim Abrahamic derivation as well (including UFO cults with obvious Jewish and Christian content, etc.) Sikhism, while not usually considered Abrahamic, has some origins in Islam as well as Hinduism, making it an Abrahamic/Vedic hybrid. So why refer to them as the "three" Abrahamic religions? 192.12.88.26 (talk) 21:17, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

IP complaint

Slightly off base I suppose. When I wrote a page about a classic death metal band (in the death metal section) my page was refused by the powers that be, even though I do a band sanctioned tribute site for them. I hadn't 'cited my sources'. Sources for early underground death metal are extremely hard to come by, so I had to rely on people such as myself and others who had thorough knowledge/memory of them. This band never got chance to do an LP, and most of this cite seems to work from bands existence coming from their having an LP (they never existed before one) CD whatever. My page was rejected. OK, whatever. Now, you come to a page about god?? CITE YOUR SOURCES.  ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.109.43.168 (talk • contribs)

New stuff goes at the bottom, sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~). Please read our verifiability policy, our guideline for identifying reliable sources, and our notability guidelines for bands (plenty of bands get albums, noone cares, we only care if they're mentioned in non-trivial outside sources like newspapers, magazines, or books). We do not accept personal knowledge (no matter how accurate it is), as that would allow all kinds of crackpots to put all kinds of bullocks up with the 'justification' "I know it's true." Also, you see those small blue numbers in brackets throughout the article? Try clicking on one, or try looking God#References and God#Notes, where the sources are cited. Perhaps next time you could try knowing what sources actually are before complaining about your article getting deleted for a lack of sources and attempting to point out a supposed lack of sources in this article. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:26, 11 September 2010 (UTC)