Talk:God

El directorio enciclopédico desde la Wikipedia.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the God article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
Good article God has been listed as one of the Philosophy and religion good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Version 0.5
 This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
WikiProject Echo      (Nynorsk)
WikiProject Echo has identified God as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Nynorsk language Wikipedia.
WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia The spoken word version of this article is part of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, an attempt to produce recordings of Wikipedia articles. To participate, visit the project page.
This is not a forum for general discussion of God.
Any such messages will be deleted. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article.




Contents

[edit] Psychological Perspectives on the Belief

hi was up!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1This article's Scientific Perspectives section is missing a subsection on psychological theories. A psychological section should address not so much what God is and whether or not God exists, but it should address the belief in God as a psychological phenomenon. There are both theoretical and highly empirical bodies of research that examine aspects of this belief, i.e., believing that spirits exist, believing that events take place for a reason, and believing that a person-like being is the reason why things happen. Again, there is a very rich literature on this, suggesting that the ways in which the brain processes information in biased ways is related to the blief in God. Besides the heavily empirical cognitive literature on this topic, a long-standing psychoanalytic literature (more theoretical then empirical) also exists on the belif in God. This article has not addressed these perspectives adequately. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.126.151.171 (talk) 16:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


I couldn't agree more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Devicus (talk • contribs) 20:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Controversial Edit

In responds to the god dosnt exist statment: if god wanted the section to be removed he would remove it. god exists whether people believe in him or not. god has control over all people and things. secondly god dose not let bad things happen in this world. bad things happen because humans are to hard to teach, god sends a warning to people before bad things happen and we do not heed those warnings. third in proverbs it clearly states that gods wisdom is not mans wisdom so anyone who tries to prove or disprove the existants of god is chasing the wind.lastly the bible is based on faith which means an unquestioning believe in someone. It was brought to my attention by a friend of mine that under the section titled Etymology and Usage, there was the phrase 'GOD DOESN'T EXIST'. I created this account simply to edit the section and remove that offensive statement only to find I would have to wait four days to do so. I realize that the topic of God is an easily debated subject, however, I believe this page should be dedicated to facts and not potentially offensive material. I would hope that the statement be removed and that the article return to being factual and not a billboard for rude opinions. Thank you.

Rangeley1029 21:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I removed the vandalism. -- Gogo Dodo 21:15, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Technically, if this article is dedicated to facts then this phrase should be included.72.209.69.251 15:52, 19 September 2007 (UTC)ForgotMyLogin

I agree with the above poster god doesn't exist is a fact so it should be included


You know what? He does, can scientists explain how life began? No, It's not a fact... It's an opinion. Oh my Opinion is bannanas rule over humans.

Other guy: Oh that's a fact put it in there! 'Ya know what, no.

Make it a theory, alright? —Preceding unsigned comment added by24.166.21.38 (talk) 15:33, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Some of us seem to forget the importance of neutrality on wikipedia. Saying 'God is not real' is more of an opinion than a fact.OtherAJ 00:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not a matter of opinion; the statement is either true or false. But none of us can definitively show which it is. Ilkali 20:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
It's a matter of philosophy, and taking either side in a philosophical matter is definitely POV. And before anyone mentions that it's a matter of religion or faith, those are philosophy. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 20:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm not advocating taking a side. I'm just saying that the existence of gods is not a matter of opinion. Ilkali 21:27, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
I see your point that we cannot actually know one way or the other and I agree. Regardless, unverifiable facts that happen to be the subject of controversy are also POV when stated in a vacuum. Olleicua 16:00, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree, of course. Ilkali 16:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

First I would like to point out that a fact need not be true to be a fact. My car happens to be red, but if I tell my insurance company my car is blue that is still a fact. However the ability for a statement to be true or false is dependant not only in form but content as well. If one were to say that a hamburger is juicy, this same scentence can be either an opinion or a fact depending on the context and the interpretation of the word juicy. My position on the matter of God's existence falls analagous to this concept. I would like to point out that any analogy pushed too far will fail and I simply place the juicy analogy as a matter to help understand and clarify. In regards to God's existence, their exists both an opinion and a factual (although I make no claim as to the validity of the factuality as it is clearly impossible) interpretation of the term God. God exists in humanity not only as an actual entity but as a concept as well. God, as interpreted as an entity, would bring reliance to fact, where as "God" as a philosphy can be viewed as opinion. I, as disclaimer, warrant and even go so far as to beg challenge and leave myself open to interpretation of my opinions. Any light that can be shed on the matter, even if it goes so far as to show I am entirely wrong, would be greatly obliged.(sorry forgot to sign)Bloxslave 07:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

First I would like to point out that a fact need not be true to be a fact. Ummm... what?! JuJube 07:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Don't be alarmed; the Wikipedia crack pipe confiscation team are on holiday this week. Things will return to some semblance of sanity once they return. Love, Lewis Collard! (rock me mama like a southbound train) 07:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

A fact is something that is either true or false. A false statement is still a fact. It is a mistaken fact, but a fact none the less (and thats a fact).Bloxslave 07:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The OED doesn't support your claim, and apparently neither do the intuitions of the people responding to you. A fact is understood, in neutral contexts, to be a proposition that is objectively true. Ilkali 08:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
"Fact has a long history of usage in the sense “allegation of fact,” as in “This tract was distributed to thousands of American teachers, but the facts and the reasoning are wrong” (Albert Shanker). This practice has led to the introduction of the phrases true facts and real facts, as in The true facts of the case may never be known. These usages may occasion qualms among critics who insist that facts can only be true, but the usages are often useful for emphasis." [1] Also note that even on the wikipedia page for fact, "Alternatively, "fact" may also indicate an allegation or stipulation of something that may or may not be a "true fact", (e.g., "the author's facts are not trustworthy"). This alternate usage, although contested by some, has a long history in standard English." Bloxslave 08:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
What you claimed earlier was that any proposition could be described as a fact, whether anybody asserted it or not, but the sources you quote give a more restrictive meaning: the propositions must be purported to be true. And it's not clear if this new meaning is lexical or just a pragmatic extension. So given that the word can take a certain meaning in certain contexts, why should we assign that meaning in this context?
And what does this have to do with the article? Ilkali 09:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

For what its worth a definetly to beat a dead horse, I'm to lazy to look for the OED but the handy dandy Merriam Webster online says the following: Main Entry: fact Pronunciation: \ˈfakt\ Function: noun Etymology: Latin factum, from neuter of factus, past participle of facere Date: 15th century 1: a thing done: as aobsolete : feat b: crime <accessory after the fact> carchaic : action 2archaic : performance, doing 3: the quality of being actual : actuality <a question of fact hinges on evidence> 4 a: something that has actual existence <space exploration is now a fact> b: an actual occurrence <prove the fact of damage> 5: a piece of information presented as having objective reality — in fact : in truth So per Def. 3 a Fact must be true, per Def. 5 it does not, it merely must be presented as such. -signed "and who really gives a hoot" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.16.146.33 (talk) 20:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Taking this into account with the article, should atheism be mentioned? It is a view about God and so should probably be mentioned. Midorihana(talk)(contribs) 08:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I think that perhaps the question of God's existence should be mentioned but not the atheist movement itself. May you go in God's care. Peter Deer (talk) 22:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Just in case anyone is wondering, Bloxslave is right about the topic of the definition of the word FACT. In an effort to make things simple, the definition of the word FACT is basicly a statement that can be proven true or false. However, most people assume that usage of the word FACT is most likely going to mean that the statement is true. Any statement that definitively states the existance of God to be true or false is not a fact then because it cannot be proven true or false. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fizzos98 (talk • contribs) 06:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, that is not true at all. You are thinking of a proposition, the definition of which is "A statement that is either true or false", and this excludes opinionated subjects. Then logical definition of a fact is something that is true, period. Prussian725 (talk) 23:14, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Something that can be proved either true or false is a theory (proposition works fine too). While something may be presented as a 'fact', something is only actually a fact if it is true.--Jeffro77 (talk) 19:11, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

What really needs to be realized here is that religion was originally created to explain things early humans had no knowledge about, like how the universe was created for example. Christianity is just a spin on that. God is an opinion an that is that. If The christians god was real, why wouldn't everybody just follow christianity? Or the same with every other religion. We don't know how the universe was created. So god must have done it, right? Wrong. I just proved my earlier point. We don't know how it happened, so some greater power created it. It's the easy way out. The best way to say it i that we don't know how the universe was created and we never will know. There is NO PROOF of a god, a heaven, or also, Jesus. So if you think you can find out how the universe was created by playing 20 questions with God in heaven , it's not gonna happen. And people can have their opinion, i don't mind, it's called the first amendment here in America. But it still goes on to prove my first point. Scientists don't have to explain things to prove that it wasn't "God". God's Wikipedia article,(as well as Jesus's) should be treated the same as, say, Buddah or Muhammad and stick with Wikipedia's Neutrality.

Actually, there is some evidence that Jesus existed, but there is no evidence that he is actually Christ. The article cannot state that god does exist, nor can it state that he does not exist.--Jeffro77 (talk) 19:14, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
First off, you said "should be treated...with Wikipedia's Neutrality.",I agree. This is Wikipedia and therefore it shoul be neutral and unbiased. However you could have just gone ahead and said that instead of trying to prove something you can't prove. This website is for presenting facts and not your opinions. You also said this "Scientists don't have to explain things to prove that it wasn't "God".". This is entirely false, it is not fact, it is your POV, it does not belong here, and if you want to argue about theology than please go to another website for that purpose.--Fizzos98 (talk) 01:35,19June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you Fizzos.Prussian725 (talk) 15:53, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Removed non-topical edits

Hi! This talk page is for discussing the article, not for expressing ones personal thoughts on the subject. Removed non-topical entries. See Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Best, --Shirahadasha 04:40, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

ALFRED ACKLEY 1. you can not deny my experience 2. I haven't experienced God 3. God doesn't exists (you can not deny that)

Logic has nothing to do with personal opinion. Neither does fact.Prussian725 (talk) 19:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Frankly if we are going to go into logical fallacy battles over the existence or nonexistence of God here you might as well rename Wikipedia totse and get it over with.
Discuss the article. Adding things to the article requires neutral, reliable, and verifiable sources. If it's not regarding these things then it doesn't need to be here. Peter Deer (talk) 22:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reliable sources for the term dharmic religions?

Where are the reliable sources that use the term dharmic religions in the context of this article? Dharmic religions is a now deleted obscure neologism and should not be used throughout Wikipedia. Andries 15:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I propose to use the alternative phrase Indian religions. The number of google scholar results for "Indian religions"+"Indian religion" is (1,970 + 3,050) while it is only for "dharmic religions" + "dharmic religion" (3+5). See Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_September_8. Andries 19:21, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


I just updated the google scholar search numbers to reflect a shift that shows how the term dharmic is shrinking even more. I also deleted the repeated number set for the dharmic religion just to be tidy although I emphasize that I only edited this comment to show that I not only strongly agree but that with recent trends it is even more important to emphasize this and although I feel myself too much of a newbie to take the matter into my own hand, I make suggestion that Dharmic tradition (religion) page point out that the term is out of date and should be avoided.Bloxslave 07:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] News item?

What are the reasons for adding a non-notable news item to this article? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:07, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I am referring to this: http://en.wikinews.org/description/Nebraska_Senator_sues_God Funny, but not necessarily notable for this article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:08, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
If it was non-notable Wikinews wouldn't have covered it. I suppose the real question is, "Does Humour Belong in Wikipedia?" --Brianmc 20:30, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] God and Buddhism

In the article under "Conceptions of God" it say: "The dharmic religions differ in their view of the divine, ranging from the almost polytheistic view of God in Hinduism to the almost non-theist view of God in Buddhism. "

There is no God in Buddhism. Buddhism is purely atheist.

Buddhism simply does not belong in the article.

(Ajahn Patisallano 13:47, 4 October 2007 (UTC))


  • This is inaccurate. In some Mahayana and Tantric Buddhism, there is found what essentially resembles a mystical sense of the Divine - the idea of the Eternal, all-loving and omnipresent Buddha (see God in Buddhism article). Only in Theravada Buddhism (minority Buddhism worldwide) can one say that there is categorically no Absolute Creator God affirmatively spoken of. Best wishes. From Dr. Tony Page. 14:30, 4 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyMPNS (talk • contribs)
It depends on what type of Buddhism you are describing. I believe there is an atheist version of Buddhism as well as a theist version (correct me if I'm wrong). Midorihana(talk)(contribs) 05:27, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree. However, it should be noted that the Buddha himself did not wish to be deified into a god. --Benedict of Constantinople (talk) 23:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Etymology and usage

I question whether the Arabic Allah is derived from a verb. I would like to see sources that claim this derivation.My experience with the Arabic language makes me believe the verb to be derived from allâh. Take for example the verb taHaTLaRa, which means to behave like Hitler, would this make Hitler be derived from tahatlara? Arabic generally makes verbs from the noun, which is in this case Allah.

I have learned that (‘a)l-lâh is the definite form of lâh, which is Arabic for god. The particle (‘a)l translates as the, making (‘a)l-lâh the god, or simply God.

Unless someone can show academic sources of derivation, this part should be modified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.229.68.74 (talk) 11:22, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Saying that Allah comes from the verb Allaha is like saying that the word Deity comes from the word Deify. So it's a little absurd, no? Jordalus 15:47, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Food for thought, Jordalus; consider as you wish: there is a school of thought that says that there are no objects (i.e., no nouns)...only the "unfolding now." Couple that thought with the panentheistic idea that God is all there is, or ever will be, and the thought becomes distilled that the truth lies closer to God being a verb rather than a noun. Again...for your consideration.--71.42.142.238 16:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Nouns and verbs are defined morphosyntactically, not semantically. Ilkali 07:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Also note: both the word father and mother are transitive verbs in their own right...not just nouns.--71.42.142.238 16:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I would like to add the following information to the entry "El" as a Name of God: According to The Oxford Companion To World Mythology (David Leeming, Oxford University Press, 2005, page 118), "It seems almost certain that the God of the Jews evolved gradually from the Canaanite El, who was in all likelihood the 'God of Abraham'...If El was the high god of Abraham - Elohim, the prototype of Yahveh - Asherah was his wife, and there are archeological indications that she was perceived as such before she was in effect 'divorced' in the context of emerging Judaism of the seventh century B.C.E. (See 2 Kings 23:15)"Bartbandy 01:01, 23 October 2007 (UTC)—–


Abba: Jesus refered to God as this... It could be a word for God. Or of course, as is the truth, it is the hebrew for "Father" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.97.94 (talk) 12:05, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jehovah

Jesus's name presupposes a name for God that uses a y or j- his name means "God saves" and y or the anglicized j is used to prefix in the name of God (as supposed to be Yahweh or Jehovah)...the specific god of Jesus's heritage. Moses knew God by that name, Jesus was God by that name. The name of God goesd to His personal existence as He chooses to make himself known. The name of God, as first given to Moses from God while on the mountain where the burning bush was is spelled out in most Hebrew texts that have the "safe" spelling with a y to start it- the y gets anglicised to a j through the King James type of midset in transliterating. I can't offer much more of as guess than this relative to the other letters h,w,orh. I've heard that many Jews were so concerned about using the name of Gods in vain, a violation of one of the 10 cammandments that they refused to say Hiis name at all, eliminating the vowels from the given name as a method of safekeeping the name, this led to using the term Lord, often capitalized LORD in the Bible as a substitute for the given name of God. sorry to be so wordy- have a nice day —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.16.189.155 (talk) 16:57, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Someone out there please give a really serious answer. Judaism stopped [historically stopped; of course you still have later developments like Torah and contemporary commentaries and religious authors] at Old Testament. Christianity stopped at New Testament. Islam stopped at Koran / Quran. My friends are saying that God and Allah are the same except being called by different names. That the development [Judaism to Christianity to Islam] followed the same tradition. That when Christians fight with Moslems, it is brothers against brothers. Is this true? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ReikazeGyoame (talk • contribs) 01:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


The name Jehovah is found on a subheading of YHWH. the name Jehovah should be listed seperately with references of the New World Translation. Jehovah's Witnesses are a religion that use the name and do not profess to any association with YHWH when refering to GOD. there are also other religious groups that use the name in reference to GOD. I believe they also use the New World Translation as their bible, however this may need to be confirmed. 65.163.203.130 19:11, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Jehovah's witnesses believe that Jehovah is the most common and longest used form of YHWH in English. while they make no claim that it is the correct pronunciation, they definitely connect it to the Hebrew letters Yod Heh WaW Heh transliterated as JHVH in English.Jiohdi (talk) 03:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] history of monotheism

It seems to me that this section should be it's own article or part of monotheism article. Olleicua 16:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Names" section

The "Names of God" section has apparently gotten completely out of hand, just by accumulation of well-meaning additions. There is a dedicated Names of God article, and the section in this article should only give the briefest summary of that, not replicate the full list of names (WP:SS, WP:CFORK). dab (𒁳) 13:37, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

The claim that Judaism had "henotheistic" origins is incorrect and misleading, despite being unsourced. Please remove. 213.8.159.152 (talk) 22:27, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA Sweeps (on hold)

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that need to be addressed:

  1. The {{fact}} tags in Theism and Deism must be dealt with by the application of inline citations.
  2. The last sentence of Theological approaches asserts a possibly controversial claim without an inline citation.
  3. Etymology and usage needs inline cites for each specific etymological claim.
  4. The last paragraph of Monotheism and pantheism, as well as the Dystheism and Non-theism section, need inline citations.
  5. The textual reference to see also Satanism needs to be converted in to a {{seealso}} template link.
  6. The External links section needs paring down.

I will check back in no less than seven days. If progress is being made and issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far. Regards, VanTucky talk 21:23, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

"The textual reference to see also Satanism needs to be converted in to a {{seealso}} template link." - That would require the link to be at the top of the section, rather than at the end of the paragraph, right? Having "See also: Satanism" under the header "Dystheism and nontheism" might set up bad associations. It might be better to include mention of Satanism within the text? Ilkali (talk) 23:06, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
To my understanding, seealso templates can also be placed between paragraphs and at the end of a section. The beginning is just a custom. However, you could convert it to a regular textual reference to Satanism, which would eliminate the need for a see also link. Whatever you want is fine, so long as it is not an untemplated, inline see also reference like it is now. VanTucky talk 23:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Links to Dawkins in the references section?

If we're going to put links in the God article that are clearly against theism, why don't we put a link to the Bible and every other religious text we can think of on the atheism article?24.170.229.78 (talk) 13:08, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Dawkins' books are about theism. The bible isn't about atheism. Ilkali (talk) 18:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Richard Dawkins' books are about ANTI-theism (esp. monotheism). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.79.96.82 (talk) 18:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Richard Dawkins specifically is about theism, particularly monotheism. He discourages the practice of religion. Generally, you would call this atheism. Also, it is important that the controversies against the idea of the existence of a supreme being be put in this article, as this topic is highly controversial now. --Benedict of Constantinople (talk) 23:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
So is evolution.Prussian725 (talk) 23:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Evolution really isn't about God/gods (as I understand it). There's always the article Existence of God to look at, in any case. Midorihana みどりはな 00:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I think Evolution more likely describes how past life has slowly changed to become what life is today. Meanwhile, Atheism probably uses Evolution as a way to contradict intelligent design and Theism. --Benedict of Constantinople (talk) 00:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
However, this talk page is for discussion of the God article, not evolution or atheism. Midorihana みどりはな 00:16, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
But we're talking about whether (and how) evolution and atheism should be should be included in the God article. --Benedict of Constantinople (talk) 03:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Atheism is a view about God; it can be briefly covered in the article like non-theism is, I feel. Evolution, however, doesn't seem to do much with God IMO (although of course I could be wrong). It talks about how the various forms of life came about, instead of the origin of said life. Midorihana みどりはな 09:22, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I think (being a rabid theist myself.) that Atheism should be included in the article, as the article is regarding the concept of God and Atheism is a belief in the lack of a God based on certain arguments or a perceived insufficiency of evidence or logic. Thus, atheism is an important perspective on the concept. As far as evolution is concerned, I think that largely the issue is with perceived or imagined incompatibilities in the concepts, as well as public scandals regarding the inclusion of religious teaching in education and opposition by adherents to the teaching of evolution. I think that is much less related to the concept of God itself, and I don't see much reason to include it in this article. Peter Deer (talk) 10:11, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree. Atheism definitely should be included in the article. As for evolution, there is not much reason to include it in this article. However, I think Deism should be expanded in this article. The famous "Spinoza's God" is pretty important. I think, -Midorihana-, that you have some pretty good sources for this? --Benedict of Constantinople (talk) 00:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't know exactly what gave you the impression that I had sources on hand for Spinoza and his god (although I can see how you would come to that conclusion :D ), but here's something from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: [2]. Midorihana みどりはな 04:34, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Whoops. Sorry, my mistake. I can't use any book sources as I am away from any of my books. But are we allowed to use information from other encyclopedias? --Benedict of Constantinople (talk) 08:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

← Sorry, I thought you wanted a quick reference. :D It's a tertiary source, so it's okay for a summary or overview of the subject (I think, according to Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary.2C_and_tertiary_sources). Midorihana みどりはな 08:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Abrahamic God

The "Abrahamic" God of Christianity and Judaism, YHWH, is not the same as Allah. The article should be changed accordingly, as should other articles that mention YHWH (such as Creationism).

71.254.201.182 (talk) 17:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

As I understand it, Allah is generally considered an Abrahamic god. Ilkali (talk) 18:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
If you look up the etymology of the word Allah, it comes from the hebrew and aramaic words for God (in particular, El, Eloah, Elohim, and Elaha.) The Quran specifically mentions that Allah is the same God that spoke with Adam in the garden of Eden, and with Noah and Moses and Christ and all the other prophets of Christianity and Judaism. The assertion that Allah is a different God from that comes either from ignorance of Arabic's semetic origins, misunderstanding of Islam's claims, or just from a desire to discredit the Islamic concept of God as being a separate God when, in fact, Islam does and has only ever claimed to worship the same single God as Judaism and Christianity. Peter Deer (talk) 07:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Trinitarians cannot accept Allah as the same God as Jews and christians, however many jews cannot accept the trinity as the same God either. There are however, non trinitarian christians and the God of the muslims is closer to the God of the jews then the trinity. Unitarian christians hold that the trinity was the invention of pagan converts to christianity when the jewish core had faded.Jiohdi (talk) 04:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Allah is a combination of the native "god" in Arabs and God in the Old Testament as understood by Mohammed. The native god has various nature of a local god. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.79.96.82 (talk) 18:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

The Abrahamic gods are a category of gods, not a god. Rds865 (talk) 18:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Protected tag

Do we really need this tag at the top of the article? Wouldn't just a cross in the corner suffice? Anyway why do the IPs and new users need to know? They will find out if they try to edit it. It just provides 5 wikilinks to distract the reader who came here to find out about God. Harland1 (t/c) 14:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nature of article

I'm not an atheist, but I do believe in a pluralistic society of varying views. I believe this entire article could well be headed with something along the lines of "The concept of God is held by those who follow most modern religions, but like any metaphysical phenomena it can neither be proved nor disproved by conventional logical tools." Anything from there on out should read like truth without a lot of fine print or disclaimers. Such wording dispersed throughout detracts from the usefulness of the article to readers sincerely seeking knowledge. Atheists do not own the concept of God; anything historical or faith-based of the sort does indeed exist, and one cannot escape the effects of God on a believer's life, even if such effects are only feigned. Many people believe, and nobody can change that. Describing what they believe is the purpose of this article. Since no proof or disproof of God exists in literature, any such debate here is original research and against Wikipedia standards. kevinthenerd (talk) 18:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the article just about God, not how the lives of the faithful are affected by God? (I'm not too sure about that though.) There are many attempts in literature to publish proofs or disproofs, like Richard Dawkins (in the God Delusion) and Rene Descartes (in his Meditations). --Midorihana(talk)(contribs) 23:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
I believe that this article should only talk about the concept of God. (Although many will disagree.) In literature, there are many authors that try to prove or disprove the existence of God. I think some good examples come from Leo Tolstoy (War and Peace, and some of his essays), C.S. Lewis (Aslan, the Lion, is almost a direct reference to God), and Friedrich Nietzsche (his writings clearly try to disprove God.). --Benedict of Constantinople (talk) 23:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
This article is about the concept of God. :) It quickly summarizes the different beliefs in the monotheistic God and several positions on God. I think the article you're looking for is Existence of God. Midorihana みどりはな 03:25, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Flawed statements and poor referencing

There's a statement in the document that I am going to correct along with its poor referencing:

"In the English language the capitalization continues to represent a distinction between monotheistic "God" and the "gods" of polytheism.[5] The name "God" now typically refers to the Abrahamic God of Judaism, Christianity, Islam and the Bahá'í Faith. Though there are significant cultural divergences that are implied by these different names, "God" remains the common English translation for all." The reference [5] states the following: "^ Webster's New World Dictionary; "god n. ME < OE, akin to Ger gott, Goth guth, prob. < IE base * ĝhau-, to call out to, invoke > Sans havaté, (he) calls upon; 1. any of various beings conceived of as supernatural, immortal, and having special powers over the lives and affairs of people and the course of nature; deity, esp. a male deity: typically considered objects of worship; 2. an image that is worshiped; idol 3. a person or thing deified or excessively honored and admired; 4. [G-] in monotheistic religions, the creator and ruler of the universe, regarded as eternal, infinite, all-powerful, and all-knowing; Supreme Being; the Almighty"

This is a poor reference because it doesn't state anything about the use of capitalization. Someone made an assumption of this based on how they read the definition. If you go to dictionary.com and look up "god", here's what it says:

3. (lowercase) one of several deities, esp. a male deity, presiding over some portion of worldly affairs. 4. (often lowercase) a supreme being according to some particular conception: the god of mercy. 5. Christian Science. the Supreme Being, understood as Life, Truth, Love, Mind, Soul, Spirit, Principle. 6. (lowercase) an image of a deity; an idol. 7. (lowercase) any deified person or object. 8. (often lowercase) Gods, Theater. a. the upper balcony in a theater. b. the spectators in this part of the balcony. –verb (used with object) 9. (lowercase) to regard or treat as a god; deify; idolize.

If you used this dictionary.com reference, the first sentence of the quote I'm correcting is acceptable, because this is a typical though not always followed convention. The second sentence is not referenced and isn't accurate. It excludes Hinduism. Hinduism has many sects and types of followings, some of which are polytheistic, others that are monotheistic, monist, etc. By stating that the name "God" now typically refers to the Abrahamic God of Judaism, Christianity, Islam and the Bahá'í Faith, this encyclopedia begins to assert that the above 4 religions have some kind of monopoly over the name "God". Please do not create rules or make presumptions about such things. Also note that there is no one (regardless of whether they are priests, imams, rabbis, pujaris, popes, etc) who has sufficient authority to decide which religions' followers have the right to use the word "God" with 'G' in capital.

Please choose your wording more carefully.

-Sarang —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarangdutt (talk • contribs) 21:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The Webster's online does state the use of capitalization, I believe. In the following text, the G- denotes the capitalization:
4. [G-] in monotheistic religions, the creator and ruler of the universe, regarded as eternal, infinite, all-powerful, and all-knowing; Supreme Being; the Almighty
Looking at World Book online [3], capitalize if you are talking about a singular God, don't capitalize if you're talking about multiple gods. If you say 'the god' there is no capitalization.
Examples (from the world book article)
Don't capitalize:
Gods of nature. In the Shinto religion of Japan, gods are thought to reside in particular trees, rocks, and streams.
Also don't capitalize:
In Hindu tradition, the god Krishna is portrayed as a lovable and intimate human being, especially in stories about his childhood.
Capitalize:
Personal Gods. In many religions, people believe that a supreme God has been revealed as a friendly human being.
Hope that helps, Midorihana∫∞ 21:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Their advice is bad advice. Capitalise proper nouns, don't capitalise common nouns. Ilkali (talk) 22:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Just to clarify, what source are you talking about? Midorihana∫∞ 03:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm talking about the advice from "World Book online". Ilkali (talk) 07:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. Midorihana∫∞ 08:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jargon in hatnote

The hatnote at the top of the article currently reads:

This article is about the term "God" in the context of monotheism and henotheism. See Deity, god (male deity) or goddess for details on polytheistic usages. For other uses, see God (disambiguation)

I think it'd be great if someone could rephrase it to remove the jargon (i.e. 'henotheism') that many people might not understand. Thanks very much :) Drum guy (talk) 22:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I internally linked the terms for quality. Happy editing, Midorihana~iidesune? 06:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Images

We've got two pictures of God in this article and they're both from the Sistine Chapel and both by Michaelangelo. Can we swap one of them out with some other depiction, perhaps from one of the other monotheistic traditions? Bryan Derksen (talk) 01:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


Learn how to read books. When you do come back to contribute. In the meantime, this BS has no place here, No credible Biblical scholar makes ANY associatin between Anehamhat I and Abraham, thee is no connection. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:24, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

When I'm not logged in, I see the vandalism at the top of the page : GODS NOT REAL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1. When I log in, I can't see it. That's why I can't remove it. Can someone fix it ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.200.218.236 (talk) 12:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I saw it also.

This was from cut and paste when signed off.

on polytheistic usages. For other uses, see God (disambiguation)

1 God most commonly refers to the deity worshiped by followers of monotheistic and monolatrist religions

When I signed on it disappeared, but I could not seem to highlight the same area for copying without highlighting all of the links in the square area at the right side of the page.

This was the code in the page when both logged in and not logged in.

uses, see God (disambiguation)}}

(( god )) - note { replaced by ( and a space in this message

God most commonly refers to the deity worshiped by followers of

When I got rid of it and then put it back in again it seemed like the message went away when I logged off to view it that way, but I am not entirely sure if it is still there or not.

Edital (talk) 13:12, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

It will be hard to find more images of God from other Abrahamic religions. Islam forbids the portrayal of God. I think (correct me if I'm wrong) Muslims prefer to have their own, individual images of Allah. Portrayal of the Jewish God is hard to find in Judaism. I think only Christianity tries to portray God. The Creation of Adam has the most famous portrayal of God. Perhaps the views of God from different Christian cultures around the world? --Benedict of Constantinople (talk) 23:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, this article isn't solely about the Christian god, which is the problem. Midorihana みどりはな 00:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
My mistake. I think I meant religious views. However, I think that even if we take a look at different portrayals of God from different Christian cultures, it is possible to obtain different cultural views of God. People from different areas have different portrayals of Jesus Christ (the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church, as well as the Russian Orthodox Church clearly hold different images of Jesus, I think.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Benedict of Constantinople (talk •