Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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
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

Christian heavy and one sided[edit]

Looking at the sheer length of the paragraphs under depiction this wikipedia entry focusses heavily on Christinity and gives little space to other major religions. The entries also appear to be random based on the inclusion of minor religious sects such as the Mandaeans and Gnostics while leaving out Hinduism as a major religion and no mention is made of indigenous peoples reference to God.

I also expect on an article about God to find historical references to ancient Egypt as well as to the Greco/Roman perception of the gods. The same applies to Norse gods and those of other cultures.

I would also expect to learn about obvious similarities and distinct differences of the God perception between these cultures. Hskoppek (talk) 07:03, 17 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

'God' is from (corrected) g-Dia, 'The Dia' (latinized) being the Adamic conception, which was more or less g-Dia in Mesopotamia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:FE0:C700:2:BD83:E4F3:BD3E:98D5 (talk) 09:10, 19 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This article is about God, not about gods. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:03, 19 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with you. There should be more talk about Hinduism in this article.
SpicyMemes123 (talk) 05:57, 27 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hinduism is a polytheistic religion, and the article is specifically about monotheistic conceptions of God. Tqger (talk) 06:26, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agree as well. Hyperbolick (talk) 08:14, 27 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agree that a disproportionately large section of the article is focused on Christianity. It appears that most of the text is duplicated from God in Christianity, and in all cases the text is better sourced on the other article. I am going to significantly trim the Christianity section. The content can still be found on the other article -- Hazhk (talk) 11:03, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The topic and definition of God does not invite discussion of the absence or deliver of God.[edit]

Discussion of the absence of, or disbelief in God does not contribute to the discussion of the topic of God and is inappropriate.

If I discuss gravity, ice cream preferences, or the life cycle of dinosaurs, an opposing argument is not presented in that topic. It is inappropriate to present an opposing argument in a defining discussion of any topic. At least show minimal initiative and get your own topic. (talk) 07:41, 15 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Last sentence of lead section[edit]

The lead section currently ends with

Most scientists agree that God cannot be proven or disproven by the scientific method, moreover that science answers the natural while religion answers the supernatural.

Is there a reference for this? If not, it should be removed as WP:OR. 2601:547:B05:1494:E4FD:CD66:2C97:86E9 (talk) 20:27, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See WP:CITELEAD. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:30, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Tgeorgescu: What of it? 2601:547:B05:38EF:C4C4:50CF:3F51:6D49 (talk) 00:17, 21 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's not substantiated by cited content in the article, though. The first two scientists cited in God#Existence, Dawkins and Sagan, argue that God's existence is amenable to the scientific method, contrary to the lead. The other two, Stephen Jay Gould and Stephen Hawking are cited for their own esoteric and specific opinion, neither of which as far as I'm aware are particularly common. Endwise (talk) 01:37, 21 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think in God Definition should be , God is Love[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

God is Love 2600:1700:13D0:9F90:F5A1:76F7:65CA:816A (talk) 22:30, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You would think that means much, but regarding scholarly clout it does not amount to much. It is a lousy definition, which does not speak to the intellect. I could equally call it the most abused definition ever. Even the Inquisition portrayed itself as an institution furthering God's truth, love, and mercy. "God is love" can be properly called syrup. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:55, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
More than a decade ago, I purchased a multi-volume series of Greek books detailing persecutions and mass murder by Christians on all continents (except Antarctica) in an attempt to spread their cult. It is mockingly called "A story of Love", and has a long list of academic sources. Whenever I hear "love" mentioned in connection to Jesus, I get flashbacks to torture scenes. Dimadick (talk) 06:29, 9 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 23 March 2023[edit]

Please add Jehovah witnesses as a category BackBacks Mother (talk) 00:44, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done: per WP:CAT. M.Bitton (talk) 00:53, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]