Talk:God/Archive 17

message: In the intro it is stated (implied rather than directly) the God ONLY refers to CALLUM a supreme being and a halo 2 god in a Monotheistic religion. As this is not at all true (Gods in Roman, Egyptian and Greek theology to name a few) perhaps it should simply say "God most commonly refers to" rather than "God refers to". Perhaps also an addition explaining the existance of the plural should be put.
This is a very simple revision and would make a lot more sense generally. Even if there are other articles relating to multiple Gods, it is not very clear as this is not included in the most important part of the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Frankmoon (talk • contribs) 14:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Slightly addressed this concern by making the disambiguation text bigger and more focused on this particular issue. I'm not sure this will entirely satisfy your concerns, in which case you could suggest a way of doing this, because it isn't really a very easy edit to address this concern in a balanced way. After all, the term "God" is, at least where I live, more associated with the monotheistic concept. --Merzul 12:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Most COMMONLY refers to? 

message: This passage seems much too simplistic to me:
Theologians have ascribed certain attributes to God, including omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, perfect goodness, divine simplicity, and eternal and necessary existence. He has been described as incorporeal, a personal being, a source of moral obligation, and the greatest conceivable existent.[1] These attributes were all supported to varying degrees by the early Christian, Muslim, and Jewish scholars, including St Augustine,[3] Al-Ghazali,[4] and Maimonides.[3]
I appriciate that it was summarized out of a survey text, and so it is bound to be rather condensed, but in my opinion it is condensed to the point of being in error.  For instance, the phrase:
These attributes were all supported to varying degrees by the early Christian, Muslim, and Jewish scholars, including St Augustine,[3] Al-Ghazali,[4] and Maimonides.[3]
Seems to imply that all of these theologians supported the attribution to God of the qualities listed, in verying degrees.  However, Maimonides for instance rejected entirely that one can attribute any quality to God accurately, stating that when one attributes a quality to God, such as oneness, one is not assigning to God the attribute of oneness, but is instead only using a figure of speech which represents a negation of other attributes, oneness in this case negating the idea that god has multiplicity as an attribute or is in any way multiplicitous.  Maimonides took this position to the extreme of saying that one cannot even attribute existence to God in any meaningful way, and that the very idea of God having attributes in the way we understand attributes is an error. (This is in his The Guide Of The Perplexed)
Aquinas takes a position similar to this one, but instead of going as far as saying that any attribution is an error and only negative statements can be made about god meaniningfully, takes the position that God is merely not one in any way we understand, but because the statement is received from scripture, God is still one, in a way related to our idea of one but above and beyond it in perfection and beyond our ability to know accurately; thus divine simplicity.  This position however ammounts to saying that we cannot know what we mean exactly when we say that God is one, but he is one anyway, we just don't get it (This is in his Summa Theologica)
It seems to me that the position that Maimonides takes that God cannot be said to have attributes at all, and that one cannot make any meaningful attribution to God of a quality, or the position that Aquinas takes that the attribution of qualities to God which are recieved from scripture have a meaning which is beyond us, cannot be responsibly included as 'varying degrees' of support for the position that God has the attributes listed.
I only bring this up because I've read the two authors I've mentioned and I think an accurate understanding of thier ideas of God are critical to express correctly in a wiki about God, as their ideas have served to a greater or lesser degree (Aquinas greater, Maimonides lesser) as a sort of foundation of the religious thought in thier respective religions which occured after them.
I haven't read the Muslim guy, but I'd be willing to bet that his position is similar to Maimonides, just going on the fact that Islam generally follows the idea that God cannot be understood at all by man.
I don't have the time right this second to do this myself, but I would be willing to assist anyone in expanding and clarifying this section and related sections of this wiki, or in just removing mention of the three theologians mentioned.  If the summer manages to come around before anyone feels like correcting this aspect of the wiki, I would be happy to do it myself and supply direct citations etc.
Thanks Guys
Captpschar 08:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This seems like a synthesis problem. Material is juxtaposed in a way that draws conclusions beyond what the original sources are making. I removed the "all" for now... but I don't have the time to really look through all the sources to make sure it is really accurate... --Merzul 15:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Simplified to the Point of Error 

message: This article was listed as good article here; very long time ago, and I didn't see any nomination, it was just added. You can now look in the Article History that all assessment of this article date back to 2005, when it contained the section on Conceptions of God. I think this article is a completely different article, so perhaps a GA review might be a good idea? --Merzul 14:37, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: FYI: Back in the Dark Ages, when GA began, there was no nomination process. Any editor could simply add or remove a GA. Later, as GA wars erupted, a process developed. KillerChihuahua?!? 18:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: An interesting story to say the least!Kmarinas86 08:10, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good Article? 

message: This article should link to a main article of theories with a test. 24.193.218.207 06:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure why -- seems more a descriptive than a theoretical exercise. --Shirahadasha 06:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Theory 

message: I removed this from the lead for good reasons: The unifying monotheistic conception of Brahman prevailing in the henotheistic belief system of Hinduism is also significant as a representative element in humanity's belief in a supreme God. First, it is an unattributed statement of opinion - to claim that Brahman is somehow "significant" and "representative" of some general belief held by humanity is incredibly POV. If anyone actually believes this, we must give the source and say it is their opinion, not represent it as a fact. Furthermore, it does not belong in the lead. The lead should do no more than summarise what is in the rest of the article. Unless this is one of the main things discussed in the body of the article it does not belong in the lead. Metamagician3000 04:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't denying that - hey, it was just my first edit (or one of them) on the article. I didn't expect it to be reverted immediately before I could do more or comment on the talk page. Anyway see my further comment about the lead below. Metamagician3000 04:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Rather than starting out attempting to change the introduction, why not begin by adding a Hinduism section, adding some content on Hinduism, and attempting to work from there. Be sure to follow the attribution policy for anything added. Best, --Shirahadasha 04:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it's not really up to me to do that, if you were addressing me. :) But if someone else did it, then it might well be appropriate to have a reference to Hinduism (a less POV one) in the lead. See my point? The lead (once it gets beyond more than a couple of sentences) is driven by what is in the overall article. Do you think you could write some material on Hinduism, if you think it should be there? I don't have an opinion myself - I mean we could have had an article just on the Abrahamic God. But I'm at least open to the idea given that there is a lot of other material that goes well beyond the Abrahamic tradition. Better go for now. Will look later for any replies. Metamagician3000 04:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Hinduism

message: Actually, the lead does not summarise the article very well at all. The article talks about all kinds of things that are not hinted at in the lead (though not much about Hinduism, as it happens). I suggest that a fair bit of thought be put into whether more material should be moved out of the lead into the body of the article - though nothing else needs to be deleted altogether and even the sentence about Hinduism that I objected to may belong somewhere in some form, with attribution - and whether something should be said in the lead about the general history and variety of monotheism. I'd be happy to have a go at this but I've created enough controversy for one day. I'm here to improve the article not to cause sudden disruption to it, so could other editors try to consider my comments rather than just reverting me. In return, I'll leave it alone until I see some discussion of my points. Metamagician3000 04:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Controversy... You call this controversy? :) Please go ahead and try to improve this article. I'm not very happy with this article because I'm not sure if it's a summary style overview or an independent article on the Abrahamic concept of God. I'm not sure what needs to be done, but I'm quite sure this article would benefit from some "controversial" editing. --Merzul 17:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead more generally

message: Would it be appropriate to collate all of the 'See also' links?  Would others appreciate adding to them?  Would it be possible to collect the links together (perhaps structuring them too) so as to give a coherent view on the various concepts of God (answer to last question : maybe, though probably not, and it would be a lot harder than solving a 5x5x5 Rubik's cube even if it were possible....).  
--MrASingh 23:07, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Collate the 'See also' Links

message: This part here is wrong.
Marx thought that God did not exist but he thought that its belief served a useful function. This part of this thinking is misunderstood and Alister McGrath has misunderstood him. In the 1800s opium was mainly used by doctors, a prozac is taking prozac wrong. One of the editiors here asks me would Marx see taking opium (prozac) as wrong, the answer is not if the person needs it.
Maybe for this page we should say something like "Marx thought that God did not exist" and transfer the rest to Marx page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BernardZ (talk • contribs) 02:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: BernardZ, you have provided no cite for your conclusions you are inserting.  You cite Marx's statement about religion as opium, but only if being drug addicted is "useful" can that case be made, and useful is ambiguous.  You can certainly use drugs to achieve ends, but you can use anything to achieve ends, and so everything could be said to be useful.  Did Marx think religion was beneficial?  He thought it served a purpose, just as he thought capitalism served a purpose, but that doesn't mean he thought either were good or that he thought they should not be gotten rid of.  Marx was clearly anti-religion, and your statement about opium/prozac/religion being good according to Marx seems to be your own conclusion, not his.  If you disagree with McGrath that's your business, but please cite an actual source for your conclusion that he is wrong, and McGrath says that this is not just his opinion but of many current philosophers.  Plus McGrath's point is that Marx's statements about the nature of belief in God only holds if in fact God does not exist, which is exactly the proposition Marx is trying to advance and as such is circular reasoning.  If God exists then he would be saying something like truth is the opiate of the masses, which kind of loses it's rhetorical force. Roy Brumback 08:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

text: It's not whether we agree or disagree with it or not.  It's that you are personally analyzing what Marx said and putting in your own conclusion about what this statement means about Marx's opinion of religion.  I personally think he's not only begging the question but is also  using an Appeal to motive, but as I haven't found an established philosopher arguing this I let my edit to that effect be removed until I do find one.  You're free to put in Marx thought religion was like opium, but please leave out your personal conclusions about what this means. Roy Brumback 21:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

text: What exactly do they say?  Does it have anything about McGraths's assertion that Marx is begging the question, as you are using this to say McGrath is wrong about Marx.?  And is it specifically about God or religion in general. Roy Brumback 06:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

text: You said "Yet it is clear that Marx was not critical in general he actually saw a useful social function in it his quote that "the opium of the people"".  Yet Marx says abolishing religion is necessary for "real happiness".  Sounds critical to me.  And the reason given for your edit was that McGrath is wrong. Roy Brumback 01:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Marx

message: Why is this article semi-protected?  It doesn't seem to have the controversy or vandalism that would require such a measure. Scifiintel 22:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Page logs show that  tried out unprotecting this on 28 March; 10 hours later she re-protects it with the message "that didn't seem to work too well." For now, this page has indefinite semi-protection. --h2g2bob 07:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected? 

message: "God" should go to a disambiguation, not a particular article. I was under the impression that disambiguations go at the generic page (i.e. "God" and articles that are disambiguate go on pages with "()" after the name... like "God(Abrahamic deity)". 205.161.214.82 16:20, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no general rule that generic names must redirect to titles that are followed by (), although this is common for terms with multiple meanings in different instances.  Naming conventions state that the title should be a common name for the subject - when someone searches "God", he or she is most likely looking for the article on God in religion than any other meaning.  That is why in this case it is appropriate to first go to the article on God in religion rather than a disambig page. +A.0u 18:32, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

text: In short, "term" should be used instead of "term (XYZ)" for primary topics. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) +A.0u 18:37, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess, when I search for "god" I am using a generic term, when I search for the Christian god, etc, I would search "Christian god" "Yahweh" "Jehovah" "Alla" "Abrahamic god" terms, or expect a disambiguation page. To me, individual gods are all just different fictional incarnations of the same "God(male deity)". Seems to me that placing one religions "god" page over the others is a bit.... egotisical. 205.161.214.82 05:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: True, this article is relatively general (the idea of a deity or comparable being in religion).  If you look at the Template:God that appears in the article, it includes links to more articles on "Specific conceptions", such as those you mentioned.  Otherwise, if this article "God" discusses all specific individuals, it would be too long. +A.0u 05:47, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

text: 90% of Americans, maybe, but Wikipedia is also used by other countries. I have no opinion on this page, however. --h2g2bob 06:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

text: One shouldn't assume that 90% of people visiting a page is looking for just a single article.  What about the supposed other "10%" that are looking for something else?  Also, Ada is different from ADA; disambiguation pages are created for just that reason: to clarify the different topic pages that could have essentially the same term as their title. +A.0u 05:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

text: In all, there's a difference between a primary topic (such as God and the term "God") and a topic that should have a disambiguation page (such as Americans With Disabilities Act and the acronym AMA). +A.0u 06:02, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambiguation 

message: Hi! Can anybody, please, write few lines about concept of "Krishna as God" as seen by followers of Gaudiya Vaishnava Sampradaya disciplic succession to the article "God". There is a link already to article "Krishna" but He is not mentioned in main article. Thank you.
P.S. And also remove "I AM GOD" from there, I have seen it in the section "Etymology and usage Main article:God(word)I AM GOD"
P.S.2. I would like to edit myself, but just registered, article "God" is semiprotected, and so I cannot edit it still... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by E4krishna (talk • contribs) 18:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  God - Krishna