This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: moved.Number57 22:45, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
God becomes the universe → God becomes the Universe – this used to be the title until this page got lumped together with a bunch of astronomical topics and moved. But, obviously it is not a topic in astronomy, but in theology, and so ought to have the same capitalization provided in its theological cousin Fine-tuned Universe. One conclusion to be drawn from the drawn-out debate of this matter as to the MOS is, lowercasing "universe" is only a question if we speak of universe-as-celestial-object. Pandeist (talk) 04:46, 21 February 2015 (UTC) And here are some examples showing how writings which relate to theological propositions of our Universe (and specifically to theories of "God" being our Universe (in the vein of Pantheism/Pandeism/Panentheism). So if the the language proposition of MOS is addressed to circumstances "when used in an astronomical context to refer to a specific celestial body" then Universe surely ought to be capitalized in God becomes the Universe because it is referred to as a theological construct instead of an astronomical one.
(The above remarks are all from Pandeist (talk) 04:46, 21 February 2015)
Comment even if you speak of the Universe as an astronomical construct, if you speak of the universe in which we inhabit specifically, it should still be capitalized as "Universe", while the generic "universe" should be used if speaking in a manner that could apply to many universes. -- 126.96.36.199 (talk) 07:33, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Support, because it is the Universe that God has become whether it is an astronomical space full of stars or a theological four-cornered flat plane with a great bowl over it and holes poked to see the lights of heaven. Or the back of a giant turtle. Torquemama007 (talk) 13:49, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Support capitalization. In this context, it is a proper noun, just as we capitalize God when speaking specifically the Abrahamic religions, and don't when we use the word in the generic. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:04, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
I buy the arguments in the RM above, and don't have a big problem with finding Universe capitalized in theology articles, and lower-cased in astronomy articles. Among English's many inconsistencies, at least this one I can easily explain to my self with the arguments found above. The discussion at MoS has long since gone over the top; I don't see a point in contributing one small voice to it.
I think the above RM does a much better job of settling the issue for me as an editor than the discussion at MoS. —Aladdin Sane (talk) 04:37, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Hello guys, I want to share this message with you: We should understand that life connect with the smaller parts of space because when we see, we can see infinite smaller points that form our vision and our consciousness, both properties of life in almost every living being. And every part of the space have an absolute union with each other, so only can be moved by life, so every particle is a god particle!