Talk:God/Archive 8

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 15


In Canaanite Mythology El (god) was the father of mankind and creator of creatures. He was for all purposes, attributed as the god of the desert such as that given to Yahweh. While El, in the myths, did not appear to have omnipotence it is most likely that the Hebrews accepted this god as their chief god on the way towards monotheism. It could further be hypothesized that the omnipotent aspect was borrowed from the Hebrews affiliation with the Babylonians. In that mythology, Marduk became the supreme god, complete with artifacts of omnipotent powers. According to the Old Testament (if accepted as science fact) Noah and Abraham, both worshipped El, and other gods, until it was revealed that El stood alone. Yaweh, then took on the attributes of Marduk and El. It is unclear where the pre-Islamic pantheons fit into this, as the works have been destroyed or lost with the inception of Islam in Arabia. It is possible that those gods were somewhat similar to that of Canaanite gods, as Allah was the chief god among those peoples.

why do we have a "mythology" section now? this article is too long already. move to Elohim or YHWH, or, well, Mythology. dab 12:46, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I agree, this section would serve us better elsewhere. It should be merged tho, not deleted, of course! [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 15:47, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Allah = God?

In a religious studies class currently and reading the Qur'an. They do not choose to translate Allah into God, even though it should translate directly. Even speaking to them, they refer to the Christian god as "God" (even though they express that they are the same thing just one is 'misinterpreted) and their god as "Allah". Not sure if this has anything to do with anything, but it seems the definitions are missing something...

Jayon 16:46, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This is a difficult and involved topic. My POV (I am an inclusionist in the religious sense) is that most religions worship God, but simply under different names. Clearly, many disagree. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 17:17, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- That is POV, of course. Many (such as those Muslim's in which I spoke) agree that they 'might' be the same, but that one was mistaken. "that most religions worship God, but simply under different names" could easily be taken offensive by some since 'God' is more a proper noun and is mostly associated with Western Religion. Granted in other languages it is the same 'Dios' and 'Deus' are just capitalizations of the word 'god', yet I have found that 'Allah' (even though spelled different) is still used there. It would seem like 'God' is a proper name for a diety that 'doesn't have a name' or believed to be 'beyond a name' or some such.
-Jayon 17:39, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
For me, God = All, the absolute infinite, universal consciousness, the Atman, etc... [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 18:36, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Allah = God is standard Muslim doctrine, and good enough for this article. Dissenting voices can be included in Allah. Of course, Muslims will say that the Trinity was a terrible idea, but that doesn't change Allah = God. The Christians just got a muddled version :) dab 19:13, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
There are those (and they are already mentioned in the article, or were) however who insist that only their church worships God, and that every other church, denomination and religion worships satan, ba'al, baphomet, or what-have-you. Read over a Chick tract some time ;) [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 19:26, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
It's all the same deity, since Islam was basically a branch of Judeo-Christianity, just like Christianity was a branch of Judaism. God, Allah and Yahweh are at least conceptually the same basic entity within these religions. --bainer 23:30, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the religions are historically related to each other. However, they have mutually exclusive concepts of God; some think God exists in three persons (i.e. as a Trinity), others think this is an impossible or blasphemous or polytheistic idea. Very very few people think that both conceptions of God can be equally valid at the same time, at least among those who genuinely believe that a deity exists. Thus there has been some internal debate among Jews and Muslims concerning whether Christians are even monotheistic. Wesley 17:35, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

In looking at this disscussion I expected to see a lengthy edit war. Said war's absence is a clear sign of wikipedia's integrity and maturity. As I understand it, god has two meanings, the proper noun, god which refers to the judeo-christian god as well as allah and there is the regular noun. Regardless of whether there actually are any gods besides the judeo-christian one, the noun is still a valid noun. the etymology section seems rather biased on this point (also seeming to insinuate that paganism is dead). as example, even though lightsabers may not actually exist, we should not say dispute the credibility of the noun, 'lightsaber'. I'll leave this for a month to see if anyone objects and then alter it if there are no objections. Also a note monotheism is a very small portion of the worlds religeous community. It's all fine and good to believe something but please don't put it in an encyclopedia. Olleicua 03:39, 12 August 2005 (UTC)


Who is disputing what, and why?

[[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 08:56, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I thought you had added the notice at some point? I think the article is quite fair now. Although we need to cut the weaselisms. "The religions widely thought of as monotheistic today" may be npov, but it's horrible stylistically. Can't we just define what we mean by "monotheistic", and then talk about "monotheistic religions"? dab 11:50, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Not unless your been swayed by my reasoning (or intend to be ;). Suggesting that eastern thought is not monotheistic is POV, IMO. I know your trying to discuss the origins of western monotheism, and if you clarify that I'll be fine w it, but I reject the western ethnocentrism of assuming Judaism was the first monotheism, while ignoring other traditions. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 12:05, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
"the modern monotheistic religions" are Islam, Christianity, Judaism. full stop. (though there are minor ones, of course). I am not trying to include eastern religions under the term, because they are happily undecided in western terms. Judaism was not the first monotheism, western or not. first strict monotheisms appeared later, propably as late as Hellenism. Henotheism otoh is older than Judaism (but cannot be shown to be older in the Far East than in the Ancient Near East) dab 14:03, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Far east and ancient near east blend into the Indian sub continent, the very potential contridiction of your thesis. I fear that trying to invoke any clear beginning of monotheism (as opposed to western monotheism) is prone to error, and would assumably end the "happily undecided" status of eastern religions (including Hinduism, Budhism, and Jainism). I'd rather leave it ambiguous, or focus on western monotheism alone, where I am somewhat confident we'd find little disagreement. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 16:56, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
sure, I agree. "Eastern religions" came into existence in the 1st millennium BC, though, and whatever people in India were up to in ANE times (2nd and 3rd millennia) , we just don't know. dab 17:22, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
They seem to have some ideas ;) [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 09:32, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I slipped the words "a term referring to" into the first line defining another controversial encyclpedic entry and immediately it was reverted... But here, the author has used and even longer similar qualifying phrase, "a term referring to the concept of" to define "God." "God is a term referring to the concept of a Supreme Being..." I inlcuded thisin POV, which I guess means "political correct version, though I dont know what the O stands for in P.O.V. and Non P.O.V.? Just a curiosity, not a complaint, and more about other pages than this one which to me seems quite rightly to start with the definition of the word as a word before stating absolutes.--T. Mc. 00:20, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Post Human God

this sectoin of the article seems to me to be open to some interpretation, did Clarke mean in the quote that was litteraly create God in some physical form or that he is a construct of collective human beleif? this quote seems like the surrounding context would clear that up.

I think this concept is an ill defined one no matter where you look. Transhumanism and singularity are good leads. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 23:41, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

some mortals can become gods in some religions nad mythologies. Gabrielsimon 08:57, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Does God exist?

What valid proof of God is there?

What valid proof is there of ANYTHING? Ungtss 03:40, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I am

[[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 23:39, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
tattvam asi, Sam dab ()
Ja! :D [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 12:22, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I refer you all to this because I am a cooch who writes a lot. Lockeownzj00 05:31, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
You are ? — 3 July 2005 03:40 (UTC)

I think I'll interject some conventional HGTTG wisdom into the issue. You wish to proove that God exists? Suppose you find irrefutable proof of god's existance. Well proof removes faith. And without faith god no longer exists. And (to quote Douglas Adams directly) God disapears in a puff of logic! Olleicua 22:03, 13 August 2005 (UTC)


Recently edits by Jordanblue added a reference to Rael and its website directly in the article. I personally think that it should not belong the main article but (if really necessary) in the links section. What do you think? Nova77 17:49, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)


hey this article (and this talk page:)) reads good enough now to be nominated as a featured article - too drowsy to do it now and tomorrow weekend chores backlog to be cleared so dont know if i'll remeber. blokes*, think about nominating this.

  • [i'm brit feminist rastafariafrogitan[a/o] for me bloke means any sentient being.]

Not even close. Request for peer review, maybe. Inserting a copyedit tag would be more like it... Blair P. Houghton 21:08, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

1st sentence

God is the supreme being, generally believed to be ruler or creator of, and/or immanent within, the universe.


God is a term referring to the concept of a supreme being, generally believed to be ruler or creator of, and/or immanent within, the universe.

To me the second is ridiculous, but lets hear what everyone thinks. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 02:52, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The first assumes that God exists; the second is neutral and factual. Jayjg (talk) 04:38, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
how is the first NOT ridiculous? It's like saying in the GWB article, "Bush is a fucking idiot," or "Bush is a fucking genious (even if the first one is true ;P)," it's completely POV. Ipso facto and all that. Lockeownzj00 05:38, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

God = supreme being. You can say God doesn't exist, or that a supreme being doesn't exist, but you can't say God isn't a supreme being. And "a term referring to the concept of a..." is a joke. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 20:37, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

How is it a joke? When you say, "love refers to the concept of human affection," it's perfectly normal--you don't say, "love is great," or "love is human compassion." Because even though were are trying to be NPOV, a statement that is seemingly objective like "God is" really isn't. Do you study languages? I do. When you define a word in another language in, let's say, English, you say, "Ai means love." You do not say "Ai is love." Besides it being grammatically clunky, it is hard to exact ambiguous concepts like that.

You can not say "God is the supreme being" as the article stated in its earlier form. This is inherently POV. "God" isn't a supreme being. God is a word to describe this concept.

Besides, this is also more about the CONCEPT of God. God is not always a proper name. Lockeownzj00 21:18, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Interesting. I do study languages actually, particularly german. In german, God is Gott, root of the english word Good (as well as our word "God"), and which, when traced back far enough linguistically (to its indo-euro roots), seems to mean "libation". That said, I think the intro could use a bit better prose, but its neutral enough at this point IMO. Cheers, (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 22:59, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
here, this is what I was on about. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 00:18, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the first is ridiculous, to someone who does not believe in God (or even believes in multiple gods or a specific god), "God" is not the supreme being, so the first statement is automatically false. Whereas the second statement, while you may dislike its wording, is fundamentally true regardless of the reader's personal beliefs. I for one think that just "God is the concept of a supreme being..." without the "term referring to" would be fine, but the current form probably is the least POV...--Lord Shitzu 08:45, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

Just for fun, see how the second construction sounds when we're talking about a different concept. For instance, "The United States President is a term referring to the concept of a president of the United States, generally believed to be the head of the United States' government's executive branch, and either residing in or occasionally visiting the White House." It's certainly neutral, but it's awfully awkward prose. Wesley 16:55, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
It's certainly "fun" except for the part where nobody disputes the existence of the President of the United States, at most they dispute his legitimacy, whereas there are a number of people quite willing to dispute the idea, the very concept of a god. And again, I think the "term referring to" is unnecessary, however "God is the concept of a supreme being" or something of the sort is necessary.--Lord Shitzu 23:29, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
What do you think of this one?:
God is the One Supreme Being, believed by many exist to exist and rule or and/or beimmanent within our supposedly created universe. -- Subramanian talk 10:54, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

overly biased. Gabrielsimon 09:13, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

How can you say what he is, then say that it's doubtful he exists?

Patrick Beverley
I think we can all agree what God is, regardless 'if' he is. Like human imagination, or the color blue, most everyone knows what it is, but it doesn't exist except in the heads of various people.
Writing by committee??? I agree the opening is pretty goofy. I guess that's the NPOV doctrine showing it's multiple personality side(s) again. ;-) RDF 00:42, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

the image

we have Michelangelo's painting further down, so I don't like the cropped image of "God's face" appearing in the intro. How about this (an example of Christian use of the Tetragrammaton, in the Bourges Cathedral). Or some 17th century woodcut with a hand emerging from a cloud? Showing the face in the intro seems a bit too much on the anthropomorphic side. This may also be an article that should go without any image in the intro. dab () 13:21, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think it would be best not to have any image in the intro. Wesley 16:56, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Next time someone here poses with God, snap a picture. 07:52, 25 August 2005 (UTC)


the quotes should go to wikiquote. that's why we have wikiquote, no article should have a "quotes" section. dab () 05:47, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

i put them all in wikiquote, and deleted the quote section Olleicua 22:40, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

God as Fictional/Literary character?

I think that the article "God" should also note the idea of "God" as a fictional or literary character in western literary and pop culture. Boyko

(note that the above comment was unsigned)
(So what? Now it's not... It's easy to forget--and I'm sure the Boyko was NOT acting in bad faith. Emyth)
I disagree. Just because He appears in a great deal of fiction and literature doesn't affect what sort of character He is. Whether one believes He is real or not, I don't think His appearance in such works is significant enough to warrant an encyclopedia entry. --Keeves 20:51, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I beg to differ with your disagreement: The appearance of "God" as a character in a wide variety of stories, films, plays, poetry and other literature is really quite fascinating. It most certainly affects what sort of character God is... Theologically speaking, the issue as to whether or not God is anything more than a figment of our religious imagination is one of the most important, hotly debated and interesting topics. "What can we learn about God by studying "God"?" is a fascinating question for some theologians. There are books, articles and college courses taught about this issue, therefore, any encyclopedia worth its salt will reflect that fact. Perhaps it will end up as another article... "Fictional depictions of God"... with a link under "See also", would that work for you? Emyth 20:36, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

Where did the word "God" come from???

When did we start calling God "God"?--Luckybeargod 16:39, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

When the Saxons introduced the Germanic deity Gott. JFW | T@lk 16:54, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

for the person who made a comment about omnipotence in the edit summary

think omni + potent = potency everywhere.

also see power and [1].

power means the capacity to produce effects. without the capacity to produce effects, one does not have power. omnipotence is the capacity to produce arbitrary effects everywhere. an arbitrary effect, in the dominion of diety, is the creation of a god more powerful than a given other god. the point is that absolute omnipotence is a logical absurdity. This is known, more abstractly, as Russell's paradox. Kevin Baastalk 22:42, 2005 Apr 18 (UTC)

===>That was me. The definition of "omnipotence" provided by is:

Having unlimited or universal power, authority, or force; all-powerful

It is possible that God has an unlimited storehouse of power (the ability to do work, or strength), but not all conceivable powers/abilities/capacities. Similarly, God could have more authority than any other being, but not have utter authority to will anything that could be imagined, and He would still have all authority, because no other entity has authority over Him. At that same site, they define "omni-" as "all" not "everywhere." This is why I justify saying that some definitions (specifically, those of people who are not theologians or academic philosophers) have a misconstrual of "omnipotence" as meaning "able to do anything that can possibly be conceived." Justin (koavf) 00:19, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

[2] is a bit more precise.
"universal" means all concievable powers. omni means all over; everywhere (universal), as distinct from unlimited/ultimate. In the definition, "unlimited" is less proper than "universal". (for instance: omnipresent = present everywhere; all-over, not extremely present in one place, or having unlimited capacity to be present. also: omniscient]" having total knowledge; knowing everything, as distinct from having absolute knowledge, knowing perfectly, or having infinite capacity to know.) If something can be imagined, that that is under the scope of concievable powers. For example, if god "caused" the universe, then at one point, the universe did not exist; was not a "being" to have authority over, could not even be imagined, there being no source for this imagination. Kevin Baastalk 00:27, 2005 Apr 19 (UTC)
philosophers concern themselves with ontological qualifiers, such as "of", "in", "for", "from", "pertaining to", "regarding", etc. They are important distinctions. the qualifier for "omni" is "in", not "of". omnidirectional: in all directions. omnipresent: present in all places. omnipotent: potent in all things. Kevin Baastalk 00:34, 2005 Apr 19 (UTC)
"all", in regard to omni, means, more specifically, all-pervading. all-pervading knowledge, all-pervading direction, all-pervading presence, all-pervading power (potency). i.e. "god is the ultimate pimp" (see potency) (will to piety as a voyeuristic pursuit of power) Kevin Baastalk 00:49, 2005 Apr 19 (UTC)


I have reverted the opening two lines to the following:

The term God is ordinarily used to designate a singular, universal Supreme Being.
However, there are countless variant definitions of this God. For example:

20:04, Apr 19, 2005 Paradiso had "(simplified some language)" and made it the following:

The term God designates a universal Supreme Being.
There are countless variant definitions of God, however. For example:

I argue that the qualified, usage-oriented definition that I've provided is better, for it allows for some of the odder usages of the term God that make Paradiso's definition false/inadequate. As for the second sentence, "However" belongs at the begining of the sentence; dangling modifiers are poor English, and it obscures the logical relation of the two sentences.

Sometimes "simple" isn't better. Emyth 23:08, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

I changed the opening statement.
Old Version:
The term God is ordinarily used to designate a singular, universal Supreme Being.
However, there are countless variant definitions of this God.

Reasons for edits:

  • the word however works best as a conjunction to join the two sentences
  • the words singular and universal are reduntant, since they are implied by Supreme Being (I don’t really care about “universal” but “of the universe” would be better than “universal” )
  • we do not need the word ordinarily for definitions, so its gone
  • the word variant is only reduntant and confusing, so lose it
  • I also got rid of the word this since it is meaningless and only confused things
New Version:
The term God is used to designate a Supreme Being, however, there are countless definitions of God.

Paradiso 01:05, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Hindu's Brahma as God?

Okay I like progression as much as anyone, but there is no where in any of the Vedas where Brahma is called God or has the attributes of God. This is a more moderate and liberal interpretation of the Hindu religion. As far as I know there are no Brahma temples or worship areas. Unless someone can provide proof that the Hindu Formless being known as Brahma is another name for God, I will delete the passage in the next few days.mpa

See Brahmanism. Sam Spade 13:21, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please explain remove for removal of argument against the Cosmological argument

Why did you call the argument silly? It is exactly as silly as the cosmological argument itself. This argument, or a rewording of it, willl return shortly, unless there is a good explanation of its removal.Nereocystis 23:20, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

This page is no place for counter arguments. If it comes down to it, I'd rather see all these argument summaries go, than allow a bunch of point / counter-point debate on this page. Sam Spade 23:23, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

The arguments for and against are very relevant to the article, but should remain summarized (as they are now) with links to the appropriate pages where they appear in more detail. Some of the arguments 'against' do seem to be a bit wordy, however. Paradiso 00:48, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

A link to arguments for the existence of God or arguments against the existence of God are fine, but we can't possibly list each and every one here, and the idea of listing counter-arguments (how about the rebuttals ?!?) is absurd. Sam Spade 11:20, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Sam for once (yay!), there is no space to discuss the merits of the individual arguments. Just list them and point to their articles for discussion. dab () 13:42, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
To put just one side of the argument would be to violate the NPOV policy, besides being intellectually irresponsible. The very substantial controversy over whether the thing described in the article actually exists or not is extremely relevant, given that this is an article on a thing who's very existence is disputed. Kevin Baastalk: new 17:42, 2005 May 13 (UTC)
What isn't disputed? I dispute that you exist. I dispute that you believe what you claim to believe. Who cares? Thats not what this article is about. We should have one small section about this debate, address some of the basics, and primarilly link elsewhere. Theological and metaphysical debate is growing at a terminal velocity, and won't be covered in detail here. Sam Spade 18:07, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

It seems that a short version of the argument against the Cosmological argument should go back in. Alternatively, all of the arguments on both sides could be removed, and people (and gods) can follow the links. Is this correct? The problem with Sam Spade's removal of an argument is that he removed one argument from one side only.Nereocystis 18:31, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

It wasn't an argument, it was a lengthy rebuttal. Sam Spade 22:22, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

OK. How about summarizing the argument rather than deleting it?Nereocystis 23:14, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

It wasn't an argumant at all, it was a rebuttal of the Cosmological argument. That sort of thing has no place here. For one thing, does anybody have a cite for it, or was it just original research? Either way, it still has no place on God of course. Sam Spade 00:58, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

nono, it isn't a violation of NPOV policy to just say the argument exists and point to its article. It would be a violation to say "there is also the great cosmological argument, which leaves atheist suckers speechless". But since we're saying that the very existence of God is disputed, there is no need to say that every argument for or against said existence is disputed too. I mean, that would seem to be too obvious for even the most cognitively challenged readers. "There is also the cosmological argument (hey, guess what, it's disputed too!"? be brief, this article is long as it is, and you can refute the argument to your heart's content on its own article. dab () 10:55, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I didn't follow any of that. What I was suggesting is that the deleted excerpt might constitute original research, and even if it doesn't, it has no place on this page. I don't think anybody is invoking NPOV. The point is that the subject of arguments for and against the existence of God is a completely different subject than God himself. A link to arguments for the existence of God or arguments against the existence of God is fine, but anything more than a brief summary of the subject is out of place here. Sam Spade 12:14, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

No primary argument

The current list is better, but the primary argument against a god isn't the existence of evil, at least for me. I think it would be better to list no arguments than list this as the primary argument.Nereocystis 18:17, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

There is no primary argument for or against. So none should be highlighted over the others. Paradiso 01:52, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

OK. Sam Spade 17:59, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Disproving God

This section was removed from article.

Disproving existence

Many people who do not believe in the concept of God try to disprove him mathematically. One such proof goes as follows: Can God create a rock too big for himself to lift? If the answer is yes, then He is not perfect, and therefore not God, since He cannot lift all rocks. If the answer is no, then He is not perfect, and therefore not God due to the inability to do something.

I am not impressed with the writing here to begin with, it seems out of place since this is a counter to the telological argument, and is only concerned with a single omnipotent, perfect god. not all concepts of the idea "god"

Every part of an article doesn't need to focus on all concepts of the main idea of the article. If such were the case we would be unwise to include a geography section in the maine article as geography is only concerned with the geographical aspects of maine. It is an interesting disproof of one concept of god and, were this article not as long as it is, would belong here.

As an aside, this is also logically absurd. The argument reduces to this: "Can anything that can not exist, exist?" or in catagorical logic: A and Not A.

Anyway, in summary, this is not the place for this, and if it is, the counter argument needs to go up, and the God article is plenty long already.--Tznkai 15:32, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

it might not make god nonexistant, that whole rock thing, it might just make him or her a liar. Gabrielsimon 3 July 2005 04:16 (UTC)

Isn't "A and Not A"=true ? That would make the answer to "Can anything that can not exist, exist?" = "yes, obviously" ~~~~ 3 July 2005 18:23 (UTC)

(A and (not A)) = False. A has to be true or false in boolean logic, and both cannot be true. By your words, it should be "no, obviously." - xxx

Arrangement of God.

I think the majority of our readers will associate the term "God" to the abrahamic religions, which in chronological and philsophical origin are Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. (Biblical, Kabbalistic, Trinity, Islam. Negative Theology)

Changed it to biblical kabbalistic, islam, neagtive, trinity. Trinity was more general than I orginally reealized.--Tznkai 30 June 2005 17:34 (UTC)

The Ultimate and Hindu is a toss up to me, so I wil go with Hindu for alphabetical order. Aristotle's version is highly linked with mathametical and religion neutral philosophical views of god, so will procede imeediatly before the modern definitions. This shouldn't matter all that much, but I think it makes it a better article.--Tznkai 30 June 2005 17:28 (UTC)

Agreed. Jayjg (talk) 30 June 2005 17:31 (UTC)
Sounds fine to me. --Lord Voldemort 30 June 2005 18:19 (UTC)

Monism and dualism as "notions derived from witchcraft"

These notions were adapted from paganism, notably witchcraft, who believe in the Maiden the Mother and the Crone, which was converted to the chrisian ideal that became father the son and the holy ghost. These notions of trinity and duality are also remnants of a time when cheristianity and judaism were polythiestic.

While it is true that some people believe the statements expressed in the paragraph quoted above, it's definitely not "generally agreed" fact, and should not be presented as such. Please either remove this paragraph or rewrite it to appropriately bracket it as the belief of some (preferably named) individuals, rather than as established fact. Kelly Martin July 1, 2005 03:26 (UTC)

True. Serious scholars don't now accept such an "original" theory. Since bronze age paganism predated the medieval Western European concept of "witchcraft" by at least 2,000 years, it is safe to say not many will. Fire Star 1 July 2005 04:01 (UTC)
But but but, DAN BROWN SAID IT! -cough- Sorry, theology is a hobby of mine so I have a hard time taking a lot of neo-wiccan and related claims seriously. At any rate, someone with more tolerance than myself should explain 3rr and research to user:Gabrielsimon so we don't have to deal with this again.--Tznkai 1 July 2005 04:09 (UTC)
Agreed. Don't look at me, though. :-O Jayjg (talk) 1 July 2005 06:37 (UTC)
I do not believe that the opinions of a few Wiccans are justified for inclusion here. The sections for each religion are not marked "Please insert views from each of the billions of other religions about this religion." — 3 July 2005 03:40 (UTC)
Wiccans or not, the God article seems to have absoultely nothing on the origin of these ideas. (If you want to go REAL far back, we can talk about sun worship or Zororastorianism) The God article is rather long as it is. Should Gabriel's refrences check out, I think we need a better place to put these views.--Tznkai 3 July 2005 03:53 (UTC)

so your adhearing to censorship? or are you saying that becasue the word god is some how copyright to christainity that other true viewpoints andfacts do not matter?

Gabrielsimon 3 July 2005 03:42 (UTC)

No, read what I wrote again. That is not the place to put your views on Christianity. Many Christians believe that Wiccans practice human sacrifice. Should we open the floodgates for their opinions in sections about the beliefs of Wiccans ? — 3 July 2005 04:05 (UTC)
this is not my opinion, it is facts that i have found, hence it should be put in the light, as for christains who think wiccans practise human sacrifice, well, i ve found no evicdance of that anywhere, so i relly dont know where anyone would get that notion. maybe someone was thinking of the aztecs?

Gabrielsimon 3 July 2005 04:07 (UTC)

The Wikipedia is not your soapbox, as much as you think it is. You know from much experience that your theories are not accepted here and are nearly instantly reverted. This shows in your talk page, your edit history, and the lack of quality control that results from your trying to rush your views back into the Wikipedia. This lack of quality and crank-like soapboxing shows both immaturity and a strong lack of regard for the Wikipedia and other editors. If you want a soapbox, get web hosting. — 3 July 2005 04:21 (UTC)
sir(or ma'am, i have no way to tell) you offend me. if we are begining personal attracks, then letm e justsay, i took the care to be trackable, to show my face, and to create a user account, you did not, how does that make you more caring about this place then i? no, this is not a oplace where i push my opinions, no matter how much you might like to think it is that. please have something usefull and polite to say should you decide to say anything else in the future. furthermore, these are NOT my theories, so if you please, move on and go find something usefull to do.

Gabrielsimon 3 July 2005 04:24 (UTC)

Both of you stop. This is not the place for personal discussion or attacks. Now then. The sources bellow are not exactly screaming in credibility, and seem very baised. In certain articles they may be used to note that some neo-wiccans claim that witchcraft is the source of the trinity. It should imediatly be noted that most modern scholars, again refrenced, refute that theory. Get it? Good, lets move on.--Tznkai 3 July 2005 04:27 (UTC)

many times throughout history "modern" scholars of the dayt were prooven wrong and had to look embarrassed for a long time... :-) as for the above edit by me, well, ican never let an insult lie, though i do not bleieve i returned one, i apologize, it just makes me raher upset when people claiom my work is not up to my best, expecially when they know nothing about me. Gabrielsimon 3 July 2005 04:29 (UTC)

With the WP:NPOV policy, I don't really need to care about the essential truth of the matter, just that we write it accurately to reflect observations on our consensus reality.--Tznkai 3 July 2005 04:41 (UTC)

one source Gabrielsimon 3 July 2005 03:46 (UTC)

another source Gabrielsimon 3 July 2005 03:47 (UTC)

third source Gabrielsimon 3 July 2005 03:50 (UTC)

Do you have any credible sources that make the point you are trying to make? If so, they must be quoted, attributed, and placed in the relevant article. Jayjg (talk) 3 July 2005 07:11 (UTC)

There is discussion about the trinity, Christianity, and its possible influence from Paganism on the page about the Trinity. I propose that is a more appropriate article to talk about this than the page on God. - grubber 2005 July 3 12:23 (UTC)

Its very unlikely that maiden-mother-crone is connected to Judaeo-Christianity. Maiden-mother-crone is Indo-European (see Proto-Indo-European religion), wheras Judaeo-Christianity is Afro-Asiatic (see Chaldean mythology and Egyptian mythology). There very little connection deep down between these religious traditions. ~~~~ 3 July 2005 18:27 (UTC)

Wow, what great sources. The first one says nothing of how the Trinity actually came from paganism into Christianity. It talks more about "St. Brigit" and her supposed pagan background. And simply because it says, "the ancient concept of "The Trinity" most certainly affected the decisions of the ancient Roman Catholic church," does not make it so. What is their proof? This leads me to the second source. The author, Michael Blume, makes wild generalizations. It would be like me saying, "I have a black dog." Followed a few lines later by, "So as I have proven, all dogs are black." He tries to claim that just because a triad existed before the Christian Trinity that it must have created it. This is absurd. People do once in awhile come up with new ideas. Also, the author clearly did not do his research well enough because his notion of the Catholic Trinity is incorrect. Catholics believe in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. I hate to break it to you, but Catholics do not worship Mary. This leads me to your third source. Once again, the author does not do his research well enough. Now disregarding the spelling (sometimes I thought Gabrielsimon was actually writing the sources), it is ridiculous to assume that just because it is on a website makes it true. These sources are clearly POV, and therefore be taken with a grain of salt. In addition, before making anymore controversial changes, please use the discussion page. If you cite more valid sources I do not categorically object to having something like that on Wikipedia, I am just waiting for substantial proof. And most cathedrals are not shaped like a wood grove or such nonsense, they are shaped like a cross. Thank you for your time reading this. If you got through my whole diatribe, give yourself one billion barnstars. --Lord Voldemort 4 July 2005 19:46 (UTC)
Please stop deleting Lord Voldemort's comments. They are not personal, and are on-topic. Deleting them is decidedly against Wikipedia policy. Jayjg (talk) 4 July 2005 20:50 (UTC)
It seems we've reached near consensus that Gabriel's edits are ill supported and off topic for the article. Lets move on.--Tznkai 4 July 2005 23:56 (UTC)

I suggest Gabriel move this to neo-paganism or maybe Talk:Trinity. I admire his pluck, and grace under fire. Please keep up w the interesting research Gabriel, you'll find the right place for it in time! ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 5 July 2005 00:35 (UTC)

if I may, nowhere on Proto-Indo-European religion is there any stuff about a triple goddess. Nor should there be. Wicca is a religion, but it is aged about 50 years. Of course it includes older elements, mixed more or less randomly, but if you take Wiccan websites as a source, you can only take statements about the past 50 years for granted. Anything else will be completely muddled. Also on Goddess, the triple stuff is rightly confined to the Neo-Paganism section. There may have been models in Celtic religion, but hardly anything is known about them. A historical outlook on religion is instructive, but only if it is well-informed. dab () 13:59, 17 July 2005 (UTC)


wouldnt it be intersting of some religion tried to copyright God?

Gabrielsimon 08:56, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Capitalisation and gender

There is an explanation why certain occurrences of 'god' are capitalised and others not. But that's a christian point of view. This sounds very dodgy to me. The english language dictates which God is the true God? This will not do. I'd say capitalise all occurrences or none. Though a problem is that capitalisation makes sense for a being, but not for a non-physical entity. Or is it just simply a matter of it being a proper noun? English is a second language to me, so I don't fully understand this, but it sounds like that solves it; just capitalise all occurrences of the word.

Also, God is never referred to in female form (as far as I can see). That issue is also addressed, saying that it is custom to use the male form, but sticking to this is really a statement about God that has no place in an encyclopedia; an article should not 'choose sides', so to say. DirkvdM 08:52, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

"God" (no article) is monotheistic God, "god" (with article) is a polytheistic god. Capitalization doesn't prejudice existence or belief. I can say "God doesn't exist" and "this god doesn't exist", and the two sentences do not mean the same. "God doesn't exist, but gods do", and "no gods exist, but God does" are both meaningful sentences. You should never have god without article, or God with article. Your complaints are spurious. Also the gender. English can only choose between "he", "she" or "it". Both "she" and "it" in reference to God would produce very jarring text, really making some feminist or atheist point with the sledgehammer. dab () 14:44, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Feminist sledgehammer? Sounds a bit over the top, though I agree that using (s)he all the time looks uncomfortable. But that's not as bad as implicitly stating that God is male. And atheist? What's that got to do with it?

About capitalisation. I suppose the central problem is that there is no separate name for the god of the christians. And the english language evolved in a christian environment, so I suppose we're stuck with that (I really should learn Esperanto, but then everyone else would have to too :) ). If it's a purely linguistic thing that is not specific to religion (any other examples?) I'm satisfied, though it still sounds unfair to polytheists to me. And "no gods exist, but God does" makes sense in this sense but still sounds like linguistic humbug. Something like a king referring to himself in plural.

But I've found more usages of capitalisation that this argument doesn't cover. Like He when referring to God. And the Bible, the Scripture and the New Testament. All with articles. And Jew (noun), Jewish and Jews aren't proper nouns. It seems that all these are capitalised just to make them look important (like that plural king).

And 'spurious' to you too (had to look that one up :) ). DirkvdM 19:17, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

God has always been male since the time of the Jews onwards, no-one has ever determined him as even possibly female except for some feminist-poisoned churches changing "This is our Father's World" to "This is our Parent's World" (?!?). There's no need to say God is maybe not male, because it's never been so! Anyway, if God was female wouldn't we say Goddess? Now there's a linguistic mess...

This has nothing to do with feminism, it's about being neutral, not assuming too much. I suppose you're talking about the christian God, but the article is about all monotheistic gods. About any monotheistic god that may ever 'exist'. And even if there's never been a female God, there still may be one one day. And linguistically speaking, the word 'Goddess' exists, so there you go (I've even once heard this used as a 'proof' for the existence of God. but in this case it does make sense).

Yes the capital is because God has no name. Some Christians try to sound clever by saying "oh God's name is Yahweh!", but even that just means "I Am". To leave the capital out, or to use G for non-God gods (who already have names of their own so don't need to steal "His") would be both confusing and require constant clarification of which god we're talking about.

Ha! Here's a Descartian proof of God: "I think, therefore Yahweh" :) But seriously. Not having a proper name for the christian God (apparently that's what you're talking about again) is what's confusing. And any name will do, I'd say, no matter if it means something (many names of people also have a literal meaning). Linguistically (if I understand dab correctly), 'God' stands for any monotheistic god (should this now be capitalised because I'm talking about monotheistic gods, depite the fact that it's plural?). But to distinguish the other monotheistic gods from the christian God, they should not be capitalised. And then when talk is about the specific christian God, it should be capitalised because it's one specific 'entity'. Unless of course you say that all monotheistic gods are one and the same. But then if someone else disagrees with that you'll have to give them their way so as not to be religiously offending, because that's customary with religion because the truth can never be hoped to be objectively established, so anything must be regarded as a possible truth, just so long as someone proposes it. God, this is a mess.

Calling him Him differentiates the subject of the sentence. And when people talk of their lord it's some human, but the Lord is always God. But these things didn't necessarily evolve to make God more important (although at the time he was), but rather that during the formative centuries of the English language Words were Capitalised all over the Place for Emphasis and to ensure identification of Important key terms by Our faithful Reader. It may or may not offend other religions but it's too late to change now. Just as the English language uses "he" as a default gender term, no amount of close-minded feminists will fully erase it from the ease-of-use that is the English language.

I was afraid of this, and I already hinted at it. The English language is the way it is and there is nothing we can do about that. Well, of course that's not true, languages evolve all the time, but it's not for us to change it. So if the language dictates it (and I simply don't know) then that's the end of it. But still, can I then use Capitalisation whenever I Feel like It? or can i leave it out whenever i feel like it? Not so, I'd say, so the argument doesn't hold logically speaking, in which case we can still be free to leave out capitalisation, oddly enough. But if the language dictates that these specific occurrences should be capitalised (does it?) then we're stuck.

By the way, if you refer to the head of the English royal family (so in a generic way), do you also use 'he' even if 'he' happens to be a queen at the moment (pun intended)? And do you use capitalisation to distinguish this Queen from all the other queens. Even if you're talking about royal queens (of other countries)?

Just out of interest, what religion is this you hail from, something Indian maybe? Or is this just a general cross-religion polytheism? Sounds vague but interesting... :) GarrettTalk 20:33, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Assumptions, assumptions. Why should I hail from any religion? I'm Dutch! :) I resent the implication that I reason from my point of view (although nobody can fully escape that). An encyclopedia should be neutral, so when you edit it you should not let your preferences get in the way. But then that's difficult with religion because it dictates an (unprovable but) Absolute Truth. And that's why I hate religion. I may sympathise with religious beliefs but I hate any doctrine, and religious movements are the most suffocating Doctrines around. I used to think I was an atheist but didn't feel comfortable with that. Then I heard about agnosticism and thought 'Yes' that's it'. And then I read the Wikipedia article on that and it turns out I'm really a Logical Positivist (or can I be if I can be bothered to have this discussion?).

So what am I, an exoreligious anytheist? (What's any in Greek?) Here's It: I'm Me! (Capitalised!) Period. DirkvdM 09:12, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

well, I do not think you have much of a point. But you sure manage to be wordy about it. I think this is a case of WP:POINT and WP:NOT (especially the "discussion forum" part). If you force us to philosophize on the metaphysical implications of English pronouns and capital letters, we'll never get any article written. WP is bound by common use in English. We cannot use "god is a she" style. If you think this is a suffocating doctrine, you have me wonder how you even get on the Internet, being forced to bow to the suffocating doctrine of the TCP/IP protocol. G is just a capital latin letter, for crying out loud, I am not a Judeo-Christian or anything for using it.
There are borderline cases for capitalisation in English. If you want to learn about them, try a good English grammar, or the OED. If there is a disagreement over capitalisation in article texts, discussion should be confined to such references, as it is a matter of English orthography. Suggestions based on theological speculation we can (and do) discuss explicitly, along the lines of "it has been remarked that bla bla, feminists have suggested, etc.", but that doesn't impinge on WP's orthography, which should be an English as 'unmarked' as possible. dab () 09:26, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

TCP/IP isn't suffocating because we could easily change to another standard. Hardly anyone would mind as long as everyone uses the same thing. That's standardisation, which is a doctrine if you wish, but certainly not suffocating. I didn't mean to philosophise on the metaphysical implications of the English language. I just wasn't aware that the English language dictates all these uses of capitalisation. If it does. For all of them. And if it does, that settles it. DirkvdM 10:07, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

right, sorry, I may have been confusing you with an anonymous editor giving me a hard time on Rig Veda. dab () 10:29, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Hell, Devil and Damnation

How is it there is no mention of the Devil? Even in the very extensive talk pages (7 archives!) I haven't come across a single mention of the Devil. One problem is that the Devil goes by many names (Devil, Satan, Beelzebub, the Beast and even a number (666)), so I may have missed something. But surely an article about God should have at least some mention of God's counterpart. After all, in Christianity God is (among many things) the Ultimate Judge who sends bad people to Hell, and other religions have something similar. I've made a mention, but that's just an observation involving Hell, not a real discussion/explanation of the concept. DirkvdM 09:03, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

god has no counterpart, according o christian dogma, god MADE lusicifer, and lucifer simply oversees a portion of relity.
if you do some research tho, youll find that satan was origionally the god of light sha'En, and was turned into evil, by missionaries of christianity, much like in llater centuries Manitou was turned into Man'doo ( means evil) on the north american continant.
Gabrielsimon 09:08, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, alright then, why is that not in the article? I mean, an article about God is necessarily about religion and many religions have a Devil in some form or another. So there should at least be some mention. And of course not ony the christian Devil. By the way, could 'Devil' be used as a generic name? And, if so, by what specific name should the christian Devil then be addressed? Or is the use of an English name necesserily a reference to the christian Devil (compare the above about capitalisation)? DirkvdM 13:28, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

"The Devil" for your purposes represents "Evil", right? both the article and the archives discuss Evil, it is just a more general term than "Devil" which conjures up images of horns and a cloven hoof. Or what part of your 'generic Devil' is not addressed by the concept of 'Evil'? dab () 13:47, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Ah yes, but that's mostly about 'evil', not 'Evil' (I seem to be getting the hang of this 'proper noun' thing). In other words, it's not about an evil counterpart of God. I now see there is one discussion about Satan in archive 1, about the roles God and Satan play and if God can triumph over Satan, and one mention of Satan in the article, under 'God as Unity or Trinity' as the counterpart in dualism. But that's tucked away somewhere in the article. But, more importantly, I really meant to refer to one aspect of the christian God (and I suppose many others), which is that he is the Ultimate Judge, the one who sends people to Hell and the Devil. There is no mention in the article of the Last Judgement, the afterlife or Hell. And Heaven hardly gets mentioned either. Surely these things are quite essential to understand at least the christian God? More in general, too much is assumed. At least the intro of an encyclopedia article should not assume any previous knowledge on the subject. Such as that a God is something or someone that is believed in and that that constitutes a religion and that there may be one or more Gods in a religion. Sounds obvious, but it cannot be assumed to be know. And it's so central that I'd put it in the intro.

But to get back to the subject, I'd say a list of possible characteristcs a God could have would be in place. Such as creator, destroyer, judge, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, (omni)benevolent or malevolent, sovereign, transcendent or immanent (the transcentdent link doesn't really help - God, this article needs work), infinitely simple, outside of time. Have I missed anything? Most of these are mentioned, but spread all over the article. I'd say this list should be in the introduction. And I'd mention that there may be several of these qualities in one God or they may be spread over several Gods, each with one of these characteristics (then again, this article is about montheism, but then why isn't that the title?). And God may be a person or an essence (or what should I call that?). Anything else?

And another thing. I'd combine the list that is now in the intro with the theology section and move that to the beginning of the body of the article.

DirkvdM 18:36, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

ah yes, the "Judge" aspect should be mentioned, by all means. As for "Evil", you may have a soulmate in the Maltheism guy, see the archives over there. Anyway, there can hardly be anything to triumph over, for a singular God (which is why I find Monotheism rather unexciting, as in, well, maybe there is God, by definition, but that's pretty much a null statement). dab () 18:43, 17 July 2005 (UTC) put the folowing comment in the introduction, after the point that starts with "The common definition of God assumes...". Of course, this belongs in the talk pages (speaking of 'this is not the place'....), so here it is: DirkvdM 07:11, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

(The previous statement regarding the impossibility of a God who sends unbelievers to hell being good is not a generally accepted premise. Within Christianity, at least, the goodness of God is maintained while assenting that God did, in fact, create some He did not intend to save from hell. This, however, is not the place to fully detail this theology.)

Confusing header fork/disclaimer

Redirecting Supreme Being to here, and associating supreme deity with monotheism requires some explanation which a mere tag will not satisfy. Will hack, but the line between poly- and mono- theism, and the relative value judgements made, are largely cultural distinctions, and this needs to be a fundamental part of the article. -SV|t 15:53, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean, but I understand it was your intention to alter the article to include what was in the fork tag. However, you've removed the tag but did nothing else. Here's the original tag:
Why did you remove the polytheism link? Also, you say the tag was pov? Do you maybe mean that monotheists have 'hijacked' the God article? Indeed, why is 'God' not a dismabiguation page that refers to this article and the other links here-above plus what is already in the present disambiguation page GOD. And why is that in capitals? Because it's about abbreviations, but then there should be no link to God. And if there is, then why not to [[gods]] as well? Because that's plural? That would be silly. Also, gods gives a list of deities, while deity is about god (not capitalised), so really about polytheistic gods, according to the capitalisation-'logic'. Although it really is about the concept God (mono- or poly-theistic). In other words, it's all rather messy. What about this structure:
God (disambiguation): explains the 'mess' (eg that 'God' may mean any monotheistic God or specifically the christian God (which has no separate name of its own)) and refers to:
God: the Deity article, about the concept
Gods: the list of deities. Why should a different name be used here? Is that because it avoids the ambiguity of God/gods?
Monotheism: this article, with its links to Christianity, Islam, etc
Polytheism, of course also with its links, but just the major ones, not the complete list of the 'Gods' article.
goddesses (polytheistic): the Goddess article. notice the plural, as no monotheistic God is female. But one could in principle exist, so I'm not sure about this.
various other links, such as religion, faith, belief, supernatural (none of these links are in this article!).
the abbreviations in the GOD article.
Have I left anything out? I realise that this is a very touchy subject because one has to respect the religious views of others, but the problem is that you can't satisfy everyone. I tried to be as neutral as possible, at the risk of treading on everyone's toes :) . DirkvdM 08:24, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

what/who created God?

I have asked many christians this question. Their response is "He created himself." That does not make sense. What or who created God?

That's like asking a cosmologist what came before the Big Bang. The answer would come down to "We don't know. We can't know. Our means of knowledge (the laws of physics) break down there". Although that doesn't answer your question of course. DirkvdM 08:02, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
This comes from the Bahá'í Faith, which I belong to... everything has a beginning and an end, everything that is composed must eventually be decomposed. There are only three exceptions. God and the Universe have no beginning and no end, they were never created or composed and will never be destroyed. The human soul has a composition but no decomposition. It is created at conception and "after its separation from the body, will continue to progress until it attaineth the presence of God, in a state and condition which neither the revolution of ages and centuries, nor the changes and chances of this world, can alter."
If you can understand eternity, then you can understand how something can exist without being composed. But nobody can.
Did you want an answer or was it more of just a hypothetical question? Cunado19 08:58, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
  • It's complicated. According to many Christians, God exists without a beginning or an end. He always was, and always will be. You can accept this, deny this, or believe something in between. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 09:03, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

An epistemological idealist's answer is: an infinity of Gods created God, or that God has always existed. I supplant God for Universe (always existed and will always exist), and I view theism as the personification of (unfathomable and incomprehensible) infinity in the finite human mind. El_C 09:04, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

scientists seem to diagree with that fundamentally.... Gabrielsimon 09:05, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Which scientists and with what, and to whom is that directed to? El_C 09:16, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Most responsible scientists I know may or may not personally agree or disagree with that fundamentally, but make it clear this is a matter of ontological, epistemological, and theological belief, not a matter of science. Science rather spectacularly and blessedly fails to determine ultimate causation of existence.
Since the scientific method and empricism do not encroach uppon this philosphical territory, and Wikipedia is not wikiscience of wikiaithiest, the difficulty in explaining and defining an eternal God's origins are not relevant, I don't see how further discussion here will help us write a better article.--Tznkai 15:40, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

I second that, unless someone can come with an answer that comes from some established religion. Such as the Baha'i faith mentioned above? DirkvdM 16:38, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

monotheistic religions will say, God is uncreated (has no cause), it's as simple as that. Who says everything must have been created at some point (or, have a cause)? God is by definition all that exists but is uncreated (without cause) (the empty set, according to atheists). God is considered a more fundamental concept than time. If God created time, it's easy for him to be eternal (and uncreated) since he doesn't have to sit out (temporal) eternity. dab () 19:07, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
If you listend closely, you might be able to hear David Hume shudder in his grave. gkhan 10:49, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
But Hume is dead dead dead, and therefore incapable of shuddering. Unless you affirm, Credo quia impossible est.--shtove 00:20, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I think the point is that as long as God and/or the universe is an exception to the rule, then one cannot hold that the existence of a creation necessarily implies the existence of a creator. Therefore, the existence of humans, oxygen, life, Earth, the Grand Canyon, the concept of God, miracles, (etc., etc., take your pick) does not necessarily imply the existence of a creator. --Serge 23:42, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

You know, the Causal argument never did fly with me, it always seemed stupid (for the reason you state, if god is the exception, why cant the universe be an exception?) to me. The argument I am most fond if is the Ontological argument, because it is really the only argument that brings in logic and reason (and, consequently, mathematics). Even though it has its faults, it is very clever. gkhan 08:34, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
sure, I don't suppose the causal argument to be a 'proof of God'. More modestly, the argument points out that the question "who created God" may not be used as an argument against the existence of God. God, Universe, whatever, that's depending on what criteria exactly we are postulating for an entity to qualify as "God". dab () 15:37, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

I am the budda. God (a common word we can understand together) was not created. God has always existed, and will continue to exist forever. All matter in the universe has always existed, and will continue to exist forever. All energy in the universe has always existed, and will continue to exist forever

Ya know what you Atheist freak? I think that God has always been in the universe. He could be anything. This universese could be a pitri dish in a super large world, and God is some scientist. We really don't know. God i anything you want him to be. God bless America!--The Republican 00:00, 30 September 2005 (UTC)


will someone move this to "God(monotheistic)" as it is more accurate than "God" since "God" refures to a heck of a lot more? This name causes an issue on the God Category page.

Compare my proposal above under 'Confusing header fork/disclaimer'. DirkvdM 06:27, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Omg, the article has been moved without warning, again. You cannot move the article without discussing first, and pondering the implications of the move. This is a major article for $DEITY's sake. dab () 15:24, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

ok, so I was trying to be funny, User:FestivalOfSouls, sue me :\ dab () 16:00, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
and who said i wasnt? ;-) FestivalOfSouls 17:44, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

sorry, DirkvdM, I see your proposal above. Something like that will be reasonable, but we have to be clear how exactly the material should be distributed. E.g. what about the Monotheism article. Also Singular God does not equal Monotheism, these should remain distinct articles. God could be a summary article, with a section on monotheistic God and a main article Singular God. Anyway, this has been discussed before, and it will be difficult to get consensus for a change. dab () 15:32, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

The question is, do we change it back or restructure the situation? I dunno if this was the best move. I remind everyone here that the move was done by a person that has been blocked for inappropriate actions in the past. --metta, The Sunborn 21:57, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
before you go jumping to conclusions, take a close look at WHAT those actions were. I was editing too fast for someone who disagreed with me to keep up, so he complained. I got banned for all of 5 minutes, while we discussed my edits, and then I was unbanned, and allowed to go on my merry little way, MAKING THE SAME EDITS. Anyway, some change had to be made, and people were talking in circles over what to do. I got something done, and now things are apparently going to be fixed. Oh and at the time I made the move most people were of the opinion(at least that voiced it) that something should be done, but not what. Appologies for not waiting for concensus, but, as long as things don't just drop back into the rut they were in, nothing bad happened because of the lateral move, and nothing really CAN.... oh well. Looking forward to working together. FestivalOfSouls 21:14, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

right. the situation can be 'restructured', but we need a clean plan for that. Someody just blundering in and moving stuff around will not do. This is not only about article titles, but about how to distribute material among articles. I suggest we move this back to God for now, and wait for coherent proposals. Such as, what exactly will be the focus of God once this is at God (monotheism)? Shall articles be merged? Broken up? The consensus so far is to have monotheistic God at God, with clear pointers to other meanings of the term. I am open to changing that. God can be Wikipedia:Summary style, with lots of links to subarticles, for example. dab () 09:11, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Wait a second... why should this Article be God? It would be much more appropriate to havce God be a disambig page, and this one should be God (monotheistic) or God (abrahamic), as it is just one of many gods, and god articles.FestivalOfSouls 16:16, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm not saying you are wrong. I am saying you should make a clean proposal first, as there will be a lot of repercussions. This article has been on God for months, and a great many articles rely on this. Right. This article is about Singular God, God (monotheistic). It could be moved to either. Then we could move Deity here. Deity will be the disambiguation article, i.e. deity will include a short paragraph on Singular God, on Henotheism, Goddesses, and what not. I would be happy with that, but there are editors who will edit-war until God is back to treating Singular God. You better go and ask Sam Spade (talk · contribs) what he thinks now, as you are sure to hear his opinion sooner or later. dab () 18:05, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Just a thought: aside from whether people should do so, appealing to God or talking about God or even god usually refers to the abrahamic monotheistic God, and in general, any monotheistic god. The redirects usually go to either a disambig, or to the most useful (most commonly wanted) article a reader wants.--Tznkai 18:52, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Articles should be named in a way that is most useful to the reader. When people type in "God" on Wikipedia, 99.9% of the time they are looking for this article. They are not looking for a 16 year old New Zealand phone phreaker, or General Ordainer of Diversity, an article which doesn't even exist. If there were multiple usages of the term that were reasonable equally commonly used, then having a disambig at God might make sense. However, that is not the case, and moving the article to a title which no-one will ever type in is completely unhelpful. Jayjg (talk) 19:10, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

That very same article puts AAVE at Ebonics as 99.9% of the people looking for AAVE will type in Ebonics. Go ask what they think about THAT!

Wikipedia is imperfect and inconsistent; that doesn't weaken the point in any way. Furthermore, the people who moved this insisted that God re-direct to the disambiguation page, making it doubly un-helpful; at least Ebonics re-directs to AAVE. GOD IS

Jayjg (talk) 19:54, 5 August 2005 (UTC)


as long as this article is about Singular God, the mythology category is mistaken: Individual gods, even YHWH Holy Spirit etc. may have mythological components, but pure monotheism means stripping God of all mythological qualities, I suppose (although maybe C. S. Lewis would disagree); can you have pure, philosphical monotheism as long as your God retains mythological elements? I don't know, not in theory, I suppose, although of course in practice every notion of God is affected by mythology. dab () 18:10, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

I think the very idea of God is not mythology, although any particular God and his/her/its stories is myth. Seems to be an innacurate catagorization. The other question is, even if it is strictly accurate, is it really worth the wrong impression it will give?--Tznkai 18:49, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Clean up Issues

I made the extensive definition list it's own section to avoid having to scoll down to see a Table Of Contents. I'm thinking of moving "conseptions of god its own article to deal with the size issues of this page. If get no objection I will. Also what is the normal method of moving disscussion pages in these situations. The discussion is mixed and there may be sections of the disscussion about conceptions and about other topics and it may not be very clear. Any suggestions? Direct messages to my talk page. Olleicua 21:07, 20 August 2005 (UTC)