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 articles
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 articles
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 articles
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 articles
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 articles
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 articles
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 articles
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 articles
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 articles
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 articles
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 articles
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 articles
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 articles
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.
Should the image used for the Christian God be changed?
After a quick back and forth edit between VenusFeuerFalle and I relating to the image used for God, we agreed to take this issue/topic to the talk page. I think the image representing the Christian God should be replaced from the current one, which depicts God in a humanoid form with facial-hair, to a more suitable one which depicts the Tetragrammaton YHWH יהוה, the name of God. I agree that the bearded depiction of God is a more typical artistic depiction of God in Western culture, but it is very biblically inaccurate. Many Christians consider him to be invisible, and it is generally believed he has no form. It is best to use an accurate image like the other Abrahamic religions use on this page. RileyXeon (talk) 13:59, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the quick introduction. I agree partly with the proposition. The "bearded man" may not be the best representation for the Christian God. Many theologicans, including Origen, Thomas Aquinas, Anselm of Canterbury, Augustine of Hippo, and deistic philosophers from Christian culture, do conceptualized God as an abstract entity. An example is the concept of God as the first mover in the Five Ways by Aquinas. However, I do not think that a personal name does much better than the depiction of God as a person. The image needs to be representative for the Christian concept of God, such as a symbol. Next, I would argue that the Tetragrammaton, even if used as a symbol or representation rather than a proper name, it poorly reflects Christian tradition, given that the Tetragrammaton is rarely used in Christian writings. The idea that the Tetragrammaton should be used by Christians might be a rather modern phenomenon and might be motivated by Christian Zionism:
The book is divided into three chronological sections: “The Eclipse of the Name” (roughly 300 bce–500 ce), “Times of Ignorance” (500 ce–1400 ce) and “The Rediscovery of the Name” (1400 ce–1700 ce). The first section derives its title from the fact that whereas the Tetragrammaton routinely appears in Jewish biblical texts, in both Hebrew and Greek, it virtually never appears in biblical texts of Christian origin, being represented instead by the surrogate kyrios, or, more precisely, by the distinctively Christian abbreviation ΚΣ. The implications of “eclipse” notwithstanding, however, the author makes the important point that this shift in scribal convention does not signal a lack of Christian interest in the Tetragrammaton.(
R. Kendall Soulen 2015) Although the author states that the lack of 'Yahweh' should not be used as evidence for its lack of importance, we see that the term is hardly representative for the concept of God in Christian tradition. The author also calls the time of absence of the Tetragrammaton a "time of ignorance". Althought he author interpretes the importance of 'YHWH' into the Christian tradition, the term is factually (almost) non-existent in traditional Christianity. Where might be a better suggestion for an image, which does accurately reflect Christian tradition. If no better one is aviable, I think the portray of God as a man will do it as well, due to its prominence in Western culture. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 19:52, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Depicting God as an old bearded man is very inaccurate and doesn't support biblical writings. Using the Hebrew name for God again would be far more suitable to use instead of a depiction which isn't supported. If it's more suitable maybe we could use an image of Jesus to replace instead? Jesus being God and having divinity is a key and common Christian belief, and an image of Jesus is already used on the Deity page. RileyXeon (talk) 02:56, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the current Michelangelo depiction. This isn't an article about biblical or Christian interpretations of God's appearance, it's about God as a single monotheistic entity and how he is or has been depicted across societies. Debating the Bible isn't relevant here. The depiction shown from Michelangelo is of one of the most famous depictions of the subject of this article ("God") in human history, probably the most widely recognizable, regardless of whether some Christian sects or sources may object that it represents what is "biblically accurate". It absolutely should remain.— Crumpled Fire • contribs • 21:35, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was wondering if this article would benefit from a short section regarding the various definitions of God provided by religious traditions. I can provide one from the Westminster Shorter Catechism (a famous definition given which Anne of Green Gables quotes at some point) representing Presbyterianism, and another the Belgic Confession, a confessional standard of Continental Reformed Protestantism, both representing authoritative expressions of Reformed Protestantism which is a major form of Protestantism along with Anglicanism, Lutheranism and Baptist theology. These definitions also have Biblical citations for each point.
Westminster: 'God is a Spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable, in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth.'
Belgic Confession: 'We all believe with the heart, and confess with the mouth, that there is one only simple and spiritual Being, which we call God; and that He is eternal, incomprehensible, invisible, immutable, infinite, almighty, perfectly wise, just, good and the overflowing fountain of all good.'
I believe a short and authoritative definition from each religious tradition would give readers a good idea of how God is conceived and also a useful point of comparison. Perhaps it could also be pointed out what doctrines or concept are taught in each definition, e.g. divine simplicity in the Belgic Confession ('one only simple and spiritual Being'). For this example, I would also mention that the Confession cites parts of Scripture such as Ephesians 4:6 and 1 Corinthians 8:6 as sources of this doctrine. Violoncello10104 (talk) 12:55, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Image of the Christian God as of the current version (July 29, 2024) is the actual depiction of the Christian God. Don't change it with the painting of The Creation of Adam, also known as The Creation of Man, by Italian artist Michelangelo as it only consist the image of God the father. But the actual God in Christianity is represented through the the Christian Trinity, as a three faced head (Father, Son and Holy spirit). AimanAbir18plus (talk) 10:32, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, God in Christianity is a Trinity, but the depiction of the Most Holy Trinity (a 3-faced Jesus) currently is considered heretical even by the very church it came from. It is a very fringe depiction of the Most Holy Trinity, supported by practically no one.
@Bis-Serjetà?: I agree that choosing the tricephalous depiction of the Trinity is... rather odd. From my preliminary research, it appears to be theologically controversial, and was even condemned by popes Urban VIII and Benedict XIV.
I'm getting really tired of the endless fiddling with the gallery here in general. We need to select three or four representative depictions that cover the gamut and stick with them. Remsense ‥ 论07:46, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a big fan of iteration, but iteration has to have direction or purpose. I wonder if we can do better still—while what it represents is certainly not controversial in Eastern Orthodoxy, the diagram is still particularly Western—I remember reading a bit about Byzantine diagrams a while back, it was really interesting. Remsense ‥ 论08:25, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But I asked you to please discuss any changes to the lead images before making them, which you have ignored and made changes anyway. There was no reason for you to archive what is clearly generalized, ongoing discussion about the lead gallery. Remsense ‥ 论20:29, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to edit war: @AimanAbir18plus could you please explain the reasoning for re-adding the Jewish and Baháʼí representations? I do not think previous appearance suffices, and I would like to have a gallery where there are as few examples with as broad a coverage as possible. Remsense ‥ 论09:34, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because Judaism and Bahai Faith is larger religion than Atenism (extinct religion) and Monad (philosophy). And the depictions of God in Judaism and Bahai Faith were used in the older versions of the article and are more important than Atenism or Monad. AimanAbir18plus (talk) 09:41, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right, but the point is to represent the totality of the concept described in the article. Atenism was of great historical importance for its concept of God, which remains of great interest to scholars of religion. The Monad represents a distinct conception of God unique to the early modern period. I'm not saying we have to include either of these, but just reaching for different representations because you feel they have sufficient number of associated adherents is not really doing the concept justice, in my mind. Remsense ‥ 论09:44, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But I don't think that the topic of "Don't change the image of the Christian God (Trinity)" is relevant anymore as the 3 faced trinity depiction of Jesus is no longer used in the article as lede image. So, do you think that it would be okay to remove this topic? AimanAbir18plus (talk) 09:52, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's no reason to remove the topic, as it will be archived eventually like any other. It does not bother me that conversation flows naturally and other questions are addressed in the interim. Remsense ‥ 论09:57, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Stop it all of you. There are so many different beliefs, there is no obvious candidate. This article does not need, nor should it have any image at all. HiLo48 (talk) 23:18, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me? This is a premise you need to actually substantiate instead of demanding everybody trying to improve a highly visible part of a highly visible page should shut up. Remsense ‥ 论05:54, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
God is a highly visual concept, so insisting on no visual illustration because figuring out what it should be is nontrivial is inane. Remsense ‥ 论05:56, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because you're not expressing concerns that can be engaged with except by deference to your particular tastes and perspective. Remsense ‥ 论07:29, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to fundamentally misunderstand the goal here. No definition will please everyone, and no choice of words will either, but I imagine you wouldn't say "don't bother to write an article". It's not within the remit of our encyclopedia to illustrate in an unfamiliar fashion, nor to defer on our own pretense that this subject is uniquely unillustratable without evidence. Neutral point of view does not mean no point of view: all we can do, exactly as with our prose, is be as representative of our sources as possible. Remsense ‥ 论07:42, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying to understand the reasoning behind what you said. I literally said "I imagine you wouldn't say 'don't bother to write an article'". Remsense ‥ 论08:04, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the purely editorial point I'm making is not clear to you, I apologize. I would like to see this argument as something more than obstructive, but I think it would be better if I desist here, since our rhetorical styles clearly aren't compatible. If you don't want to be understood, then don't speak, I guess. Remsense ‥ 论08:24, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I vote we restore the the image of Vishnu, and just write "Vaishnava Hinduism" in the description. This is the largest sect of the faith. Otherwise, could we use an image of the Trimurti as a sort of compromise? Zoozoor (talk) 06:10, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
level-3 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
