Talk:God/Archive 9

message: I edited my remarks and inserted them into the text of the article.
Mobius1ski 23:42, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dispute Regarding Kabbalistic Definiton of God 

message: In the definition section the former was changed to the latter. God may be imminent (in which case get down on your knees and pray), but immanent is the correct term here ie. pervading the universe.--shtove 11:30, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I tend to think he's both, but I agree with your assessment. Sam Spade 12:07, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Immanent v. Imminent 

message: I encountered the word falsum in the definition section; from the context it means contradiction, but I can't seem to find an actual definition, and it seemed jarring. Should this be changed to contradiction or a synonym of it? Gururvishnu 03:32, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Falsum is appropriate. See falsum --172.195.191.202 18:00, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Barely appropriate. If it's not in the OED or any of the dictionaries that dictionary.com searches, it probably shouldn't be used in an encyclopedia without explanation; how would the reader be expected to figure out what it means? It's certainly not an English word, in any case. I italicised it, as per the WP:MOS, and linked to that very informative page you cited. —HorsePunchKid→龜 19:09, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Falsum? 

message: surely the lengthy Rosicrucian account should be delegated to some sub-article? Baad 07:44, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Rosicrucian

message: This section has no depth or value, and little relevance to this section.  This belongs under an article for that movie.  I'm going to remove this section unless there are any objections.
Ario 23:52, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: God In Motion Pictures

message: --207.142.131.239 09:19, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this would be a good idea. There is a large difference between the Judeo-Christian God and the Hindu God, for example, and each should have their own page. Typically, God is used to refer to the Judeo-Christian version; the Hindu version is identified by the actual name. Yahadreas 09:22, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I think that there should be a disambiguation page, but with a little info at the top.Cdlw93 04:04, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. -SilverBulletx3chattehcontribs 20:09, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shouldn't this page be split up into God (Christian deity) and so on... 

message: I don't see how the Carlin quote fits in.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it serves no purpose other than to deride the idea of God.  It's not really a philosophy or a real description of any God-like figure that isn't already covered, as far as I can see.  Though, like I said, I might be wrong.
--Masterzora 01:30, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I added the George Carlin quote because, correct me if I'm wrong, I think it exemplifies a popular view of God, agree or not, that Carlin has expressed with uncanny succinctness.  The view does deride the idea of God, of course, but that is not the purpose of including it here, and is not a valid reason to remove it. Though, like I said, I might be wrong.  --Serge 06:01, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I concer with Serge's inclusion of the George Carlin quote.  I would also have no problems with quoting Bill Hicks at appropriate points in the theological discussion.  Anville 11:03, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: the point is valid, but I'm sure that there are more serious and less inflammatory instances where it has been made. What about Marx' "the opium of the people"? The original 18th century freethinkers? Voltaire? dab (ᛏ) 11:09, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Any decent treatment would do both, I think.  Writing "Voltaire said thus-and-so" and then stopping leaves the impression that the issue is old, dusty and irrelevant.  It might be best to give a direct quotation for the oldest (i.e., the most "venerable") sources and then paraphrase the more recent ones, but to do the topic justice, we should point out that the question keeps getting asked.  Anville 12:06, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: what? so a statement in your view has merit due to recency? Much to the contrary, I would say. Anybody can get his blathering published today. If somebody said something in AD 400 and his words have come down to us, you can trust that they have some weight. I'll consult dusty old Saint Augustine in matters of theology before Carlin or other comedians, bloggers or media pundits any day, thank you :) dab (ᛏ) 12:59, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

text: *Comedian-philosopher George Carlin has summed up a popular conception of God as follows: "Religion convinced the world that there's an invisible man in the sky who watches everything you do. And there's ten things he doesn't want you to do or else you'll go to a burning place with a lake of fire until the end of eternity. But he loves you! ... And he needs money! He's all powerful, but he can't handle money!"
by 208.37.97.71 on Nov 16 15:14.  Like I said, I added it back.  Obviously, I'm biased (I put it in originally), but, honestly, I don't see a strong argument to take it out, and stronger arguments to leave it in.  In any case, I think it's fair to ask for the establishment of more of a consensus in order to take it out.  --Serge 02:06, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

text: "Stronger arguments"?  How about, "because many people find it blasphemous and offensive"...?  Of course, I do realize that's the whole reason you put it in there, because you want it to be offensive...   While 9 out of 10 human beings go out of their way not to be offensive, there's always just gotta be that other 1, who goes out of his way to be offensive to the other 9... It's just a fact everyone learns to live with, I guess... ፈቃደ 02:39, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you think there might be a middle ground?  Those who strive to not be offensive, those who strive to be offensive, and those who are willing to make points even though doing so might be offensive?  This is starting to smell like PC policing.  It's one thing to not allow Carlin's statement because it is intentionally non-PC, it's another to not allow it because it happens to be non-PC.  Do you recognize the distinction?  I believe that the point is valid, and that there is no PC way to make it.  Does that mean it should not be made?  Can you think of a way to make the point he makes without being offensive to some? --Serge 19:51, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: as I say above, the point is valid, but you should quote theologians or psychologists, not comedians. It's not so much different from what Freud would have said (internalized father figure or whatever), so why not quote Freud?  I'm sorry -- I'm not offended by the view at all. I just think the quote in question is rather puerile and unencyclopedic. dab (ᛏ) 21:46, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: there are probably better quotes, but until someone comes up with one to replace the Carlin quote, I suggest we keep it in as a place holder.  But this does give me an idea about a new section.  I'll start a new discussion about that. --Serge 22:47, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I also had the same impression that it doesn't belong herReligion convinced the world that there's an invisible man in the sky who watches everything you do. And there's ten things he doesn't want you to do or else you'll go to a burning place with a lake of fire until the end of eternity. But he loves you! ... And he needs money! He's all powerful, but he can't handle money. 24.54.208.177 01:47, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

text:  So you freely admit that your intention here IS to try and offend people.  Not that I hadn't suspected as much.  It's just as I noted above, it's not "stifling" for 9 out of 10 of the earth's population to live their life without offending people.  But it's always going to be "stifling" for that other 1 in 10, if he can't be offensive to the other 9.  ፈቃደ 21:42, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please indicate where in my statement that I intend to offend people. I don't have the intent to go out of my way not to, and it may happen as part of something I do, but it is not a goal of mine, and is thus not an intent. Why do you assume ill will? Note also that, as stated above, no matter what you do, you're likely to offend somebody. --Improv 21:45, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well I suppose it's true that "everything you do will offend somebody" as long as there's people who are going to say they are offended by anything that isn't offensive to veryone else, for instance... But that's where Utilitarianism comes in... My apologies if I misread your remarks, and thanks for changing the disputed part for me... ፈቃደ 21:58, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's ok. I'm glad that we got the content into a decent form in an agreeable fashion. --Improv 00:01, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

text: George Carlin is a major figure in popular culture, and his work in the field of God and religion is some of his most important work.  Your POV that it is not "popular" nor "culture" has no place in an encyclopedia.  --Serge 08:11, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Although I tend to agree with Carlin, and I think he puts it rather well, it's still not the sort of quote I'd expect to find here. That sort of derision is funny but not particularly informative, and there must be better quotes; Freud would be a possibility, as would some of the scientific side in the Intelligent Design debate. I'mm off to do some quote-hunting. wimbledon andy 12:31, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  George Carlin 

message: Serge, I just want you to have the correct facts.  I did not delete the Carlin quote in God.  An anon deleted it and I initially restored it.  Upon reflection I reverted my own action.  (In effect doing nothing.)  Why? Because I had reverted as vandalism and it was really a content dispute.  I undid my action to allow discussion and normal editing to continue. - Tεxτurε 22:54, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  So you freely admit that your intention here IS to try and offend people.  Not that I hadn't suspected as much.  It's just as I noted above, it's not "stifling" for 9 out of 10 of the earth's population to live their life without offending people.  But it's always going to be "stifling" for that other 1 in 10, if he can't be offensive to the other 9.  ፈቃደ 21:42, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please indicate where in my statement that I intend to offend people. I don't have the intent to go out of my way not to, and it may happen as part of something I do, but it is not a goal of mine, and is thus not an intent. Why do you assume ill will? Note also that, as stated above, no matter what you do, you're likely to offend somebody. --Improv 21:45, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well I suppose it's true that "everything you do will offend somebody" as long as there's people who are going to say they are offended by anything that isn't offensive to veryone else, for instance... But that's where Utilitarianism comes in... My apologies if I misread your remarks, and thanks for changing the disputed part for me... ፈቃደ 21:58, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's ok. I'm glad that we got the content into a decent form in an agreeable fashion. --Improv 00:01, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

text: George Carlin is a major figure in popular culture, and his work in the field of God and religion is some of his most important work.  Your POV that it is not "popular" nor "culture" has no place in an encyclopedia.  --Serge 08:11, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Although I tend to agree with Carlin, and I think he puts it rather well, it's still not the sort of quote I'd expect to find here. That sort of derision is funny but not particularly informative, and there must be better quotes; Freud would be a possibility, as would some of the scientific side in the Intelligent Design debate. I'mm off to do some quote-hunting. wimbledon andy 12:31, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Serge's claim that Texture deleted Carlin

message: This definition is totally inaccurate.  I can understand that most people 'believe' that God is the creator of the universe, but it is proven that the word god originates from the word gad, as in Baal Gad.  Yahoo and google will return a large sum of pages that agree with this statement, and you can even look into the old versions of the Encylopedia Americana (1945 Edition) under the topic “GOD”:
“GOD (god) Common Teutonic word for personal object of religious worship, formerly applicable to super-human beings of heathen myth; on conversion of Teutonic races to Christianity, term was applied to Supreme Being.”
This means that basically, a Heathen word was taken in by Christianity, and applied to The Creator which is, in fact a very large form of Blasphemy.
I've never found any Scriptures using the term "haShem" to refer to the Creator, yet I know it's in common use among many Messianics and orthodox Yahudim.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mgiacchetti (talk • contribs) .
::The etymology for English word God is absolutely correct, and it is linguistically prove to be derived from Indo-European root *gheu, meaning to invoke (a celestial being). And this was applied to the various Teutonic deities. This is no Blasphemy to convert it to the God of Abrahamic religions, because such a case happens in modern India. The Hindu word for a deity, deva, used almost always in the polytheistic sense, is used by Christians in south India to refer to their supreme God in vernaculars. Better words like Ishvara or Parameshvara exist, but they are very rarely used in Kerela. And there is no proof that a so-commonly used English word (attested in Old English) could have come from Hebrew.
Cygnus_hansa 00:14, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: All good points, but I wouldn't go so far as to say "it is linguistically prove(n) to be derived from Indo-Eurpean root *(*)", because nothing about Proto-Indo-European can be "linguistically proven" - it's completely unattested.  If they found an attestation of it, it might be "linguistically proven". (sorry, just one of my pet peeves about people asserting that *PIE is "linguistically proven")...ፈቃደ 00:37, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Lets say like this, all facts are relatively true, thats what I believe. PIE things are not "proven" things in the sense of natural sciences, but they have much more authenticty than figments of imagination like "god" is derived from a Hebrew word.Cygnus_hansa 19:55, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Totally Inaccurate 

message: Ishvara is regarded as only One by all Hindus. Thats why I used the term Ishvara and not god or deity or deva. So I have removed "most". Also, it is true that Hinduism is not a religion in the sense of Abrahamic religions - and is not at all a uniform religion. Furthermore, "Ishvara" is not used a lot by common Hindu people - he is more recognized while dealing with Hindu philosophy. Common people use the term Bhagwan (used in singular).
Cygnus_hansa 23:50, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  God in Hinduism 

message: How about adding a section of famous quotes about God?  It might be a helpful way to convey all the different perspectives. --Serge 22:49, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  New section suggestion: Quotes about God 

message: There is apparently some rule of law to follow when editing.  I leave it up to someone else.  Here's the paragraph that needs to be edited.
"Others maintain that God is beyond morality. Not all combinations of attributes 'work'; some can entail a falsum. For example, if God is the Creator, Omnipotent, Omniscient, and the Ultimate Judge, then he created all people, including atheists and pagans, knowing exactly what he was doing and then sends them to Hell. This God cannot also be "good", from the point of view of all humans - just as all humans are not "good" from his point of view."
All that is needed is to place a "That" at the beginning of the second sentence.  (For the philosophical reason, not the grammatical... I'm not that fickle.)  :)
:you are welcome to make the edit yourself. I don't know if it would salvage the passage, though. In my view, it should be scrapped altogether: It is essay-style, and there is way too much essayish rambling on this article. Keep it short, and attribute statements. All weasle-paragraphs beginning with "others maintain" should be mercilessly cut out until people come forward with proper academic citations. dab (ᛏ) 10:33, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  I would have done this myself but.... 

message: (moved from my talk page)
the holy ghost.
Hello. Did I miss any explanation for the blanking you did here or are you about to write them down now here ? Ther was no edit summary either. Please explain. Gtabary 16:33, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Remove the word "fact" first, it's not a fact, it's a theory or hypothesis.  If any scientists says he's "figured out God", that scientist is lying.  If he says he's got facts that "prove" he's right, he's lying.  Call it a "theory or hypothesis" instead of a fact and I will remove my dispute tag.  My "position" is only that there is a dispute.  How can that be disputed?  If it's disputed that there's a dispute, that means there's more of a dispute, not  less of one, all the more reason to keep the tag.  ፈቃደ 21:37, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. I removed the tag for you too. --Improv 21:48, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strange blanking you did in [[God]] 

message: <Comment on the following phrase in World view--The term denotes a comprehensive set of opinions, seen as an organic unity, about the world as the medium and exercise of human existence. Weltanschauung serves as a framework for generating various dimensions of human perception and experience like knowledge, politics, economics, religion, culture, science, ethics.>
:*1. God, call it Theistic: monotheistic, anthropomorphic, transcendent God.
 
:*2. G-D, call it Spinozistic Theistic: momotheistic, immanent, indwelling G-D.
:Between the two, debate is useless. The debaters would be talking past each other. It is as if they were playing different games; one by the rules of checkers and the other by that of chess.
:They each hold these different views because of the greater peace-of-mind it brings them (their Religion) and therefore it would be very difficult to talk them out of their viewpoint; they have too big an investment.
The same thing happened when two persons debated 'god(s)' and 'God', millennia ago.
Yesselman 17:01, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two World Views 

message: be careful when reverting (the obnoxiously frequent and unimaginative) vandalism -- here, the rollback missed this nonsensical statement (not sure if its vandalism or simple hallucinating) just before. dab (ᛏ) 17:07, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: vandalism

message: I will be viciously editing this article very soon as it contains much unnecessary linkcruft.  See Wikipedia:Make only links relevant to the context.  You have a few hours to one day to discuss this before I start.  --Cyde Weys talkcontribs 16:03, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: just go ahead, people can still re-insert links if they disagree with you. dab (ᛏ) 16:36, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Cut away!  KHM03 16:43, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Good work. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 10:02, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

text: That's a great job. Tx * 1012. Good idea. Nice. Love (oops!). Gtabary 11:40, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice.  KHM03 12:42, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extraneous link snippage incoming 

message: I originally suggested this section. The last line was recently rephrased as It has been proposed that science and spirituality could maybe join peacefully here, in saying God is eternal. This is an unaccurate statement, because it was not an outcome of the reasearch. I am not able to suggest a better phrasing, so I prefere to remove it cleanly, in order to avoid incorrect info. Bye. Gtabary 18:45, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't want this to sound like a personal attack, (though it probably will - tact was never my thing), but the section on neurobiology and the Deity is very badly written. I suggest you go back to your sources and try to boil them down to a para or two that reads fluently and gets the information across accurately and succinctly. Nevertheless, the idea that the human brain predisposed, for purely biological reasons, to create God, is worth stating. PiCo 17:28, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: the section is clearly relevant, and it also clearly could bear some improvement; so, please, do improve it! dab (ᛏ) 18:28, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I guess there is a language problem on that section. Being a non-native, I won't be able to really make it nice. Could one suggest a rewrite here ? Or simply enough edit the section Gtabary 19:54, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neurobiological findings 

message: why do we list hollywood movies, when there is an age old tradition of portraying God in art and literature? (I know, I know, "so fix it" -- I would just like to point out that the hollywood references are tiny tiny trivia in the mighty stream of human culture; please expand to "God in art" or something) dab (ᛏ) 18:31, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: "popular culture"

message: not my revision! someone else at my house doing it. sorry for the misunderstanding.
dang kids nowadays.
Aeryka 04:50, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  some blockhead on my account 

message: Meditation is currently a nominee on WP:IDRIVE. If you would like to see this article improved vote for it on WP:IDRIVE.--Fenice 15:32, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Improvement Drive

message: A change was made by an anon user:
:-	
I asked a hebrew speaking friend about this - she said the first is the generic term god, the second is the specific God known to jewish/christian faiths - the connotations are similar to god vs God or god vs The One True God. 
This may be considered POV either way, just a heads up, I'm not a hebrew speaker but felt that it would be good to call attention to this for any that are. Triona 20:24, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hebrew links 

message: Hey all, I believe you may remember me as the person who rewrote the neurology section to be NPOV and added it back in some time back. In retrospect, I don't think it belongs -- it's off-topic for this article, belonging more to an article on belief than to an article about the monotheistic concept of god. I've therefore removed it again. --Improv 21:02, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi there. I suggested initialy the section. FYI some (here) found this section relevent. I keep thinking it is a nice piece of information in this article. Bye. Gtabary 02:37, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Hi again. The actual experiment referenced in the section is not only about belief but more importantly about religious belief. So in absolute this is indeed not the best article to drop this section in, but it does bring an interesting information. I see there is a religious belief article redirecting to Religion. Would that information belongs better to this article ? Gtabary 21:38, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless we ever have an article on Religious Belief (which maybe we should), the general article on Religion is probably the best place for it. --Improv 00:01, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Hi there. Done. Moved in Religion article + a little talk on Religion to explain. Bye. Gtabary 13:16, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed neurology section 

message: I think the phrasing of "most people" in the first sentence is a bit POV -- it strongly implies some sort of world consensus that I do not think remotely exists.  If you take all the monotheistic religions together, they are just barely more than half the world's population (see Major_world_religions), and I for one know plenty of Christians who are pretty iffy on the God concept.  
I would like to change it to "many believe".  Comments?   bikeable (talk) 05:58, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I made the change.  I agree that the "Christianity" of such people is questionable, but a lot of folks check off boxes on the census without strong thought about their own beliefs... thanks for the feedback.  bikeable (talk) 21:46, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "most" people? 

message: Changed conceptions to concepts in second paragraph. I know some people use the first to mean the second but I don't think it is really proper English usage...--BozMotalk 16:01, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I think 'conceptions of God vary widely" is what we're trying to say, not "Concepts of God"...  God might not necessarily be just a concept, so this could be POV... but people's conceptions (possibly including some misconceptions) of him are very different. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 16:14, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: conceptions

message: In regards to this reversion.  Actually, I think the point of Gallup polls is that they are done scientifically.  Gallup is a well-known polling organization and they do strive for accuracy.  That said, I don't think this is at all relevant in the opening sentences of the article (or anywhere else in it, for that matter).  The insertion of this into the opening sentence was simply blatant POV-pushing to acknowledge that the majority of people are religious.  Yes, we know.  --Cyde Weys votetalk 14:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, a cite and reference is needed because there are those who would have it erroneously read "some" (wishful thinking on their part) and a reference is supposedly to stop this error from repeatedly coming back... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 14:20, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Cyde is correct in that the term "vast majority" is POV, even if supported by a poll. I'm sure I can find ample evidence to contradict the statement, so should I change it to read "small minority" and cite that evidence? That's essentially your justification. The word "some" can mean 1% or 99%, but it's objective and NPOV. --Papep 14:41, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The poll and the statement are inherently POV and completely unnecessary for an encyclopedia article. Leave them out. Why have a statement as to percentage, direct or implied, at all? "Some" is accurate, how on earth is that "wishful thinking"? One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua?!? 14:31, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What don't you understand? "Some" may be technically accurate, but it is highly misleading. "Widely" is accurate. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 14:32, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Some" is objectively accurate, and whether or not is misleading is up to the intellect of the reader, whereas "widely" is subjective. --Papep 14:42, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

text: An American survey of 1,002 people is hardly a "fact" that the "vast majority" believe in God. If the survey is to stay in, it needs to be presented in context, not as a "fact" without due explanation. The second survey gives no data about how many were surveyed in each country, whether it represented a statistically valid cross-section, or anything else to establish the validity of the poll. (updated KillerChihuahua?!? 15:53, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

text: People who think they know who should and who shouldn't edit shouldn't edit at all.  +2 points for recursion  Cyde Weys votetalk 15:52, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gallup poll 

message: I don't think "might be fair to say" is good English style for an encyclopedia. It'd be cool if that section could be reworded to avoid that phrase. --Improv 19:42, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely concur - be bold! KillerChihuahua?!? 19:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. Let me redirect you to  .SoothingR 13:50, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Might be fair to say

message: , and different people subsume within that term their different concepts about the nature and attributes of such a being.
I moved this here from the article, as it is a sentence fragment with links to two articles as subject. Would whoever placed this in the article explain what they were trying to say? KillerChihuahua?!? 10:13, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sentence fragment

message: The article states that Jesus is considered the messiah in Islam. This is false and it should be corrected because he is only considered a prophet in Islam.Ortho 04:54, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are incorrect. See  and , specifically the Pickthal and Shakir translations. Pepsidrinka 04:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Okay I won't argu but what kinda Massiah could he be if the "real thing" came after him?Ortho 05:51, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not quite sure what your asking. Nonetheless, reading Messiah#In Islam could prove to be helpful. Pepsidrinka 06:15, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jesus in Islam 

message: I don't think it's appropriate to have this section added, the potential logical paradox is already covered in the (linked) omnipotence article, which discusses it in detail. To be balanced, you should really repeat the arguments used in that article here, as to why it might not be a contradiction, rather than just stating that logic can disprove the existence of god(s).  As that would mean the same paragraph would basically be repeated in two separate articles, I'm removing the section for the moment, but comments welcome. MartinRe 16:26, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the only reason I kept it originally was because I didn't realize this topic was covered elsewhere. The section was not written very professionally. joturner 16:36, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Non existence proof

message: I've removed this section to talk because it is not sourced. I don't have any view on whether it should be in the article, but I do think that if it is, it must be closely sourced:
:One newer idea on God is that God is the result of evolution in our infinite multiverse being statistically required to cause a being to come into existence based on properties of quantum physics rather than chemistry. Such a being, using the properties of said particles, would not have the physical limits of molecules, thus expanding to conver infinite space-time in all universes upon coming into existance. Although this could happen naturally, it can also merge with the posthuman thought to a certain degree in that such a being may be the result of human invention. Such a being would, by its nature, "spread" (although with time being a void concept, it was there to begin with) to include all things in the multiverse. Statistically, given an infinite mulitverse, this view is almost a required to happen.
James James 09:30, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But Georg Cantor showed that there are degrees of infinities, and it may be the case that the infinity of possible beings is more exhaustive than the infinity of universes which could allow them to be, so statistically it may also be the case that your view is highly improbable.  Ruby 23:11, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statistical God 

message: Rationale for the edit: 
*"Supreme Being" may be a suitable primary understanding of the concept of God for the purposes of an encyclopedia entry, but the un-capatalized "ultimate reality" seems to take into account in a more objective way the breadth of thought on the subject of God. "Being" implies an essence that can be pinned down (at least in some comprehensible), whereas "reality" does not look at God as either subject or object.
* As this article is said to refer specifically to monotheistic and henotheistic concepts, it could be argued that God does not take on the character of the "sum total of existence" in all monotheistic/henotheistic thought (either religious or non-religious, theological or a-theological). For most, monotheism talks of a God independent of any creation, or, at the very least, a conception of God that does not concur with the statement "the universe is God". This is strictly pantheism, or, if we are to state that "God is the universe, but is also above the universe" - panentheism.
* Giving deism the benefit of the doubt of being a "monotheistic religion", I removed from one of my first formulations the edition of the term "sustainer" to the monotheistic ascriptions, leaving God as merely "creator and ruler". (Deism may indeed additionally make inroads into the term "ruler"? Of course, it may not be a verifiable claim to call deism a "religion", but some or more of its adherents do lay claim to aspects of religious devotion and practice in their worldview.)
*It seems to be clear that philosophy (or, at least, some form of proto-philosophical methodology) does have something to do with “God” in the first instance. My edit left out any specific link of philosophical thought with monotheistic thought and/or religion, despite there being a verifiable strong link. This was intended to move the article away from being a copy of the “philosophy of religion” entry.
Any comments, please feel free to leave messages on my talk-page or email me! Robertjessetelford 03:28, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit of introductory statements 

message: Rationale for the further edit of introductory statements:
*"God" is questioned and pondered in many disciplines of human experience, hence it is appropriate to give a fuller summary of the philosophical and theological interest groups and schools of thought which give rise to the debate surrounding God.
*Added "theologians" to third paragraph in order to show that it is not just thinkers within philosophy who are interested in the question of God. (A further question: is a theologian just a particular type of philosopher?? I would suggest that this is the case, but one fundamentally centred on questions of God, or however Wikipedia defines theology/theologian...)
Any questions or comments, please leave on my talk page or email me! Robertjessetelford 16:03, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Further edit 

message: The current intro sentence is:
:God is the term used in English to denote the deity who is believed in monotheistic religions to be the creator and ruler of the universe.
What is the point of specifying  in English in an encyclopedia written in English?  It seems odd, out of place, and redundant.  I'm taking it out.  Reverts - please explain your reasoning here.  --Serge 07:01, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It may not be necessary.  I only added it because, without it, someone might get the idea that this name is used universally, across the board in all monotheistic religions.  As far as I know, that spelling is not used in any language other than English.  But, one would hope our readers already know this much.  ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 13:43, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  in English? 

message: The current introductory paragraph includes the following statement:
:Theologians and philosophers have discussed conceptions of God since the dawn of civilization. 
I am changing it to:
:Theologians, philosophers and mythologists have studied countless conceptions of God since the dawn of civilization.
I think it is a more accurate and rounded statement regarding the many conceptions of God.  Mythographers study conceptions of God too.  --=Serge 23:27, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You feel that God is not real. You want to insist that God is mythological. I got it. I understand what you're trying to say (though as a Christian, I respectfully disagree). But isn't that a point of view? And isn't the point here to eliminate a non-neutral point of view? Mhking 23:39, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Quite a bit of the myth/mythology articles and their talk pages discuss whether or not it's accurate to say that those terms suggest falsehood. We really don't need to repeat that debate on every article about something that is relevant to mythology, especially on one as visible as this one. The article should avoid referring to God as mythological; however, saying that scholars of religion and mythology study various conceptions of God isn't unreasonable from my perspective. -Sean Curtin 00:53, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, and that's all this last change asserted.  I'm putting it back.  Please do not revert unless you have a NPOV argument.  --Serge 06:48, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Mythologists also discuss conceptions of God.  That's the point.  Why editors are motivated to make changes is irrelevant to whether the edit is NPOV or not, which is all that should matter.  Why are you so insistent about removing an NPOV statement of fact?   But, whatever, somebody else can add it back in.  --Serge 08:04, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would beg to differ - the statement is not an NPOV statement; it is one that puts forward your own point of view. Mhking 13:31, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Every statement represents someone's view.  The standard is whether the statement is true from a neutral point of view, period.  If it also happens to coincide with someone else's POV (which surely it does), even the one making the statement, is irrelevant.  --Serge 05:16, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  God is topic in mythology 

message: the translators of the KJV chose Exodus 6:3 to put the name YHWH as Jehovah, but the better choice would have been Exodus 3:15.  Moses asks what is your name? and is given the answer --you shall tell them I AM THAT I AM, but in parallel in the next verse :15, he is told, you are tell them YHWH, this is my NAME and a memorial to me for all generations.
and I can think of no better place to have the name than this, but perhaps that would be too disturbing for trinitarians who would just like to ignore that the OT god had a name and it was not JesusJiohdi 00:44, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: misrepresentation or just ignorance?

message: Someone has said Spiritism is not about God, but only MENTIONS God, but I think it is untrue, because Spiritism is absolutely about God (see by yourself), and mainly cite and explain things about God that was never solved. I won't desist, I still believe I will get to explain the logical reasons to link Spiritism to God. (posted by User:Jesvane)
:Although I am not a Spiritist, and being totally against later mediunic pratices related to partial possession of the physical body (even if by good nature entities as "Spirit guides" aiming to aid people who look for them), I agree with this user's point of view. The reference he had introduced as "The Spirit's Book by Allan Kardec" is, from my point of view, a higly valuable reference source to this article and expresses the perspective of millions of followers worldwide, since the 19th century, about God. --GalaazV 20:46, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Absolutely not. By this logic we should add a link here to every religion. Wikipedia is not a link farm. JoshuaZ 20:54, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  KHM03 21:42, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  GOD AND SPIRITISM 

message: I have restored a cited intro. While it is clearly open to improvement, it is important that it not be replaced with what I found: uncited bias. God is not "a" deity, he is the absolute infinite. This article is not about Zeus, or gods, but about the singular monotheist, pantheist, or panentheist entity. It is important that we not lose sight of that. See Deity#Singular_God. Sam Spade 06:50, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro bias 

message: Hi,
I know you are interested in christianity, and I recently started a new wiki over at wikicities which is on the subject of christianity. Christian Knowledge Base is the site. 
The goal is to have a knowledgebase on christianity from a distinctly "C(hristian)POV" rather than the NPOV. It is not meant to be a mere Christian Encyclopedia, but to foster a real sense of community. I'd like to include things like current events, news, stories, and anything that would add to both an understanding of Christianity, but also its enjoyment. I'm looking for help to build a resource that could really enrich the lives of Christians.
I know you are busy but I am actively seeking new sysops/admins to help me build this site up, and I would be positively thrilled if you could contribute in any capacity whatsoever. 
Empty2005 01:40, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I Would Love Anyone's Help! 

message: Hey this is Dwalton512, what about a short writing on the Attributes of The God of the Bible.
There are two groups of attributes that most Biblical scholars use.
1. Non-Moral Attributes:  According to Henry Thiessen these are those prdicates of the divine essence that do not involve moral qualities.
- Omnipresence: "Omni" is a Latin prefix meaning all and so for the God of the Bible to be omnipresent means He is present everywhere, all the time in his completeness.
- Omniscience: This means that the God of the Bible knows all things: Past, Present, and Future.  Thre is nothing that God does not know.
- Omnipotence:  This means that God is all powerfull.  He is able to do all things that do not controdice the law of noncontrodiction and that does not go against his Attributes.
- Immutable:  This means that God is unchanging and forever the same.  
2. Moral Attributes:  These, according to Thiessen, are those necessary predicates of the divine essence that involve moral qualities.
- Holiness:  This means that the God of the Bible is separated from all moral evil and sin.  
- Goodness:  This is God's benevolenced on man kind.  God blesses all of mankind in many ways yet he does not have to.
- Truth:  This means that God cannot lie or do anything contrary to who he is.  God must and does act in accordence to who he is and what he says.
There are many more attributes but maybe this will get us started... what do you think???????
SOURCES: Lectures in Systematic Theology, by Henry Thiessen.   Systematic Theology by Charles Hodge.
:I would suggest specifically that something like this could be included under the section "Conceptions of God."   It could go under a new section "Traditional Christian attributes of God."  Or the section on the "Biblical definition of God" could be divided into two parts: 1) "Biblical references to God's character" and 2) "Traditional Christian attributes of God.”  The article would probably benefit from some basic reorganized so it is difficult to say where this list should go, but I would agree that the article should include a brief list of the most basic attributes of God from traditional Christian systematic theology.--Jjhake 19:16, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Listing the attributes of God

message: God is not only for monotheists. There are also henotheists, pantheists, panentheists, deists, dualists and dozens of others who worship God. Secondly the number of worshipers is relevant, someone would come away from this article with a piss-poor understanding of God if they didn't know a clear majority of people alive today (much more historically!) worship God. The number of editors is completely irrelevant however, Wikipedia is not a democracy, nor is any book of reference. Last but not least, removing relevant citations, esp. because they contradict your POV (which you should not be pushing btw) is extremely intellectualy dishonest, and brings into question what inspires you to edit an encyclopedia in the first place. In sum it is agressive POV pushing, intellectually dishonest, and is tantamount to vandalism. Don't do it.
If you have your own facts to cite, or some ideas for re-wording, please bring them to the table, I am glad to hear. Simply be aware that intellectual rigour is a fundamental necessity for encyclopedic discussion. 
Cheers, Sam Spade 16:40, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Believers of what?  True monotheism (which is relatively rare), modified monotheism, henotheism (which is an interesting scoial theory, but quite possibly incorrect)? •Jim62sch• 10:19, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, I doubt the comment re seasoned atheists (or even agnostics for that matter), but you're right about public opinion.  Had Christianity not had Paul and Constantine, we'd probably all still be polytheists. •Jim62sch• 22:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  monotheism, majority, and the value of citations 

message: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Sam Spade - I've started the RfC on Sam Spade based on his reverting and avoidance of discussions on various articles. Feel free to comment, but please remain civil. -- infinity0 17:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC of Sam Spade 

message: Can't I add in the article that God is recruited into the WWE? I know it may sound like a joke but it is actually true.
*Sounds like a joke to me. Danny Lilithborne 01:21, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Its a non-notable publicity stunt. At best it belongs in some article about the WWE. Some people may think that the WWE is  so influential on humant thought, history and culture that it deserves a remark here about its influence/recruitement/whathaveyou on God or the notion of God. I would disagree, and I suspect, so would most Wikipedians. JoshuaZ 01:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What's the WWE? PiCo 01:59, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you for proving the point PiCo. They are the "World Wrestingling Entertainment" the largest producer of professional (that is staged) wrestling in the US (possibly the world, not sure). Wikipedia has an extensive article on them if you really care. JoshuaZ 02:30, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Last Monday, Vince McMahon said he would team up with Shane McMahon to take on Shawn Michaels and God. I thought that it would be suitable to make an article saying that God will be partnering with Shawn Michaels at WWE Backlash. Even the WWE website says that God will team up with Shawn Michaels. JoshuaZ, I understand your statement, but do you think what Vince said was a joke? Caffolote 06:14, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I frankly don't care whether it was a joke or not. There are at least 10 other comments about God that I would stick in here and have had more actual influence and encyclopedic value than whatever junk Vince McMahon is saying. I know we have problems with localism both social and physical on Wikipedia, but this is ridiculous. JoshuaZ 03:43, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah, your right, JoshuaZ. Sorry about that. Caffolote 03:54, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Don't worry about it. Your a new user and new users(and old users even) sometimes make suggestions that turn out to be sub-optimal. The good thing is that you came to the talk page first to ask about, which is perfectly in accordance with procedure. Glad to have you as an editor. JoshuaZ 04:24, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Holy shit, this should be at BJAODN. I can't believe you did not take this a as just a joke. Lapinmies 17:11, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WWE 

message: The WWE thing brings up an issue: we don't have an article on God in popular culture. (i.e. movies, tv etc.) does anyone think this would be a good topic for an article? JoshuaZ 04:25, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A way to make that WWE edit valid (though it was funny)? Actually, it's not a bad idea. CMacMillan 04:54, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Please review basic Wikipedia policies such as WP:NPOV and WP:NOT.  We're here to write an encyclopedia, and while an article on God in popular culture may be interesting and encyclopedic, under no circumstances should any wikipedia article be "based on opinion".  Wikipedia is not a soapbox. —Spangineer[es] (háblame) 06:39, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  God and popular culture 

message: Why would people argue the exictence of god? Its pointless. God is something that people belive in, Something thats always there. God doesnt have to be physically real,people, civilizations need something to argree on, that one thing is religion. Everyone has a religion even Atheists. A religion is something you believe in and follow. No matter who your God is you belive in him or her or it. The whole WWE thing, is stupid, its not funny at all. God is a balance in our socity. It (God) sees no difference between rich and poor, black or white. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.137.126.72 (talk • contribs) .
:"Everyone has a religion even Atheists" - actually that statement is very much disputed by most atheists, and religion is generally not defined to mean what society agrees on. Not to argue or anything, I'm just pointing that out... –Tifego(t) 23:41, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WTF?--130.191.17.38 23:36, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is irrelevant WHY they argue it, but for the purposes of this website, God should have an article. He's undoubtedly the most influential figure in human history, whether He exists or not. If they want to argue that He's fake, they can do it on the Atheism Page. Demosthenes 1 01:29, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why Would People Argue? 

message: *The article claims Kisaski is "Japanese God incarnate".  The link is red.  Does anyone know more than this? Danny Lilithborne 11:52, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kisaski 

message: I added a pretty straightforward idea to this article earlier and it was removed, saying I need a source.
Now I add a source and am told it's not sufficient for a "non-noteable" opinion.
The standards keep changing.  Do I need to belabor this with a source in a peer reviewed journal like Philosophy and Theology?
Will that finally let it stand? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.84.178.82 (talk • contribs) .
:Pretty much, yes - or at least a vaguely reputable source (a newspaper commentator might do if it wasn't just a passing joke). This is an encyclopaedia after all, and you'd be unlikely to find Britannica citing the opinions of anonymous Geocities webmasters. See reliable sources for a fuller explanation. To be honest, it sounds more like an amusing witticism than a encyclopaedic point. --Sam Blanning(talk) 08:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations 

message: Does not seem notable or influential enough, or a large enough segment of monotheists, for inclusion. If we include The New Church at 50,000 members, we surely should include Sukyo Mahikari at 1,000,000, who worship the "Su God", also known as "Revered-Parent Origin-Lord True-Light Great God". Information from Adherents.com. Neither is significant enough to warrant inclusion in this article. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua?!? 19:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: the New Church