From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Former good articleGod was one of the Philosophy and religion good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
November 22, 2005Featured article candidateNot promoted
December 13, 2005Good article nomineeListed
February 15, 2009Good article reassessmentDelisted
March 15, 2012Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Delisted good article

Semi-protected edit request on 24 June 2018[edit]

Change to sources - book newly out

Almond, Philip C., God: A New Biography (London: I.B. Tauris, 2018) Repalmon (talk) 04:57, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: Unless something was specifically mentioned in the article from the book, it need not be noted here.  spintendo  06:34, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Hat notes[edit]

@Realphi: when reverted, you are expected to discuss the issue in order to form consensus instead of restoring your edits (please see WP:BRD, WP:ONUS and WP:CONSENSUS). I'll however let your edit stand for other editors to assess it. If someone reverts it, here is where you should justify why these should be in the top hatnote. To me, these appear redundant with the right navbox which includes links to Creator in Buddhism and God in Jainism. It is also unclear why the hat notes should point to such general articles (as opposed to the more specific aforementioned links). I also don't understand why we should select Buddhism and Jainism links without also including the others (which again the navbox already has, for balance). Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 19:52, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

@Obscurasky: as another editor who recently edited the hat notes, your input is also welcome here. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 07:27, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
@Obscurasky: , @PaleoNeonate: : Jainism is the only other non-monotheist religion (with the exception of lds ) that has the concept of omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent "personal supreme being" and that is not my fault. Realphi (talk) 19:38, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
@Realphi:, please remember the definition of monotheism is the belief in one god. Concepts of omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent personal supreme beings have no bearing on that definition. You may find it helpful to read the article Monotheism. Regards Obscurasky (talk) 08:29, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
@Obscurasky:, I agree. That's the reason Jain god is in hat notes, not in main article.


All images representing God should not be removed. We use name[s] for God although He has no name as same as he has no appearance, so it is analogous. --Obsuser (talk) 02:07, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

But if a god "had no appearance", how could man be made in its image? Codenamemary (talk) 20:50, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
As we've been over way too many times, there are these ideas called "abstract thought" and "symbolism" which the rest of humanity is able to grasp and use to refer to God. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:54, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
It is still, unfortunately, a conundrum. Legally, I also wonder if it is wise to publicize a picture as being of a notoriously reclusive celebrity without their written consent. It could all just end very badly. I would hate to see that happen here. Codenamemary (talk) 21:28, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
It's a picture of God because someone makes a picture and says "That's God," and then for many many years, people look a that picture and say "Nice God you got there." It's not an advanced theological exercise to look at The Creation of Adam and go "God". Wikipedia is agnostic to iconoclasm, and is not the place to debate the issue. GMGtalk 21:35, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply.Codenamemary (talk) 22:19, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

@Codenamemary: It can be made because He is Almighty and knows everything, at least according to the (islam [system of]) belief (and when I want to get up from my chair, I believe I will do that successfully – I cannot know I will for sure; so I think everything is about correct belief). --Obsuser (talk) 21:21, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Is 34 edits in the past four years worth an ANI thread these days? GMGtalk 21:57, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
All of their contributions to this topic engage in behavior that's either trolling or a WP:CIR case. If they did not have contributions elsewhere, I'd go ahead and block. Do you think that'd be a better idea? Ian.thomson (talk) 22:00, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Well at this point an outright block would be a little awkward. An hour ago it may have been a better decision to swat the fly away, ignore its buzzing, and carry on. I don't particularly care either way. It just seems a little silly. GMGtalk 22:33, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Good morning to all.

About the page preview in the search toolbar, some may agreee that the actual picture

is a scandal, as it may readden as blasphemous. Probably, there is no SYMBOL of any single religion that may be universal. The best thing would be to avoid any image in the preview, because some religions don't allow them at all. This is a"most-read" website in all the Web, and the article is actually blocked. I strongly recommend to put it as the last picture (or delete it).

2nd point) It is worst than the one linked before.

I suggest and ask, please, to delete or move'x' the first and second picture.

Hope in the intervention of a burocrat or administrator. Thank for Your attention.Micheledisaverio (talk) 05:17, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored and nondenominational (secular). But the above posts on the same topic may also help to understand why the images are used. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 05:35, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi @Paleoneonate: hopefully it is not censored, as SO is free and open. Monads aren't a common view of God, man and world, or not so diffused to justify its position at the top of the article. Even if for some people and faiths may be an holy image, the "perceived message" will be probably very different (like blasphemy):
2nd) referred to the Most Holy Trinity, I was highly impressioned by the following: .
It shows how that each of three divine Persons have a relation and communion wit the others (John chapter 10, verse 27), and not uniquely in the unique God. It can also be found at the following link: the first picture of this collection: it seems to be in the public domain and not a WP:copyright violation. It has the same tradition of the Shuoed of Trinity compared with this example
3rd) since WP is a collaborative project and I am not an administrator, I can't modify the picture, without looking for a (new) reverted edit. I think in this case it shall apply Wikipedia#Common sense and decision making and WP:IARM.
4th) the merge with the Supreme Being doesn't solve this type of graphical issue.Micheledisaverio (talk) 08:27, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Many Wikipediaa are using images of the Sistine Chapel (City of Vatican). I would like and wishthe image of the Mesha Stele, which is the oldest archeological evidence for the name of Yahveh.Many Wikipediaa are using images of the Sistine Chapel (City of Vatican). I would like to suggest the insertion of the Mesha Stele, which is the oldest archeological evidence for the name of Yahveh.

It may the first (or sec9nd) picture of the article, in order to give a rapresentation for Hinduism and Abrahamitic religions.Micheledisaverio (talk) 14:48, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Definition of pantheism[edit]

Would a more accurate definition of pantheism than the one offered here be the doctrine that everything is God?Vorbee (talk) 16:40, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't know. God is everything, thus every thing is part of God. So, by pantheism I don't understand "my watch is God". Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:14, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
Because “my watch is God” is a category error if claimed to describe pantheism/pandeism. Hyperbolick (talk) 14:15, 18 August 2018 (UTC)


Should Supreme being be merged here? Editor2020 (talk) 03:10, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

I think so, they're essentially talking about the same thing and any variation can ironed out easily enough. Obscurasky (talk) 10:46, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
Agree, more disparity within the article itself on God than between God and supreme being. Unibond (talk) 13:26, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
I thought I’d oppose this but after reading the other article I do not. Hyperbolick (talk) 14:13, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
I processed the merge after the unanimous responses here. One note is that there may be a few citations to pull from the page history, but not related to God so much as the specific cults referenced. UpdateNerd (talk) 04:17, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
Isn't there supposed to be sufficient time allowed for community involvement/comment/discussion? Unanimous or not, how can a day be enough time... Shearonink (talk) 04:36, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
I'd agree on a procedural point, but WP:SNOW. Is there really any reliably sourced and noteworthy use of "Supreme Being" that does not also completely overlap with some reliably sourced and noteworthy definition of (uppercase G) God? Ian.thomson (talk) 04:38, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
I also support the merge, but have pointed UpdateNerd at WP:MERGECLOSE in case it's contested again. —PaleoNeonate – 04:42, 19 August 2018 (UTC)