Jump to content

Talk:God: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Edtilley4 (talk | contribs)
147 edits
No edit summary
Tag: Reverted
removed gibberish
Tags: Undo Reverted
Line 86: Line 86:
|indexhere=yes}}
|indexhere=yes}}
{{controversial}}
{{controversial}}

== God is Good ==

Ta Biblia, as does the Quran, explains that God "is Good" - twenty times. Why is there no non-literal explanation of God as simply "Good" here in this encyclopedic definition?

"Evil" as Aristotle and the Nuremburg Diaries explained, is the systemic absence of empathy in any society, and "Good" is systemic empathy and actions. Voltaire said that it's a good thing that we already have a god,v because if we didn't we would have to create one.

A "God" and Afterlife are essential actors, in the USE CASE definition of Actor, that teach us lessons about the consequences of our actions, and which ensure we abide by the 7/24 need of good behavior. Citizens that behave "Good" (systemically empathetic) is both necessary and essential for any civil-ization to grow and then thrive.

As the founder of the science of Transition Economics (http://transitioneconomics.info), I can assure you that scientifically "Mankind is our Business" and our greatest resource - is our people. Only poor leadership, science, and education prevents World Peace and global abundance, as an empirically-provable fact.

This discussion needs to be woven into any credible explanation of "God", as does the rhetorical question "Are Atheists weak thinkers?"

[[User:Edtilley4|Edtilley4]] ([[User talk:Edtilley4|talk]]) 12:06, 23 September 2020 (UTC)



== YHWH = Yehowah ==
== YHWH = Yehowah ==

Revision as of 20:48, 23 September 2020

Template:Vital article

Former good articleGod was one of the Philosophy and religion good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
November 22, 2005Featured article candidateNot promoted
December 13, 2005Good article nomineeListed
February 15, 2009Good article reassessmentDelisted
March 15, 2012Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Delisted good article

YHWH = Yehowah

'Jehovah' doesn't use the tetragrammaton of YHWH, but does have the symbolic 7 letters. 'Yahweh' uses YHWH, but it's only 6 letters. YHWH = Yehowah(7 letters). 73.85.203.169 (talk) 13:46, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

'Jehova' and 'Yahweh' are two different ways of pronouncing the Herbrew יהוה.
Properly, it's "Yehova", as there's no "W" sound in Hebrew. 108.200.234.93 (talk) 09:18, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Perennial philosophy in opening

This opening of the article presents perennial philosophy without expressing opposing views. Do we agree this should be changed? MagicatthemovieS (talk) 15:00, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to what? HiLo48 (talk) 23:59, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Changed so that an opposing ideology is presented.MagicatthemovieS (talk) 00:30, 13 April 2020 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS[reply]
Such as? HiLo48 (talk) 00:37, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- you could say that all the other conceptions of god presented, monotheism, deism, theism, etc. are opposing views to perennial philosophy - MOS:INTRO says, "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article..." - perennial philosophy is not mentioned elsewhere in the article so it could be moved to the See Also section - omnitheism is also not otherwise mentioned in the article and does not have an article of its own - Epinoia (talk) 00:53, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Epinoia.MagicatthemovieS (talk) 00:58, 13 April 2020 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS[reply]
Yes, that makes sense. HiLo48 (talk) 03:23, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 10 August 2020: Syntax issue.

For correct syntax,the word ‘are’ should be between the word ‘there’ and the word ‘divine’.

Change "Śramaṇa religions are generally non-creationist, while also holding that there divine beings (called Devas in Buddhism and Jainism) of limited power and lifespan." to "Śramaṇa religions are generally non-creationist, while also holding that there are divine beings (called Devas in Buddhism and Jainism) of limited power and lifespan." Miwiki Takara (talk) 20:58, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 00:26, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject Fictional Characters

Simply put, I feel as if placing God on this Wikiproject could only lead to edit wars, which inadvertently happened anyway. A large amount of people do not view God as a fictional character and would be really offended to see God as such [1], leading to potentially numerous edit wars. I just want to know why this has not been fixed already if this is what will happen? Also, this violates WP:NPOV. (Oinkers42) (talk) 02:43, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Of all the 10,000 gods created in the last 5000 years by mankind, Theists believe 9,999 are fictional and Atheists believe 10,000 are fictional. Unibond (talk) 11:25, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You might be thinking of Deity or God (male deity), this is about the monotheistic God. (Oinkers42) (talk) 12:46, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The monotheistic God is no more real or fictional than the Deistic, Pantheistic, Pandeistic, or Panentheistic Gods. Strictly speaking, since the monotheistic God incorporates more presumptions about its characteristics than the first three of these models, it is presumptively fictional as compared to them until strict proof is provided that its characteristics cannot be accounted for by any less presumptive model. Don’t know if that puts it in the class of fictional characters. Hyperbolick (talk) 16:28, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The wikiproject was added relatively recently, within the last year. Ignoring whether or not God is fictional or not, has anyone checked the scope of the wikiproject in question. My reading of its scope suggests that this is for fictional characters in art (literature, movies, other such media), which imo does not include this article - for example Thor (Marvel Comics) lists the wikiproject, but Thor does not. Similarly, a quick search of talk pages for several god articles shows they do not list this wikiproject. Based on the scope definition itself and the lack of wikiproject on other deity talk pages, I don't think listing the wikiproject here is appropriate. --FyzixFighter (talk) 17:11, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, contextually, ought to be all or none for the class. Hyperbolick (talk) 17:16, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, removed. (Oinkers42) (talk) 17:24, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:God&oldid=979970515"