Talk:God/Archive 25

Archive 20

←

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Wikiproject Fictional Characters

Simply put, I feel as if placing God on this Wikiproject could only lead to edit wars, which inadvertently happened anyway. A large amount of people do not view God as a fictional character and would be really offended to see God as such [1], leading to potentially numerous edit wars. I just want to know why this has not been fixed already if this is what will happen? Also, this violates WP:NPOV. (Oinkers42) (talk) 02:43, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Of all the 10,000 gods created in the last 5000 years by mankind, Theists believe 9,999 are fictional and Atheists believe 10,000 are fictional. Unibond (talk) 11:25, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

You might be thinking of Deity or God (male deity), this is about the monotheistic God. (Oinkers42) (talk) 12:46, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

The monotheistic God is no more real or fictional than the Deistic, Pantheistic, Pandeistic, or Panentheistic Gods. Strictly speaking, since the monotheistic God incorporates more presumptions about its characteristics than the first three of these models, it is presumptively fictional as compared to them until strict proof is provided that its characteristics cannot be accounted for by any less presumptive model. Don’t know if that puts it in the class of fictional characters. Hyperbolick (talk) 16:28, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

The wikiproject was added relatively recently, within the last year. Ignoring whether or not God is fictional or not, has anyone checked the scope of the wikiproject in question. My reading of its scope suggests that this is for fictional characters in art (literature, movies, other such media), which imo does not include this article - for example Thor (Marvel Comics) lists the wikiproject, but Thor does not. Similarly, a quick search of talk pages for several god articles shows they do not list this wikiproject. Based on the scope definition itself and the lack of wikiproject on other deity talk pages, I don't think listing the wikiproject here is appropriate. --FyzixFighter (talk) 17:11, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Agree, contextually, ought to be all or none for the class. Hyperbolick (talk) 17:16, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Alright, removed. (Oinkers42) (talk) 17:24, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

God is Good

Ta Biblia, as does the Quran, explains that God "is Good" - twenty times. Why is there no non-literal explanation of God as simply "Good" here in this encyclopedic definition?

"Evil" as Aristotle and the Nuremburg Diaries explained, is the systemic absence of empathy in any society, and "Good" is systemic empathy and actions. Voltaire said that it's a good thing that we already have a god,v because if we didn't we would have to create one.

A "God" and Afterlife are essential actors, in the USE CASE definition of Actor, that teach us lessons about the consequences of our actions, and which ensure we abide by the 7/24 need of good behavior. Citizens that behave "Good" (systemically empathetic) is both necessary and essential for any civil-ization to grow and then thrive.

As the founder of the science of Transition Economics, I can assure you that scientifically "Mankind is our Business" and our greatest resource - is our people. Only poor leadership, science, and education prevents World Peace and global abundance, as an empirically-provable fact.

This discussion needs to be woven into any credible explanation of "God", as does the rhetorical question "Are Atheists weak thinkers?"

Edtilley4 (talk) 12:06, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

• @Unibond:, it's not a good idea to remove talk page comments - although I have removed the promotional link that was included in this user's contribution. Comments should be left on the talk page to be seen for what they are. The above is not "gibberish" in the literal sense; if it were, deletion might have been appropriate. Deb (talk) 11:54, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

One opportunity to pull your deletion of "promotional link" reference or we're off to conflict resolution. Not willing to discuss clear harassment at this point. Edtilley4 (talk) 02:39, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

• Just to add another editors view: Edtilley4, Deb is correct in removing your promotional link. It is contrary to WP:NOTPROMO but you should know this. Your warning about going to dispute resolution is very likely to end in failure considering the recent result regarding the CSQ Research article deletion and your general approach to Wikipedia and your work. Having read some of your previous comments I would suggest you self reflect on your approach to Wikipedia and read in detail Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Thanks. Robynthehode (talk) 06:49, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

I going to explain that its easy to ignore reality in the pursuit of adhering to rules. The trouble is that when you ignore reality due to rules, you create a product without a professional nor even reasonable standard of research - aka fiction. Many of wiki's definitions of economics, for one example, ignore a very provable systemic academic mediocrity - with a 100% false peer-review track record as well. Supply, Demand, Profit, GDP even, and a dozen other foundational indicators are presented here as real - when there is no scientific evidence that they influence economies - and there is compelling evidence to prove they do not in fact. There is convension, concensus, for economics, socialism, capitalism, and dozens of wikipedia articles and the institutions that propogate these fictions - these discussions are proven-failed theory and therefore fiction 100% according to Scientific Method. So - when 1) Transition Economics exists ; when 2)Transition Economics is a science - as an empirically provable fact, but your rules say that it is "promotion", you find yourself championing a load of nonsense and blocking discussion of real solutions, real science, etc etc. I have to make this brief because we all have such short attention spans these days - so I'll stop here to ask what steps to take to get beyond the scientifically validatable non-promotional reference to a science that proves - PROVES - that Mankind is our Business; that Good is economically essential?
I'm going to also add that I shouldn't know what you know. There's no way that I could; and I get on here very infrequently - only coming around to complain about a "quick delete" four-years later. I find this wildly powerful system is unintuitive and I am not interested to become an expert in learning wikipedia. My respect for the system would be higher if it attracted a consistently high-calibre volunteer administrator too - which is not meant to sound rude, but its a fair statement to say administration is hit and miss given the quality of the site could be better in my examples (which are my specific field of research). Like everyone, I prefer smart discussion with a solid and impressive result, and as we are all learning until the grave, not everyone has this ability at every stage of their development (including me) Edtilley4 (talk) 22:19, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

It's elementary dear Watson: scientifically we know what we can measure. Can't measure means can't know. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:32, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Precisely Holmes-Tgeorgescu: Its off topic and I hate to ask someone to read a thesis dissertation, but if you ever feel interested to understand how a Grade 9 student can easily measure the causality of economic indicators, set aside 20 or 30-minutes to read [spam link redacted]; explanations for why supply, demand, and other Economics foundation principles are unscientific - can be found at [spam link redacted] ... Every probability science works somewhat similarly I think - SaberMetrics (MoneyBall), Casino odd-setting; all work to find highest-probability of success or failure Edtilley4 (talk) 00:15, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

• • To chime in: Taoism, Confucianism, Shintoism and Buddhism don't postulate that gods exist, or, in the case they do, gods are not that important for those religions. These are agnostic religions when not outright atheistic religions. So, a large chunk of the world's population does very well without believing in God or gods. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:54, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
    • Uhhhhh.... Ian.thomson (talk) 23:05, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
      • The gist is that many Japanese participate in traditional rituals, but they do not hold theological beliefs about gods. So, de facto many Shintoists are atheists. See https://blog.gaijinpot.com/japan-religious-atheist-country/ Why they do perform their religious duties? Because that's what everybody does, what everybody expects that one does and maybe because it brings good luck. As Coslett argues, the cleavage you're either atheist or religious does not make sense for Japan. Like a Romanian once said, I'm an atheist, but I want to be this infant's godfather and baptize him. Why? Because baptism in Romania is not about religion, it is about social ties. According to https://www.metro-classic-japanese.net/mcj-podcast-10-so-are-japanese-people-atheists-or-what-theyre-actually-not/ most Japanese people aren't atheists, but they are loosely associated with something that resembles religion. In everyday speech they will identify as atheists. Tgeorgescu (talk) 08:12, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Of course, there's no inherent reason why God should be good. How about Sithrak? Achar Sva (talk) 09:58, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

• • Good academic discussion on this topic. I had put this here to flush out a stalker but if it has legs, then I do find it an interesting discussion as well. If you read my original "God is Good" notes above (you might not be able see them all due to revisions by Unibond), you will find that my points are very consistent with Tgeorgescu's notes about Buddha's and Confusious' teachings on good behaviour, good neighbours, and so forth. The central theme in all contemporary sacred scriptures is the teaching of good "behaviour", and then some religions realized that a God and an afterlife were also needed to also teach that there are consequences to "evil" - systemic unempathetic behaviour and not-good acts.

Can I suggest that Tgeorgescu's point should be made in a separate Talk entry? This page is a discussion of God and deserves both points presented. Edtilley4 (talk) 22:19, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Achar Sva I don't agree your point is relevant here. This is because there is an essential need for good and law in any civilization - as a fact and reality. Choose a war-torn nation anywhere in the world - Iraq even - to see that this need of good is essential. No civilization can exist, let alone thrive, without good - in family, between neighbors, and in services provided by leadership and communities or nations. The point made here is that God is the literal explanation of this essential need of good - with consequences for not acting/behaving in a good way as well. Edtilley4 (talk) 22:19, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

It seems to me that the word "God" was chosen in English for its similarity to the word good, although I can't yet back that up with sources. It could be that the specific word form of "devil" was chosen this way as well. While there's a known etymological origin for "devil" (stemming from Greek words such as diábolos and not known to be connected to the Germanic "yfel"), there had to be a reason for spelling it that specific way. I don't know of any satisfying root word for "God", which replaces multiple names such as Elohim/Adonai/Theos. The latter is connected to Zeús (two syllables), meaning "Sky Father". (Zeus being a pagan deity may be why the word needed replacing.) In my opinion, this could be a case of word-creation at some point during the translation of the Bible into English. I will look into this further. UpdateNerd (talk) 10:22, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

UpdateNerd I had thought of this (the "Good sounds like God" explanation) as well, but then the need of good is a requirement of every nation regardless of many languages where the local word for "God" is not similar to "good" - see https://www.indifferentlanguages.com/words/god - and the comparison table below. Edtilley4 (talk) 23:42, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Update to my etymological inquiry. "God" indeed does seem to come from German Gott, which makes sense as the German translation of the Bible preceded the English. I can only assume other translations followed suit, and maybe it was theological beneficial to compress the multiple names into one. (The plural form of Hebrew names was also compressed to being singular.) Theos is considered by my source to have stemmed from the Greek use of the word, associated with Zeus. Also, the Greek word "devil" is diábolos, so the English is a simplification. Why not translate these words to Latin forms, as the Spanish words Dios and Diablo do, respectively? My assumptions is the word associations with the diametrically opposed good and evil. Unfortunately, much got lost (or perhaps added) in translation. UpdateNerd (talk) 06:31, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Ouch! Achar Sva (talk) 11:06, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Achar Sva Sorry Achar - I am not trying to hurt feelings nor discourage discussion; this is an academic discussion of points and counterpoints. I feel like the point you made should be countered, and if there is a more-polite convention for counterpoints, I would prefer to always be polite. Edtilley4 (talk) 22:27, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

No problem, I don't feel at all hurt :). As you say, this an academic article, and this is the talk page of that article, and it should be restricted to efforts to improve the article. (I.e., it should not be for general discussion). You raise the issue of God's goodness: beyond that, the issue really is, what are the qualities of God, those things that define God-ness? To answer this you'd need academic sources, which means works on theology - raising it here won't help. God is usually defined in Christianity as all-good and all-powerful, but you'd need sources for that. As for the word "god" and its origins, no, it's totally unconnected to the word "good" - the similarity is just a coincidence. But again, sources are needed, not discussion on the talk page. Achar Sva (talk) 22:54, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes agree - God and Good is a total coincidence in mainly Germanic languages...

Ta Biblia's 20 explanations that "God is Good", sometimes explains God is light, great, and similar words that convey importance. I'm not an expert of the Quran but I know scholars often translate "God is Greatest?" from that sacred text as well. As an aside, formal religions have a tendency to interpret sacred texts in ways that make the messenger of the written words more important than the text would convey by itself. I've heard this explained as "Magic builds Cathedrals" which I think doesn't need further explanation. If anyone is interested, I was curious to see the quick table of the dozens of examples: God Good Albanian zot mirë Basque God ona Belarusian бог добра Bosnian bog dobro Bulgarian Бог добре Catalan Déu bo Croatian Bog dobro Czech Bůh dobrý Danish Gud godt Dutch God goed Estonian jumal hea Finnish Jumala hyvä French Dieu bien Galician Deus bo German Gott gut Greek Θεός [Theós] Καλός [Kalós] Hungarian Isten jó Icelandic Guð Gott Irish Dia maith Italian Dio bene Latvian Dievs labi Lithuanian Dievas geras Macedonian Бог добра Maltese Alla tajba Norwegian Gud flink Polish Bóg dobry Portuguese Deus Boa Romanian Dumnezeu bun Russian Бог [Bog] хорошо [Khorosho] Serbian Бог [Bog] Добро [Dobro] Slovak boh dobrý Slovenian Bog dobra Spanish Dios bueno Swedish Gud Bra Ukrainian бог [boh] добре [dobre] Welsh Duw da Yiddish גאָט גוט Armenian աստված լավ Azerbaijani Allah yaxşı Bengali দেবতা ভাল Chinese Simplified 神 [shén] 好 [hǎo] Chinese Traditional 神 [shén] 好 [hǎo] Georgian ღმერთი კარგი Gujarati ભગવાન સારા Hindi परमेश्वर अच्छा Hmong Vajtswv zoo Japanese 神 良い Kannada ದೇವರು ಉತ್ತಮ Kazakh Құдай жақсы Khmer ព្រះជាម្ចាស់ ល្អ Korean 하나님 [hananim] 좋은 [joh-eun] Lao ພຣະເຈົ້າ ດີ Malayalam ദൈവം നല്ല Marathi देव चांगला Mongolian Бурхан сайн Myanmar (Burmese) ဘုရားသခ ကောင်းသော Nepali भगवान राम्रो Sinhala දෙවි යහපත Tajik Худо хуб Tamil தேவன் நல்ல Telugu దేవుడు మంచి Thai พระเจ้า ดี Turkish Tanrı iyi Urdu خدا اچھی Uzbek xudo yaxshi Vietnamese thần Tốt Arabic الله [allah] جيد [jayid] Hebrew אלוהים טוֹב Persian خداوند خوب Afrikaans God goeie Chichewa Mulungu zabwino Hausa Allah mai kyau Igbo Chineke mma Sesotho Molimo e ntle Somali Ilaah wanaagsan Swahili Mungu nzuri Yoruba Ọlọrun ti o dara Zulu Nkulunkulu okuhle Cebuano Dios maayo Filipino Diyos mabuti Indonesian Allah baik Javanese Pengeran apik Malagasy Andriamanitra tsara Malay tuhan baik Maori te Atua pai Esperanto Dio bonan Haitian Creole Bondye bon Latin Deus bonum Edtilley4 (talk) 23:42, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

YHWH = Yehowah

'Jehovah' doesn't use the tetragrammaton of YHWH, but does have the symbolic 7 letters. 'Yahweh' uses YHWH, but it's only 6 letters. YHWH = Yehowah(7 letters). 73.85.203.169 (talk) 13:46, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

'Jehova' and 'Yahweh' are two different ways of pronouncing the Herbrew יהוה.

Properly, it's "Yehova", as there's no "W" sound in Hebrew. 108.200.234.93 (talk) 09:18, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Jehova is a concept that is probably largely much associated with gay acceptance in church now, and should be considered LGBT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:FE0:C700:2:687C:E90D:DA70:B07D (talk) 03:59, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 January 2021

LUCIFER SHALL RAIN SUPREME — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:3D09:1D81:5800:C87F:49CD:4532:F4DD (talk) 18:53, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

• I think, no. Hyperbolick (talk) 18:57, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

God is not Allah

Contrary to popular belief 'God' is not Allah. The later being a revealed concept!, an according to translation, should !e written in cursive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:FE0:C700:2:559D:4A7B:2050:4789 (talk) 13:43, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Your claim is not relevant without reliable sources. LongLivePortugal (talk) 23:12, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Doesn't matter: anyway you look at the claim of the IP, it remains a subjective opinion. So, at best, we could WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, otherwise we won't say that in the voice of Wikipedia. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:27, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

And indeed all claims in this realm are subjective opinion. Hyperbolick (talk) 01:18, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't know, e.g. "God is the Creator of the Universe" seems to me a rather tautological definition. We agree to disagree that God did create the Universe, but we all may agree that's the definition of God. Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:29, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Theological models exist under which God arises alongside the Universe and is not its creator. Anything is possible. Suppose the thing to do would be, have a definition as broad as the sources. Hyperbolick (talk) 19:29, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Yup, I also happen to believe that God is the Universe, or so to speak God created the Universe out of himself, not out of nothing. But, broadly conceived, God is the creator of the Universe or something very similar to that extent. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:00, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Certainly, a neutral point of view would avoid both suggesting that Yahweh is the same as Allah, and suggesting that they are not the same. StAnselm (talk) 22:07, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Not entirely sure; some would call Yahweh, Allah, Vishnu, all aspects or expressions of one. Hyperbolick (talk) 01:38, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes - some would; some wouldn't. We don't take an official position here on Wikipedia. StAnselm (talk) 14:45, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 April 2021

May I suggest changing "In Islam, the name Allah is used, while Muslims also use a multitude of titles for God." To "In Islam, the name Allah is used to represent a strictly monotheistic God, while Muslims also use a multitude of titles for God to describe Allah's various qualities and attributes."

Note: This is absolutely agreed concept of Allah (God) in all forms of Islam and there is no debate or controversy on these concepts. Therefore, the readers would benefit from an accurate understanding of Islamic concept of God. 81.101.233.219 (talk) 22:26, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. WikiVirusC^(talk) 22:34, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

First image...

... should be File:Monad.svg. Now there is some bearded man and something like sun with rays... --5.43.73.49 (talk) 14:06, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

This image is problematic. It is not NPOV. Why is Christianity, despite being the LARGEST RELIGION on Earth, given the smallest pic? They at the very least should be of equal size. Why is this page locked anyhow???

Compositionally, the images are the size they need to be to be easily recognizable. The smallest pic hardly represents all Christiandom. Associated with a vocal but tiny minority of that religion. Suppose we could add a third image to the bottom row. Hyperbolick (talk) 05:44, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Tried adding two. 09:11, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

I think it looks much better and more representative now. Thank you! LongLivePortugal (talk) 11:19, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Abu Yaqub al-Sijistani's negating the via negativa

@Epinoia: I'm currently going through the reverted edits of a number of recently blocked socks, and (after duly contacting the editor who performed the reverts) re-reverting the edits I think to be constructive or "helpful" (by which I merely mean that they are in accordance with policy and actually improve the encyclopedia). Abu Yaqub al-Sijistani's view here (negating the via negativa) certainly is mainstream Isma'ili thought (as well as an interesting and original theological view), and I do think this does at least deserve its place in God in Islam, but you're probably right that it is undue in this article. It's often a delicate decision whether to reinstate the blocked editors' edits or not (most are undue), so it's good someone is double-checking the re-reverts. Thanks, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 18:02, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

- I agree, more appropriate for God in Islam, but edited to remove "renowned" and remove "Therefore," as that implies reaching a conclusion (couldn't find a specific guideline about Therefore, but I believe it falls under MOS:EDITORIAL) - cheers, Epinoia (talk) 18:17, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

 Done, also in the Anthropomorphism article. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 18:44, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Rood of word in lead

Why is there no root of the word in the God article, like there is in the Ra article?

Please see discussion on the MOS lead section page

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section

You're going to have to explain more fully what you're talking about. "God" is an English word, and "Ra" is not, so it is appropriate to include etymology for Ra. It is OK to do it for English words but not necessary, and in this case it would be distracting. And, I don't see a consensus for the position you are taking on the MOS:LEAD talk page. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:54, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

And it's the first section on the page, and substantial there. Not hard to find. Hyperbolick (talk) 08:58, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

See God (word). Editor2020 (talk) 02:25, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 September 2021

God is the basis of Christen belief 173.10.137.131 (talk) 14:17, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

•  Not done No specific change requested. GMG^talk 14:23, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

inappropriate censorship

FyzixFighter deleted my contribution on spurious grounds. The concept of "God" has been hotly-disputed territory for over 2000 years, so Wikipedia will have to decide whether it it is a source of independent objective scientific knowledge or of special interest group political propaganda.

If pre-Christian concepts of God cannot be mentioned in a page entitled "God" then i submit that its content is disinformational. Djhbrown (talk) 21:01, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place to write about your original theories. - MrOllie (talk) 21:17, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

i grant you the prehistoric connection between the menstrual period and the mensis period is my own original theory, and is so new it has no supporting other sources, but everything else mentioned in the paragraph i added which FyzixFighter deleted en bloc is not my original theory and is supported by authoritative scholarly sources which are cited.

I note FyzixFighter immediately reverted my reversion of his deletion so will refer this matter to arbitration. Djhbrown (talk) 21:26, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH isn't allowed. Frankly, your "contribution" isn't very good. --Hazhk (talk) 21:29, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

No. Stitching together sources to make a composite point that none of them make individually is defined as original research on Wikipedia. It is not what we do here. I suggest you make some submissions to peer reviewed journals and get your thoughts published properly in the correct venue. - MrOllie (talk) 21:30, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Mollie is evidently a skilled debater but his personal "suggest" sarcasm is unwelcome. He could have polished my text, but by choosing to instead say things like "we do not join the dots here" he makes it clear that further discussion with him would be pointless.Djhbrown (talk) 21:45, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Your text is fundamentally at odds with Wikipedia's core content policies, there is no way to polish it in such a way that it could remain on this site. MrOllie (talk) 21:54, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

{{subst:arbcom notice|Inappropriate censorship of contribution to page entitled "God"}}.Djhbrown (talk) 23:25, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Your request for arbitration has been rejected by the Arbitration Committee. See the notice on your user page. — TransporterMan (TALK) 23:34, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Request for comment

This request for comment pertains to the deletion, on spurious or quibbling grounds, by two other users, of a contribution to the page entitled "God" by the undersigned.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=God&type=revision&diff=1067723405&oldid=1067722697

There is possibly no more contentious and politically fraught subject in the history of the sociology of humanity than the notion of "God". For milennia, the concept of God has been the cause-celebre of wars, genocides, and every imaginable abuse of human rights, so Wikipedia bears a heavy responsibility to ensure it does not allow itself to be abused by propagandists censoring scientific archaeological and historical political objectivity.

That heavy responsibility must not be taken lightly and allow technical argument to blockade an objective and verifiable scientific fact: the fact that human cultures around the world had notions of the concept of God (even of a single omnipotent God) long before the Christian Bible was written.

My [deleted] contribution identifies that fact as a linear thread that runs throughout prehistory and history, citing sources which cite other sources, providing objectively verifiable evidence for the existence of that thread, which (somewhat astonishingly) is so simple and clear that it can be written on a single A4 page! https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hog.png Djhbrown (talk) 00:57, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure that this should be an RFC, it is not very specific, but this talk page was the right place to post (WP:BRD, WP:CONSENSUS). I agree with you that monotheism is a relatively recent trend throughout human history, scholars have documented how it corresponded to the concentration of power of certain elites after the development of agriculture, etc. A few problems I can see that justified the revert:

• Apparent conflict of interest, including citations to a book authored by the editor (WP:COI).
• The scope of this article mostly appears to be monotheism, there are other relevant articles.
• The material included original research and synthesis (WP:SYNTH).
• Cited sources were of questionable reliability, including Youtube videos (WP:RS).

—PaleoNeonate – 01:49, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree with PalioNeonate. The refs by David Brown don't pass WP:RS and are probably WP:COI, and the material seems to be made up WP:SYNTH, not WP:V. Dicklyon (talk) 02:23, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

"Monotheism from a Christian Perspective" might be an appropriate title for the article.

A responsible, independent editor could see that that whereas the material i submitted is derived from material i had previously published (albeit not in a peer-reviewed journal), everything it reports that happened in history since 5000BC is derived from other published sources, as cited. Djhbrown (talk) 03:50, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

There is no "smoke and bluster", only referencing relevant policies, which you apparently still need to read and understand, particularly WP:SYNTH. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:02, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Right. You need to learn to be a WP editor first, then rephrase and re-source what you have to say. If you want to reference your own work, WP:COI talks about how to go about it. And as a devout atheist, I have no stake in monotheism or the Christian perspective on god(s). One more thing: see MOS:CAPS and stop with the over-capitalization. Dicklyon (talk) 04:16, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

i was aware from the outset that there would be relentless opposition and ad hominem attacks occasioned by my contribution. It will be up to the Wikipedia authorities to decide whether they want to stand by and watch their baby continue to be hijacked as it presumably has been from the moment the God page was started, as the first Talk commentator noted. Djhbrown (talk) 05:04, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

There are no "authorities" on WP; just us editors. You can be one of us, but only if you read and understand and work with the policies and guidelines. No prejudice for or against god(s) and Christians here. OK, maybe a little prejudice against Christians from me, but not so much as to let you have your way. Dicklyon (talk) 05:27, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

"OK, maybe a little prejudice against Christians from me" I don't trust Christians in real life, but most of the Christians I have met were bigots and bullies. In Wikipedia, I try to avoid allowing my personal experiences to color the texts I write. Dimadick (talk) 10:19, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Well, you've gone a lot further than I have with colorful text about your prejudices. Most of the Christians I know are great and fine people, but I've met some who aren't, too. Same for Muslims, Jews, etc. Dicklyon (talk) 17:41, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

• Comment (Summoned by bot) This isn't meaningfully an RfC, it doesn't ask a clear question in a neutral fashion, But ignoring that prerequisite, the disputed content largely consists of fairly banal ramblings, made up of WP:OR, and WP:SYNTH with little or no connection to the monotheistic conception of God (not Gods or deities or any variant thereof). It hardly takes a seer to predict that this isn't going to end well, since Djhbrown doesn't actually seem to grasp, or be willing to accept the character of WP, which wouldn't be willing to host their ramblings even if they were a good deal more perceptive than they actually are. Sorry, but you need to learn to walk before attempting to break world records, and I see no evidence of you even understanding that, let alone being willing to accept it. Pincrete (talk) 14:50, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Delete or move/heavily revise: I agree the removed section is in many respects far from authoritative/scholarly. I, for one, wouldn't take seriously any "formal" discussion that repeatedly refers to the concept in question as a meme - four times - or for that matter, one that indulges primarily in terms that would seem pejorative or ridiculous to most general readers (e.g., Holy Cow, baboon bones, menstrual cycles). Is this sub-topic interesting and important? Yes, but not presented in this fashion. And for sure, the section does not belong at the top. IMO, then, better sources are needed and a different editorial approach is called for. Allreet (talk) 17:41, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

• No verdict on the content; but I find Djhbrown to be more combative than conciliatory. - Here Under The Oaks (talk) 19:04, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

I've removed the RfC tag to avoid further timewasting, as there clearly isn't going to be consensus for this change. Djhbrown has been blocked as WP:NOTHERE. It should be noted that he edited some of his comments, removing accusations of censorship by the "Christian mafia", which is the context of some of the above responses. Dan from A.P. (talk) 19:20, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Good article status

What still needs to be done to this article for it to receive good article status? If this is listed somewhere on the page, then I am sorry, but in the talk header discussing the article's former good article status, it says there are "suggestions below" but none are shown. Does this mean this article can receive good article status again, or not yet? Thanks! --Johnson524 (talk) 03:26, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

untitled

How is God involved in other cultures or beliefs? I would like to know if he can be defined in many ways? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seriousnes (talk • contribs) 22:26, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

The topic and definition of God does not invite discussion of the absence or deliver of God.

Discussion of the absence of, or disbelief in God does not contribute to the discussion of the topic of God and is inappropriate.

If I discuss gravity, ice cream preferences, or the life cycle of dinosaurs, an opposing argument is not presented in that topic. It is inappropriate to present an opposing argument in a defining discussion of any topic. At least show minimal initiative and get your own topic. 208.104.53.159 (talk) 07:41, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Christian heavy and one sided

Looking at the sheer length of the paragraphs under depiction this wikipedia entry focusses heavily on Christinity and gives little space to other major religions. The entries also appear to be random based on the inclusion of minor religious sects such as the Mandaeans and Gnostics while leaving out Hinduism as a major religion and no mention is made of indigenous peoples reference to God.

I also expect on an article about God to find historical references to ancient Egypt as well as to the Greco/Roman perception of the gods. The same applies to Norse gods and those of other cultures.

I would also expect to learn about obvious similarities and distinct differences of the God perception between these cultures. Hskoppek (talk) 07:03, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

'God' is from (corrected) g-Dia, 'The Dia' (latinized) being the Adamic conception, which was more or less g-Dia in Mesopotamia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:FE0:C700:2:BD83:E4F3:BD3E:98D5 (talk) 09:10, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

This article is about God, not about gods. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:03, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree with you. There should be more talk about Hinduism in this article.

SpicyMemes123 (talk) 05:57, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Hinduism is a polytheistic religion, and the article is specifically about monotheistic conceptions of God. Tqger (talk) 06:26, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Agree as well. Hyperbolick (talk) 08:14, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Agree that a disproportionately large section of the article is focused on Christianity. It appears that most of the text is duplicated from God in Christianity, and in all cases the text is better sourced on the other article. I am going to significantly trim the Christianity section. The content can still be found on the other article -- Hazhk (talk) 11:03, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Last sentence of lead section

The lead section currently ends with

Most scientists agree that God cannot be proven or disproven by the scientific method, moreover that science answers the natural while religion answers the supernatural.

Is there a reference for this? If not, it should be removed as WP:OR. 2601:547:B05:1494:E4FD:CD66:2C97:86E9 (talk) 20:27, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

See WP:CITELEAD. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:30, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: What of it? 2601:547:B05:38EF:C4C4:50CF:3F51:6D49 (talk) 00:17, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

It's not substantiated by cited content in the article, though. The first two scientists cited in God#Existence, Dawkins and Sagan, argue that God's existence is amenable to the scientific method, contrary to the lead. The other two, Stephen Jay Gould and Stephen Hawking are cited for their own esoteric and specific opinion, neither of which as far as I'm aware are particularly common. Endwise (talk) 01:37, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 March 2023

Please add Jehovah witnesses as a category BackBacks Mother (talk) 00:44, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: per WP:CAT. M.Bitton (talk) 00:53, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

I think in God Definition should be , God is Love

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

God is Love 2600:1700:13D0:9F90:F5A1:76F7:65CA:816A (talk) 22:30, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

You would think that means much, but regarding scholarly clout it does not amount to much. It is a lousy definition, which does not speak to the intellect. I could equally call it the most abused definition ever. Even the Inquisition portrayed itself as an institution furthering God's truth, love, and mercy. "God is love" can be properly called syrup. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:55, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

More than a decade ago, I purchased a multi-volume series of Greek books detailing persecutions and mass murder by Christians on all continents (except Antarctica) in an attempt to spread their cult. It is mockingly called "A story of Love", and has a long list of academic sources. Whenever I hear "love" mentioned in connection to Jesus, I get flashbacks to torture scenes. Dimadick (talk) 06:29, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Main Image Change (for the Christian Section)

Currently the image on the main image infobox for God (well the Christian representative image anyway) is not an actual image that is used religiously, but is a painting and just not much more than decoration for the sistine chapel, which is basically the Pope's apartment - I believe instead that it'd be more appropriate to use a photo such as an Iconography-related image or venerable image of sorts. I just personally don't know what to think of Michaelangelo's commissioned painting representing their portion of God. ballads^one 05:36, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

"Biblegod" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Biblegod has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 6 § Biblegod until a consensus is reached. Veverve (talk) 00:47, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

"Elochai" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Elochai has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 6 § Elochai until a consensus is reached. Veverve (talk) 00:53, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

"Our Lord" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Our Lord has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 6 § Our Lord until a consensus is reached. Veverve (talk) 00:55, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

"Dumnezeu" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Dumnezeu has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 6 § Dumnezeu until a consensus is reached. Veverve (talk) 00:58, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

"Relation of the Universe to God" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Relation of the Universe to God has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 6 § Relation of the Universe to God until a consensus is reached. Veverve (talk) 01:00, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

God - etymology

I see the claims on etymology on this page is very inaccurate. God stems from Gudea, which in sumerian script implies two. Gud and Ea. Both are derivatives of what in arabic right-to-left reading is written as S. (Reading "Ya"). God being a derivative of Ea again. So a third derivative, and "watered down" concept. And using Ea in either sumerian or latin script is a misrepresentation. The correct latinized concept is Ein. (Which easily resounds being the only Deity, in latin script). Hopefully the global connected world is ready for this, its quite ahead of the article, but somebody might know how to insert it into there.

Also reading on this page is that EL in hebrew means "god". EL is a derivative of the arabic "Allah", which also is for arabic script, where the original (and correct) is. When using latin script, such as we are, one should use Ein. Which can be written in big or small letters, like latin script is.

Peace. 84.215.119.50 (talk) 13:19, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Original research is rejected by default. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:36, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

"By religion" section: at least under "See also"

I have added a "By religion" section under "See also". Please, leave it as it is.

A "By religion" paragraph is missing from the article and the wikilinks listed at "See also" are mostly or all hidden under different names. They are probably the ones most searched for by normal users.

The less-than-scholarly user is looking for this and finds it nowhere in a very long and, for many, overly academic article. Wiki is for all. Thanks, Arminden (talk) 15:40, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Bizarre

if "His" flaggelation has left "Him" genderless is bizarre. tgeorgescu (talk) 12:16, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps more bizarre to gender God. Hyperbolick (talk) 03:07, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 October 2023

Thr term God fundamentally defines the feeling, emotion or spirit through chemical energy that is created respectively released between living organisms in the event of an encounter. 185.237.102.43 (talk) 11:11, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done unsourced nonsense. Theroadislong (talk) 11:14, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 October 2023 (2)

The term God is a man-made phenomena in order to set rules for a coordinated life in a community or congregation fundamentally defining a feeling or emotion through chemical energy that is created between living organisms in the event of an encounter. [Compare: Deisseroth "Projections: A Story of Human Emotions." Random House 2021, ISBN 978-1-9848-5369-1.] 185.237.102.43 (talk) 11:52, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:27, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Should images of God be added to this page?

To many religions and specific beliefs, it is in their commandments to not show images of God. I feel like it may come off as disrespectful to those religions to show those images. Is there a way to make them optional to see if someone checks the page? If not, should they still be in the article? Liop3441 (talk) 17:25, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

YES depictions of gods or other religious figures can exist on Wikipedia as per WP:NOTCENSORED PersusjCP (talk) 22:46, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Why are the first three paragraphs of the sub-section for existence focused on atheism?

Why are the first three paragraphs of the sub-section for existence focused on atheism? If I went to the Atheism article I wouldn't expect to find Aquinas's 5 proofs showcased. Seems like a bias in the authors/editors. These three paragraphs could, perhaps, be condensed to a single paragraph and put at the bottom. The focus of the subsection of God - Existence should be God's existence, not atheism. 69.141.168.180 (talk) 08:06, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

The paragraphs are about existence. It is natural that any section about the existence of God would include arguments against the proposition. I have changed the ordering of the paragraphs, reasoning that this ordering aligns better with the historical timeline of arguments. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:47, 18 November 2023 (UTC)