Talk:God

archives

• An archive of older discussion can be found at Talk:God/archive 1.
• An archive of discussions from year 2003 can be found at Talk:God/archive 2
• An archive of discussions from 1st quarter of 2004 (from January to March) can be found at Talk:God/archive 3
• Talk:God/Archive 4
• Talk:God/Archive 5
• Talk:God/Archive 6
• Talk:God/Archive 7
• Talk:God/Archive 8

Debate

If you are looking to debate the issue of God take it to the Wikireason: God debate H0riz0n 04:49, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Is there is reason why someone keeps deleting the wikireason debate link under external links?

It's a link with no content and is therefore inappropriate; thousands of links could be listed...we certainly can't link to a site with no content. KHM03 (talk) 11:27, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Umm... There is content... H0riz0n

Delete

I think we should delete this articile, it's just not notable enought ;-)! Seriously though, it's pretty good, maybe we should try again for featured articile status?

Dispute Regarding Kabbalistic Definiton of God

I edited my remarks and inserted them into the text of the article.

Mobius1ski 23:42, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Immanent v. Imminent

In the definition section the former was changed to the latter. God may be imminent (in which case get down on your knees and pray), but immanent is the correct term here ie. pervading the universe.--shtove 11:30, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I tend to think he's both, but I agree with your assessment. Sam Spade 12:07, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Names of God section

"Adonay" is "mispelled," the convention is to spell it "Adonai" ("A" as it "At," "don" as in soft "done," and "ai" as in "eye.") I will be correcting this. The reason is the "eye" sound is produced by "ai" no "ay." As evidence (besides all the texts which used "Adonai" as the transliteration of the Hebrew) google results for "Adonai" equal 1630000 vs. 278000 for "Adonay." (Date: 26 April 2006). Infinitelink

Anonymous user 82.10.40.207 posted some potentially inflammatory stuff, which I reverted, and suggested that we discuss here before agreeing to add to the article. The edits include:

Different names for God exist within different religious traditions, like Berber Amon and Egyptian Ra, the original fathers of monotheism...

The name Allah was derived from the Arabic Sun-Goddess Allat, who in turn was a form of the Semitic Al or El or Allilat, who in turn was a form of the African-Berber Tala, taken into Latin as Latona...

I just thought the community should discuss these additions before agreeing to include them. KHM03 19:37, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't agree to include them - particularly as, lacking a source, and mostly containing conjectural notions I've never seen before, they look an awful lot like "Original Research"... Codex Sinaiticus 20:44, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually, it isnt lacking a source its from the 1923 Wisdom of the Egyptians by Brian Brown. Also, Joseph Campbell, probably the foremost authority on world religions also talked extensively of the monothesistic God of Egypt H0riz0n

I removed the section on Buddhism because, Sakyamuni, is not god, anyone who vaguely familiar with the teachings would know that, also life is not considered evil, this is not what buddhism is about. Buddhism does not even have the concept of evil in it's original pali language.

Well, not according to Professor Eckel of Boston University. Buddhism does have gods and they do have a concept of evil in their early writings. H0riz0n

Similar edits were added by Anonymous user 82.68.147.102, then deleted. I'm hoping this editor (whom I assume to be the same as 82.10.40.207) will discuss the issue here. Both anonymous users have been invited. KHM03 16:20, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

I think it is valid to includ the Tolkien reference here, see the article on Eru Ilúvatar. --Fnord

Some time ago I added that the Quakers traditionally alternately referred to God as 'The Light' or 'The Light Within.' This reference was deleted, and I wonder whether it is appropriate to this section?

Hmmmm...I believe that we should include more of the names man y Christians refer to Him as, such as: Elohim and Abba etc.. Does anoyone agree with me?Valleyforge 18:43, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Falsum?

I encountered the word falsum in the definition section; from the context it means contradiction, but I can't seem to find an actual definition, and it seemed jarring. Should this be changed to contradiction or a synonym of it? Gururvishnu 03:32, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Falsum is appropriate. See falsum --172.195.191.202 18:00, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Barely appropriate. If it's not in the OED or any of the dictionaries that dictionary.com searches, it probably shouldn't be used in an encyclopedia without explanation; how would the reader be expected to figure out what it means? It's certainly not an English word, in any case. I italicised it, as per the WP:MOS, and linked to that very informative page you cited. —HorsePunchKid→龜 19:09, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Rosicrucian

surely the lengthy Rosicrucian account should be delegated to some sub-article? Baad 07:44, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

God In Motion Pictures

This section has no depth or value, and little relevance to this section. This belongs under an article for that movie. I'm going to remove this section unless there are any objections. Ario 23:52, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes..I totally agree Valleyforge 18:45, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't this page be split up into God (Christian deity) and so on...

--207.142.131.239 09:19, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

• It is see the Names of God section. 12.220.47.145 23:14, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I think this would be a good idea. There is a large difference between the Judeo-Christian God and the Hindu God, for example, and each should have their own page. Typically, God is used to refer to the Judeo-Christian version; the Hindu version is identified by the actual name. Yahadreas 09:22, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that there should be a disambiguation page, but with a little info at the top.Cdlw93 04:04, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

George Carlin

I don't see how the Carlin quote fits in. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it serves no purpose other than to deride the idea of God. It's not really a philosophy or a real description of any God-like figure that isn't already covered, as far as I can see. Though, like I said, I might be wrong.

--Masterzora 01:30, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I added the George Carlin quote because, correct me if I'm wrong, I think it exemplifies a popular view of God, agree or not, that Carlin has expressed with uncanny succinctness. The view does deride the idea of God, of course, but that is not the purpose of including it here, and is not a valid reason to remove it. Though, like I said, I might be wrong. --Serge 06:01, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I concer with Serge's inclusion of the George Carlin quote. I would also have no problems with quoting Bill Hicks at appropriate points in the theological discussion. Anville 11:03, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

the point is valid, but I'm sure that there are more serious and less inflammatory instances where it has been made. What about Marx' "the opium of the people"? The original 18th century freethinkers? Voltaire? dab (ᛏ) 11:09, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Any decent treatment would do both, I think. Writing "Voltaire said thus-and-so" and then stopping leaves the impression that the issue is old, dusty and irrelevant. It might be best to give a direct quotation for the oldest (i.e., the most "venerable") sources and then paraphrase the more recent ones, but to do the topic justice, we should point out that the question keeps getting asked. Anville 12:06, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

what? so a statement in your view has merit due to recency? Much to the contrary, I would say. Anybody can get his blathering published today. If somebody said something in AD 400 and his words have come down to us, you can trust that they have some weight. I'll consult dusty old Saint Augustine in matters of theology before Carlin or other comedians, bloggers or media pundits any day, thank you :) dab (ᛏ) 12:59, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I just noticed (and reverted) a deletion of the issue being discussed here,

• Comedian-philosopher George Carlin has summed up a popular conception of God as follows: "Religion convinced the world that there's an invisible man in the sky who watches everything you do. And there's ten things he doesn't want you to do or else you'll go to a burning place with a lake of fire until the end of eternity. But he loves you! ... And he needs money! He's all powerful, but he can't handle money!"

by 208.37.97.71 on Nov 16 15:14. Like I said, I added it back. Obviously, I'm biased (I put it in originally), but, honestly, I don't see a strong argument to take it out, and stronger arguments to leave it in. In any case, I think it's fair to ask for the establishment of more of a consensus in order to take it out. --Serge 02:06, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

"Stronger arguments"? How about, "because many people find it blasphemous and offensive"...? Of course, I do realize that's the whole reason you put it in there, because you want it to be offensive... While 9 out of 10 human beings go out of their way not to be offensive, there's always just gotta be that other 1, who goes out of his way to be offensive to the other 9... It's just a fact everyone learns to live with, I guess... ፈቃደ 02:39, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Do you think there might be a middle ground? Those who strive to not be offensive, those who strive to be offensive, and those who are willing to make points even though doing so might be offensive? This is starting to smell like PC policing. It's one thing to not allow Carlin's statement because it is intentionally non-PC, it's another to not allow it because it happens to be non-PC. Do you recognize the distinction? I believe that the point is valid, and that there is no PC way to make it. Does that mean it should not be made? Can you think of a way to make the point he makes without being offensive to some? --Serge 19:51, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

as I say above, the point is valid, but you should quote theologians or psychologists, not comedians. It's not so much different from what Freud would have said (internalized father figure or whatever), so why not quote Freud? I'm sorry -- I'm not offended by the view at all. I just think the quote in question is rather puerile and unencyclopedic. dab (ᛏ) 21:46, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

there are probably better quotes, but until someone comes up with one to replace the Carlin quote, I suggest we keep it in as a place holder. But this does give me an idea about a new section. I'll start a new discussion about that. --Serge 22:47, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I also had the same impression that it doesn't belong herReligion convinced the world that there's an invisible man in the sky who watches everything you do. And there's ten things he doesn't want you to do or else you'll go to a burning place with a lake of fire until the end of eternity. But he loves you! ... And he needs money! He's all powerful, but he can't handle money. 24.54.208.177 01:47, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Serge's claim that Texture deleted Carlin

Serge, I just want you to have the correct facts. I did not delete the Carlin quote in God. An anon deleted it and I initially restored it. Upon reflection I reverted my own action. (In effect doing nothing.) Why? Because I had reverted as vandalism and it was really a content dispute. I undid my action to allow discussion and normal editing to continue. - Tεxτurε 22:54, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Texture, I was going to say "deleted by anon then restored and redeleted by Texture" but decided that was too long. Anyway, thanks for explaining. --Serge 23:43, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

• On the topic of the quote.. i don't think we should be afraid to offend people. It's very stifling to live life afraid of offending folk, because doing most things of significance will offend somebody (atheists may be offended by mention of a god or by public calls to faith, devoutly religious folk may be offended by their exclusion). At the same time, derisive quotes are probably a bad road to go down on Wikipedia, because they're soundbites, lack encyclopedic tone, and lack meaningful information. Wikipedia should not be a place to mock. It may be that ample coverage of positions that are skeptical of god or gods is not present in this article, and that should be fixed. However, there are good and bad ways to do that, and the Carlin quote seems to be clearly in the "bad" camp. --Improv 20:47, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

So you freely admit that your intention here IS to try and offend people. Not that I hadn't suspected as much. It's just as I noted above, it's not "stifling" for 9 out of 10 of the earth's population to live their life without offending people. But it's always going to be "stifling" for that other 1 in 10, if he can't be offensive to the other 9. ፈቃደ 21:42, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Please indicate where in my statement that I intend to offend people. I don't have the intent to go out of my way not to, and it may happen as part of something I do, but it is not a goal of mine, and is thus not an intent. Why do you assume ill will? Note also that, as stated above, no matter what you do, you're likely to offend somebody. --Improv 21:45, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Well I suppose it's true that "everything you do will offend somebody" as long as there's people who are going to say they are offended by anything that isn't offensive to veryone else, for instance... But that's where Utilitarianism comes in... My apologies if I misread your remarks, and thanks for changing the disputed part for me... ፈቃደ 21:58, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

It's ok. I'm glad that we got the content into a decent form in an agreeable fashion. --Improv 00:01, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I notice that Serge has now gone ahead and reinserted the blasphemy anyway - despite everything said above, and despite the fact that it is neither a "popular" view, nor does it qualify as "popular" nor "culture". ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 23:31, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

George Carlin is a major figure in popular culture, and his work in the field of God and religion is some of his most important work. Your POV that it is not "popular" nor "culture" has no place in an encyclopedia. --Serge 08:11, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

the first line

Do we really want the first line of the article to be about proper capitalization? -Arctic.gnome 17:46, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree that it's odd and out of place in the first line. However, I think it is important to note, somehow, that this article deals specifically with the concept that happens to be denoted by the capital G form of God in English, and not all conceptions of "gods". --Serge 02:10, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Here is what the first line currently is:

The term God is used to refer to a specific monotheistic concept of a supernatural Supreme Being in accordance with Christianity, and is capitalized in the English language as a proper noun.

Another problem I have with this line is the clause, "in accordance with Christianity". The term God is used in English to refer to non-Christian monotheistic concepts of God as well. I propose something like this instead:

God is the monotheistic concept of a supernatural Supreme Being who is the creator and ruler of the universe, as well as the source of all moral authority. When the term God is capitalized in the English language as a proper noun, it is used to refer to this particular concept.

--Serge 23:37, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I second that improvement! Go for it, ፈቃደ 23:43, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Done. I decided to leave off the second sentence because this is covered in detail later in the article. --Serge 00:08, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Allah - name or word?

Would it be correct to say that "Allah" is not the name of the god in the Muslim religion, but rather the Arabic word for "God"?

---

Both. The latter because some Christians in the Middle East refer to God the father as "Allah." However, most Muslims believe Allah refers the God of their religion. They think the english word "God" refers to the Christian God mostly. I know all this seems like opinion, but if you get to know Muslims, they explain all this really well......no references required. Enchantedsky 08:43, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that is correct Echantedsky. Although most Muslims prefer to use "Allah" instead of "God", it is more out of properness. Similarly, someone named José in Spanish would almost never be referred to as Joe (the English translation of José) by an English-speaker. And to extend that further, most Muslims before Arabic names for prophets (like Ibrahim) over the English translations (like Abraham) for purity. Muslims believe that the God being referred to be all three of the Abrahamic religions is the same God and therefore it is only correct to say that Allah is the Arabic word for God. Often times Christians, and to a lesser degree Jews, will say or believe that the God referred to by Muslims is not the same God due to the (perceived) great difference between Judeo-Christian beliefs and Islamic beliefs. However, almost all Arabic-speaking Christians refer to God in Christianity as "Allah" because that is (essentially) the Arabic word for "God".

I would like you to note the 99 Names of God, which include Allah. However, that does not be it is a name of God in Islam specifically. As you will see if you look at the list of names, you will see that they are more so attributes, rather than names. joturner 14:04, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Allah means father. It is a more sympathetic way of refering to God. Cheau The GOD

You can sign your comments with four tildes. I've signed it for you.

Allah does not mean "father", but is literally "God", and reflects the contraction of al-ilah "the-god." The Arabic word for "father" is abu. This is not used in Islam, presumaby in reaction to the Christian heresy.Timothy Usher 21:21, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Totally Inaccurate

This definition is totally inaccurate. I can understand that most people 'believe' that God is the creator of the universe, but it is proven that the word god originates from the word gad, as in Baal Gad. Yahoo and google will return a large sum of pages that agree with this statement, and you can even look into the old versions of the Encylopedia Americana (1945 Edition) under the topic “GOD”:

“GOD (god) Common Teutonic word for personal object of religious worship, formerly applicable to super-human beings of heathen myth; on conversion of Teutonic races to Christianity, term was applied to Supreme Being.”

This means that basically, a Heathen word was taken in by Christianity, and applied to The Creator which is, in fact a very large form of Blasphemy.

I've never found any Scriptures using the term "haShem" to refer to the Creator, yet I know it's in common use among many Messianics and orthodox Yahudim. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mgiacchetti (talk • contribs) .

The etymology for English word God is absolutely correct, and it is linguistically prove to be derived from Indo-European root *gheu, meaning to invoke (a celestial being). And this was applied to the various Teutonic deities. This is no Blasphemy to convert it to the God of Abrahamic religions, because such a case happens in modern India. The Hindu word for a deity, deva, used almost always in the polytheistic sense, is used by Christians in south India to refer to their supreme God in vernaculars. Better words like Ishvara or Parameshvara exist, but they are very rarely used in Kerela. And there is no proof that a so-commonly used English word (attested in Old English) could have come from Hebrew.

Cygnus_hansa 00:14, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

All good points, but I wouldn't go so far as to say "it is linguistically prove(n) to be derived from Indo-Eurpean root *(*)", because nothing about Proto-Indo-European can be "linguistically proven" - it's completely unattested. If they found an attestation of it, it might be "linguistically proven". (sorry, just one of my pet peeves about people asserting that *PIE is "linguistically proven")...ፈቃደ 00:37, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Lets say like this, all facts are relatively true, thats what I believe. PIE things are not "proven" things in the sense of natural sciences, but they have much more authenticty than figments of imagination like "god" is derived from a Hebrew word.Cygnus_hansa 19:55, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

God in Hinduism

Ishvara is regarded as only One by all Hindus. Thats why I used the term Ishvara and not god or deity or deva. So I have removed "most". Also, it is true that Hinduism is not a religion in the sense of Abrahamic religions - and is not at all a uniform religion. Furthermore, "Ishvara" is not used a lot by common Hindu people - he is more recognized while dealing with Hindu philosophy. Common people use the term Bhagwan (used in singular). Cygnus_hansa 23:50, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

New section suggestion: Quotes about God

How about adding a section of famous quotes about God? It might be a helpful way to convey all the different perspectives. --Serge 22:49, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I would have done this myself but....

There is apparently some rule of law to follow when editing. I leave it up to someone else. Here's the paragraph that needs to be edited.

"Others maintain that God is beyond morality. Not all combinations of attributes 'work'; some can entail a falsum. For example, if God is the Creator, Omnipotent, Omniscient, and the Ultimate Judge, then he created all people, including atheists and pagans, knowing exactly what he was doing and then sends them to Hell. This God cannot also be "good", from the point of view of all humans - just as all humans are not "good" from his point of view."

All that is needed is to place a "That" at the beginning of the second sentence. (For the philosophical reason, not the grammatical... I'm not that fickle.)  :)

you are welcome to make the edit yourself. I don't know if it would salvage the passage, though. In my view, it should be scrapped altogether: It is essay-style, and there is way too much essayish rambling on this article. Keep it short, and attribute statements. All weasle-paragraphs beginning with "others maintain" should be mercilessly cut out until people come forward with proper academic citations. dab (ᛏ) 10:33, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Strange blanking you did in God

(moved from my talk page) the holy ghost. Hello. Did I miss any explanation for the blanking you did here or are you about to write them down now here ? Ther was no edit summary either. Please explain. Gtabary 16:33, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

It's a POV theory, new research and is really not noteworthy... People have been coming up with such "research" and "theories" for a long time to try to explain God as a chemical or something, and this is just the flavor of the moment... However, God is not a chemical and while these fads and theories come and go, His Word endures forever... This is an article about the Monotheistic God, not a chemical, and if I don't delete it, trust me, someone else will, because it is objectionable to most people to have some "scientist" suggesting that God is a chemical. ፈቃደ 16:41, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

• Codex, your position is a disputed one, and while you may feel strongly that there is a god, word endures, etc, that is not a privileged position and it can hardly be considered an admissible argument on Wikipedia as to the content of a page. I notice you don't blank or remove other described ideas about gods either. I ask you, first why, given your position, have you not removed all descriptions of deities that are not in line with your ideas (consistancy), and second, how can you justify removing the section given acceptable-on-Wikipedia arguments? I would note that the original version of that section was problematic, which is why I rewrote it, but that's entirely different than your argument. I would like to remove the POV-section flag, but let's have this discussion first. --Improv 20:40, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Remove the word "fact" first, it's not a fact, it's a theory or hypothesis. If any scientists says he's "figured out God", that scientist is lying. If he says he's got facts that "prove" he's right, he's lying. Call it a "theory or hypothesis" instead of a fact and I will remove my dispute tag. My "position" is only that there is a dispute. How can that be disputed? If it's disputed that there's a dispute, that means there's more of a dispute, not less of one, all the more reason to keep the tag. ፈቃደ 21:37, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Done. I removed the tag for you too. --Improv 21:48, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Evolution of the Concept of God

<Comment on the following paragraphs in God--In many Western religions, God is usually said to have a specific and clearly defined relationship to, and interest in, the happenings of this world and the lives of those in it. Metaphors for God's relationship to the visible world often include that of ruling authority (king, ruler), and (in most Abrahamic religions) judge of individual activity therein.

By contrast, many Asian and Oriental religions and philosophies consider that there is an ultimate intelligence, purpose or awareness beyond this world, but without necessarily conceptualizing it in such a human-oriented manner or positing it as having created the world predominantly for human beings.>

• god(s) — Polytheistic; Pagan, Idolatry, Myth.

• God — Monotheistic; Judaeo-Christian-Islamic, Anthropomorphic, Transcendent God.

• G-D — Monotheistic; Spinoza's Immanent, Indwelling G-D/Nature.

From Max Jammer's "Einstein and Religion"; ISBN: 0691006997; 1999; p. 94—Three stages in the Evolution of the Concept of G-D.

But Einstein qualified his statements about the compatibility of religion and science "with reference to the actual content of historical religions." "This qualification," he continued, "has to do with the concept of God." He then mentioned, though more briefly than in his 1930 essay, his theory of the three stages in the evolution of religion and the concept of God and declared that "the main source of the present-day conflicts between the spheres of religion and of science lies in this concept of a personal God."

Yesselman 22:09, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Two World Views

<Comment on the following phrase in World view--The term denotes a comprehensive set of opinions, seen as an organic unity, about the world as the medium and exercise of human existence. Weltanschauung serves as a framework for generating various dimensions of human perception and experience like knowledge, politics, economics, religion, culture, science, ethics.>

• 1. God, call it Theistic: monotheistic, anthropomorphic, transcendent God.

• 2. G-D, call it Spinozistic Theistic: momotheistic, immanent, indwelling G-D.

Between the two, debate is useless. The debaters would be talking past each other. It is as if they were playing different games; one by the rules of checkers and the other by that of chess.

They each hold these different views because of the greater peace-of-mind it brings them (their Religion) and therefore it would be very difficult to talk them out of their viewpoint; they have too big an investment.

The same thing happened when two persons debated 'god(s)' and 'God', millennia ago.

Yesselman 17:01, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Heindel

I've exported most of the "Rosicrucian" section to The Rosicrucian Cosmo-Conception. As far as I'm concerned, the entire "Max Heindel" section could be cut from this article, but it was simply insane to dedicate that amount of space to a 1909 esoteric book in a general article on God. The section doesn't make the slightest amount of sense to me either way (but I suppose that's not required if we're talking about God). dab (ᛏ) 16:39, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I've reverted the section title to its original "The Rosicrucian conception of God and the scheme of evolution", since it is the correct title (according to the issues presented there) and there are also several articles about related issues linking to it; on the other hand, I've added the link to the related main article "The Rosicrucian Cosmo-Conception" (where the entire section has been inserted). You have expressed your POV, which is your own POV, not mine and not the POV of a few thousands of individuals, at least throughout the last century.

And, by the way, who knows if it may come to be the POV of millions around as soon as we all start developing ourselves toward a higher degree of consciousness, as expressed in the article as being the way of our real Spiritual evolution (which does not exclude any of our views expressed in the present article "God": all of them may be seen as our attempt, through the times, to understand our relation to higher forms of consciousness from the point of view allowed by our own point of consciousness in the scale of evolution...).

I guess some would prefer the exclusive "scientific" explanation that is now under 6.6.6 section to be the only one available (its their own "religion"), the same way some would prefer this article "God" not to exist at all (along with all articles at Wikipedia related to Spirituality). But, I've already addressed this issue earlier at:

• REQUEST to the Administrators of Wikipedia: Religion as a main category at the Main Page
• Related discussion at Talk:Main_Page/Archive_42#Religion_as_a_main_category_at_the_Main_Page

Regards, --GalaazV 07:49, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

wow, I realize that it must have been your section, since I have similar difficulties parsing your reply; anyway, I didn't want to express any sort of pov, my point is simply that the section was too long (and incomprehensible) for the relatively minor movement it represents. I don't want to argue about the title "The Rosicrucian conception of God and the scheme of evolution" too much; it may be 'correct', but it is also a tad long. Surely there is a title that is both correct and a little bit shorter? How about simple "Rosicrucianism" then? Remember that a title is not a summary. dab (ᛏ) 11:04, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate your comments, thank you. The title has been changed to a shorter version: "The Rosicrucian conception of God". Please, I would like to read, if possible, your point of view about this change, before redirecting other links. Regards --GalaazV 12:02, 13 December 2005 (UTC) P.S.: I meant above, and the present section here tries to explain it also, that all major views at the article God are valid, yet all incomplete, since - through this perspective - they are conceptions about more evolved states of consciousness addressed to the way individuals as collectivity are able to grasp it through their own stage of consciousness in the scale of evolution, at the times each conception is presented. This gradation goes from what we may call the deepest trance unconsciousness (expressed through the most densest-material state in the Cosmos) to the total awareness of divine omniscience (the most abstract-spiritual state, which has its most sublime expression beyond the Cosmos itself, The Absolute: from Whom unintelligible Chaos the Cosmos, where we dwell, is emanated). It is a slow but dynamic process and conceptions are developed, evolve, at the same time we develop, evolve, ourselves: as was in the past, is in present and will continue to be in the future: it may be seen as our eternal search for Truth and each one of us, whatever his/her present consciousness state or awareness, is also a part - along with many other life waves - of the All evolving. --GalaazV 14:18, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

This would mean that every physical form we may observe - from the simple mineral rock (dwelling with matter, most crystalized) to our galaxy (dwelling with forces, less crystalized), and beyond, are embodiements of spirit-life entities (grouped or individualized) according to their lower or higher stage of consciousness (with the related capability of intelligence). Man expresses itself - at this point in evolution that we call "vigil state of consciousness" - through what we call "biological-physical" embodiement (with its associated neurobiological processes), which is the best possible according to his present state of consciousness and all indicates that for sure it will be different in future as this state evolves through our own present effort. ;) --GalaazV 15:44, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

yes, I am happy with the new title, thank you. Section 6.6.6 doesn't claim that God is a neurological construct, btw; it simply claims that you'll be better off, physically, if you have religious faith. A statement that would be confirmed by most theists, I think. It is simply healthy to believe in God, regardless of whether he exists. dab (ᛏ) 15:25, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I would add that there are even deeper and closer relations of certain biological "functions" of the physical body/human anatomy (as the neurological processes/nervous systems, the ductless glands, the heart, the ADN structure, the spinal cord and the blood) with the subtle bodies and the individual Spirit "manifestation" of man. :-) There are some serious studies published during last century on this issue, deeper than the superficial analizys presented at the "neurological" section (as eg. Vibrational Medicine by Dr. Richard Gerber, physician, Charwood Medical Group and Medical Degree from Wayne State University School of Medicine, interview: [1], [2]). Thus you may find that those biological functions have a role in the Spiritual-inner development of the individual, and at the same time the way they work is also affected by that same development: all seems to be interconnected. --GalaazV 18:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

vandalism

be careful when reverting (the obnoxiously frequent and unimaginative) vandalism -- here, the rollback missed this nonsensical statement (not sure if its vandalism or simple hallucinating) just before. dab (ᛏ) 17:07, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Extraneous link snippage incoming

I will be viciously editing this article very soon as it contains much unnecessary linkcruft. See Wikipedia:Make only links relevant to the context. You have a few hours to one day to discuss this before I start. --Cyde Weys _talk^contribs 16:03, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

just go ahead, people can still re-insert links if they disagree with you. dab (ᛏ) 16:36, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Cut away! KHM03 16:43, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

PHEW, it's done. Sure took awhile. Anyway, if you disagree with something, please do not revert all of the changes, just make your small edit and discuss in here. I believe I conformed very closely to the guidelines laid out in Wikipedia:Make only links relevant to the context during this copy-edit. If you see something that you think needs to linked or re-linked please please search the article and make sure it's not already linked somewhere above. General style guidelines say that you link a term once upon its first occurrence period. --Cyde Weys _talk^contribs 09:58, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Good work. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 10:02, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

And now I shall go take a day of rest. --Cyde Weys _talk^contribs 10:03, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

That's a great job. Tx * 1012. Good idea. Nice. Love (oops!). Gtabary 11:40, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Nice. KHM03 12:42, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Neurobiological findings

I originally suggested this section. The last line was recently rephrased as It has been proposed that science and spirituality could maybe join peacefully here, in saying God is eternal. This is an unaccurate statement, because it was not an outcome of the reasearch. I am not able to suggest a better phrasing, so I prefere to remove it cleanly, in order to avoid incorrect info. Bye. Gtabary 18:45, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't want this to sound like a personal attack, (though it probably will - tact was never my thing), but the section on neurobiology and the Deity is very badly written. I suggest you go back to your sources and try to boil them down to a para or two that reads fluently and gets the information across accurately and succinctly. Nevertheless, the idea that the human brain predisposed, for purely biological reasons, to create God, is worth stating. PiCo 17:28, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

the section is clearly relevant, and it also clearly could bear some improvement; so, please, do improve it! dab (ᛏ) 18:28, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I guess there is a language problem on that section. Being a non-native, I won't be able to really make it nice. Could one suggest a rewrite here ? Or simply enough edit the section Gtabary 19:54, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

"popular culture"

why do we list hollywood movies, when there is an age old tradition of portraying God in art and literature? (I know, I know, "so fix it" -- I would just like to point out that the hollywood references are tiny tiny trivia in the mighty stream of human culture; please expand to "God in art" or something) dab (ᛏ) 18:31, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

some blockhead on my account

not my revision! someone else at my house doing it. sorry for the misunderstanding. dang kids nowadays. Aeryka 04:50, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Abrahamic God

Would some of you please take a look at Abrahamic God? This subject seems to be well covered in this article, and Abrahamic God does not seem to be a child article but rather a POV fork. I would prefer someone from the God article take a look. Thanks much! KillerChihuahua^?!?

Improvement Drive

Meditation is currently a nominee on WP:IDRIVE. If you would like to see this article improved vote for it on WP:IDRIVE.--Fenice 15:32, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Hebrew links

A change was made by an anon user:

-

I asked a hebrew speaking friend about this - she said the first is the generic term god, the second is the specific God known to jewish/christian faiths - the connotations are similar to god vs God or god vs The One True God.

This may be considered POV either way, just a heads up, I'm not a hebrew speaker but felt that it would be good to call attention to this for any that are. Triona 20:24, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Removed neurology section

Hey all, I believe you may remember me as the person who rewrote the neurology section to be NPOV and added it back in some time back. In retrospect, I don't think it belongs -- it's off-topic for this article, belonging more to an article on belief than to an article about the monotheistic concept of god. I've therefore removed it again. --Improv 21:02, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi there. I suggested initialy the section. FYI some (here) found this section relevent. I keep thinking it is a nice piece of information in this article. Bye. Gtabary 02:37, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I fail to see the relevance of the section -- the topic of the article is the concept of a monotheistic deity. The findings are about belief in general, and so they really don't fit well with the rest of the article. --Improv 11:06, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi again. The actual experiment referenced in the section is not only about belief but more importantly about religious belief. So in absolute this is indeed not the best article to drop this section in, but it does bring an interesting information. I see there is a religious belief article redirecting to Religion. Would that information belongs better to this article ? Gtabary 21:38, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Unless we ever have an article on Religious Belief (which maybe we should), the general article on Religion is probably the best place for it. --Improv 00:01, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi there. Done. Moved in Religion article + a little talk on Religion to explain. Bye. Gtabary 13:16, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

"most" people?

I think the phrasing of "most people" in the first sentence is a bit POV -- it strongly implies some sort of world consensus that I do not think remotely exists. If you take all the monotheistic religions together, they are just barely more than half the world's population (see Major_world_religions), and I for one know plenty of Christians who are pretty iffy on the God concept.

I would like to change it to "many believe". Comments? bikeable (talk) 05:58, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

That would sound more npov if you ask me. Although I'm not sure in what sense these people you speak of would be called "Christians" even by the broadest definition. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 06:04, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I made the change. I agree that the "Christianity" of such people is questionable, but a lot of folks check off boxes on the census without strong thought about their own beliefs... thanks for the feedback. bikeable (talk) 21:46, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Most people is a pretty easy statement to make, you should look at polls on how many people believe in God. The numbers are much higher than that of church goers, not lower. I am a member of a sizable minority who believe in God and yet "follow" no particular denomination. Sadly atheists often try to enlarge their appearance on paper attempting to claim such "nonreligious" people, but the polls simply don't bear out such inaccuracies. Sam Spade 23:50, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Para 2 "conceptions of God" surely this should read "concepts of God" conceptions of God would be quite another thing altogether?--BozMo[[user talk:BozMo|talk]] 15:51, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

• Sam, the link you provide is about the American populance. America is not the entire world :) --Improv 00:03, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Eep. I only followed the first link. My bad. --Improv 00:04, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

The thing is, most americans I know believe in God, but don't go to church. Here in europe, its more common to belong to a church, even if you are agnostic or whatever. Anyways, the facts are clear, the vast majority believes in God, regardless of denomination. Even in countries where fair accounting is impossible (China and N Korea) we can safely assume a sizable number of believers. Sam Spade 00:19, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

• I was unable to find any details for the questions posed in the (very interesting) poll cited above. From the BBC website, it appears that they asked about "God [and/or] a higher power" -- wording very unclear. This is part of my concern with those poll results; for example, they show extremely high percentages for belief in India, whereas I would venture that a Hindu conception of "God" is quite different than the God of this article. Similarly for Buddhists, most Chinese, Shinto, etc. Do you have any more detail on the questions asked? bikeable (talk) 19:06, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

• I would have to disagree here. This article is about the monotheistic version of God, and a huge amount of people in the world are not monotheistic. --Rory096 06:13, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

conceptions

Changed conceptions to concepts in second paragraph. I know some people use the first to mean the second but I don't think it is really proper English usage...--BozMotalk 16:01, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I think 'conceptions of God vary widely" is what we're trying to say, not "Concepts of God"... God might not necessarily be just a concept, so this could be POV... but people's conceptions (possibly including some misconceptions) of him are very different. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 16:14, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree w codex. Sam Spade 03:30, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Gallup poll

In regards to this reversion. Actually, I think the point of Gallup polls is that they are done scientifically. Gallup is a well-known polling organization and they do strive for accuracy. That said, I don't think this is at all relevant in the opening sentences of the article (or anywhere else in it, for that matter). The insertion of this into the opening sentence was simply blatant POV-pushing to acknowledge that the majority of people are religious. Yes, we know. --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 14:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

No, a cite and reference is needed because there are those who would have it erroneously read "some" (wishful thinking on their part) and a reference is supposedly to stop this error from repeatedly coming back... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 14:20, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Cyde is correct in that the term "vast majority" is POV, even if supported by a poll. I'm sure I can find ample evidence to contradict the statement, so should I change it to read "small minority" and cite that evidence? That's essentially your justification. The word "some" can mean 1% or 99%, but it's objective and NPOV. --Papep 14:41, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

This entire discussion is POV laden.

I'm not obsessed with percentages, but I think "widely" is more ccurate. It could even be a minority, and still be "widely", because of the geographic distribution of believers. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 14:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Might I also say that just because a poll is tangentially relevant to a topic does not mean it should be included. Hundreds of various polls could be found to found that are relevant to this article, but including them all would be overflow. I see nothing relevant about this poll. People think God is the Creator? Ohh really? *Yawn*. As for Codex's objections ... I don't even understand your objection. --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 14:29, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

The poll and the statement are inherently POV and completely unnecessary for an encyclopedia article. Leave them out. Why have a statement as to percentage, direct or implied, at all? "Some" is accurate, how on earth is that "wishful thinking"? One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:31, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

What don't you understand? "Some" may be technically accurate, but it is highly misleading. "Widely" is accurate. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 14:32, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

"Some" is objectively accurate, and whether or not is misleading is up to the intellect of the reader, whereas "widely" is subjective. --Papep 14:42, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

People who yawn at facts shouldn't edit talk pages. People who remove facts shouldn't edit at all. Sam Spade 15:36, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

An American survey of 1,002 people is hardly a "fact" that the "vast majority" believe in God. If the survey is to stay in, it needs to be presented in context, not as a "fact" without due explanation. The second survey gives no data about how many were surveyed in each country, whether it represented a statistically valid cross-section, or anything else to establish the validity of the poll. (updated KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:53, 5 January 2006 (UTC))

People who think they know who should and who shouldn't edit shouldn't edit at all. +2 points for recursion Cyde Weys _vote^talk 15:52, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Personal Attacks

This is in reference to the comment line from KillerChihuahua

"Codex, stop the POV edits. We know what you believe. We also know your beliefs aren't fact, please adopt a NPOV or edit elsewhere"

"We" know what "you" believe? Who is "We" exactly??? And how on Earth could you possibly know what I believe, and to state so summarily that "my beliefs aren't fact" ??? You actually know nothing at all of what I believe, and for you to state something you know nothing about that whatever I belive "isn't fact" is bordering on a Personal Attack. This isn't about what I believe. It's about the proven, cited and referenced fact of what a majority of people believe. You insist on putting the POV word "some" there, when "widely" has been demonstrated to be more accurate, and "some" is misleading. You say that if anyone is misled by "some", it's their own fault for being unintelligent. That kind of exclusivist argument usually doesn't play well. It should be a simple matter to find a phrsing that is at once NPOV, accurate, and NOT deliberately misleading. But you are fighting against the facts that have amply demonstrated that "widely" is accurate, because you'd rather bury your heads in the sand than face reality, and you are POV-pushing "wishful thinking" by downgrading it to only "some" people believe in God. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 18:51, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

That was not a personal attack. It may have been presumptive of me and I apologize for that. The fact is that only some people believe in God, else we would not have such a long list on the Atheists list article. Stating it as though it were a belief held by all is indeed POV, and inaccurate, and so don't do it. I am more than open to discussing phrasing. Stating belief in God as a universal fact is inaccurate, don't do it. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

FYI, it was not I who said "You say that if anyone is misled by "some", it's their own fault for being unintelligent" - please read again more carefully. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:00, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, apology accepted... But I'm not trying to make it say that it's a belief held by ALL. Who could possibly think that? Talk about unintelligent readers, if you make it the most NPOV and say nothing at all, other than that simply "it is believed", who in their right mind is going to assume that means "by ALL"? Anyway, we must be able to find a neutral phrasing to accurately express the reality, that it is a belief that is "widely" held, though not by "all"... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 19:08, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Which is why "some" is the clear leader in the consensus discussion here on this talk page. Why do you interpret "some" as POV? It is hard to address a perceived POV when one does not understand the basis at all. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:11, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Codex asks, who in their right mind is going to assume that means "by ALL"? I think that "it is believed" implies "by all", unless it's heavily qualified (e.g., by "many" or "some"). For example: "Since the force between color charges does not decrease with distance, it is believed that quarks and gluons can never be liberated from hadrons" (from Quantum chromodynamics). That expresses the consensus of physicists, not a belief held by a few. bikeable (talk) 19:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Some is always POV whenever "widely" or "many" is more accurate. The real question is, what's so wrong with "widely" or "many"? Keeping that out is denying the reality of the situation. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 19:13, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

"Some" is accurate. You are saying that "many" or "widely" is more accurate, am I understanding you correctly? KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's exactly what I said. "many" or "widely" is more accurate than "some". ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 19:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

On behalf of about 1.6 billion people, I will say that we do not say "God" in a certain language, Just to Remind.--Tznkai 19:41, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

God is only the word in English... All other languages use different words... I don't know about Chinese for God, but I know there is a word for "Heaven"... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 19:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Most Chinese believe in gods, lower case g, plural. That's the issue here. What is your basis for wanting "many" over "some"? Now it transpires that you don't even realize that most Chinese are not monotheists. Here is the breakdown:

Christianity 2,039 million 32% (dropping)

Islam 1,226 million 20% (growing)

Hinduism 828 million 13% (stable)

No religion 775 million 16% (stable)

Chinese folk rel. 390 million 6%

Buddhism 364 million 6% (stable)

Tribal Religions, Shamanism, Animism 232 million 4%

Judaism at 14.5 million is less than 1% of the world population.

So there is a bare majority of monotheists. Not a vast majority. "Some" fits. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:55, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

There is a chinese translation collorlating to a monothestic supreme being as well, and it isn't done in a parallel way to the capitalizatino in english, and isn't done in english at all. using "God" to ascribe to many isn't accurate for that, among other reasons.--Tznkai 20:06, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

God w a capital G never ascribes to many, but to all, and one... the absolute infinite transcendant immanant God. Read Monism. Sam Spade 22:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Might be fair to say

I don't think "might be fair to say" is good English style for an encyclopedia. It'd be cool if that section could be reworded to avoid that phrase. --Improv 19:42, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely concur - be bold! KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Let me redirect you to {{sofixit}} .SoothingR 13:50, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

some

Some cannot stay in the intro, it is a violation of WP:NPOV#Undue_weight. Atheists add up to a tiny minority, and it is improper to exaggerate their numbers here. See Atheism#Atheism_studies_and_statistics. Sam Spade 12:59, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

No, that misses the point of the Undue weight policy, which is to not give too much weight to a minority view. The word "some" does not imply less than 50%, nor does it imply 100%. "Some" in this context refers simply to a subset of all people, be it half or "vast majority". However, I would agree that the words "by some" should be moved from where they are to after the "Supreme Being believed" to indicate that "some [i.e. a subset of] people believe God is the creator, etc..." rather than "some people use the term God to denote what we're defining here". --Papep 16:32, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Update - I've attempted to resolve the "some" controversy with the following: "God is the term used to denote the Supreme Being ascribed by many religions to be the creator, ruler and/or the sum total of, existence" --Papep 16:36, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Good job! That there works for me... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 16:46, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Good way to get around the "most people" problem: to define it in terms of religions. I think that's fine. However, I noticed you added "philosophies": "...ascribed by many religions and philosophies...". I would suggest that any philosophy that ascribes creation to God is a religion, so I would go back to "many religions". Any comments? bikeable (talk) 16:51, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. I was trying to be consistent with text later in the article but now realize that "philosophy" in that context doesn't refer to "God" but rather to something similar like an "ultimate intelligence". I will remove "and philosophies", and hopefully this matter will be settled.

I don't get this controversy either way. Atheists are sizeable minorities (some 25% in most industrialized countries, so certainly not "tiny minorities"), but "God" is a term even used by atheists to refer to a [hypothetical] creator etc. (not believing in something does not mean you can't talk about it; otherwise our Santa Claus article would have to be written by 5 year olds...) dab (ᛏ) 21:05, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

he:אל + he:אלוהים

Sentence fragment

[3] [4], and different people subsume within that term their different concepts about the nature and attributes of such a being.

I moved this here from the article, as it is a sentence fragment with links to two articles as subject. Would whoever placed this in the article explain what they were trying to say? KillerChihuahua^?!? 10:13, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Jesus in Islam

The article states that Jesus is considered the messiah in Islam. This is false and it should be corrected because he is only considered a prophet in Islam.Ortho 04:54, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

You are incorrect. See [5] and [6], specifically the Pickthal and Shakir translations. Pepsidrinka 04:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay I won't argu but what kinda Massiah could he be if the "real thing" came after him?Ortho 05:51, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what your asking. Nonetheless, reading Messiah#In Islam could prove to be helpful. Pepsidrinka 06:15, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Messiah means "anointed one" literally, "dripped upon." We're not talking about the enculturated Christian notion of God putting on his Jesus suit and taking a vacation amongst the natives. This not the sort of Messiah that Muslims are interested in. The Qur'an merely recognizes Jesus in the same way that the Diatessaron does. That is, as an anointed prophet, just like Jeremiah, Isaiah, and Elisha before him.MerricMaker 04:07, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Non existence proof

I don't think it's appropriate to have this section added, the potential logical paradox is already covered in the (linked) omnipotence article, which discusses it in detail. To be balanced, you should really repeat the arguments used in that article here, as to why it might not be a contradiction, rather than just stating that logic can disprove the existence of god(s). As that would mean the same paragraph would basically be repeated in two separate articles, I'm removing the section for the moment, but comments welcome. MartinRe 16:26, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I also don't believe this is necessary here. not that I'm against argument but the section is really argumentative and not-convincing. The statement to support the proof by contradiction "can god create a rock..." seems utterly absurd and not really an honorable use of the logical argument. I suspect no theologin would take it seriously.

And in any case, this article is not a place for arguing it one way or another. It is for "conceptions of God" or "thinking about God" or something like that. Arguments for or against should be directed to related pages Ginar 16:29, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the only reason I kept it originally was because I didn't realize this topic was covered elsewhere. The section was not written very professionally. joturner 16:36, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Statistical God

I've removed this section to talk because it is not sourced. I don't have any view on whether it should be in the article, but I do think that if it is, it must be closely sourced:

One newer idea on God is that God is the result of evolution in our infinite multiverse being statistically required to cause a being to come into existence based on properties of quantum physics rather than chemistry. Such a being, using the properties of said particles, would not have the physical limits of molecules, thus expanding to conver infinite space-time in all universes upon coming into existance. Although this could happen naturally, it can also merge with the posthuman thought to a certain degree in that such a being may be the result of human invention. Such a being would, by its nature, "spread" (although with time being a void concept, it was there to begin with) to include all things in the multiverse. Statistically, given an infinite mulitverse, this view is almost a required to happen.

James James 09:30, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

But Georg Cantor showed that there are degrees of infinities, and it may be the case that the infinity of possible beings is more exhaustive than the infinity of universes which could allow them to be, so statistically it may also be the case that your view is highly improbable. Ruby 23:11, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Edit of introductory statements

Rationale for the edit:

• "Supreme Being" may be a suitable primary understanding of the concept of God for the purposes of an encyclopedia entry, but the un-capatalized "ultimate reality" seems to take into account in a more objective way the breadth of thought on the subject of God. "Being" implies an essence that can be pinned down (at least in some comprehensible), whereas "reality" does not look at God as either subject or object.
• As this article is said to refer specifically to monotheistic and henotheistic concepts, it could be argued that God does not take on the character of the "sum total of existence" in all monotheistic/henotheistic thought (either religious or non-religious, theological or a-theological). For most, monotheism talks of a God independent of any creation, or, at the very least, a conception of God that does not concur with the statement "the universe is God". This is strictly pantheism, or, if we are to state that "God is the universe, but is also above the universe" - panentheism.
• Giving deism the benefit of the doubt of being a "monotheistic religion", I removed from one of my first formulations the edition of the term "sustainer" to the monotheistic ascriptions, leaving God as merely "creator and ruler". (Deism may indeed additionally make inroads into the term "ruler"? Of course, it may not be a verifiable claim to call deism a "religion", but some or more of its adherents do lay claim to aspects of religious devotion and practice in their worldview.)
• It seems to be clear that philosophy (or, at least, some form of proto-philosophical methodology) does have something to do with “God” in the first instance. My edit left out any specific link of philosophical thought with monotheistic thought and/or religion, despite there being a verifiable strong link. This was intended to move the article away from being a copy of the “philosophy of religion” entry.

Any comments, please feel free to leave messages on my talk-page or email me! Robertjessetelford 03:28, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Further edit

Rationale for the further edit of introductory statements:

• "God" is questioned and pondered in many disciplines of human experience, hence it is appropriate to give a fuller summary of the philosophical and theological interest groups and schools of thought which give rise to the debate surrounding God.
• Added "theologians" to third paragraph in order to show that it is not just thinkers within philosophy who are interested in the question of God. (A further question: is a theologian just a particular type of philosopher?? I would suggest that this is the case, but one fundamentally centred on questions of God, or however Wikipedia defines theology/theologian...)

Any questions or comments, please leave on my talk page or email me! Robertjessetelford 16:03, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

God denotes ultimate reality?

This is the current introductory statement:

God is the term used to denote the ultimate reality which pertains to all known existence.

That seems like a particular definition of God, and not even a very common one at that, and not a generally accepted notion. How about:

God is the term used to denote the mythological deity or ultimate reality which pertains to all known existence.

--Serge 00:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree, I've added it. It's ridiculous to not include the D-word in the first sentence. - Randwicked Alex B 03:38, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you went far enough, Randwicked. This definition would seem to exclude those who believe that God is not the "ultimate reality" but "transcends reality", and is separate from it. James James 04:09, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

James is right. The term "ultimate reality" is not correct here. The article on ultimate reality says: An Ultimate Reality is generally alluded to by non-theistic religions where theistic religions would speak of divinity.. So if Ultimate Reality is to do with non-theistic religions, it is surely out of place in a definition of God. I'd leave deity in, and take "ultimate reality" out. (I won't make the edit yet - see what people think first). Waggers 10:51, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

You're probably right on the "ultimate reality" front...I wasn't entirely satisfied with that when I made the edit (I did check the Ultimate Reality article entry as well), so kudos for the edits! Although I would say that it's not "ridiculous to not include the D-word in the first sentence" because deity adds nothing to the reader's understanding of what God represents. It's difficult to not fall into a dictionary definition of God, but I don't feel that the term "God" is fully represented by the term "mythological deity"...it's not broad enough in scope and (as I've just said) doesn't say anything about what God really means to most people.

So in conclusion, I don't feel that "ultimate reality" or "mythological deity" represents what we want here...but I don't really know what does! (Thinks: "Hmmm...'mythological reality'? 'ultimate deity'? No no no no no...) I think you should probably remove "ultimate reality", Waggers, because it is over-complicating the introduction unnecessarily to have two terms there, and the consensus (at least on this Talk page) seems to be that "mythological deity" is the preference. Robertjessetelford 16:18, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, right now it's "deity or ultimate reality". Anyone disagree that that should be change to, simply, "mythological deity?". As far as avoiding dictionary definitions, I disagree. An encyclopedia should go beyond just a definition, but there is nothing wrong with stating the definition in the introductory sentence. --Serge 20:54, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure "mythological" is the best word to use. "God", in many, many cultures, goes far beyond whether there are actually any stories, legends, or myths about God. KHM03 21:03, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Knock off the POV-pushing. If you want to believe God is "mythological", keep your POV to yourself. Let others make up their own ind and don't push your POV on wikipedia. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 21:09, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

mythological?

According to the referenced mythology page, it seems to apply: "stories that a particular culture believes to be true and that use supernatural events or characters to explain the nature of the universe and humanity." There is nothing inherent in the term "mythological" that implies something is NOT true. This is not POV pushing. This is what it means. It is your POV that the term does not apply to God. I don't want to get into an edit war, but I will add it one more time. --Serge 21:35, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd have to say that the use of the term "mythological" comes across as injecting a less-than-neutral point of view. In the perception of many people, the term "mythological" is incorrect. Mhking 21:40, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Many people have trouble reading, true. But should we write down to their level? --Serge 21:59, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

It's not npov, and I'm going to continue to revert it. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 21:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Can't we just find a better word? Compromise can work. KHM03 21:47, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Mythological is the correct word. What would be a better one? I'm all for it if you can identify it. --Serge 21:57, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

No, that is your POV and it will not pass consensus here. You are only disrupting wikipedia to make a point, which is not far off from vandalism in this case. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 21:59, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the sentence still works if we just drop the word altogether. KHM03 22:01, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

• No, "deity" is the correct word. I agree with the opinions above that "mythological" carries strong implications of untruth. Of the four definitions for "myth" given in the American Heritage Dictionary / 4e, two are explicitly fictional. I agree that myth need not be untrue, but this is how it is perceived by readers of English. It is strongly POV. bikeable (talk) 22:03, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

• Is this gonna be another case of "prove that fan criticism of Gundam Seed Destiny is unencyclopedic"? I'd tend to agree that using the word "mythological" makes a value judgment, but unfortunately, in the context it's used, it's the correct word to use given the content of the article. My two cents. Danny Lilithborne 22:09, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

"Deity" is certainly correct in the context here, however, "mythological" is certainly not. It implies a defined point of view. Mhking 22:15, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

• • Actually, I'd say that "mythological" doesn't denote a point of view at all, but instead is a word that tells us that the article has to do with the many different civilization's idea of the omnipotent deity that rules over all that we call God. It doesn't necessarily imply that He doesn't exist. Danny Lilithborne 22:17, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

• • • It certainly does imply that, even if the word can be used correctly in a technical, anthropological way without meaning to imply it. From AHD/4: myth: 3. A fiction or half-truth, especially one that forms part of an ideology. 4. A fictitious story, person, or thing. The technical meaning of "myth" is less strong than the connotation of falsehood, in my view. bikeable (talk) 22:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Now it says, "God is the term used to denote the Supreme Being believed by the vast majority..." Talk about definition of mythological... God is the quintessential mythological figure! Such blatant POV. No wonder Wikipedia is ridiculed as much as it is. --Serge 22:22, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

However it's defined in Wikipedia, "mythological" does have connotations. Perhaps the popularly accepted meaning of the word has changed over time - that's another debate - but to me, (and many others) mythological refers to the realms of fantasy and so is definitely POV as far as this article is concerned.

I don't see any need for an adjective in front of "deity". Certainly it seems the majority of editors on the talk page believe "mythological" to be very much POV. Waggers 22:30, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Some interpretations of the word involve mythology. Those would be a lower case "god" which is discussed at deity. This article is about something entirely other. Sam Spade 23:08, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Hahaha, I now think you're all wrong! ;) (and I think that it now says Supreme Being again is a step backwards...) Robertjessetelford 23:10, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Of course, since I got to the talk page, read all the comments, and clicked back onto the article...it's been changed again! Robertjessetelford 23:13, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

"Mythological" implies a lack of truth, and while that may be the case for some, it is certainly not for others. "Deity" on the other hand, is certainly accurate in this context. Mhking 00:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

in English?

The current intro sentence is:

God is the term used in English to denote the deity who is believed in monotheistic religions to be the creator and ruler of the universe.

What is the point of specifying in English in an encyclopedia written in English? It seems odd, out of place, and redundant. I'm taking it out. Reverts - please explain your reasoning here. --Serge 07:01, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

It may not be necessary. I only added it because, without it, someone might get the idea that this name is used universally, across the board in all monotheistic religions. As far as I know, that spelling is not used in any language other than English. But, one would hope our readers already know this much. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 13:43, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

God is topic in mythology

The current introductory paragraph includes the following statement:

Theologians and philosophers have discussed conceptions of God since the dawn of civilization.

I am changing it to:

Theologians, philosophers and mythologists have studied countless conceptions of God since the dawn of civilization.

I think it is a more accurate and rounded statement regarding the many conceptions of God. Mythographers study conceptions of God too. --=Serge 23:27, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

You feel that God is not real. You want to insist that God is mythological. I got it. I understand what you're trying to say (though as a Christian, I respectfully disagree). But isn't that a point of view? And isn't the point here to eliminate a non-neutral point of view? Mhking 23:39, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

You can add mythographer if you want, but it makes it at least LOOK like the author is pushing a point (in my view). I think maybe there should be a section in this article entitled "disputed definitions of God's status as myth" or something, considering the length of this debate on the Talk Page! Robertjessetelford 00:22, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Quite a bit of the myth/mythology articles and their talk pages discuss whether or not it's accurate to say that those terms suggest falsehood. We really don't need to repeat that debate on every article about something that is relevant to mythology, especially on one as visible as this one. The article should avoid referring to God as mythological; however, saying that scholars of religion and mythology study various conceptions of God isn't unreasonable from my perspective. -Sean Curtin 00:53, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree, and that's all this last change asserted. I'm putting it back. Please do not revert unless you have a NPOV argument. --Serge 06:48, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I have pulled it because the following 'graph talks specifically about how theologians and philosophers discuss God as a concept and as an entity. The presence of "mythologists" in that statement offers no such discussion, and looks more like a way to shoehorn a POV into the article. Serge, why are you so insistent on the notion of mythology in relation to God, even to the point of adding that point of view to the piece? Mhking 01:19, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Mythologists also discuss conceptions of God. That's the point. Why editors are motivated to make changes is irrelevant to whether the edit is NPOV or not, which is all that should matter. Why are you so insistent about removing an NPOV statement of fact? But, whatever, somebody else can add it back in. --Serge 08:04, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I would beg to differ - the statement is not an NPOV statement; it is one that puts forward your own point of view. Mhking 13:31, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Every statement represents someone's view. The standard is whether the statement is true from a neutral point of view, period. If it also happens to coincide with someone else's POV (which surely it does), even the one making the statement, is irrelevant. --Serge 05:16, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

misrepresentation or just ignorance?

the translators of the KJV chose Exodus 6:3 to put the name YHWH as Jehovah, but the better choice would have been Exodus 3:15. Moses asks what is your name? and is given the answer --you shall tell them I AM THAT I AM, but in parallel in the next verse :15, he is told, you are tell them YHWH, this is my NAME and a memorial to me for all generations. and I can think of no better place to have the name than this, but perhaps that would be too disturbing for trinitarians who would just like to ignore that the OT god had a name and it was not JesusJiohdi 00:44, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

• sorry, wikipedia has an article on the factual history of the lord messiah jesus christ, because he was real, if you want to go ahead and create an article called Historicity of the jewsish old testament god then go ahead, but it will surely be deleted since it would be petty vandalism--152.163.100.10 16:13, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

External links

What makes some links "personal web site" and others not? It seems like there are some special interest hound-dog edit-bullies who are guarding the external links section from what they feel are "commerical web sites" and "personal web site". Why have any of the bottom links at all? What makes some worth including and others not? More and more it seems like Wikipedia is run by turf wars of those with special interests. -71.37.100.127 21:32, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

For instance, why is Vincent Cheung's "systematic theology" included and theopedia.com/God, not? Is there some objective criteria being used? Sure doesn't seem like it. -71.37.100.127 21:34, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I can't speak to the Cheung link, but the Theopedia link represents a particular brand of Christianity (and not the largest or second or third, for that matter), which is already adequately covered. KHM03 21:52, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

KHM03, how does the Theopedia article on "God" itself represent a "particular brand of Christianity? -71.37.100.127 22:01, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Read the Theopedia site description; it's a self-professed conservative Calvinist/Reformed site. Nothing wrong with that (as long as we say that), but we already present the Christian POV in a more "general" way. This article isn't a linkfarm on which to put up all links which may relate. Besides...the link you cite isn't anywhere near as comprehensive as this article...it's filled with stubs and very little info. Hardly a worthwhile addition. KHM03 22:20, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

KHM03, you didn't answer my specific question. How is the article on God particular to a specific flavor of Christianity? It seems very broadly treated. That this "article isn't a linkfarm on which to put up all links which may relate" doesn't give an objective criteria for accepting/refusing links, especially those more relevant. Given your criticism of the Theopedia article being non-comprehensive, you would think you would have scrapped the wikichristian link long ago. I get the feeling there is an unresvolved, unspoken issue. -71.37.100.127 23:14, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

The issue for me is that the WikiChristian article was already linked prior to me looking at the article; to be honest, I'd never really looked at it. If it consists of the same lack of info at Theopedia, then it shouldn't be here. We could list dozens or even hundreds of links to Christian articles about God, but that's not why there are external links on a page. With WikiChristian listed, that covers Christians wikis in adequate fashion. Why link to another Christian wiki which only represents a small group among Christians (relative to, say, Roman Catholics or other, much larger groups than Calvinists)? What was on that article - which, as I noted, had little info and several stub notices - that is so crucial that it must have a link here? Please review WP:EL. Thanks...KHM03 01:46, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, please review WP:SPAM. KHM03 01:47, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

KHM03, you still need to answer the question of how the Theopedia's article on "God" is itself narrow to a subset of Christianity. The article's contents are descriptive of classical Christianity: the arguments for the existence of God, the attributes of God, the knowability of God, and basic redemptive history, etc. This is far from being particular to a denomination or flavor of Christianity. Also, you still need to more articulate an objective criteria for external links. You sound like you are prejudiced toward wiki-ecumenicism. -71.37.100.127 02:26, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Not at all, but I'm also in favor of countering systemic bias and giving an overpowering Christian slant to an article that isn't about a strictly Christian concept. Wikipedia standards state that an external link ought to be something worthwhile. What is at the Theopedia article that is not covered elsewhere on Wikipedia or at one of the links provided (such as the one at WikiChristian)? Remember, we don't need a link to a strictly Calvinist article, or we may see links from every denominational family under the sun (I had thought WikiChristian was more "general", but may be wrong). So, what's at the Theopedia article that you think needs to be linked here? KHM03 02:31, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I doubt adding a link or few would give an "overpowering Christian slant". By your questions are you implying that external links have to give information that can't be gathered on Wikipedia articles themselves? That doesn't seem like a good or fair or helpful objective standard--certainly not one applied to elsewhere. You still havent answered my main question, and you continue to, without merit, generalize Theopedia's "God" article as "strictly Calvinistic". What about the article makes it strictly Calvinistic? As I said before, the "article's contents are descriptive of classical Christianity: the arguments for the existence of God, the attributes of God, the knowability of God, and basic redemptive history, etc. This is far from being particular to a denomination or flavor of Christianity." -71.37.100.127 04:07, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

External links should be independently useful and highly topical. A very link for a very specific set of beliefs is uneccessary and counterproductive on a page that is about a highly general topic (like this one). JoshuaZ 06:53, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

The content of Theopedia's article on "God" represents classical Christianity and not a "specific set of beliefs" (take a look at it yourself). KHM03 has been repeatedly asked to point out what in the article lends itself to a particular brand or flavor of classical, historic Christianity, but is thus far unwilling to elaborate. -71.37.100.127 19:53, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I should have read the link before writing my reply. The only issue on the link that is specific to certain denominations that was obvious to me was the Trinitarianism which his held by almost all christians. I therefore do not think thay over specifity is an issue in this case. However, I'm not sure that the link should be added to the external link set; I'm not convinced the link adds anything substantial that isn't already covered by what we have. JoshuaZ 20:42, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Which is part of the point...why add a link that doesn't add anything substantial to the article? Another point concerned the self-professed POV of Theopedia, which represents a particular subgenre of Christian theology (specifically, a subgenre of evangelicalism). Aside from the fact that the link didn't offer much, the precise POV may "over-represent" the Christian viewpoint (see WP:BIAS). All in all, there's no reason to include it...especially since no case has been made for its inclusion other than, "Why not?" KHM03 00:05, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I have been trying to keep up with this discussion, and no offense, KHM03, but the question was never simply "Why not?" You obviously don't read well (i.e. listen) nor do you interact with the questions asked. You allowed JoshuaZ to speak for you, agreed with him and called it a day. The Theopedia guy at least deserves a straight up answer from you rather than you beating around the bush. Nonetheless, it appears the issue is over with, but for future notice, it'd be good if you could answer questions that were asked to you more than once. Wikipedians deserve better treatment than that. 71.103.29.52 05:20, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikireason: God debate link. I placed it there so people have an opportunity to go to the new wiki debate site and to give them an opportunity to debate the issue of God. Someone, however keeps elimiating it. The Discussion area should be specifically on the article and other debates should be removed to wikireaon. I would like your thoughts... H0riz0n 11:34, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

It's a link with no content and is therefore inappropriate; thousands of links could be listed...we certainly can't link to a site with no content. KHM03 (talk) 11:44, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

First of the link does have content. Second it is merely inviting people to participate in the debate about God. Please clarify how the link is in violation with WP:EL as you have alluded to. The fact is as an Evangelical you dont like a link to where people can freely debate God, and the fact that there is, I imagine, is personally offensive to you. You may not want to debate God. But others have the right to opening debate God and wikireason is a new wiki for debating issues and idea--even as sensative as God. H0riz0n

It contains no content; it's an invitation to create a site, essentially, not a site with already useful material. If you review WP:EL, you'll find that we should only link to sites which illuminate the subject, not sites without material (this seems pretty sel-evident). Additionally, the link exists not to provide information, but to promote a specific site, in violation of policy (this is known as "spamming"). Regarding your inaccurate claim that I as an evangelical oppose debate and your apparent intolerance toward people who may be different from yourself, please review WP:CIV and WP:NPA, which you have violated. Thanks...KHM03 (talk) 12:24, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

It has content... So when you say on your talk page: "I am a Christian who is committed to evangelical Arminian(sp)-Wesleyan theology as well as classical "consensual" ecumenical theology." you're lying? My humble apologies I thought you were not lying and telling the truth. My bad, I’m sorry. And there is content... a number of debate links still need to be expanded and was hoping maybe folks here would care to jump in. If I remember correctly "God is Evil" needs to be expanded. But I’m no authority on the subject. Logic Tree argument for God’s existence are on the page…but need to be improved significantly. All these arguments would be a useful resource for anyone interesting in constructing a logical debate on God. Personally, I really don’t care about the link. You all know it exists now if you want to add it go for it... I’m gonna go debate an issue more reverent than "Is it Content...or is it not Content that is the question...nt lol H0riz0n 15:20, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

H0riz0n, watch it. KHM was exactly right to remove the link, which points to a place which may someday be, but is not currently, host to an enlightening debate on the subject. I would bet that there are thousands of groups, web pages, blogs, fora, and now wikis where people are free to debate God, but until one has the status of talk.origins we shouldn't be linking it. bikeable (talk) 16:42, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

GOD AND SPIRITISM

Someone has said Spiritism is not about God, but only MENTIONS God, but I think it is untrue, because Spiritism is absolutely about God (see by yourself), and mainly cite and explain things about God that was never solved. I won't desist, I still believe I will get to explain the logical reasons to link Spiritism to God. (posted by User:Jesvane)

Although I am not a Spiritist, and being totally against later mediunic pratices related to partial possession of the physical body (even if by good nature entities as "Spirit guides" aiming to aid people who look for them), I agree with this user's point of view. The reference he had introduced as "The Spirit's Book by Allan Kardec" is, from my point of view, a higly valuable reference source to this article and expresses the perspective of millions of followers worldwide, since the 19th century, about God. --GalaazV 20:46, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely not. By this logic we should add a link here to every religion. Wikipedia is not a link farm. JoshuaZ 20:54, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree. KHM03 21:42, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Intro bias

I have restored a cited intro. While it is clearly open to improvement, it is important that it not be replaced with what I found: uncited bias. God is not "a" deity, he is the absolute infinite. This article is not about Zeus, or gods, but about the singular monotheist, pantheist, or panentheist entity. It is important that we not lose sight of that. See Deity#Singular_God. Sam Spade 06:50, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

"vast majority"

I believe it is considered appropriate to ask others before introducing new POV; however, I guess we'll do it the other way.

Sam has re-added this first sentence:

God is the term for the Supreme Being believed by the vast majority [7] [8] to be the creator, ruler and/or the sum total of, existence.

We have discussed this before, see here. I contend that "vast majority" is a vast POV overstatement.

Of Sam's two references, the first is behind password protection, but the title in Google's cache is "Gallup: Poll Finds Americans' Belief in God Remains Strong". The second is part of a BBC series of notions of God around the world, and presents strong data for Nigeria. Other data from the BBC poll is interesting, but we don't have any idea what the questions asked were, so I can't base my opinions on world religion from this one poll. (For example, a question about a "higher power" might not refer to God.)

Looking at adherents.com, let's take some numbers of people who are not part of Sam's "vast majority". 394 million practictioners of Chinese traditional religion do not follow a God in the sense of this article. The 376 million Buddhists are most certainly not theist. Those two groups account for roughly 13% of the world's population.

Of 1.1 billion "Secular/Nonreligious/Agnostic/Atheist" we don't have great information. The graph says that half of them are "theistic but nonrelig.". Half of 1.1 billion is another 9% of the world population.

Finally, of the major groupings, I think that a great proportion of the 400 million who follow primal-indigenous and African traditional religions do not worship a God in the monotheistic sense. (Also, I don't think Hindus follow a God in the same sense of this article, either, but I won't quibble with that for the moment.)

My count, then is that something between a low of 376+394+550 = 1320 million = 22% and a high of 376+394+1100+400 = 2278 = 38%, taking only the major groups, do not believe in God. I don't know where the cutoff is for "vast majority", but to my mind it's well above 90%, and this isn't even close.

Finally, I would point out that the previous wording ("God denotes a deity who is believed by monotheists to be the sole creator and ruler of the universe.") avoids the problem of estimating number of adherents, and is a better solutions.

Comments, please! bikeable (talk) 16:27, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Concur with your findings, and support the verbiage "God denotes a deity who is believed by monotheists to be the sole creator and ruler of the universe." per reasons given by Bikeable. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:35, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree, too. It might be true that the majority of people in the world believe in God, but obtaining hard evidence for that is never going to happen, and including it in the article is just inflammatory. As such it's bound to invite vandalism, and this page gets enough of that already. Waggers 16:48, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Another concurence here. JoshuaZ 16:54, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. I made the change back to

God denotes a deity who is believed by monotheists to be the sole creator and ruler of the universe.

I would have no problem with "majority", but I take issue with "vast majority", and this wording sidesteps the issue altogether. bikeable (talk) 06:12, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I took out "vast", and added some other content. I hope this is a good compromise. Sam Spade 10:25, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Object to "majority" as unecessarily qualifying.

Christianity 2,039 million 32% (dropping) 
Islam 1,226 million 20% (growing) 
Hinduism 828 million 13% (stable) 
No religion 775 million 16% (stable) 
Chinese folk rel. 390 million 6% 
Buddhism 364 million 6% (stable) 
Tribal Religions, Shamanism, Animism 232 million 4% 
Judaism at 14.5 million is less than 1% of the world population. 

Believers in a monotheistic God, singular, is only a bare majority. Given the margin of error, it may not even be that. Further, who believes is more germane than how many believe. Strongly prefer previous wording. "God denotes a deity who is believed by monotheists to be the sole creator and ruler of the universe. " KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:01, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Strong agreement with the murderous puppy. The fraction of people who believe is not nearly as relevant as what people believe it. If they want to know how many people are monotheists, there are other places for that. JoshuaZ 17:24, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

As an additional point, the three polls Sam added as sources are the same three as discussed above: two are the US only, and the third has abiguous wording. The US is not the world. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:33, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

The third is the BBC. Don't replace cited info w uncited bias. The facts are clear, and there are plenty more cites where those came from. God is not exclusive to monotheism, he is to be found in dualism, pantheism, panentheism, henotheism, and etc.. Sam Spade 19:53, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

And yet it was ambiguous, meaning it doesn't fit the context. In non-monotheistic religions they are "gods" not "God". Jim62sch 13:22, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

• I've reverted Sam Spade's changes to the intro again. Sorry, Sam, but I (along with the others above, apparently) believe that the heavy-handed phrasing is strongly POV. bikeable (talk) 16:51, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I've been thinking a little more about the first sentence, which is (I agree with Sam on this much) rather clunky. I can't find a good, non-POV way to make it clearer. I would like to get rid of "denotes", which seems weak for what ought to be a strong intro sentence. Here are a few examples:

1. "God" is the English name for the supreme deity, who is believed by monotheists to be the sole creator and ruler of the universe.
2. "God" (when capitalized) is the English word for the supreme deity, believed by monotheists to be the sole creator and ruler of the universe.
3. "God" is the supreme deity, believed by monotheists to be the sole creator and ruler of the universe.

Note that in the first two, the subject of the sentence is the word itself (as with the current sentence, "denotes"), whereas in the last the subject is, you know, God. In this sense the latter is preferable, but it's a strong statement. This would not be POV if it were in a context: thus for Zeus we can get away with saying "Zeús ... is the leader of the gods and god of the sky and thunder", only because we are adding, "in Greek mythology." But it's hard to add a contextual qualifier to God. Any thoughts on how to rectify this in a non-POV way? bikeable (talk) 17:47, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

What about:

God is the English name for the Supreme deity in monotheistic religions, and is believed by adherents of such religions to be the sole creator and ruler of the universe. Avedomni 22:52, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Or:

"God" is believed by monotheists to be the supreme deity, sole creator and ruler of the universe.

but I have to say I like the current one better, "denotes" is less objectionable than "is believed to be" IMHO. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:14, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I Would Love Anyone's Help!

Hi,

I know you are interested in christianity, and I recently started a new wiki over at wikicities which is on the subject of christianity. Christian Knowledge Base is the site.

The goal is to have a knowledgebase on christianity from a distinctly "C(hristian)POV" rather than the NPOV. It is not meant to be a mere Christian Encyclopedia, but to foster a real sense of community. I'd like to include things like current events, news, stories, and anything that would add to both an understanding of Christianity, but also its enjoyment. I'm looking for help to build a resource that could really enrich the lives of Christians.

I know you are busy but I am actively seeking new sysops/admins to help me build this site up, and I would be positively thrilled if you could contribute in any capacity whatsoever. Empty2005 01:40, 26 March 2006 (UTC) Cheers :)

Listing the attributes of God

Hey this is Dwalton512, what about a short writing on the Attributes of The God of the Bible.

There are two groups of attributes that most Biblical scholars use.

1. Non-Moral Attributes: According to Henry Thiessen these are those prdicates of the divine essence that do not involve moral qualities. - Omnipresence: "Omni" is a Latin prefix meaning all and so for the God of the Bible to be omnipresent means He is present everywhere, all the time in his completeness. - Omniscience: This means that the God of the Bible knows all things: Past, Present, and Future. Thre is nothing that God does not know. - Omnipotence: This means that God is all powerfull. He is able to do all things that do not controdice the law of noncontrodiction and that does not go against his Attributes. - Immutable: This means that God is unchanging and forever the same.

2. Moral Attributes: These, according to Thiessen, are those necessary predicates of the divine essence that involve moral qualities. - Holiness: This means that the God of the Bible is separated from all moral evil and sin. - Goodness: This is God's benevolenced on man kind. God blesses all of mankind in many ways yet he does not have to. - Truth: This means that God cannot lie or do anything contrary to who he is. God must and does act in accordence to who he is and what he says.

There are many more attributes but maybe this will get us started... what do you think??????? SOURCES: Lectures in Systematic Theology, by Henry Thiessen. Systematic Theology by Charles Hodge.

I would suggest specifically that something like this could be included under the section "Conceptions of God." It could go under a new section "Traditional Christian attributes of God." Or the section on the "Biblical definition of God" could be divided into two parts: 1) "Biblical references to God's character" and 2) "Traditional Christian attributes of God.” The article would probably benefit from some basic reorganized so it is difficult to say where this list should go, but I would agree that the article should include a brief list of the most basic attributes of God from traditional Christian systematic theology.--Jjhake 19:16, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

monotheism, majority, and the value of citations

God is not only for monotheists. There are also henotheists, pantheists, panentheists, deists, dualists and dozens of others who worship God. Secondly the number of worshipers is relevant, someone would come away from this article with a piss-poor understanding of God if they didn't know a clear majority of people alive today (much more historically!) worship God. The number of editors is completely irrelevant however, WIkipedia is not a democracy, nor is any book of reference. Last but not least, removing relevant citations, esp. because they contradict your POV (which you should not be pushing btw) is extremely intellectualy dishonest, and brings into question what inspires you to edit an encyclopedia in the first place. In sum it is agressive POV pushing, intellectually dishonest, and is tantamount to vandalism. Don't do it.

If you have your own facts to cite, or some ideas for re-wording, please bring them to the table, I am glad to hear. Simply be aware that intellectual rigour is a fundamental necessity for encyclopedic discussion.

Cheers, Sam Spade 16:40, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

• there are people alive today outside the USA
• people will come away with a 'piss-poor understanding' no matter what if they read only the first sentence. Policy assures you get to discuss your points. It does not assure that you get to shove them into people's faces in the first sentence of the intro of the God article.
• it is questionable to subsume all sorts of pantheist-panentheist-dualist-higher_power-gut_feeling "theists" under monotheism
  • what's the point of insisting on a majority of theists, even if there is one? In antiquity, the vast majority of people was certainly polytheist. Does that go anywhere towards establishing the Truth of a polytheist worldview? At best, it goes towards showing that theism or animism is hard-coded in our brains, a fact that even the most seasoned atheist will accept with a shrug. So the majority of USians like to muse there is a single God? Interesting, state that on Demographics of the USA or somewhere.
• don't stuff external links into the body of a well evolved article. Use <ref> if you must.

--dab (ᛏ) 19:51, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not here to argue for God's existance, but rather for a quality article. Discussing the number of believers is about as relevant as anything could be for the intro. Sam Spade 20:31, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Believers of what? True monotheism (which is relatively rare), modified monotheism, henotheism (which is an interesting scoial theory, but quite possibly incorrect)? &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 10:19, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I doubt the comment re seasoned atheists (or even agnostics for that matter), but you're right about public opinion. Had Christianity not had Paul and Constantine, we'd probably all still be polytheists. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 22:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

RfC of Sam Spade

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Sam Spade - I've started the RfC on Sam Spade based on his reverting and avoidance of discussions on various articles. Feel free to comment, but please remain civil. -- infinity0 17:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

WWE

Can't I add in the article that God is recruited into the WWE? I know it may sound like a joke but it is actually true.

• Sounds like a joke to me. Danny Lilithborne 01:21, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Its a non-notable publicity stunt. At best it belongs in some article about the WWE. Some people may think that the WWE is so influential on humant thought, history and culture that it deserves a remark here about its influence/recruitement/whathaveyou on God or the notion of God. I would disagree, and I suspect, so would most Wikipedians. JoshuaZ 01:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

What's the WWE? PiCo 01:59, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for proving the point PiCo. They are the "World Wrestingling Entertainment" the largest producer of professional (that is staged) wrestling in the US (possibly the world, not sure). Wikipedia has an extensive article on them if you really care. JoshuaZ 02:30, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Last Monday, Vince McMahon said he would team up with Shane McMahon to take on Shawn Michaels and God. I thought that it would be suitable to make an article saying that God will be partnering with Shawn Michaels at WWE Backlash. Even the WWE website says that God will team up with Shawn Michaels. JoshuaZ, I understand your statement, but do you think what Vince said was a joke? Caffolote 06:14, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I frankly don't care whether it was a joke or not. There are at least 10 other comments about God that I would stick in here and have had more actual influence and encyclopedic value than whatever junk Vince McMahon is saying. I know we have problems with localism both social and physical on Wikipedia, but this is ridiculous. JoshuaZ 03:43, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

• Pretty much any rational person does. Danny Lilithborne 03:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, your right, JoshuaZ. Sorry about that. Caffolote 03:54, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. Your a new user and new users(and old users even) sometimes make suggestions that turn out to be sub-optimal. The good thing is that you came to the talk page first to ask about, which is perfectly in accordance with procedure. Glad to have you as an editor. JoshuaZ 04:24, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Holy shit, this should be at BJAODN. I can't believe you did not take this a as just a joke. Lapinmies 17:11, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

God and popular culture

The WWE thing brings up an issue: we don't have an article on God in popular culture. (i.e. movies, tv etc.) does anyone think this would be a good topic for an article? JoshuaZ 04:25, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

A way to make that WWE edit valid (though it was funny)? Actually, it's not a bad idea. CMacMillan 04:54, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Can some one give me a copy of the print screen from earlier where it was on wikipedia before it was taken down? Though some people may CHOOSE to be offended, it is a fact that it was said and therefore since it has happened it should be documented. Whether it is blashemous or not is not the point. But then again Wikipedia is technically not an encyclopedia cus it can and a lot of time is based on OPINION when an encyclopedia is based on FACT.

However I do agree with Mr. MacMillan. Even if it is listed under a different heading, even if a different article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.69.223.205 (talk • contribs) .

---

Please review basic Wikipedia policies such as WP:NPOV and WP:NOT. We're here to write an encyclopedia, and while an article on God in popular culture may be interesting and encyclopedic, under no circumstances should any wikipedia article be "based on opinion". Wikipedia is not a soapbox. —Spangineer^[es] (háblame) 06:39, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Why Would People Argue?

Why would people argue the exictence of god? Its pointless. God is something that people belive in, Something thats always there. God doesnt have to be physically real,people, civilizations need something to argree on, that one thing is religion. Everyone has a religion even Atheists. A religion is something you believe in and follow. No matter who your God is you belive in him or her or it. The whole WWE thing, is stupid, its not funny at all. God is a balance in our socity. It (God) sees no difference between rich and poor, black or white. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.137.126.72 (talk • contribs) .

"Everyone has a religion even Atheists" - actually that statement is very much disputed by most atheists, and religion is generally not defined to mean what society agrees on. Not to argue or anything, I'm just pointing that out... –Tifego^(t) _{23:41, 8 April 2006 (UTC)}

• Might/might not argue with it, truth is, "God" is still an extremely broad subject that Wikipedia has an article of. Whether or not people follow it doesn't mean we shouldn't have an article for it that discuss what available, panorama, and include the discussion that some people believe that God, is, well, a nothing.

Now, to discuss this issue, is not for here, but http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion. And, true, people do argue that there is no God... no denying that. (It's in the article, right? Gotta be) Colonel Marksman 17:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

What I ment by the Atheism comment was that they belive in not beliveing, which is what people who belive in god belive in him, which is what religion is based on, beliveing.

WTF?--130.191.17.38 23:36, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

It is irrelevant WHY they argue it, but for the purposes of this website, God should have an article. He's undoubtedly the most influential figure in human history, whether He exists or not. If they want to argue that He's fake, they can do it on the Atheism Page. Demosthenes 1 01:29, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Kisaski

• The article claims Kisaski is "Japanese God incarnate". The link is red. Does anyone know more than this? Danny Lilithborne 11:52, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Citations

I added a pretty straightforward idea to this article earlier and it was removed, saying I need a source.

Now I add a source and am told it's not sufficient for a "non-noteable" opinion.

The standards keep changing. Do I need to belabor this with a source in a peer reviewed journal like Philosophy and Theology?

Will that finally let it stand? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.84.178.82 (talk • contribs) .

Pretty much, yes - or at least a vaguely reputable source (a newspaper commentator might do if it wasn't just a passing joke). This is an encyclopaedia after all, and you'd be unlikely to find Britannica citing the opinions of anonymous Geocities webmasters. See reliable sources for a fuller explanation. To be honest, it sounds more like an amusing witticism than a encyclopaedic point. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 08:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

the New Church

Does not seem notable or influential enough, or a large enough segment of monotheists, for inclusion. If we include The New Church at 50,000 members, we surely should include Sukyo Mahikari at 1,000,000, who worship the "Su God", also known as "Revered-Parent Origin-Lord True-Light Great God". Information from Adherents.com. Neither is significant enough to warrant inclusion in this article. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Negative Theology

I do not understand how the following comment can be empirically proven:

"God is not non-existent"

Rdr0 21:42, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

It cannot be proven empirically or otherwise because the lord GOD almighty is holy and extant above all things.

I put the logic of your idea into the article for you.

That did NOT represent what I said at all! I ought to fix it. Thank you for your effort though, you are a supreme contributor. ForbiddenWord 17:48, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Kurt?

I typed in the word Kurt in the search engine (looking for Kurt Cobain) and it brought me here. After highlighting the word Kurt in all it's forms, the name didnt come up once. Is there any reasonb for this?

isn't kurt Cobain God?

Qur'anic conceptions of God

Having removed irrelevant commentary from this section, there is almost nothing left. Muslim editors are sorely needed.

Also, I've changed the section title, as "conceptions" is inaccurate - if there is one thing on which the Qur'an is clear it's this, "concept" is fine - further, as the Qur'an is not mentioned, "Islamic" is more appropriate.Timothy Usher 09:43, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Split?

Intriguing. Please discuss.Timothy Usher 10:52, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

God typically is used as a name for the Judeo-Christian God. The Hindu version is usually referred to by his names. When people search for 'God', they are more often than not searching for the Judeo-Christian version, not the Hindu. Yahadreas 10:55, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

In English, given the Christian influence on the language, you are of course correct. Of course, one might point out that the word "God" (or more accurately Ishvara or Brahman — relatively non-secretarian names) are frequently used in Hinduism (see henotheism). Whether "people...are more often than not searching for the Judeo-Christian version" is debatable, given the quantity of text related to Hinduism on this page. That said, this article does seem more of a mess and hodge-podge of ideas that would do well as separate pages, if only for the sake of clarity. That leaves open the question, however, of the fate of this particular page. Do we leave it as a brief summary of various accounts of God — more clearly defined on their respective pages — or dispense with this article altogether? ^iggy_talk 11:10, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Keep, trim if indicated, but do not turn into a disambig page. Link child articles if appropriate and not linked. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:59, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

As, in the English speaking world, God typically refers to the Christian God, it would make sense to use this article to refer to this god only. This, after all, is the English language Wikipedia. As you say,iggy, Hindus refer to God as "more accurately Ishvara or Brahman"; they use the names. I am not certain, but I am sure that most Christians do not refer to God as Yahweh or Jehovah. When people use the word 'God' in the English speaking word, it is almost always associated with the Christian God, and so this should be reflected here. Yahadreas 12:31, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Strongly disagree. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:47, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I disagree as well. Many Hindus speak English and they refer to Ishwara or Brahman as God (Ishwar translated into English). Infact, as a Hindu interacting with Hindus in an English speaking world, I must have heard the word God used to represent the Hindu God more often than Ishwara and Brahman (Brahman is a more esoteric concept). Yahadreas, when you say the word is most associated with the Christian God, I am assuming you are basing it on Judeo Christian settings and not Hindus. --Pranathi 17:47, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Pranathi, I am basing it on Judeo Christian settings; after all, I do live in a predominantely Christian environment. I don't actually have much experience of Hinduism and am merely assuming. If Hindus do refer to their God by the term 'God', then I will yield. I won't push further. Yahadreas 11:09, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I always forget about the dangers of qualifiers... I said "more accurately" only because those are transliterations (though not the only possible ones... Ishvara = Ishwar) of (Sanskrit, in this case) terms that are generally translated as "God" (note the qualification about being non-secretarian). As Pranathi points out, most Hindus speaking English have no problem with the word "God" and, in fact, make frequent use of it. Anyway, moving back to the discussion of the split, I rather like KillerChihuahua's comments above: trim if indicated, but do not turn into a disambig page, except I tend to think some trimming is called for. ^iggy_talk 02:30, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Spitting God into two? Why not split God into three while we're at it. Traditional Christians should have no problem with this. But, seriously, I agree that this page is slightly biased toward a traditional Christian view, but what can you do about it. It is in English, and most English speaking people either are Christian or are influenced strongly by the Christian view. Majority rules. It doesn't matter if you are right, it matters what most people think, so if you want it to say something else, you just might have to change what most people think. I would love it to say, "Most people believe that Jesus Christ is the One God of Heaven and Earth, Yahweh in the flesh." Although it is true what I said about Jesus, it is not true that most people believe it, so I have a lot of work to do before it will say the truth on the God page of Wikipedia. Jasonschnarr 22:58, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

The American Heritage Dictionary defines God as "A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions."[9].

The clause "...the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions," is arguably not part of the definition, but only a reference point. In other words, God is still God even in a religion where God isn't the principle object of worship.

"It is in English, and most English speaking people either are Christian or are influenced strongly by the Christian view. Majority rules."

That's true when it comes to definitions of words, but it shouldn't be true with articles we write about the concept to which those words refer. If the Hindu Ishvara or Brahman is "A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe," then it deserves inclusion, as it's topical. The only other justification for a split would be article length, but if so, I'm not clear why the Hindu concept (if indeed it meets the definition of God) ought be the first to go.Timothy Usher 23:15, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with the statement most English speaking people either are Christian or are influenced strongly by the Christian view, partly because it isn't true. But also because this has nothing to do with bias or christianity. There are two deffinitions for the word god. There is God as in We worship you Oh God, which refers to the specific often JudeoChristian diety. There is also the more general god as in the greek gods which could refer to any diety. It is possible (although unlikely in my opinion) that the former is significantly more commonly searched for by english speakers, in which case it might be reasonable to make a God_disambiguation page and add a link at the top of this one. Olleicua 03:14, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm confused on what the split is attempting to accomplish. There is already a clarification at the top of the page that this is about the monotheistic God and not greek gods. If Abrahamic religions only are considered monotheistic - such views don't befit an encyclopedia. A Hindu can say We worship you oh God and make perfect sense. Truly confused, ---Pranathi 21:29, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

poular culture

I moved the link as to god in pop culture to the see also section as it doesn't need its own section Olleicua 03:22, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Merge with God

The God article is already about the monotheistic God, and is far more developed than what we have here. WE should think about what parts of this article need to be in God but aren't there already, add them, and redirect.Timothy Usher 07:51, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Wait a friggin' minute...I'd tried to post to Talk:God (monotheism), only to realize that the talk page is redirected here, but the article is not! I'll fix that.Timothy Usher 07:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Etymology section edits

The information about the various theories regarding etymology was arrived at through consensus by a VAST number of editors. Any alterations to that consensus require a new consensus to be developed here first, not summarily rewritten. (Common wiki-courtesy for something this big!) ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 11:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

The etymology section in this article (which I hardly need point out isn't a minor one) is a serious embarrassment to Wikipedia. It has been filled with a large number of spurious etymologies fallaciously connecting the Germanic word with a large number of languages completely unrelated to Germanic, and in some cases invoking false comparisons with those languages that are (distantly) related. There is a very strong consensus in the linguistic community about this. As for the consensus of "a VAST number of editors", I have gone through the discussion archives and I find no discussion of the bad etymologies at all, and what discussion of etymologies there is supports the changes made. So there does not appear to be the consensus you claim. RandomCritic 21:07, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

As the article states, "The original meaning and etymology of the Germanic word god has been hotly disputed".

When something is "hotly disputed", you don't cut out all the other viewpoints except your favorite one and supress or censor all the rest. That's not NPOV, it's favoring only ONE pov. There is enough room in the section to give a voice to the other views, even the ones you disagree with or find embarassing. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 22:07, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Neutral point of view: "We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view, and views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute."

The erroneous sections of the Etymology section of this article are not even representing a minority view; they are simply unsourced individual accumulations of errors to a text that was originally not so bad, which were never reviewed or discussed.

The error of asserting an IE root "khu" was introduced by user Pmanderson on September 20, 2005, 23:12 under the comment of "simpler representation of IE"; Pmanderson replaced the graph of g-acute with a k, which was not simpler but merely wrong. Nobody caught that a major change had been made. There was no discussion.

The "khoda" reference was introduced by user 68.71.99.45 on March 17, 05:32-05:33, making the claim that "The origin of the the word God comes from the Pesian Language in the form of khoda or khuda, which was then used by Hebrew and Indo-European tribes in the form of gudda". No source, no verification, and a citation of a non-existent word. This isn't a "hot dispute", this is something made up by a user one day. A brief review of Indo-European_languages will show that Persian is not an ancestor of either English or Hebrew; consideration of the dates of the languages mentioned will show that the earliest Germanic (Gothic) form of the word "god" goes back to a period before Modern Persian even existed (or, to the point: before xwadāy became khodā). This was labelled "citation needed" for months, but a relevant citation was never provided. A reference to Catholic Encyclopedia, later added, which is not a linguistic authority, and does not even address the major claim, is not acceptable.

"Waheguru" was added on April 5, 22:35 by user 24.76.249.222. No discussion or comment. Possibly this was just a mistake, taking the list of (supposedly) etymologically related words as a list of names. No attempt is made to show how "Waheguru" could be cognate to "god".

"Kadavul" was added on April 25, 21:22 by user 61.1.210.199. No discussion or comment. Tamil is a Dravidian language entirely unrelated to the Germanic languages.

These are not examples of a POV in a "hot dispute", these are examples of people idly jotting down something that seems plausible to them (but which they've never researched) or simply making casual errors. If somebody with a modicum of linguistic knowledge had been paying attention, they would have been corrected immediately. Part of the editorial process at Wikipedia is detecting and removing such errors; the fact that an error may have been undetected for several months doesn't sanctify it.

As for the Geat/Gaut thing which you restored, can you explain what relevance you think it has to the etymology of "God"?RandomCritic 10:48, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Anyone doing etymological research can see that the Anglo Saxon word "god" comes from the name of one of their gods when they were polytheistic, it has been written about for centuries... This god is mentioned in all the genealogical sagas including the AS Chronicle, the Eddas, right there with Woden and Thor, and many think these were chieftains and that the god-hero-ancestor known as "Geat" eponymously gave his name to peoples for whom were named the Goths (possibly Getae in Latin), Jutes, etc. etc. All of this deserves to be mentioned, and does not deserve to be hidden from view. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 13:08, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not possible that *ǥuđa- comes from *ǥauta- (>Géat, Gautr). This confuses sharing a common root with descent. (Whether there is a common root is debatable on both sides; *ǥuđa- may not come from *ǵhew- -- this is really the only "hot dispute" here, between an IE root *ǵhew- and another *ǵhewə- -- and *ǥauta- may have nothing to do with the verb *ǥeutan.) The claim is the same as saying that because Latin deus shares the root *diw- with the name Diana, this proves that deus derives from Diana. Actually it shows nothing of the kind; the two words have developed separately from the common root. Even if it were true that both *ǥuđa- and *ǥauta- could be traced to the IE root root *ǵhew-, it would not add anything to our understanding of the word "God", which goes back to *ǥuđa- but not to *ǥauta-.

If that doesn't help, then please cite some sources for your Gaut > God hypothesis. If it's your own private view, then it counts as "original research" and by policy would not appear on Wikipedia. If you're representing something that you've read in a book or article, then it would be of great help to provide titles, authors, and dates, so that readers can evaluate the source. Furthermore, if such a hypothesis was published in a reputable source, it has just as certainly been refuted in another reputable source, and having a citation will help me track down where that refutation has been published. Fair enough? RandomCritic 14:22, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Why the omission of yogh form proto-Germanic " Ȝuđán " in favor of the g-stroke? Barnhart dictionary of etymology uses the yogh version; which seems closer to the Germanic usage whereas the g-stroke is from the Latin Skolt Sami alphabet. I originally had the yogh variant in the article. Nagelfar 00:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Misrepresented Kabbalistic View

I am suprised that there is so much emphasis on the similarity between Kabbalistic and panthesitic beliefs. Anyone with a passing knowledge of Kaballah knows that this is in error. Just because we are saying that the table is G-d, doesn't mean G-d is the table. Similarly I can say that your arm is you, but that doesn't mean you are your arm. Think about it-it makes a world of a differnce. Unfortunately this vital distinction is lost on most critics. I'd like fix it up, but its so far gone I'm not sure where to begin.

External Links being Suppressed (RfC opened)

The link below is being removed. I oppose the censoring of this valid POV, which centers on the central philosophical questions involved in an intellectual conception of God---one examines its internally and externally consistency and rationality. This is central to the ideas and debates surrounding the question of conceptions of God, no matter what is ones POV. I feel this is being removed simply because of its non-religious premise and method, i.e. it measures conceptions against standards of science (known laws), and against logic and rationality (many Christian thinkers reject this appraoch). These secular, humanists and philophoical links are particularly effective in demonstrating these POV as it is interactive allowing the user to play over and over, coming up with differnet answers, which also yeild different analysis, according to the above criteria. I note the analysis and feedback is very informative and as well as accessable. It has the effect of allowing the reader a deeper understanding of the philosophical questions involved in the notions of God.

I will abide by the 3RR rule so I can not restore it now, but I urge other editors to oppose the censoring of these links, by restoring them.

• Philosophical issues involved in conceptions of God. Test the rational consistency of your thinking.

Giovanni33 01:39, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

The POV is fine, Giovanni. Find scholarly sources that state the points the quiz is trying to make (for instance, the ones it cites as its inspirations) and cite them. Noted philosopher so-and-so says the concept of God is self-contradictory because so-and-so. That's fine. These links just play games with the readers.

Moreover, despite your invocation of "standards of science", there appears to be no empirical basis whatsoever for the "plausibility quotient" - the theoretical underpinnings are just the creators' ad hoc philosophical observations. That's not science anymore than is religion.Timothy Usher 01:58, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

In the external links section there is no requirement for only "schoarly soucres that state the points." There is no rule that the POV can not be presented in a novel manner, as long as it does a good job as doing so. This cite is of quality and does that. For an article, yes, in the text it must say "noted philospher so-and-so says...", but not for an external link.

Also, you misunderstand the sense in which I said that it models its working understandings from the stanards of science. Its not a specific empiracle study, its the scientific assumptions employed in methodological and ontological naturalism in a general sense. This is because the philosophical measuring yard stick that is used is logic (consistency), rationality, and known laws in physics (materialism). They are theoretical and philosphical, and they are the basis of the scientific world view--hardly the same as religion.Giovanni33 02:48, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

You describe the "create your own God" as "fast, easy, and fun" when linking to that website from your own user page. Hardly something that belongs in a mainspace article. AnnH ♫ 10:44, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Why not? It is fast, easy and fun (for me), but is also informative and relevant to the topic. Most of the same ideas and concepts can be found here, for example, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evil/ however, this just does it in a more novel, interactive way that does make it more interesting, more fun, and more accessable. I don't see why this means it does not belong as an external link.Giovanni33 11:00, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh great, let's slap a quiz page on all the other articles, too, then. Danny Lilithborne 23:04, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Did you even try it? Its not a quiz of any sort.Giovanni33 23:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Click some check boxes, hit submit, get a page with a bunch of numbers explaining your choice? Looks like a quiz to me. Danny Lilithborne 23:20, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm willing to drop that one (the first one), if you agree to support the second one, which is more complex, and not a matter of checking boxes.Giovanni33 23:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I've removed one links as a compromise, leaving the more complex one to stand. I've opened up a Rfc on this issue to get more editors to comment before the usual editors who usually support me start to show up and then this devolves into the typical edit war.Giovanni33 06:48, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

The "17 questions link" is a good one but I'm not sure it belongs here as it's not really about God but about how people rationalize their concept of God. I would suggest one of the philosophy/theology articles but I'm not sure which - will have a look around and let you know. Sophia 07:00, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Just checked the other link and would say the same thing - has merit but is in the wrong article. Sophia 07:03, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, Sophia. But, in looking at this article there are three sections in particular with do deal with the very same philosophical issues, and so it therefore seems apropos for this article in so far as this deals with the very same philosophical issues. True, its focus is on rational consistency, but rational and logical consistency is a main part of the philosophical critques that are used in arguments against the belief in the traditional conceptions of God. In anycase the three sections most relevant in this artcle are: :::http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God#Conceptions_of_God

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God#Abrahamic_conceptions And,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God#Parodies_of_God_and_religion

Also you will notice that afterwards the site gives you a "Battleground Analysis", in which refrs to, in my case, "beliefs about God are internally consistent and very well thought out."

Lastly, external links should be independently useful and highly topical. This is a page that is about a highly general topic, and so my link is likewise general but still topical to the core issues of conceptions of god which have as much to do with philosophy as it does with religion.Giovanni33 07:21, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the forementioned links add value to the article. They are educational and entertaining at the same time. What WP policy or guideline do they contravene? --Blainster 07:42, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your words of support Blainster. I feel the same way. I am a firm believer (as an educator) that learning should be made fun, and entertaining. The two are not mutually exclusive as some seem to think.Giovanni33 07:45, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the links add value to the article. They are also educational, informative, despite what Timothy says.Kecik 08:27, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

So, tell us, "Kecik", as asked of User:MikaM and yourself on Talk:Adolf Hitler, which you never answered: are you or are you not Giovanni's puppet? As of now, it seems G33 has violated WP:3RR again.Timothy Usher 08:40, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

No, I am not a puppet as others have explained to you many times. Your question is insulting and a violation of civility. I will report you if you do not cease.Kecik 08:51, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Kecik in this matter. Your contant false accusations, even afte a user check has cleared any connection, and despite logical argument and evidence being given to you on your talk page, you persist in making these accusations, which prove bad faith on your part.Giovanni33 08:54, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't see the link as adding much to the understanding of the subject, much more of testing and experiencing internal logical consistency of one's values. Since the main aim of the link isn't about the article, but more about the implications of one view of the subject, it would seem that it could be put somewhere else. Obhaso 00:29, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

True, the link tests rational consitency, not of values, but of philosophical possitions relating to ones conceptions of god. But the fact that it does so about the ideas of the subject matter is the point--in the words of Marshall McLuhan, the medium is the message. In grappling over the philosphical issues and testing rational consistency of ones thinking about them, it educates a reader and forces them to think about these very issues. What are these very issues? The arguments used on both sides about philosophical conceptions of god, of which ]logical consistency is at the heart of the arguments made by philosophers. So, while it does test an editors own consistency, the is only an end. Its the means to that end which is an end in itself. This is why its perfect for this article.Giovanni33 01:20, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Other puppet

You know, Kecik33, that other editor is a "new" username for indefinitely blocked user User:Robsteadman.Timothy Usher 08:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Who are you, the wiki-police now? Rob is a good editor and you should not spread negative news about his alleged old account. Is he bother you or doing anything disruptive on wikipedia? No. Are you? Yes.Giovanni33 08:50, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

That's one more 3RR violation through puppetry. Is that not disruptive? Is your inept and farcicle attempt to create the illusion of several agreeing editors on the talk page not disruptive? How about the near-daily talk-page flooding centered on your own sophomoric philosophical speculations? Is that not disruptive?Timothy Usher 09:06, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

No, its not because it doesnt exist. These are all fabrications on your part, which is what is disruptive. Your entitled to your opinion, no matter how wrong it is (as it certainly is), however you are not entitled to present your accusations as facts and then spread them around where you see fit. That is what makes it both personal attacks and disruptive. Your message above is just another example of this pattern you have established. I suggest you stop before you get in trouble.

Oh, and btw, you did not answer my question about focusing on Rob, or reverting his edits twice in your reverts. Are your reverts just careless and blind, or do you oppose his edits, too?Giovanni33 09:14, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Rosa 09:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Robsteadman, like Giovanni33, was shown by technical evidence to be using puppets, who voted the way he did. He was banned indefinitely for abuse and trolling, particularly at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Deskana and at his own talk page, which has now been deleted. He returned as Robertsteadman, and did not continue the pattern of his previous behaviour. Administrators (including myself) discussed the matter, and decided to allow him back on probation under certain conditions, which he agreed to, and which he seems to be abiding by. We would like him to be given a chance to edit productively, which so far he seems to want to do. The Robertsteadman account is not a puppet account; it is a new username for a user who wishes to start with a clean slate. He lives in the UK, and there is no connection between him and Giovanni, other than that they share the same POV, and vote similarly.

Giovanni33 arrived in January, made a lot of big 3RR violations for which he was warned but not reported as he was new. Then, after he had met with opposition, some new users appeared, and began to revert to his version, follow him to other unconnected articles without being asked to, and help out with votes, reverts, and talk page support. They were all informed of the policy on puppetry, and were warned about edit warring. Their first 3RR violations were not reported, but eventually they were reported and blocked. Finally, the checkuser results came through, showing that Giovanni was Belinda (they had put up an active pretence of not knowing each other, but Giovanni now said she was his wife). They were both blocked. During the block Freethinker99 turned up, said he was new and had read the Christianity talk page and agreed with Giovanni — and then reverted to Giovanni's version. After a huge blunder[10] where Giovanni denied on his talk page that he had any connection to Kecik, MikaM, and Freethinker99, — and forgot that he was actually logged on as Freethinker! — Freethinker was also blocked. Giovanni then said that he did know Freethinker, and was at his place, showing him how to use Wikipedia, and hadn't seen the name Freethinker when he denied knowing any of the editors. Since then, there have been several more newly-created accounts that started by reverting to Giovanni's versions. Genuine newbies do not normally know how to carry out a revert, and do not have the confidence to edit war.

So where does Kecik fit into this? The checkuser showed no link between him and Giovanni. Note that a checkuser cannot show that there is no link between two users — only that they don't make their Wikipedia edits from the same IP. Many users have access to more than one IP. Getting a friend to join in order to help out with reverts and votes is prohibited, and checkuser cannot prove one's guilt or innocence in this. There is extremely strong linguistic evidence linking Giovanni to the accounts that support him, including Kecik's. And they display similar behaviour. If you have an account which exists for the purpose of supporting another user, then you will be accused of puppetry, regardless of whether or not a usercheck shows a match. Kecik has been here for four months. He has 42 article edits, and 37 of them are reverts to Giovanni's version. His seventh edit (one day after registering) was a vote for something Giovanni wanted[11] on a page that he was unlikely to have found by chance. Giovanni has shown in the past that he's capable of violating the puppet policy in order to get his own way, and Kecik, from Day 1, has behaved as a puppet. AnnH ♫ 11:43, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I think this whole discussion is off-topic to this article and only serves to distract from it. I guess that was the purpose, but since it is here I might as well respond breifly. I will say that the way you tell the story is getting much better, so I have to give you credit. Ofcourse there are different version to retelling a story (history), but this rendition is more accurate than previous times, however there are still some problems with it. Specifically, with my friend Freethinker, it was simply not a case of not seeing him but that when the question was asked, it did not include Freethinker among the editors I was asked about on my page. That is why I answered as I did. It was only added later, after I had read the initial message and was already in the process of making my reply. See here: [12] It would be silly to deny any connection to someone at whose house and PC I was using to reply on my own talk page about, even if he were not logged onto his account. I'm aware of userchecks, which is why it would make no sense to lie. Also, as soon as I saw the question about Freethinker, right after I answered, I amended my answer to state I did know Freethinker. I never archived my talk page to hide anything. So all my history is open for anyone to see.

The other problem with the way the story is told is that it leaves out some pertinent information. For example, the fact that Kecik and MikaM (and anyone else who supported my POV on the Christinaity page, including Sophia), were all user checked at the same time. The results? Only BelindaGong showed a connection to me. Ofcourse, BelindaGong is a separate person who lives with me. And while I never denied any connection to her (no one asked), it's true I did not want it to be known for various reasons, and I pretended to not know her in my interactions. However, even though I tried to hide a connection, the user checked exposed it. It did not expose MikaM or Kecik. Why? They were all checked at the same time. One would logically expect that if they were my puppets they would have also been discovered along with Belinda, who I did not want it known I was connected to in some way. Since my desire to have this connection hidden failed, then so would any others who were checked at the same time. Why would I use different methods at the same time? And why two other users, who edit at both different times and at the same time that I edit, proving its not me going to different locations as was suggested. Lastly, with these editors, while I do agree support my POV, this is not proof they are not separate people, or have any connection to me in real life. Lately I have discovered we do not always agree, either, and we do not edit all the same articles, nor to they come to my assistence at times you'd think I want to use them if I were the puppet master. I think in time this will be shown further to be the case if they start to pursue their own interests and stop thinking they need to support poor, picked-on Gio.

In anycase, I have never had any socketpuppets, and for Timothy to keep making this charge on talk pages, stating his belief as it it were an established fact is both wrong and disruptive to the purpose of an article talk page.Giovanni33 13:14, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

capitalization edit conflict, God vs god

My reasoning is that it should only be capitalized when it's a proper noun, and lower case when it's a common noun. It should have nothing to do with religious meaning, just use plain correct English rules. Nouns that can be either proper or common, depending on usage. Since 'god' as a noun can be either proper or common, then its capitalization is based on that usage. It is extremely rare that a proper noun would follow an indefinite article (a or an). It's far more likely for a proper noun to follow the definite article (the). Examples of an entire class of exceptions: I bought a Big Mac and fries. I gave my son a Game Boy for Christmas. Take a look at how I capitalize the word mom in the following sentence: I told my mom, "Thanks, Mom, for being the best mom ever." In the case where its talking a particular god who is identified as only one, its clear that we are dealing with a proper noun, the name of the thing, hence God. Otherewise, if we are talking about the abstract concept, god, it should be lower case.Giovanni33 09:35, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Please stop edit warring

Can I suggest that you all work on the potential article split as this may solve some of the problems you are currently having. Sophia 10:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

either unexistent of calvinistic

let's be honest. he sits and watches us suffer through these terrible "trials" and doesn't offer aid for those in the most pain. and yet you praclaim he "care for everyone"?? Thats hypocrisy in the extreme!! what the hell? oops I said hell! sue me !--Institute representative 18:29, 25 May 2006 (UTC)