Talk:God

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the God article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (`~~~~`). New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite, and welcoming to new users Assume good faith Do not attack other users For disputes, please see our guideline	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

Why is Islam first?[change source]

— This unsigned comment was added by 193.61.101.9 (talk • changes). - Answering with a question: is the order important? — This unsigned comment was added by 201.78.20.4 (talk • changes).

Because Abrahamic comes before Christian in the alphabet. We do not discriminate. Why should it not come first? fr33kman ^talk 18:00, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

God?[change source]

When did God become a "Christian" word? That's ridiculous. It's a word that is used across all religions to describe an ultimate power, not just Christianity. — This unsigned comment was added by KalBhairava108 (talk • changes).

Jahweh[change source]

Why isn't 'Jahweh' mentioned? Why only 'God' and 'Allah'? 82.73.63.127 17:12, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

and what about the many other names God goes by, as well as other languages? We don't want a long list of names God goes by. --LBMixPro ^<talk|to|m ^e ^> 04:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's Zues, Jahweh, God, Allah, and much much more --Bianca (talk to Bianca) 01:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

God is a three-person -triune- God : Yehwah -the Father, Yeshwa -the Son and the Holy Spirit. He created man in His own image. It means, among other similarities, man is also a triune being . He is a spirit, he has a soul and he lives in a body. The spirit is his inner person -the part in which God can come and dwell. The soul comprises thinking power, imagination, emotions and decision-making power. The soul is akin to God the Father -the thinking, directing Person, the body represents Yeshua -God's Son who took the human form. — This unsigned comment was added by 122.167.89.223 (talk • changes).

This article is a disgrace[change source]

This topic is supposed to be one of the most important ones for any encyclopedia. But now it's pretty much only a stub. 211.28.149.203

Hindu polythiesm myth[change source]

This article perpetuates it. im editing it to correct this. hinduism is not polythiestic

Move?[change source]

Should we move the "God" page to "God (Bible)" and move the "Gods" page to "God"? From a neutral point of view, "God" should be the disambiguation page. — This unsigned comment was added by Alexhl (talk • changes).

Apatheism[change source]

I like this word, but I have never heard it before, and it has only 11700 hits on a Google search. If the word were not in en.wikipedia, it would probably have almost no hits. Should words that are almost unknown in the English language be on Simple.WP? I'm asking, I'm learning here. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 00:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yawheh[change source]

I think that this is slightly wrong because most Christians call God, well, simply God, not always Yawheh.

Sorry if I spelled it wrong. — This unsigned comment was added by User:24.2.127.132 (talk • changes).

I believe it is in Judaism that people say Yahweh, not Christianity. --Isis ♠(talk) 23:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In Judaism, god is known as Hashem. Also, this article should link to atheism and mention criticism of the god idea. — This unsigned comment was added by 124.189.98.196 (talk • changes).

This is a disgrace[change source]

This article looks like an atheist wrote it, it hurt me personally and I expect it to be changed as soon as possible. Even the opening of the article is offensive, it belittles the Lord I worship left and right. I believe it should be edited to be presented in a more friendly and respectful matter. "God is a fictional being described by multiple religions." It hasn't been proven yet, but that does not make him fake. I also disapprove of how he is said to be used as an "excuse" reason maybe, but excuse is a little harsh. 71.220.122.252 (talk) 03:03, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then fix it. It's a wiki! Just make sure that you edit with a neutral point of view (NPOV), or your edits will be reverted. Griffinofwales (talk) 03:07, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the intro to perhaps be clearer. But please note that this is a wiki; users are expected to help, rather than expecting others to do this. So next time, please be bold, and simply change the article. --Eptalon (talk) 07:51, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does God Exist section[change source]

to preempt the inevitable revert because I am not signed in, I'll go ahead and provide a link to my edit.

Since there is no evidence FOR god according to science, the correct citation would a published, peer reviewed article demonstrating some evidence for the supernatural. It's rather hard to prove the opposite. I could say "there are no black birds in australia" and if you asked me to prove it, I would have to show you pictures of every bird on the continent. A better rebuttal would be to supply a pic of a black bird.

For a link demonstrating that it is settled in scientific circles, here is a link to a nature article polling the National Academy of Sciences where 93% of its members are agnostic/atheist. And that was 1998 before Dawkins became outspoken. [1]--108.1.200.173 (talk) 21:36, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I am sure you know, the proper citation would be to a secondary or tertiary source. fr33k man 21:41, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong theism[change source]

I assume that the belief position "God exists and this can be proven" should be labeled as "strong theism" and not merely "theism"? I have seen this term used from what I have read of the subject, and this is also reflected on the English Wikipedia page "Spectrum of theistic probability". Kansan (talk) 03:13, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We could also use Gnostic Theism, which would coincide with the Theism article. Either way, the only real problem I have with changing the term is that:

It complicates the wording a bit with specific details which might not totally be necessary, and
It would seem that gnostic theism is the de facto theism for most. A distinction between strength of conviction for theists is rare.

That said, I'm not strongly opposed either way. Go for it. Jess ^talk _cs 03:21, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and included the terms at the end of the paragraph as two examples of there being variations or names on the terms, which I hope avoids the issue of complication, and by nature, would not be inaccurate because it refers directly to differences in opinion on the ideal terminology. Kansan (talk) 03:26, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Part of Christianity Project[change source]

Why is this part of the project on Christianity? This article is (and should be) non-specific to a particular religion... but this tag adds a whole slew of links to Christian-specific articles at the bottom. No other religion is getting that kind of exposure in the article, which is a problem. I'll leave it here for a few days for discussion, and then remove it. Jess ^talk _cs 03:15, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really have a problem with it being part of that project, given that it is a crucial subject within Christianity, and that userbox listing would almost seem strange without this page listed. The same could be said for any hypothetical projects on other monotheistic religions. Having said that, it might be best to make that particular box collapsible, especially given the fact that, as I said, this page could fit under any number of potential categorizations. Kansan (talk) 03:17, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I don't know if we have a collapse template in simple. Even still, I'm not sure a Christian-specific table is appropriate, even collapsed, without equal exposure to something else. It gives undue weight to one particular thought of thousands. (And really, what does a link to, say, Constantine have to do with an article on God?) I very much like the en box on it, which includes links to most major world religions. That appears to be very useful, and NPOV. --- Thoughts are welcome. I don't necessarily want to be screwing with entire projects on simple. :| Jess ^talk _cs 03:29, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First off, I wouldn't be too concerned about disruption on the project, given that most lie dormant. With that (and your last reply) in mind, I now think it would probably be acceptable to remove the box and perhaps replace it with a userbox on world religions and associated topics, including theism itself, atheism, agnosticism, and anything else. I do agree with you that this would be less likely to reflect any particular POV. As an aside, I would like to at least know if there is a collapse template here, though. I know one exists specifically for talk pages, and have seen it used to remove irrelevant tangents. Kansan (talk) 03:33, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Misinformation[change source]

This article could really use some help. I'm quite new here, so perhaps my edits arent that great writing, but for example the first sentence should really present a better picture of what is the concept of God. To be a simple wiki, starting off saying Abrahamic religions say God is such and such... well not everyone would immediately understand what Abrahmaic relgions are, and many other religions like Hinduism say the same thing so why only Abrahmaic religions think this. The second sentence is misinformation. Hinduism is not really polytheistic, major streams of Hinduism are monotheistic. I tried correcting these, but it keeps getting reverted. So opening this up on the talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NerdMary (talk • contribs)

Well, first of all, sign your comments, please, with four tildes; ~~~~. Now, I have no investment in this topic, but I know it is sensitive and it will always be watched closely. One of the things you did was not to discuss first before making large changes, which is always helpful on a sensitive topic. Another thing you did was to change text which was supported by a reliable source with text supported only by your own personal opinion. Thirdly, I didn't think it was actually an improvement, but on that I'm open to correction if sources prefer another version. Changes do need to be improvements, not just "I would have put it differently". It would have made a lot of sense if you had started editing on a page which was not so central, and worked up to big topics, but again, that's just advice. I think you are basically wrong about Hinduism: it is at root a polytheistic religion. If you think differently, you absolutely must have the support of reliable sources, and you must expect various editors to disagree with you. Macdonald-ross (talk) 06:55, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I'm new and probably not a great idea to take a hot topic, but I don't particularly have any investment in this topic either, it just certainly seemed to need help. The article is nowhere near providing an article on God as the main wiki does. All I wrote was basically a simplified version from the main wiki, so I'm not sure if you read that? Sorry about not discussing first, im learning still the countless rules, i didn't mean to offend anyone. Not sure what was my personal opinion, its all from the wiki main page on the topic. The thing is that in the same article it under Easter Religions 'In Hinduism, there is only one God, named Brahman" So this is where the misinformation is and one of the reasons for trying to edit this page, because its contradicting the statement in the above by saying Hinduism believes in many Gods. You can find references for both sides of the coin, but essentially theres the concept of demi-gods which are large in number, but most worship one Supreme deity and God. So I don't know really what to say, I'm pretty new. --Peterfen (talk) 09:26, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of the comments I made, the one about reliable source is perhaps most important. Macdonald-ross (talk) 11:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Work needed..[change source]

Hello, in my opinion,some things need fixing:

While historically, God was likely seen as male, we should avoid assigning gender. There is no reason god can't be female, or that assigning gener doesn't make any sense.
We need to elaborate more clearly 'God' - the only one, therefore with capital letter vs. 'god' - one specific deity from a number of deities.
We need to mention Pascal's wager.
Creation myth, anyone?
We need to get rid of specifics of Christianity/Judaism/Islam, this is not about a specific monotheistic religion, but all of them.

Eptalon (talk) 09:08, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]