Talk:God#.22vast majority.22

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)

:{{tq|nor is it a neutral or culturally diverse view for general or interfaith use}}—none is, none could be. tgeorgescu (talk) 10:14, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

::but yet one can't be used to represent the general view 182.184.255.241 (talk) 11:41, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

::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)

:::I don't think it violates policies. It is more of a matter of taste. tgeorgescu (talk) 12:32, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

:::: Agree with George. No one image can satisfy more than a handful. This one is representative enough. Hyperbolick (talk) 15:59, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::"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)

: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)

• 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. GMG^talk 19:40, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
• :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)
• ::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. GMG^talk 20:57, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

:I agree because this umwanted and irrelevant image makes this article a visual gallery rather than an informative .

:Its inclusion is sensational not encyclopedic ! Think neutral (talk) 10:40, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

::I have my doubts about the image, but solely as a judgment of taste, not as a matter of policies and guidelines. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:25, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

• 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)

:'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)

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)

: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)

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)

: 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)

:: 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)

Guys, can you STOP changing the Christian image to the Michaelangelo painting which only and inaccurately depicts God the Father. Christianity recognizes the Trinity. Please change it back to the Trinity Shield. File:Shield-Trinity-Scutum-Fidei-English.svg 124.83.96.10 (talk) 03:30, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

: Kind of hard to accept the proposition when this image was commissioned by the pope. Hyperbolick (talk) 07:00, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

::We’re not all Catholics bro. The Trinity image represents all the true denominations. What denomination are you? Mahal ko si Jesus (talk) 11:56, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

::: Not all Catholics, but by the numbers mostly Catholics. Have seen plenty of nonCatholic denominations use just this imagery as well. Hyperbolick (talk) 03:56, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

:The lead image on an article like this is never going to please everyone. If we changed content every time it didn't fit with some part of a person's theology, we'd be recreating the article every day. The Michaelangelo piece is widely recognized as a historically significant depiction of the Christian god. That's enough for our purposes. GMG^talk 13:49, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

I welcome other users opinions as to whether this is suitable for adding to the article

God must have an executive quality. That is, you should have access to a comprehensible being that can help you understand the wisdom behind the daily events that happen to you (to be a guide). God should not be a myth in the human mind. A God whose existence is uncertain. If He exists, have you ever seen a true sign of Him? Are you sure that what you call God has defined all the rules you must follow? Are you sure that what you call God has defined what is "good" and what is "bad"? In some religions, God punishes! So, creation has been imperfect and gone awry, and it must be corrected with punishment? Why would God create something and then prohibit it? Many who have entered God’s forbidden realm have not discovered anything new. If God is God, He deserves to be worshipped. When humans see God, they should reach a sense of worship, like a man falling in love with a woman. A God who is above us, and out of fear of Him, we engage in the good deeds He has prescribed, is a logically absurd definition.

{{cite book

|last = داوکینز

|first = ریچارد

|author-link =

|date = 2006

|title = The God Delusion

|trans-title = توهم خدا

|url =

|location =

|publisher = Bantam Press

|quote =

|language = en

|volume =

|page = 159-167

|isbn =

}}

Does God not have the intelligence to show us something astonishing among all the valuable things around us and make us intoxicated and in love with Him? God should not be separate from us. God must be the richest substance in the universe, a substance that fills everything. A God who has a realm separate from Himself is in a space that limits Him. To limit means that a higher force has set a boundary. Now, what shall we call that higher force that has set the boundary? Should we worship Him too? How do we know if He likes our worship? Who told us what He likes and dislikes? Who told us that Satan is God’s counterpart? Why do we always think about God and Satan and their relation to our actions? Why is going to heaven or hell so important to us? If we stop thinking about God, and stop thinking about Satan, and forget about heaven and hell, we should free ourselves. Let’s take a moment to rest. No one wants anything from us. Sit down. Stop moving. These thoughts are born from the mind. No matter how credible the source, the thought does not have permanence. At times it becomes important, sometimes it is forgotten.

{{cite book

|last = هیتچنز

|first = کریستوفر

|author-link =

|date = 2007

|title = God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything

|trans-title = خدا بزرگ نیست: چگونه دین همه چیز را مسموم می‌کند

|url =

|location =

|publisher = Twelve

|quote =

|language = en

|volume =

|page = 292-293

|isbn =

}}

If we didn’t know about God at all, we would pursue our inner motivation. Like a seed that grows upward in search of its tree design. A God who loves some and not others! This is a human thought that suffers from a lack of attention. Someone must define God who knows that every definition has limitations. God should not be a conception of a being in the mind. We have programmed ourselves based on a series of phrases that have been heard. We have created God in our own thoughts. That God, no. Not that God. It should not exist.

{{cite book

|last = هریس

|first = سم

|author-link =

|date = 2004

|title = The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason

|trans-title = پایان ایمان: دین، ترور و آینده عقل

|url =

|location =

|publisher = W. W. Norton & Company

|quote =

|language = en

|volume =

|page = 99-101

|isbn =

}}

God must be unknowable, because anything that can be known becomes a subject and is limited. God should astonish and attract humans with a higher intelligence. God must be beautiful to delight the eyes. God should be the embodiment of grace and forgiveness. A sinner cannot remain a sinner if God has infinite forgiveness. It is possible that God has left us completely free. How can we understand that the words of governments, which are spread as culture through their dominance, are the words of God? Has God even asked us to follow Him? Does He need followers? To increase His audience? Why? Does He have an Instagram account?

{{cite book

|last = هیتچنز

|first = کریستوفر

|author-link =

|date = 2019

|title = The Portable Atheist: Essential Readings for the Nonbeliever

|trans-title = آتئیست سیار: منابع ضروری برای غیرمومنان

|url =

|location =

|publisher = Da Capo Press

|quote = 4rd Edition

|language = en

|volume =

|page = 36

|isbn =

}}

God should be understood by the individual, not defined by someone else for that individual. A person must think of God in a state of mind free from limitations, biases, and frameworks. This is why some primitive tribes used psychoactive plants to understand God and existence. They freed their minds to understand for themselves.

{{cite book

|last = Stenger

|first = Victor J.

|author-link =

|date = 2007

|title = God: The Failed Hypothesis

|trans-title = خدا: فرضیه شکست خورده

|url =

|location =

|publisher = Prometheus Books

|quote =

|language = en

|volume =

|page = 111-113, 115

|isbn =

}}

God should not be dictated to you. If you have acquired your definition of God from someone else and are preoccupied with that God, it is likely that this God will not do anything for you, and you will make your life dull and flavorless with these definitions. You will probably make life difficult for others as well.

{{cite book

|last = هریس

|first = سم

|author-link =

|date = 2004

|title = The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason

|trans-title = پایان ایمان: دین، ترور و آینده عقل

|url =

|location =

|publisher = W. W. Norton & Company

|quote =

|language = en

|volume =

|page = 296

|isbn =

}}

The thought of change brings fear to the passive individual. The passive individual prefers that everything be defined for them. Today’s society raises individuals to be conformists and passive. Repression, for the sake of interests, is the general state of the world today. Yet, free individuals still emerge. A free person is one who acts, moves, and makes choices independent of social structures, culture, and ethnic, religious, or racial definitions. These are individuals who set aside the entire social structure and pursue and discover what their hearts desire, not their limited mind and it's definition.

{{cite book

|last = اصلان

|first = رضا

|author-link =

|date = 2017

|title = God: A Human History

|trans-title = خدا: تاریخ بشر

|url =

|location =

|publisher = Random House

|quote =

|language = en

|volume =

|page = 32, 36, 41

|isbn =

}}

Here, we can point out some key points:

{{cite book

|last = اصلان

|first = رضا

|author-link =

|date = 2017

|title = God: A Human History

|trans-title = خدا: تاریخ بشر

|url =

|location =

|publisher = Random House

|quote =

|language = en

|volume =

|page = 32, 36, 41

|isbn =

}}

{{cite book

|last = Harris

|first = Sam

|author-link =

|date = 2004

|title = The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason

|trans-title = پایان ایمان: دین، ترور و آینده عقل

|url =

|location =

|publisher = W. W. Norton & Company

|quote = 3rd Edition

|language = en

|volume =

|page = 147, 251

|isbn =

}}

{{cite book

|last = Armstrong

|first = Karen

|author-link =

|date = 2009

|title = The Case for God

|trans-title = پرونده برای خدا

|url =

|location =

|publisher = Knopf

|quote =

|language = en

|volume =

|page = 12, 36, 39

|isbn =

}}

{{cite book

|last = Tillich

|first = Paul

|author-link =

|date = 1952

|title = The Courage to Be

|trans-title = شجاعتِ بودن

|url =

|location =

|publisher = Yale University Press

|quote =

|language = en

|volume =

|page = 61

|isbn =

}}

{{cite book

|last = Nietzsche

|first = Friedrich

|author-link =

|date = 2003

|title = Thus Spoke Zarathustra

|trans-title = چنین گفت زرتشت

|url =

|location =

|publisher = Penguin Classics

|quote =

|language = en

|volume =

|page = 11, 99, 109-110

|isbn =

}}

{{cite book

|last = Buber

|first = Martin

|author-link =

|date = 1970

|title = I and Thou

|trans-title = من و تو

|url =

|location =

|publisher = Scribner

|quote =

|language = en

|volume =

|page = 11-13

|isbn =

}}

{{Blockquote

|text=

• {{strong|Individual Understanding of God:}} Emphasize that the understanding of God should be a personal experience and not something dictated to the individual. This idea highlights the importance of personal experiences and the search for inner truth.

}}

{{Blockquote

|text=

• {{strong|Freedom of Mind:}} The reference to the use of psychoactive plants by some primitive tribes as a tool for freeing the mind and gaining a deeper understanding of reality and God, indicates that intellectual and mental freedom can lead to new and deeper understandings.

}}

{{Blockquote

|text=

• {{strong|Dictated Definitions:}} The criticism of dictated definitions of God and religion addresses the issue that many people may build their lives based on beliefs and definitions they have received from others, which can lead to a lack of quality and dullness in life (pervasive and contagious).

}}

{{Blockquote

|text=

• {{strong|Society and Conformity:}} Point out that today’s society drives individuals towards conformity and passivity, and this situation can lead to the repression of inner truth of human and the lack of freedom, without knowing these happened and without a passion for reorder the conditions.

}}

{{Blockquote

|text=

• {{strong|Freedom and Discovery:}} Emphasize the importance of freedom in discovering the truth and pursuing what the individual truly desires. Free individuals are those who transcend social and cultural structures and seek personal discovery and experience.

}}

{{Blockquote

|text=

• {{strong|The Art of Letting Go:}} It is difficult for individuals to relinquish their thoughts and beliefs or to question them. A fool is someone who, upon realizing their own wrongness, continues to defend themselves without any understandable reason. Most religious individuals around the world, cannot even tolerate a little probing into their beliefs. They regard what they have heard as sacred without reason and consider any alteration to be unacceptable. They are like a prisoner who has locked the door behind himself/herself and waits for the life to end. A prisoner that he\she has unconsciously builts for himself/herself, imposing a kind of compulsion to himself/herself, to remain within it. Why? Is it a lack of desire to move? Or does he\she not see himself/herself as worthy? Or has he\she lost hope from the outside world? Perhaps he\she is so exhausted from trivial thoughts that he\she has no patience for anything at all. Not even the patience to seek salvation. Every force that has contributed to the design of this described space is a destructive and harmful force. It stems from ignorance.

{{cite book

|last = Tolle

|first = Eckhart

|author-link =

|date = 1999

|title = The Power of Now: A Guide to Spiritual Enlightenment

|trans-title = قدرت حال: راهنمایی برای روشن‌بینی معنوی

|url =

|location =

|publisher = New World Library

|quote =

|language = en

|volume =

|page = 23-31

|isbn =

}}

{{cite book

|last = Taheri

|first = Mohammad Ali

|author-link = Mohammad Ali Taheri

|date = 2001

|title = HUMAN FROM ANOTHER OUTLOOK

|trans-title = انسان از منظری دیگر

|url =

|location = Tehran

|publisher = BIJAN

|quote =

|language = en

|volume =

|page = 154-157

|isbn =

}}

}}

These perspectives can lead to deeper discussions about the meaning of God, life, individual freedom, and the human relationship with God.

{{cite web

|url = https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-031-85020-2_7

|title = God, Human Freedom and the Problem of Evil

|trans-title = خدا، آزادی انسان و مسئله شر

|language = en

|access-date = 12 June 2025

}}

{{cite web

|url = https://www.cslewis.org/journal/the-image-of-god-religion-and-the-meaning-of-life-toward-a-christian-philosophical-anthropology/

|title = The Image of God, Religion, and the Meaning of Life

|trans-title = تصویر خدا، دین و معنای زندگی

|language = en

|access-date = 12 June 2025

}}

{{cite web

|url = https://scholarworks.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3197&context=honorstheses

|title = God and True Being: Loving in Freedom

|trans-title = خدا و هستی حقیقی: عشق ورزیدن در آزادی

|language = en

|access-date = 12 June 2025

}}

{{cite web

|url = https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590291124000767

|title = Multiple perspectives of spiritual intelligence: A systematic literature review

|trans-title = دیدگاه‌های چندگانه هوش معنوی: مروری سیستماتیک بر متون

|language = en

|access-date = 12 June 2025

}}

{{cite web

|url = https://utppublishing.com/doi/full/10.3138/uram.36.1-2.65

|title = Chapter 4: The Notion of God

|trans-title = فصل ۴: مفهوم خدا

|language = en

|access-date = 12 June 2025

}}

Theroadislong (talk) 16:46, 14 June 2025 (UTC) Theroadislong (talk) 16:46, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

:That was a good removal. The tone is plainly not in line with an encyclopedia article, it reads like an essay about someone's beliefs. I was actually about to revert it myself, but your edit went through first. MrOllie (talk) 17:36, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

{{reflist-talk}}