Talk:God/Archive1

Could we be more rational?

how is it not rational to believe in god? How is it not irrational to not believe in god? Ifind this page to be rather biased, and to be showing the kind of arrorgance one finds on the very site you claim to abhor Conservapedia.

Well ok, state some empirical evidence for God and we shall consider it.--Damo^Hi 20:43, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

Above copied to talk page by Marghanita Laski ^{— Unsigned, by: Marghanita Laski / talk / contribs (signed by bot)} 00:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

untitled

we could run a statistical review of god. eg. how many monotheists, polytheists and atheists/agnostics are there. then by simple mean/standard deviation we could give a global view of god...Airdish 06:12, 24 May 2007 (CDT)

...for non-adherents, by definition, they have chosen not to believe...

This is actually a particular form of atheism (theoretical vs pragmatic). When we get atheism up and running, we can flush this out.--PalMD^-Talk 06:33, 24 May 2007 (CDT)

No I don't believe it is. When I wrote this, I had in mind the fact that some people believe, for example, that Jesus is God (Christians), whereas others (e.g Muslims) would deny his divine nature. The divinity or not, is therfore a matter of belief not argument. It cannot be proven one way or the other, and debate always reduces to the level of "because it is so", or "It says so in such and such a revealed text", rather than being based on any rational argument. In other words, it is pointless attempting to have a logical argument about such things. --CatWatcher 18:13, 24 May 2007 (CDT)

I guess the point is that we are all, in one way or another, atheists. Few people alive today believe in the divinity of or worship Thor or Zeus. However, my understanding of the term is that an Atheist believes that there are no gods at all, and never have been. Being a christian who denies the divinity of Krishna (for example) is different than being an atheist; it is simply being a member of the faithful and expressing the essence of christian faith.Zoose

Quite a few people actively worship Thor, actually. Zeus isn't nearly as fashionable, though. Although folks like Kali have been doing well. --Kels 14:44, 7 August 2007 (CDT)

There are also some of us that believe that any former divinity retains some power, on some level. Researcher 19:01, 25 December 2007 (EST)

God with a capital G or god with a lower case g?

Which is this article about? Below is the definition from MW. 1 a is capitalized according to MW, 1 b may be capitalized, though I don't know if the the capitalized applies to the Christian Science definition. Heart♥Gold ^tx 02:23, 28 May 2007 (CDT)

“”1 capitalized: the supreme or ultimate reality: as a : the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe b Christian Science: the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind 2 : a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship; specifically : one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality 3 : a person or thing of supreme value 4 : a powerful ruler

This is a good question. When I wrote this initally, it was a general article about gods, religion and beliefs, but inevitably when we stray into monotheism, it turns into God. I suspect it needs tidying up to make the distinction. User:CatWatcher, forgetting to log on.--88.106.146.170 02:51, 28 May 2007 (CDT)

If you're referring to a specific god, then I'd say capitalize, since it's used either as a proper name or a title. But if you're talking about gods in general, then lowercase is fine. That, and the Abrahamic God is traditionally capitalized anyhow. --Kels 06:41, 28 May 2007 (CDT)

I just fed her some tasty fresh oats, and asked out of curiosity. She does not mind either way. PBUH human^{be in} 11:52, 28 May 2007 (CDT)

I use def. 2. It encompasses all proposed types of gods, including the Abrahamic one, other monotheistic religions, polytheistic religions (my previous definition left out things like the Greek gods where first some gods created the Universe and the power was somehow transferred to other gods), and deists. Plus it makes the optical illusion with prayer and the milk jug make sense. The Heidelberg Kid (talk) 15:34, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Work

I decided to do a little work here. If you hate it, revert. Thanks. --PalMD^{-yada yada} 22:00, 1 June 2007 (CDT)

I'm impressed. Nice work. Luckily, before I went on my wandalism/meanness spree, I started an article that desperately needs the sort of help you have been providing to this one. Have a warm goat on me... human^{be in} 22:27, 1 June 2007 (CDT)

i learned something from tis artical

i never knewthat God looks remarkably like an elderly Italian man StupidIdiot 02:22, 1 November 2007 (EDT)

That's a common misunderstanding. Actually, God is a giant hand in the sky, who usually communicates through hand puppets. --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 18:45, 9 November 2007 (EST)

Nononononononno! GOD is a giant American Flag in the sky, that swoops down on anyone that threatens American oligarchy or multi-national corporate interests and blows them up! GOD sukzorz! human 21:02, 9 November 2007 (EST)

GOD SMASH!!! --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 10:29, 10 November 2007 (EST)

God is black, and, damn, is She ever pissed! ;-) PlantB 00:08, 10 March 2008 (EST)

NO!!!! God is a Turtle with indigestion!! Stephen King told me so!!! --"Skeptical Moonbat is Skeptical" 13:42, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

God is the Energy from which everything has come.

God hates his son

--Signed by Elassint the Great ^Hi! 15:55, 9 December 2007 (EST)

lawl

That god faq is garbage. Also i removed the other link because it has nothing to do with anything --65.185.175.69 15:15, 25 December 2007 (EST)

Yes, we specialise in garbage here. So, maybe talk before removing garbage that we WANT there? Thanks. CЯacke® 15:28, 25 December 2007 (EST)

OK, that is NOT the offical god faq at all, that is atheist propaganda. --65.185.175.69 15:36, 25 December 2007 (EST)

Okay, where is the official God FAQ? Please provide a valid" cite. CЯacke®

I'd say that, outside of the folks what made Her up in the first place, this FAQ has every bit as much right to call itself "official" as anyone else who talks about God. --Kels 15:38, 25 December 2007 (EST)

There is no offical god faq at all, but if there was it would not be an atheist propaganda website like the one that the link goes to. --65.185.175.69 16:06, 25 December 2007 (EST)

I think IP's right here (although you shouldn't edit other people's comments). Something's not official unless the originating group has endorsed it. Otherwise, I could claim to be the official spokesman for, say, Andrew Schlafly, because the positions not already taken. And that would be deceitful. --82.44.64.173

I changed it to "self-styled". Everybody happy? :-)--Bob^{bing up} 16:54, 25 December 2007 (EST)

Not that I really mind having it there, I'm just having a little difficulty seeing what, exactly, it actually adds to the article? --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 17:29, 25 December 2007 (EST)

Just to clear things up

I do exist. --THE LORD GOD ^Pray 17:50, 23 January 2008 (EST)

But do you intervene? Do miracles and shit? Design people? Sterile^xx 17:52, 23 January 2008 (EST)

Well, if he's God, then he probably doesn't shit, Sterile :-) -- Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 17:53, 23 January 2008 (EST)

Only if it's an incorporeal dragon god... Sterile^xx 17:56, 23 January 2008 (EST)

Even He has a blog!--PalMD^{-Did that sound a little harsh?} 18:01, 23 January 2008 (EST)

There's nothing about shitting in the blog. Maybe he intelligently designed shit, though. Sterile^xx 18:04, 23 January 2008 (EST)

That's some really good shit, man. [cough] human 18:34, 23 January 2008 (EST)

Copied from archive 1 (which needs deleting?)

Could we be more rational? how is it not rational to believe in god? How is it not irrational to not believe in god? Ifind this page to be rather biased, and to be showing the kind of arrorgance one finds on the very site you claim to abhor Conservapedia. (above is anonymous edit by 68.115.82.239)

Well ok, state some empirical evidence for God and we shall consider it.--DamoHi 20:43, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

Come on BoN, please respond, you state it is irrational to disbelieve in God, therefore I ask you to provide some evidence for Him existing. It is almost the definition of rationality to only believe in things for which there is evidence. It is irrational to believe in things for which there is no evidence. So lets hear your evidence, so we can see if belief is rational or irrational.--Damo^Hi 21:03, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

Haven't we been over this like more than 9000 million times already? --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 06:49, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

I don't want to get dragged into a long and fruitless argument but isn't it irrational to hold any beliefs that have no evidence, including "god doesn't exist". I think, "there is no evidence for statement P, therefore we believe the converse" is a logical falacy. Shouldn't the opinion of the article be that we can hold no rational (empirical) opinion about the existence of god? Don't get me wrong, I found it amusing, especially the bit at the top about the fictional character but if you wish rationalwiki to be taken more seriously, perhaps we should take this article more seriously. By some basic theology, a monotheistic god (possily Abrahamic) that values faith has made his existence unprovable, therefore evidence of his existence will come on a personal level, explaining why there is no empirical evidence for him. Also note that a supernatural being is exempt from empirical evidence by definition and god may also be beyond logic, making him untouchable with philosophy either. Finally, before you say it, god is not comparable with the tooth fairy or santa. ^{— Unsigned, by: 192.112.46.6 / talk / contribs}

I skimmed the article and found no direct claim that god doesn't exist. Of course it's critical of the concept of god and it has a lot of snark, but I wouldn't expect anything less from this site. -- Nx ^talk 16:27, 11 February 2009 (EST)

Fair enough

Outside of time

Just out of curiosity, but does anyone know much about where this "God exists outside of time" business that Philip's always on about at aSK actually came from? It seems obviously to be philosophic hand-waving in order to dodge criticism, but the pseudo-intellectual Creatards love it. --Kels (talk) 15:59, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I think he takes it as an obvious conclusion from the 'fact' that it created time and therefore couldn't have been subject to it? ^{This message brought to you by: respond}_and honey 19:46, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, why Philip uses it is easy, it allows him to weasel out of any inconvenient questions about free will and prophesy. But I was more interested in where it entered the discussion in the first place, historically speaking. --Kels (talk) 20:11, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

And here come I a couple of years later :) Philip's position isn't unique to him in any way, or even to creationists in any way, it is the majority position in traditional Christian theology and philosophy of religion. As to where it actually comes from, he probably wouldn't accept this, but it actually comes from Greek philosophy (especially (Neo-)Platonism), rather than the Bible. Personally, I don't think it makes a lot of sense - how can God be outside of time yet personal? Our notions of personhood are so tied up with existence in time, I don't believe a personal God can exist outside of time. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 19:43, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

God is the energy from which everything has been created. Time is an illusion which is part of the space-time fabric. --Serectrus (talk) 05:43, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Crap Einstein quotes

These:

“”It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. — Albert Einstein

“”The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this. — Albert Einstein

Seem really pointless to me, and utterly ruin the brief series of humourous quotes in the physicists on god/god on physicists sections. Can we just get rid of them? (And the one about god not being malicious, or whatever it is?) ħuman 00:59, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Ofcourse the true God is impersonal. Albert Eiinstein never denied the fact that the Complete Whole is Conscious--Serectrus (talk) 05:38, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

BON trying to improve by moving sentence and giving up

I rolled back their "work", since essentially they deleted a sentence from the lead. But I think they were headed in the right direction, perhaps? See the last four or so diffs... ħuman 04:02, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Very few Gods are actually "mutually exclusive;" most forms of paganism are quite compatible. ListenerX^TalkerX 04:05, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

It's mostly YHWH who is jealous and incompatible with other gods. ħuman 05:37, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Not really doesn't the the original Hebrew talk about the gods as plurals and YHWH as the lord god, later treating him as the only one? - π 05:46, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

True that, YHWH mostly wants to be #1, not the "only" (see, Moses, The Ten Commandments). Gods arguing amongst themselves was always one of the best parts of studying mythology. Too bad the YHWHists get their panties in such a bunch about "their" special god. ħuman 05:55, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

There is something about "nephilim" in the very earth mythology. That might lead to the idea of multiple Gods in Jedeo-Christianity. So YHWH either is the head or wants to be the head by creating the universe and showing off. ^{d hominem} 09:03, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

OK< so I'm no biblical scholar (why study fairy tales) but isn't commandment #1 "You shall have no other gods before me" as opposed to "There are no other gods but me." This implies that (s)he is not necessarily the only god, merely the #1 god. Bob Soles 10:16, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge you're right. I think the OT treats Baal very much as if it was a real entity that could be worshiped rather than "oh, Baal is just make believe, YHWH is real though". ^{d hominem} 12:13, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Dawkins

I'm with Armond on wondering why a single quote should have a main header. I know Dawkins is an interesting public figure as both scientist and writer of popular screeds, but still, the quote with header effect is far too hero-worshippy for me. ħuman 20:31, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps a "Quotes" section, with a few more, might be the solution? ħuman 20:31, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Maybe we can change the "Physicists on God" part around a bit to just be quotes by anyone? Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 20:47, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Only trouble with that (?) is that the PoG and Gop sections are a several part joke. How about following them with "Other people on God"? ħuman 20:55, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

That could work. I'm sure we can find other good quotes about God. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 21:44, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

God and the 'puritans' etc

God created the world and saw that it was good (which can presumably be extended to 'the universe in general')

1. Therefore anyone who denounces enjoying life in the name of religion are being blasphemous.

God created humans in his/her/other genders'image

1. Therefore racism, genderism and related isms by those of a religous nature is also blasphemous.

Useful counterargument against such proponents. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 18:24, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Han vs. God

Noting here that the statement made about belief in God/spirits in China I made is sourceable, although I have no intention of supplying same. For the rate in the U.S. you will find recent Gallup polling data (e.g 2005) that attests to 92% and you can also source 93% non belief in China. Having broken myself of Wikipedia, don't plan to startup in a small time venue like this. There are of course many complications, for example Gallup finds what when American believers are given a choice between an indistinct "something" (life force, universal spirit, etc.) they choose that overwhelmingly instead of God, there are traditional superstitions which persist among the poorly educated and isolated in China (which still don't add up to "God"), etc. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 11:28, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

"... don't plan to startup in a small time venue like this." why bother then? If you're not up to backing up claims, don't make them. Pippa (talk) 11:48, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

To the extent that I am going to, I just did. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 12:03, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

There is no god so why talk about it?

I mean, c'mon, do we talk about every imaginary friend invented by a human child? Well, technically you have an article about imaginary friends, but wouldn't your time be better spent raising money for Obama's reelection (OBAMA!!!!) and digging up juicy tidbits about Andy Schlafly and his Conservapedia empire?

First, you get everyone to deny god, then you get them to vote for Obama. Then you get the power... Occasionaluse (talk) 18:38, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Er, wouldn't your time be better spent doing that rather than blanking articles? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 18:42, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Lame troll is lame. Тy^{Serious Business Guy} 18:51, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Talking about non existent gods is the best! Talking about existing gods is so - boring and pious. Wait, unless the living gods you are talking about are cool ass norse gods or Chocolate Loving aztec gods.--En attendant Godot 18:57, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I vote for Chocolate loving. And what better than to talk about Zombies with Radioactive Cancer Aids? --Dumpling (talk) 17:46, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry OP. Atheism is bull. Please prove that nothing creates something. Oh wait, you can't. You only have blind faith there just as you have blind faith concerning the origin of life (you believe it either appeared from no-where or "evolved" from no-life which was debunked by science). Idiot. ^{— Unsigned, by: 86.27.125.13 / talk / contribs}

OP is an obvious troll. If you have more robust arguments, feel free to use them. --TheLateGatsby (talk) 11:31, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

God quote

The Roman writer who said that the Roman gods looked like them, the Ethiopian's like #them# and no doubt the donkey's gods would look like donkeys should be mentioned.

What lies behind the concept of God is 'the spirit of creaivity' and the feeling that 'there is more in Heaven and on Earth than in our philosophy' - sunsets and peacocks have nothing to do with humans but we enjoy them, and also something that has been well crafted

At what point upon the long line which led to the development of modern humans did the first gods appear? Was there any direct connection with the development of ethics and moral behaviour? 82.198.250.5 (talk) 17:40, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Is this article about God or gods?

The first bit seems to bounce around between the two ideas. PintOfStout Talk Good people drink good beer. 03:00, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

What is the difference between the "two ideas"?--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 09:52, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

See, it's comments like that that are why this is a confuddled mess. We do have a load of pages redirecting to Jehovah. If it's going to be God, singular, it should be the monotheistic variant. As it stands, the article is a confused mis-mash of both concepts. ^{d hominem} 10:07, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I think the article should be "gods" with monotheism one of the varieties. More or less anything you can say about the Christian version of God (which I imagine is the one being referred to as "God" in this thread) can refer to the other versions, can't it?--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 11:30, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

A little late to the discussion but I agree, the article is too Yahweh-centric. It should probably be split into gods and God. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 14:17, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Just out of mild curiosity

Why is God referred to throughout the article using female pronouns? Not that I mind, it's just that God is usually characterised as a male. --Let Them Eat Cake (talk) 13:48, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I think that is exactly the point. Генгис^pillaging 14:11, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

This is what passes for humor here. Тy^{Not updated with a witty slogan this week} 14:20, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

God is female ^pathetic 15:04, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Golly, Wally, three instances of "he" in the article proper and four of "she". The masculine article is being repressed! Oh noes! (Elsewhere on the intertubes, I've used the term, "genderful" to nix this sort of duality within the godhead.) C®ackeЯ 16:33, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

(reset) As God made humanity/sentient life in his/her/its/themself's/transgender/xenosentient/IP addresses pronouns' image all (non-)gender-specific prounouns are valid. At the same time. 212.85.6.26 (talk) 18:30, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I have always preferred the logical "It".--Weirdstuff (talk) 18:08, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Can someone correct xenosentient, as it differs in the editing and finished pages.

There is space for an exploration of God/Goddesses clothing (why it exists, who makes it and so on). 212.85.6.26 (talk) 18:35, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

The deity's-deities' clothes

Why are the various representations of god(desse)s normally shown clothed? In that book Adam and Eve made clothes because they were ashamed of their bodies - so deity/ies should have no shame.

Who makes the clothes? Why do the clothes stick on in odd places without belts or other attachments? 212.85.6.26 (talk) 17:46, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

It's because God is both magic and unknowable.--Weirdstuff (talk) 18:09, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Can someone stabilise the various additions and removals - as they are causing confusion.

Anyone looking for an argument to confuse god-botherers who are also bothering you can do worse than start a discussion involving heavenly clothing (and how to make angels' robes that can accommodate wings etc). 212.85.6.26 (talk) 18:53, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

It would be a long way down my list of miraculous things that believers in the supernatural have to swallow. But if it works for you ...--Weirdstuff (talk) 20:59, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Is it because humans are ashamed of God's Nakedness? The Almighty is an embarrassing nudist dad to all mankind to them, perhaps?±KnightOfTL;DR^{yeah, well you fight like a cow!} 21:34, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

For some of the people who see the pictures, who would otherwise be uncomfortable.

Biblical God question

God created humans in [possessive form of deity pronoun)' image.

Humans and 'many multicelluar organisms of whatever biological domain' indulge in 'reproductive activities including at times for enjoyment.'

So what does God do, and with whom? 82.44.143.26 (talk) 14:06, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Obvious logical reasoning against God

Godless Geeks: Why Atheism God Is Imaginary

My favourite was that if God was real the evidence of his existence would be found everywhere, but instead there is absolutely no evidence anywhere. CedricDoodlehopper (talk) 18:24, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

So many words...

If God is omnipresent it would probably be impossible to 'seperate out' whatever is God from 'the universe.'

(Passing reference to 'the intervening to AD in [1]). 82.44.143.26 (talk) 18:16, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Un-bronze?

While most of the article appears to be good and factual and shit, there's just one thing really bugging me- where are all the references? Let's face it, if we want to convince other people of our perspective, we can't just say a whole lot of shit, we have to back it up. For this reason, I would like to propose an un-bronzing until the article is fully cited. I would do it myself, but I'm too fucking lazy. MESSIAH OF DOOM ^{Deserved doom shall be unto you} 00:40, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Question

What does God believe in? 86.147.207.246 (talk) 14:29, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Goats. Ikanreed (talk) 15:33, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Does [2] apply to God? 82.44.143.26 (talk) 18:13, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

GOD: the 'system as a whole' (all-inclusive), the 'universal quantum computer', God-incarnate: the reincarnated programmer #1, the Creator of all 'true Earth-like plan-its'

I tweaked the opening of the article... GOD: the 'system as a whole' (all-inclusive), the 'universal quantum computer'. The world's leading quantum computer scientists have determined that "this universe is a quantum computer where particles not only collide, they compute". And "information can be created but not destroyed, although it can be transferred" while "the laws of physics preserve information as it is transformed".<ref]Lloyd, Seth, Programming The Universe (Alfred A. Knopf, 2006)</ref] Where there is a computer, there are programs. Where there are programs, there are programmers. Where there are programmers, there is an original and number 1 programmer. Science has proven reincarnation. God-incarnate (in the Guardin' of Eden, Jesus son of Joseph, 2nd Coming of the Christ): the original and number 1 programmer, the Creator of all 'true Earth-like plan-its'.

Atheists define a god as a mytho-historical deity worshiped by a religion or cult. And gods are often attributed great supernatural power, but also some degree of characterisation that gives them motive to interact with and care about the lives of humans and the natural world.

A deity is a generic description of a divine being such as a god or a goddess. In some cases, entire anthropomorphic mythologies were developed about the deities, as in ancient Greek religion - the gods have feuds, are born, die, fight and often interact quite directly with mortals in these myths. In other religions, particularly the oldest ones, the gods were given more transcendent qualities and were simply representations of concepts such as fertility or natural forces. GOD as thee deity and explained scientifically breaks away from these myths.

As religion developed, the role gods played altered and monotheism developed to replace the pantheons of old. The widely worshiped One GOD in the present day is called "GOD" most commonly, and is the monotheist deity of Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Bahai, Brahma in Hinduism and a handful of other religions. GOD is never referred to as goddess by any of the Abrahamic faiths; even when formless or when thought of as both male and female, like in Kabbalah. In Islam as in Christianity, GOD is called by the speaker's usual word for God (this being "Allah" to Arabic-speakers); in Judaism, God has many names, including (but not limited to) "YHWH"/"Yehowah"/"Jehovah," "The Great I Am", and "I AM WHO I AM". The Zoroastrian term for GOD is called Ahura Mazda.

Among atheists, it's common to intentionally conflate GOD with other gods to promote the atheist agenda. Benjamin Franklin (talk) 10:26, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: It took all of 10 minutes before some atheist came along and reverted my well-thought out tweaking back to the atheist attack on GOD and believers in GOD. Benjamin Franklin (talk) 10:53, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Scientifically defining GOD and God-incarnate

I added the following section... GOD: the 'system as a whole' (all-inclusive), the 'universal quantum computer'.<ref]Watson II, Richard Bradshaw, "7 Seals" revealed as 'beyond Einstein theories', http://7seals.blogspot.com </ref] The world's leading quantum computer scientists have determined that "this universe is a quantum computer where particles not only collide, they compute". And "information can be created but not destroyed, although it can be transferred" while "the laws of physics preserve information as it is transformed".<ref]Lloyd, Seth, Programming The Universe (Alfred A. Knopf, 2006)</ref] Where there is a computer, there are programs. Where there are programs, there are programmers. Where there are programmers, there is an original and number 1 programmer. Science has proven reincarnation. God-incarnate (in the Guardin' of Eden, Jesus son of Joseph, 2nd Coming of the Christ): the original and number 1 programmer, the Creator of all 'true Earth-like plan-its'.<ref]Watson II, Richard Bradshaw, "7 Seals" revealed as 'beyond Einstein theories', http://7seals.blogspot.com </ref] - Benjamin Franklin (talk) 10:57, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

"Where there is a computer, there are programs. Where there are programs, there are programmers. Where there are programmers, there is an original and number 1 programmer." Haha, hilarious. You're not really serious about this, are you? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 11:35, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Where there is a metaphor, there is someone trying to pretend it is a scientific fact. SpecialFFrog (talk) 11:47, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

'This article is the atheist explanation about the fictional character(s).'

I tweaked the beginning of the article to express the truth and deleted some unnecessary atheist attacks and insults that are irrational... "This article is the atheist explanation about the fictional character(s)." - Benjamin Franklin (talk) 11:07, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

GOD=7_4, 7/4=July 4th or 7 April 30 AD: Good Friday... GOD=7_4 algorithm/code

I tweaked the article by adding... The secret Kaballah reason for writing G-D is that G is the 7th letter, the circle is either the letter O or zero, and D is 4. GOD=7_4, 7/4=July 4th or 7 April 30 AD: Good(7__4) Friday when Jesus(74=J10+E5+S19+U21+S19) was nailed on(74) the Cross(74=C3+R18+O15+S19+S19). The GOD=7_4 algorithm/code has now received great evidence, i.e. 4 lunar phases of roughly 7 days (~7.4 days) each, lunar year + 7 day week +4 days = 365 day solar year, 7 continents & 4 seasons, ancients' '7 Seas' & 4 oceans, ~74% of plan-it's surface is water, etc.<ref]http://GOD704.wikia.com</ref] - Benjamin Franklin (talk) 11:33, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Opening paragraph tweaked to reflect the correct definition and description of GOD and God-incarnate

I tweaked the opening paragraph to reflect the correct definition/description of... GOD: the 'system as a whole', the 'Universe as quantum computer'. God-incarnate (in the Guardin' of Eden, Jesus son of Joseph, 2nd Coming of the Christ): the original and number #1 programmer, the Creator of all 'true Earth-like plan-its'.

A deity is a generic description of a divine being such as a god or goddess. In some cases, entire anthropomorphic mythologies were developed about the deities, as in ancient Greek religion - the gods have feuds, are born, die, fight and often interact quite directly with mortals in these myths. In other religions, particularly the oldest ones, the gods are given more transcendent qualities and are simply representations of concepts such as fertility or natural forces.

As religion developed, the role gods played altered and monotheism developed to replace the pantheons of old. GOD is most widely worshiped in the present day and is the monotheist deity of Christianity, Judaism, Bahai, Islam, and a handful of other religions, living and extinct. GOD is never referred to as goddess by any of the Abrahamic faiths. In Islam as in Christianity, God is called by the speaker's usual word for God (this being "Allah" to Arabic-speakers); in Judaism, God has seven names, including (but not limited to) YHWH (Yehowah), and "The Great I Am." The Zoroastrian God was called Ahura Mazda.

Among atheists, it's common to intentionally conflate GOD with other gods. 76.18.14.85 (talk) 17:48, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

OK, but needs more discussion here before such a broad change to a significant page, especially from a BoN. Don't take the rollback personally. Petey Plane (talk) 17:51, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

also, the Zoroastrian Ahura Mazda is not that same as the god (YHWH) of the 3 (and their off-shoots) Abrahamic religions. There are also plenty of pantheistic religions still around worshiped by large swaths of humanity. Petey Plane (talk) 18:07, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Can God explain anything?

Check out this philosophy paper on the burden of proof, goddidit, science and logic. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:24, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Panentheism

I reworded the definition of Panentheism to be one that is found more often in google type searches. If you want to revert, that's cool, but I'd appreciate a cite, since the definition you provided is not one I heard in school (but that was, admittedly, back when dinosaurs roamed the earth.) I used the definition from ReligiousTollerance, for what it's worth.^{— Unsigned, by: WaitingforGodot / talk / contribs}

I was going with the Bishop Berkeley-esque version that I was taught at school, actually. To be honest, I think they're both sides of the same coin - while God-in-everything and everything-in-God (pan-en-theism, as our tutor taught it) seem different, you get similar results. --Interpreted^{The stupid evil bastard hath said in his heart, 'there is no 4 corner simultaneous 4-day time cube'.}

Proofs of God's existence

According to perfectly flawed clear logic, over 600 points proving that god exists. I like 312 in particular http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm ^{— Unsigned, by: 189.10.119.226 / talk / contribs}

Spaghetti making equipment exists, vegetable spaghetti exists and there are vegetable spaghetti-isers.

Therefore the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists. 86.191.125.169 (talk) 23:36, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

1Co 2:14  But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. 

You can't prove a spiritual existence physically, you must first look spiritually to understand. Most people wont so they will never find out. God will not show you proof unless you are willing to put aside your pride and search for him. Instead of finding ways to prove he doesn't exist try to check to see if he does.リムルテンペスト 21:24, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Imaginary Friends

I think this article could benefit from the concept that Gods fulfill a psychological role in an alienated society, the same role that is filled by talking to oneself (having imaginary conversations in one's head), but personified and externalized. 98.182.39.155 (talk) 14:16, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Question

Some would argue that the concept of God/the Gods arises in part out of 'trying to explain this complex world/universe (as us humans sure as did not', 'a sense of wonder/beauty' and 'why did these things happen' - and also as a means of fixing an ethical system.

So how come humans didn't invent more rational God(s)? 86.191.125.169 (talk) 23:36, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

God off duty

Where do the Deity/Deities' clothes come from - and who does the ironing? The 'general household maintenance' (imagine removing the hair from the bathroom sink after shaving/hair trimming)?

And what holidays are taken? Anna Livia (talk) 12:21, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Well God takes only the Sabbath off according to the bible but even then he looks after us so he does still work.--King Rimuru 13:08, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Time works differently for deities (and perhaps they call BibleGod 'a total workaholic' behind his back).

Or perhaps they go in for working holidays/exchange visits - which might lead to some interesting results (or deity-centric fanfic - the various gods of war go off on an Urban CaveGod Bonding Course; the various gods borrowing 'the flood' (so the reason the water disappears is that it goes back into the props box) etc). Anna Livia (talk) 10:02, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Time does work different for God, 1000 years is a day like a day unto Him so that would mean a long time span for us is like nothing to Him. It's most likely due to the fact the universe is always in motion, in other words the theory that time slows down the faster you go would apply here.--リムルテンペスト 13:15, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

this whole thread is simply facile. the idea of god doing domestic chores is just idiotic. he clearly has a house boy for all that. imbeciles. AMassiveGay (talk) 13:21, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Imbecile, hmmmmmmm, well this whole topic was just for the luz--Rimuru Tempest 13:22, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Posted for the amusement/entertainment value - and a way of annoying the 'god botherer brigades' (who quite probably get assigned any cleanup duty that God doesn't say 'Lo - be done' to).

So where would God go day-tripping to? Anna Livia (talk) 14:12, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Responding to the initial question - I don't want to be sexist here, but I guess there is a Mrs God around somewhere. I mean God is obviously male and he has a son - so, well, doesn't this imply a mummy God somewhere?--Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 20:22, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

In the Book of Job God (and elsewhere) has discussions with his sons.

And I deliberately used Deity/Deities to cover all possibilities (including AmoebaGod, MushroomGod, complex gender systems etc). And the idea of 'a deity' doing the same things as us (given that we are created in said deity's image) can be amusing. Anna Livia (talk) 10:20, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Quote

'He was a self-made man, for which God was truly grateful.'

Duterte on God

Is there a suitable link for the former's latest comments on the latter calling God stupid for allowing Original Sin etc? 82.44.143.26 (talk) 18:00, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

‘Who Is This Stupid God?’ For His Latest Insult, Duterte Aims High. Cosmikdebris (talk) 19:21, 26 June 2018 (UTC)