Talk:God

Proposing a change for this page, throughout it refers to Gods in the plural rather than singular. Proposing a change for this page to Gods, rather than God Which leaves open God for what is currently known as God of the Worldsphere, in all of his appearances he is named as God. Also there doesn't appear to be any links to God. --Tangerineduel 06:12, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, the singular form for a title is the standard here. The Human article uses Humans within the article. It also seems like an unnecessary amount of work to have to type out god every time.


 * Also, is the God of the Worldsphere a god, the God or something named god? <Azes13 14:33, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Well at the basic level its name is God, he fulfils the role of a God (the God of the Worldsphere), but on his first appearance he/it is called God.


 * It might be a bit or work, but currently there isn't anything liking directly to God, which is why I was thinking of changing it, as God of the Worldsphere, well God is his/its name. --Tangerineduel 15:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Then that seems more like it would warrant the God (Worldsphere) or 'God (individual) page title. <Azes13 20:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Righty that makes sense, I'll change it to God (Worldsphere). --Tangerineduel 07:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh. Well, that was easy... <Azes13 14:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * "Also there doesn't appear to be any links to God. " That's a profound statement. Monkey with a Gun 05:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

God Status
The beginning article doesn't feel right. Based on my experience with the series, in The Satan Pit, I don't remember the Doctor denying a belief in any kind of God, only that he had faced more things claiming or aspiring to be gods than he could shake a stick at. Unfortunately, I have yet to see Destiny of the Daleks (or any of the episodes that apparently deny the existence of a Whoniversal God, for that matter), but based on a few searches online, I don't see any overt references to God or an equivalent power where they are concerned. I'm not about to go in and change it myself for want of personal experience, of course, but could someone help explain a few details here? - Caswin 22:32, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * That doesn't seem to be right. I can remember at least two references to Doctor being more agnostic than plain atheist and I can't remember any references to god in Castrovalva, Everything Changes or They Keep Killing Suzie. The fact that it's out of universe doesn't really help its case. I'm just going to remove it. -<Azes13 22:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed i cannot remember any god references in those stories either --Dark Lord Xander 04:12, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll agree that the Doctor's comments in The Satan Pit are more to what Caswin is getting at - that he's in the mindset that this is just another powerful alien that's having delusions of grandeur. While I can't remember any specifics to back this up, I've always gotten the sense of the Doctor's attitude being summed up by "God? Never met the fellow."
 * I also don't remember anything specific in Destiny of the Daleks, but it was written by Douglas Adams, who was passionate about his atheism. So I'm not saying it's not there, I'm just saying that if it is, I'd be surprised if I missed it.
 * As for the claims that the Torchwood eps cited deny a Whoniversal God (I like that term), I'd disagree - they only deny the existence of an afterlife. Important difference.
 * The Castrovalva (TV story) reference is a mystery to me. Anybody care to elaborate? - Monkey with a Gun 05:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

In all religions gods create the afterlife for their followers (sometimes it's in another world like Christianity and Scientology, sometimes it's in this world like Buddhisim), so without an afterlife there is no God. ABout the Castrovalva thing, well the first cliffhanger was The Fifth Doctor and his companions were taken to the big bang, the explosion that apparently created the universe, in all religion all Gods created the universe without an explosion, they just said "Let their be light" or something and all of a sudden it came to be.--AKR619 05:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Okey dokey, this is not the best forum for this, but... the existence of an afterlife is not a universal component of religions. Hinduism, Buddhism, and yes, Scientology all claim the existence of reincarnation which is a profoundly different concept. The nonexistence of an afterlife only would seem to deny religions that specifically claim an afterlife (most forms of Christianity being the most readily accessible example), and then only the fundamentalist versions of those religions that claim total infallibility. For example, a fundamentalist Protestant Christian, who believes that the Bible is a literal document would make that equation (no afterlife = no God), but a Unitarian Universalist, who believes in an unknowable and transcendental God, would not have his or her faith challenged by learning, as the Torchwood team does, that there is no afterlife.
 * That's what I meant by there being an important difference. Within the Whoniverse, there's no afterlife. To some religions, that would be completely incompatible with their vision of God. Others, it would make no difference. Many would just have to admit they got some details wrong and moved on.
 * Regarding Event One in Castrovalva (and Terminus (TV story)), the issue there is separating cosmology from theology. The Big Bang is generally accepted in astrophysics, but can be irrelevant to religion, depending on how literally one takes the texts. Additionally, not all religions suppose a moment of universal creation - Hindu belief, for example, believe in a cycle of repeating eons millions of years in length, alternating between periods of improvement and decay (in case you're wondering, we're in a decay period right now). Again, a literal interpretation of the Christian Bible would be incompatible with astrophysics, both in our universe and the Whoniverse; but the Big Bang theory meshes nicely with Deism, a post-Enlightenment theology that posits that a Creator (named God, for lack of a better term) created a universe with an orderly set of natural laws, the laws of physics and mathematics for example, and then kicked it off to see what happens. (Being omniscient, of course, the Creator knows what happens, but the point of the experiment is for it to play out.) The Big Bang was simply the start of the process - "light fuse, get away" as it were.
 * So... how does all this relate to an article about a sci-fi TV show? Well, it means you could write a book about the religious implications of science fiction, and many people have. It also mean I'm standing by my edits of removing an unequivocal statement that there is no One True Whoniversal God, since the matter (to me) appears to be neither here nor there. There may be, but he hasn't showed up in a canon source yet.
 * Monkey with a Gun 06:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

It's a very powerful thing...
... to sit here, in my smug atheism, and look at a page that starts "Editing God." Somewhere, Voltaire and Nietzsche are high-fiving like frat boys. Monkey with a Gun 05:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC)