The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
This page is not a forum for general discussion about God. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about God at the Reference desk.
Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. Ifconsensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.
God 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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Atheism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of atheism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AtheismWikipedia:WikiProject AtheismTemplate:WikiProject AtheismAtheism
Add Atheism info box to all atheism related talk pages (use {{WikiProject Atheism}} or see info box)
Ensure atheism-related articles are members of Atheism by checking whether [[Category:Atheism]] has been added to atheism-related articles – and, where it hasn't, adding it.
Try to expand stubs. Ideas and theories about life, however, are prone to generating neologisms, so some stubs may be suitable for deletion (see deletion process).
State atheism needs a reassessment of its Importance level, as it has little to do with atheism and is instead an article about anti-theist/anti-religious actions of governments.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bahá'í Faith, a coordinated attempt to increase the quality and quantity of information about the Baháʼí Faith on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.Bahá'í FaithWikipedia:WikiProject Bahá'í FaithTemplate:WikiProject Bahá'í FaithBahá'í Faith
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bible, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Bible on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BibleWikipedia:WikiProject BibleTemplate:WikiProject BibleBible
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JudaismWikipedia:WikiProject JudaismTemplate:WikiProject JudaismJudaism
This article is supported by WikiProject Mythology. This project provides a central approach to Mythology-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the WikiProject page for more details.MythologyWikipedia:WikiProject MythologyTemplate:WikiProject MythologyMythology
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spirituality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spirituality-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpiritualityWikipedia:WikiProject SpiritualityTemplate:WikiProject SpiritualitySpirituality
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Theology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Theology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TheologyWikipedia:WikiProject TheologyTemplate:WikiProject TheologyTheology
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Neopaganism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Neopaganism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NeopaganismWikipedia:WikiProject NeopaganismTemplate:WikiProject NeopaganismNeopaganism
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy
This article is part of WikiProject Sikhism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Sikhism. Please participate by editing the article, or visit the project page for more details on the projects.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Spoken WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaSpoken Wikipedia
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Zoroastrianism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Zoroastrianism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ZoroastrianismWikipedia:WikiProject ZoroastrianismTemplate:WikiProject ZoroastrianismZoroastrianism
The contents of the Supreme Being page were merged into God on August 2018. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.
Proposal to Remove File:Blake God Blessing.jpg from the Article as it does not meet Wikipedia’s or Commons' standards for relevance, educational value, or neutrality
I suggest that the image "God Blessing the Seventh Day, 1805 watercolor painting " be removed from this article. Despite the fact that the image is in the public domain, its use raises encyclopedic and editorial concerns:
The image is irrelevant to the article’s content and does not support or illustrate any specific point made in the text. Its inclusion violates WP:IMAGE , as it serves no clear encyclopedic purpose and adds no educational value. The article stands without it, making the image unnecessary and misleading.
1. Interpretive Bias: The painting is a very specific and personal representation of God by William Blake based on his mystical Christian worldview. It is not a generic or widely representative image of "God," nor is it a neutral or culturally diverse view for general or interfaith use.
Excessive Weight and Neutrality WP:NPOV:It represents a specific Christian interpretation of God and the 7th Day of Creation. Its inclusion in an article discussing God or Creation violates Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy by giving undue weight to a single religious perspective.
2. Absence of Encyclopedic Necessity WP:IMAGES , WP:NFCC and Commons guidelines: The image does not add vital educational content in situations where the idea of God reflected using a broader range of views, is abstract, philosophical, or inter-tradition. Text is more suitable and accurate in these instances, and the image would even lead to confusion and take away from context. The image is in contradiction to the context of the article.
2 Commons Scope : Where the image is not used in a meaningful encyclopedic or educational way and is essentially artistic or devotional in content, it can be beyond Commons' project scope.
There is Interpretive Bias as the painting is a very specific and personal representation of God by William Blake based on his mystical Christian worldview. It is not a generic or widely representative image of "God," nor is it a neutral or culturally diverse view for general or interfaith use
Wikipedia discourages the use of redundant images. If an image doesn't significantly add to the understanding of an article , it may be deemed unnecessary 182.184.255.241 (talk) 07:52, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't the main issue, the issue is the irrelevancy of the image to the context and it's unnecessary use that even violates various policies. 182.184.255.241 (talk) 11:42, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"According to Commons guidelines, non-free images should only be used when they provide significant educational value that cannot be conveyed otherwise. In this case, the image is primarily artistic and devotional, which does not meet the educational criteria needed for its inclusion.
The 7th day of Creation has nothing to do with the text si Addition of this redundant image adds to the visual clutter as many images are already present in tbe article itself. Think neutral (talk) 10:38, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I believe so because of the fact that the image is relevant to the article’s content and a violation ofWP:IMAGE. The article is better without this as there is no mention of the days of Creation, the article is about God, not Creation or the universe. Delicate ve precious (talk) 18:29, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The section is about God as a creator deity. The image is in the public domain and of educational value, and so is well within the scope of Commons.The image is free, and so NFCC isn't a problem. More diversity of images would be great, but Christians just...really like painting pictures of the dude. This article is gonna make somebody mad no matter what you do. So in some measure, you kinda have to just get over it. GMGtalk19:40, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Although the image is technically within the Commons and in the public domain, these facts do not support its inclusion in this article. The image's instructional value and relevance to the information it is meant to reinforce are the main points of contention. The article discusses the idea of God as a creator deity, which has been studied in many different theological and philosophical traditions. The wide range of concepts covered in the essay is not well represented by this illustration. It offers a particular creative portrayal of God that is incompatible with the section's teaching objectives rather than showcasing the range of opinions.
Furthermore, Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy stresses that articles should avoid assigning undue weight to one perspective, especially when the article offers concepts from multiple traditions, even when public domain images are allowed to use. This image, by focusing on a Christian interpretation, risks distorting the article's neutral stance on a universal concept like God.
The written argument that "Christians like painting pictures of God" does not change the fact that the image represents a singular viewpoint. The goal should be to balance cultural diversity and avoid using visual content that leans too heavily on any one religious tradition, especially in a section dealing with the broad concept of God.
Lastly, the idea of more diversity in images is not a justification to include this specific one, which could be misleading and irrelevant to the section.
Instead of detracting from or confusing the text, an image should enhance it and assist make its meaning clear. That condition is not met by this image, hence its inclusion needs to be reexamined. 182.187.134.82 (talk) 10:24, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I understand how it could be misleading. The article is pretty clear that there are a number of traditions who believe in something characterized as God. This seems like a fairly minor thing to take exception to. I would be open to removing the The System of Nature image because it's just text and legitimately doesn't add much for readers. GMGtalk20:57, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree because this umwanted and irrelevant image makes this article a visual gallery rather than an informative .
Keep. It is in the section on "Creator" and is relevant to that. It is, of course, a depiction of somebody's idea of God, and is not neutral in that sense, but it is a notable (if somewhat quirky) idea. The diversity argument is rather silly - in any case, Blake was English, and there is no other English picture in this article. StAnselm (talk) 21:26, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
'Remove
what's written in the text can be conveyed with out it. It is rather a contradiction to the diverse and academic theologies presented in the section.It is an unnecessary compromise on WP:NPOV that also undermines wikipedia's credibility for image selection and presentation. 182.187.134.160 (talk) 16:37, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Major changes to the lede on pantheism with citations provided
The idea that pantheism is a belief that the material universe is God comes from anti-pantheist church theologians, which you can see if you read the articles on pantheism and panentheism carefully. Pantheists like Spinoza and Raphson (inventor of the term) defined it as a belief in a non-corporeal intelligence (unlike both Yahweh and the material universe) which was *not* the universe, but out of which the universe came. Alec Gargett (talk) 07:12, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
True, nothing says that equating GOd witht he universe means that the universe is the physical universe or that everythign is material. It is actually an object of ongoing discussion, for example by Beever, J., Cisney (2013). VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 13:29, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have provided extensive citations from the pantheism article to support the changes. The pantheism article lede makes the same mistake and also needs to be corrected, but the article itself is good and explains the issue in conjunction with the panentheism article. Pantheism and panentheism in most pro-pantheist literature including Spinoza and Raphson refer to the same thing, making panentheism the original, primary and most common form of pantheism. Alec Gargett (talk) 07:15, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Would have to disagree with this. Meanings change over time. Very much the modern definition is of the divine equalling the Universe. How do you distinguish modern Pantheism (or Panentheism) from Pandeism)? Hyperbolick (talk) 18:51, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Meanings do change over time, but in this can a new meaning has been added. The old meaning is still there in many texts, including all the texts where Spinoza is referred to as a pantheist, including the Wikipedia article on pantheism, and including in some of the more modern sources (including dictionaries) that were already cited in these articles. Alec Gargett (talk) 09:13, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
level-3 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
