Talk:God

Template:WP1.0

'God' does not exist, this must be mentioned in the article

Where is the mention of the fact that god does not exist?

Since there is not one shred of evidence that god exist, scientifically god does not exist. And Wikipedia claims to be scientific, right? --83.84.46.69 (talk) 00:06, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

That's not really how science works. Ilkali (talk) 12:07, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

There's not one shred of evidence that He doesn't exist either. The existence or non-existence of a supernatural being is really very much outside the realm of science. There's simply no way to quantify it. You can't set up an experiment that would prove or disprove that sort of hypothesis. L'Aquatique[talk] 22:36, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous, check. Silly atheist prattle, check. Using the talk page as a forum for idiotic ideas, check. Can we just wipe this section already? JuJube (talk) 23:20, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

"Silly atheist prattle, check". Are you trying to offend atheists here? We're not all like this fellow. Ilkali (talk) 23:27, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

If you're going that far, you have no shred of evidence that the flying spaghetti monster isn't real either. Or that pokemon aren't real. I can use the very same excuses for those 2 as you would. What you're asking me to prove that pokemon are real ? Look at all the pokemon episodes we have! (referring to how you guys constantly say "god is real, it says so in the bible") At any rate, even though I don't agree with OP that there should be a "there is no god" section, but I am 100% for a section where it says that there is no scientific evidence to support god. At any rate, if you haven't already, look at the Invisible pink unicorn pages and the flying spaghetti monster. (I'm not signing this because I don't have a wiki account, now because I'm a coward). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.250.11.28 (talk) 13:19, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Might be useful to keep the section and point out that Wikipedia is not about defining ultimate truth, but rather reporting notable views. It is notable that people believe God exists, and notable that people do not, and this article should do both, as well as report what people mean by the term. There is no fact that God does or does not exist; rather it is a fact that people either do, or do not, believe so. Have a great Thanksgiving everyone! Let's at least thank the Turkey for loaning us a leg to nibble on! SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 23:24, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

[ec] Don't loans usually get returned? :P L'Aquatique[talk] 23:26, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah sorry, I should have rephrased, most atheists I know are cool, actually. It's just that it seems like the hip thing to do on the Internet these days is loudly shout I AM ATHEIST AND IF YOU BELIEVE IN GOD YOU ARE TEH STUPID. JuJube (talk) 00:28, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Well yeah, if you hang out on a page like Talk:God. Spare a thought for the poor souls who maintain Evolution. Ilkali (talk) 00:34, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Well it's not like God and evolution are mutually exclusive, but that's another discussion entirely. ;) JuJube (talk) 01:30, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Ditto. Evolution and the concept of a superior being are actually complimentary. It's easy to say (and refute) that everything happened because God waved his magic wand. But a being who could have come up with something so complex and beautiful but altogether logical- like evolution- must truly be superior. L'Aquatique[talk] 02:02, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

There are logical disproofs toward the existence of "God". In any other article for any other entity it would be mentioned that "God" is fictional. Why should this article be any different? -fatrb38 (12/15/08, 3:54 PM PST)

Do u have any proof, i guess trolls do not belive in God —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.96.235.247 (talk) 11:46, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Ha! Awesome... Flash Man999 (talk) 01:17, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that the atheist point of view is represented in this article by the Scientific positions section.
--Trelawnie (talk) 13:30, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

How do you disprove the existence of an almighty being? If He does exist and is almighty, trying to disprove His existence is futile. Proving His existence is also futile unless He decides to provide such proof. Faith is not based on evidence. If it was, it would not be faith. This homepage is here to provide information to the user. To do this in as good a way as possible, it needs to be neutral. Being neutral is hard. Saying "God does not exist" is not neutral. Saying "God does exist" is not neutral. Saying... Actually, I can't think of anything. I'm not good at being neutral. Point being, unless you can throw your own beliefs out the window and look at God from a completely neutral standpoint, please don't say anything and leave it in the hands of the select few capable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.67.250.88 (talk) 11:46, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Although god is not proven to exist, you can't go the full ten yards and say he doesn't exist. We could add the word mythical to the opening sentence, as in "God is a mythical deity in theistic and deistic religions and other belief systems, representing either the sole deity in monotheism, or a principal deity in polytheism.[1]". The article "mythical" has citations that explain that use of the term generally does not refer to truth or falsity, while at the same time explains that it is a collection of stories. Would that be sufficient? // Mark Renier (talk) 14:13, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

re: Suggestion/proposal to add "mythical" qualifier for deity

• Are their mythical deities and non-mythical deities? (i.e, deity does not require qualification).
• In the lede/lead sentence of an encyclopedia entry especially, the common meaning of a word (rather than a possible e.g. academic meaning) would be implied and expected.
• Describing deities as mythical is highly contentious ... and does not have consensus in Wikipedia.

I.E., adding the word "mythical" in front for "deity" would not have consensus. Proofreader77 (talk) 15:55, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Those are good points. The first one is humorous, even...'are there non-mythical deities'. However, when I look at the article on Zeus, it mentions "in Greek mythology,...<rest of opening sentence>". We could apply that standard to this article also: "In Christian mythology...". This may help satisfy these contributors. // Mark Renier (talk) 17:13, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Quick response for now:

• In Christian mythology, Jewish mythology, Islamic mythology ... (doubt you mean this:)

“ In Christian mythology, Jewish mythology, Islamic mythology etc God is a deity in theistic and deistic religions and other belief systems, representing either the sole deity in monotheism, or a principal deity in polytheism. ”

I.E., In various mythologies, God is a deity in various religions? (Surely not what you are suggesting.)

• Zeus is listed in mythological categories (see bottom of Zeus page)
• God is NOT listed in mythological categories (see bottom of God page)
• If "mythical" "mythological" does not mean "does not exist" (which you are saying it doesn't), then it will not "satisfy" the people who want to say "God does not exist." Or are you suggesting we trick them into believing it does, so they can be happy? :-)
• Exactly how things get categorized in certain ways is a complex matter, and conflation (sensible and otherwise) certainly happens ... but "religion" and "mythology" are different categories.

BOTTOM LINE The descriptor "deity" should not have an adjective inserted in front of it just to placate people who want to make sure that all intelligent people know there is no such thing, but are not intelligent enough to know that the adjective doesn't mean that. :) Proofreader77 (talk) 23:29, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Fundamental reason "God does not exist" is not prominently pointed out in article: This is a social sciences article, not a natural science article or other page specifically talking about the 'real world'. Sociological articles are concerned with beliefs; we do not waste time on Thor asserting Thor's nonexistence. We just say "Thor is the red-haired and bearded god of thunder in Germanic mythology and Germanic paganism"; ontological issues are left aside. They'd be left aside completely on this page too, if God's existence wasn't a noteworthy topic of discussion in its own right, both in philosophy and in the past few centuries of back-and-forth debate between 'atheists' and 'theists'. But in even that respect, we're still treating the matter sociologically, by reporting on the social phenomenon of philosophers and laypeople debating the issue (and hence reporting on their views on the matter); we aren't concerned with the matter of fact of 'who's right', because if God doesn't exist, it's not like he's especially nonexistent or particularly imaginary — he's in the exact same boat as every other deity and creature of folklore.

In other words: Nobody has satisfactorily established, to the standards of intersubjective verifiability, that God exists, so we can't say he does; and if he doesn't exist, that's so trivially true that it seems silly to point it out while not pointing out the nonexistence of Santa Claus or Poseidon, so it's pointless to say he doesn't; but on the other hand, whether (and why) people think he does or doesn't exist, is an absolutely fascinating issue, irrespective of God's ontology. So this is what Wikipedia concerns itself with. -Silence (talk) 22:29, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Let me just say one thing: absence of disproof (of god) is not proof (of god), as many theists contend. The entire concept of an "unseeable, unknowable, intangible god" was invented to discourage rational arguments against theism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.90.55.168 (talk) 08:04, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The article is using theism for two different conclusions when it could be better expressed using agnostic-theism and gnostic-theism.

"Conclusions reached include: "God does not exist" (strong atheism); "God almost certainly does not exist"[16] (de facto atheism); "no one knows whether God exists" (agnosticism); "God exists, but this cannot be proven or disproven" (theism); and "God exists and this can be proven" (theism). There are numerous variations on these positions."

It's using theism for two completely different views.

"It is often put forth as a middle ground between theism and atheism,[1] though it is not a religious declaration in itself and the terms are not mutually exclusive. Agnosticism refers to knowledge, while atheism and theism refer to belief" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism

So with that it should be:

"Conclusions reached include: "God does not exist" (strong atheism); "God almost certainly does not exist"[16] (de facto atheism); "no one knows whether God exists" (agnosticism); "God exists, but this cannot be proven or disproven" (agnostic-theism); and "God exists and this can be proven" (gnostic-theism). There are numerous variations on these positions."

Intelligent Design

The article states that intelligent design is a new argument for the existence of god. It's not--it's simply the clock maker argument warmed over. If a person finds a watch on a beach, the person assumes that there was a watchmaker. Similarly, because of the apparent design of the universe, there must be a designer. These arguments always neglect the fact that by adding a designer, one is positing a more complicated universe in that the universe and it's designer now exist, and positing an infinite regress in that if the universe needs a maker, then who made the maker? Occam's razor suggests these sorts of arguments be tossed out.68.25.16.4 (talk) 00:01, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

That's addressed in the second sentence about ID - It is a modern form of the traditional argument from design, ... KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 00:23, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Anthropomorphism (Xenophanes' mockery)

A quick note ... that I have (awkwardly:) responded to the insertion of mention of Xenophanes' mockery of the concept as the 1st sentence of an existing 1st paragraph on the concept by pulling it up into a new first "paragraph" (while it is determined how to work this into the topic).Why? Because a disjointed (unflowed) criticism of a conception should certainly not just be jammed onto the front of an existing first paragraph.

In general, there is a (understandable) tendency to be lazy about sentence flow when inserting information—but inserting a critical perspective at the beginning of a topic could be perceived as rhetorical.

I.E., Let us ponder how this information/perspective/commentary should be worked into the section. Proofreader77 (talk) 19:39, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Follow-up: Removed because of topic (see below). Proofreader77 (talk) 20:48, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

NOTE "Scientific positions regarding God"

Whether "Anthropomorphism" should be a subtopic of "Scientific positions regarding God," is an interesting question ... but at this time it is, and the discussion is (apparently) covering "scientific" sources. Since Xenophanes' mockery is philosophy rather than science, I have removed it at this time. Proofreader77 (talk) 20:48, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Quick question... (note: "Dumnezeu" redirects here)

[EDIT TO ADD NOTE TO TOPIC TITLE] Proofreader77 (talk) 16:43, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

What religion/language is the name Dumnezeu out of?

I started typing in random letters in Google, and that popped up.

Decided to Wikipedia it, because as we know, everything is in Wikipedia, and it redirected here...without any other mention of the name.

So...what's it out of? Fruckert (talk) 07:23, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

NOTE: Googling it would give you the link to the ro.wikipedia entry (Romanian language Wikipedia) ... "Dumnezeu" is (apparently) the Romanian word for God. Google translate will give you a sufficient English language translation of that article to answer the question.

When you searched with "Go" in en.wikipedia (this, English Wikipedia) ... you arrived at this article because there is a "redirect" of that word to this page. (See top of article page underneath "God"). The person who created the "redirect" did so because it is the Romanian word for God. NOTE: If you click the small word "Dumnezeu" that will take you to the redirected page. If you check the history of that page, you will see that the previous version was not a redirect, but a few words saying it's the Romanian word for God. The reason it was changed to a redirect (which can be confusing) rather than the more understandable short sentence is a somewhat complicated matter. BOTTOM LINE: This (en.Wikipedia) is the English language Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a dictionary and certainly not a "foreign language" dictionary :) ... Which is to say that there shouldn't be article about the Romanian word for God in the English language Wikipedia. LOL (So complicated) Proofreader77 (talk) 16:38, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

--Ggggchen (talk) 02:25, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Correction under NAMES OF GOD. Elohim is used incorrectly.

Elohim does not mean strong or strengh rather its use acts as an ordinary plural of the word Eloah (אלוה), and refers to the polytheistic notion of multiple gods (for example, Exodus 20:3, "Thou shalt have no other gods before me.").

This may reflect the use of the word "Elohim" found in the late Bronze Age texts of Canaanite Ugarit, where Elohim ('lhm) denoted the entire Canaanite pantheon (the family of El אל, the patriarchal creator god)El ats as an ordinary singular word for one. GOD is ONE THEE ONE AND ONLY. Thee all mighty GOD.