Talk:God

Lucifer is Actually the first Angel created by God michael is the second this was stated in the Movie The Prophecy that's how i know that and i'm guessing Supernatural has the same origin 64.114.124.161 23:30, October 29, 2009 (UTC)Smallville944

According to Gabriel in the 'changing channels' episode didnt he say that michael was the older brother to lucifer just as dean is the older brother to sam Yojimbo and diagoro 00:59, November 14, 2009 (UTC)

Yes that is what Gabriel said. That movie is just that; a movie. Please don't use information from something completely different to try and prove something on Supernatural.

Hi
According to Gabriel, Michael is the older brother of Lucifer. This proves that Michael was created first (at least in this show). Lucifer in biblical teachings was God's first angel, however in this show Michael was said to be the older brother. This proves that Michael was created before Lucifer because of his age.

Anderson Writer (November 14th 2009)

Question?
Is John Winchester God. You see, if Sam is the vessel for Lucifer, and Dean is the vessel for Michael, then surely the father of the two brothers is the father of the two brothers! Jake200493 10:08, November 17, 2009 (UTC)
 * No. I mean, I don't know for sure. But I can say with 99.999% accuracy that John is not God. Neither is Sam actually Lucifer, or Dean actually Michael. The Winchester brothers are just vessels. --Effectofthemassvariety 06:59, May 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * I meant God's vessel. Can't afford to be precise when your Human Bio teacher is watching you like a hawk making sure you're essay writing :(


 * HA! Been there, done that. :) Now that I look at it, I should've seen what you meant. Anyways, I can't say with any certainty that John Winchester is or is not God's vessel. It would be really cool if he was. However, in my personal opinion, I would say no. Personally, and I wrote a blog on this (Twice), I think that Crowley is God. But no one else thinks that. I mean, besides my sister. :/ --Effectofthemassvariety 07:00, May 8, 2010 (UTC)

Answer
The answer to your question is simple; John Winchester is not God. For more feedback please leave a message on my talk page.

Thanks

Anderson Writer (November 17th 2009)

Non Denominational Television Hour
Alright, honestly, the first paragraph REALLY bugs me! I mean, I am a christian, and I do believe in Jesus, but in the Supernatural Universe, they do not address it at all. They never confirm or deny it. So, I am going to delete any sentence that says anything about Jesus. This isn't sunday school, it's a wiki about a television show that talks of angels and demons, never of Jesus.--Effectofthemassvariety 07:06, May 1, 2010 (UTC)

they do speak of Jesus in one episodeFluffyking63 03:44, July 1, 2012 (UTC)

Alright, honestly...
This is getting ridiculous! This article is just a jumbles of odd facts that are unrelated to the show. And, so, I am going to take it

upon myself to fix this article. --Effectofthemassvariety 23:43, May 2, 2010 (UTC)

Proof of Chuck Being God
Hi What Proof do we Have that Chuck is God this article just seems to be theories of Chuck being God and bnot actual proof hi is a Prophet Not God and he dissapeared and teleported simply cause his work as a Prophet was finished not because he's God unless i see some actual proof i won't believe that Chuck is God they didn't state that in the finale - Smallville944
 * See the "Notes" section for a listing of all evidence, very clear indeed. Also, the writers did say at one point we'd learn who God was by the end of the show, it was blatantly obvious in the end. 173.27.32.201 06:15, May 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * True, and to make it clear for the Doubting Thomases out there, consider these things:
 * 1) Upon first meeting Chuck, he drops an obvious hint that he could be God by claiming that he's a god of some kind, though it's dismissed by Sam and Dean b/c of how insignificant he seems:
 * Chuck: Well, there's only one explanation. Obviously I'm a god.


 * Sam: You're not a god.


 * Chuck: How else do you explain it? I write things and then they come to life. Yeah, no, I'm definitely a god. A cruel, cruel, capricious god. The things I put you through -- The physical beatings alone.


 * 2) A Prophet is only supposed to write the words of God as God sends them to him, he's not supposed to actually consider how he wants the story to go. In Swan Song, Chuck is musing about "getting the ending right". Were he not God, he wouldn't have been doing this. God is the one that dictates endings.
 * 3) Chuck's final words are that "nothing really ends", and the only person for whom that truly applies is God.
 * 4) Chuck is wearing all white in his final scene, which most believe to be God's chosen style. What's more, we see a confidence in him in this final shot that he has never shown before, as though he were a completely different person.
 * 5) Most obvious of all, Chuck vanishes into thin air at the end, something no human, Prophet or not, is capable of doing. Chuck passed himself off as a normal guy up to this point, and here he showed he had power nobody had known him to have before. We've already seen one character masquerade as something he wasn't really in Gabriel, one of God's Archangels.
 * 6) In the final episode, he thinks Dean is a prostitute named "Miss Magda", and most know the story of Mary Magdalene, the repentant prostitute whom Jesus (God's physical manifestation) was said to have loved more than his own disciples. "Miss Magda" is a clear nod to Mary Magdalene.
 * 7) Finally, the writers said some time ago that before the end of Season 5 we would learn who God was. Ergo, somewhere near the end of the season (namely in the finale) God would be revealed to the audience. (http://www.spoilersguide.com/supernatural/supernatural-eric-kripke-interview/)
 * I watched the season finale with two friends who love the show as much as me and who are fairly open-minded. Both of them agreed immediately that it was blatantly obvious by the end who God was, even if it wasn't spoon-fed to the audience by putting a name-tag on Chuck saying "Hello, my name is God". There's always going to be anals out there that absolutely won't accept things unless they spell it out word-for-word, but apparently to the vast majority of the fan base, they agree that it was clear that in the end, Chuck was God all along. As for all the ballahooing about Dean's Amulet not glowing in Chuck's presence, we remembered that Joshua said that it would not help to find Him b/c He did not want to be found. God has the power to shield Himself from such things obviously. Lucifer1987 06:35, May 17, 2010 (UTC)

Those are good points however they didn't state he was God so we don't know 100% if it's true
 * Actually it is, Kripke stated in the interview God would be revealed in the finale, and he was true to his word. 68.171.234.188 23:30, May 17, 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you should be making claims that Chuck is God it's presumptuous to assume so. You should wait like everyone else till season 6 and you find out who Chuck really is before you make a wiki site. 1st thing prophets ascend to heaven when there work is done. Happened to the Jewish prophet Elijah and to Jesus Christ. It could be that Chuck was Jesus or Elijah. They are both prophesied to come before the Apocalypse. If you want to make claims that Chuck is God make a blog like everyone else and don't put it on a Wiki site so to people who believe what ever is on the internet thinks it to be true. I hope the network proves your presumptuous ass wrong!


 * Actually, you're the one that's wrong for refusing to admit the obvious and that Kripke himself stated we would learn who God was in the finale, and the only obvious character was Chuck. This is not the place for anals who refuse to admit facts. The fact of the matter is that Kripke as good as confirmed Chuck to be God when he stated God would be revealed in the finale. There are no reports of Prophets ever just vanishing into thin air, so your assumptions about Elijah and/or Jesus have no place here as they do not feature into this story nor did they ever feature into biblical lore to start with since neither was said to have done that. Do not confuse Supernatural with your own preferred religion. Sorry, but you need to step back and accept that Kripke has basically already confirmed this a long time ago. I'd also like to add that this is no place for pompous windbags upset that their views are not shared by as many as they'd like. 131.230.191.8 14:22, May 19, 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree, those trying to disprove that Chuck is God really don't have any genuine basis to do so. No Prophet, not even Jesus, was said to have just up and disappeared into thin air literally. And we have already had one character masquerade as something he really wasn't, Gabriel. Kripke confirms in the previously posted interview from near the middle of the season that God would be revealed in the season finale, Swan Song. Now, the only candidate (an obvious one at that) that fits that bill is Chuck, and 80% of the fan base seems to agree that it was fairly obvious even without Kripke's previous statement. Chuck also drops the hint that he's a god of some kind when we first meet him. There's more evidence for Chuck being God than there is against in my book, and Kripke's statement is as good a confirmation as any. "And yes, God will definitely be appearing, Kripke reveals, probably in the season finale." Lucifer1987 14:32, May 19, 2010 (UTC)

Ever think it could be Cass? Remember Dean asked are you God? Maybe when Cass was killed by Ralph he really did die and wasn't rezed by God but God took his form. Maybe that is what is meant by God would be revealed in the fianle. Supernatural always gives you a twist. Maybe Cass doesn't even know he is God. You can not say facts when there are other facts that can be true just as well. With all the blogs about God being Chuck even if they were going to make Chuck God, they most likely will not just to give that twist ending that Supernatural does so well. Notice how I say most likely? I say this because I don't know the outcome, and neither do you! So like I stated before make a blog until it is stated as a fact by the creator that Chuck is God. You are not the creator of Supernatural and shouldn't be speaking for him. Also as it was stated before God uses like Angles humans as vessels. So you would think that the Vessel would be left on earth like the vessels of the Angels. However, prophets ascend to heaven when their work is done on earth, that could be what happened to Chuck. We don't know either way until the reveal.


 * Castiel was already ruled out, by himself, if you'd watched the finale. Sorry man, but this just sounds like a lot of nonsense from somebody who just doesn't want to admit an obvious truth. Kripke confirmed we'd see God in the finale, and the only person that fits that bill is Chuck, very plain and very clear. You seem to conveniently want to avoid that point and try to twist it so that it fits your wish to simply try to disprove Chuck being God, which isn't working. Simply b/c you can't comprehend the ending of Season 5 doesn't mean the rest of us are incapable of understanding what Kripke meant back in November and what was shown in May. Lol, you speak of twists, well if Chuck being God in reality isn't a twist, I don't know what one is. And you have failed to produce even one instance in any kind of lore where a Prophet just up and vanishes into thin air. Your assertions that he "ascended to Heaven after his work was done" have no concrete evidence to support them, as there has never been any instance where a Prophet has made such an exit nor had the power to do that alone. No human being, Prophet or not, has ever had the power to just vanish into thin air. When it all comes down to it, it's Kripke's own words that make such attempts to disprove Chuck's identity as God seem desperate and unfounded. Kripke says the audience will learn who God is in the finale, and we see only one very obvious candidate for that role in the finale, with Kripke dropping unmistakable hints of who it is throughout the episode. And I think that the "creator of Supernatural" spoke loud and clear (you set yourself up for this one), and he said, without a doubt, that God would appear in the finale. Sorry that you can't wrap your head around that, but as someone else said, this is not a place for looneys. Take your nonsense elsewhere if you're unwilling to accept obvious facts in the face of reason. Lucifer1987 16:55, May 20, 2010 (UTC)

I said if you read my post that maybe Cass doesn't know he is God. You know God works in mysterious ways. And I am not saying anything about the facts you have but it has not be confrimed nor denied by the creator and thus you should not be saying yes or no either way. I am not saying chuck is not God nor saying that he is. You can speculate all you want but that is all you can do because no one can say with !00% certianity that Chuck is or isn't. Writers change their minds all the time. He may have said that god would be revealed but he has the right to change his mind doesn't he?


 * And how PROBABLE is that???? NOT VERY MUCH AT ALL! Castiel states he's not God, then we take it at face value. We're not going by your theories that have scant chance of being accurate here. If you want to go to SupernaturalWiki and post em there, go right ahead. We don't go by their policies here, as someone else noted. If you don't like that we actually take a stand and recognize facts from the producers and the show itself, then go take your theoretical nonsense there. Simply b/c you can't accept the fact that Kripke confirmed he'd reveal who God was in the finale and that Chuck was the obvious character revealed as such doesn't mean the rest of us are incapable of realizing that. Take your nonsense to the other wiki if you can't accept reality. Kripke as good as confirmed that Chuck is God when he stated that he would reveal God's identity in the finale, and it was very obvious who he was referring to. GET OVER IT! Lucifer1987 16:33, May 21, 2010 (UTC)


 * First of all God does not need vessels and Jesus was not a prophet, he was an actual manifestation of God according to Christianity and if not the disappearance out of thin air then his behavior before that is enough proof that he is God as I see it.
 * The "white" thing is BS IMO. Lucifer also wore a fully white suit and shoes in "The End". Hell, I myself like white and dress fully in white sometimes and have a fully white suit.
 * The "white" thing is BS IMO. Lucifer also wore a fully white suit and shoes in "The End". Hell, I myself like white and dress fully in white sometimes and have a fully white suit.


 * "No Prophet, not even Jesus, was said to have just up and disappeared into thin air literally" - ...dude, you must not know anything about Christianity, that is EXACTLY what happens to Jesus.(ಠ_ೃ)﻿ Bully!  19:46, October 29, 2010 (UTC)

Is Chuck God?
Following the Season Five finale, there was much debate amongst fans to whether Chuck was in fact God, and whether he had been so all along. While consensus was with Chuck as the Divine being - Many fans started substituting Chuck's name for Gods in expression's such as "Chuck be praised?" and "Thank Chuck" - not all agreed. Chuck as a writer is the creator of the story of Sam and Dean Winchester in the form of the Supernatural books. He says when confronted with the real Sam and Dean that he "is a god", for all that he puts them through in the books happens in real life. This is explained by Castiel as Chuck being a prophet of God. Castiel says the "Supernatural" Books will become known as the Winchester Gospels.

The metaphor in this episode is of the writer as creator. Chuck's pseudonym is Carver Edlund, a reference to Supernatural writers Jeremy Carver and Ben Edlund. The character is an avatar for Kripke himself Source and is used to comment on the text and process of writing with reference to specific past episodes of the Show. This metaphor would also hold then is God, the creator, was also the writer. We have a trinity here - Chuck, Kripke and God.

Sam and Dean find out from the angel Joshua that God is on Earth 5.16 Dark Side Of The Moon

In the finale there, is further foreshadowing of Chuck's true identity: When Dean calls Chuck, Chuck answers the phone "Mistress Magda," and we briefly see a newspaper ad for a blonde women in a bikini named "Miss Magda" on Chuck's desk before he puts his glass on it. This may be a reference to Mary Magdalene who Jesus, the physical incarnation of God, healed of demons. She then become a follower of his, and an early Christian leader.

Chuck, after narrating the events that take place, finally appears dressed in white musing on the difficulty of getting endings right. He then disappears - Chuck, it seems, is God.

Fans arguing against Chuck's divinity point primarily to the fact that Dean's Amulet, which Castiel says will "burn hot" in God's presence does not react when Dean and Chuck meet face to face in 4.18 The Monster At The End Of This Book, 4.22 Lucifer Rising, and 5.01 Sympathy For The Devil. However, Joshua tells Sam and Dean in Heaven "Magic amulet or not, you won't be able to find him".

Other arguments include the failure of others to recognise God's true self, including Raphael is the archangel assigned to protect Chuck. In 5.03 Free To Be You And Me, he tells Dean and Castiel that God is "dead" and they are living in a "godless universe."

Castiel is also ignorant of Chuck's true identity. He held off Raphael at Chuck's house while Dean went after Sam in 4.22 Lucifer Rising, and met Chuck several times.

The answer may never be confirmed, or further information may be revealed in Season 6.

While we may never know the identity of God, which might be best, as it adds the sense of omnipresence to it, the idea that Chuck is God, is over thought, and more likely not true then true.

Chuck I believe is simply a prophet, and his odd disapearance in the finale is more like him being spirited away, Like the Prophet Elijah, from the Old Testemont that was taken to heaven following him completing his job on earth, in a chariot of Fire. Chucks disapearance was less flashy, but I believe it was in the same vien as that.

This is from the SupernaturalWiki site see how they say they can neither confrim nor deny if chuck is god or not? That is the proper way to do it, not your way.


 * Newsflash: THIS IS NOT SUPERNATURALWIKI! We're not going to mimic or copy their style nor their ideas, we're a separate entity. You're just a hack for them, trying to get us to go by your policies, and that's not us. You also don't even have the courage to affix your name to all this pointless rambling you've been spewing for the last several days, that says a whole lot about you. Face it, we're not going to have you or your cronies from the other wiki dictate to us what we do here. If you prefer that way, go over there and leave this wiki. We don't need anals like you here trying to shove your anal policies down our throats. If you can't take the hint, TAKE A HIKE!! 131.230.191.8 16:27, May 21, 2010 (UTC)


 * The poster directly above me has a point when he states that we don't go stealing material from the other wiki, unlike the other wiki itself. I noticed that the article I wrote about St. Mary's Convent was blatantly copied and pasted onto SupernaturalWiki, and that angers me. There's probably several other instances where that has happened as well. We are not going to go by the policies of SupernaturalWiki nor are we going to mimic their style or take their material as they have done us. And yes, if you are going to post on this wiki, start signing your posts with four "~", it's not looked upon very favorably to simply rant and rave without even signing it. And he does have a point when he says that if you don't like things here, you're free to go to the other wiki, nobody's stopping you. Lucifer1987 16:50, May 21, 2010 (UTC)

On powers and God's nature
As a newcomer, I know my opinion may be a poor fit. I'll try nontheless to make a contribution. Said contribution being, as far as the Supernatural version of God goes:
 * Omniscience has not been proven.
 * Omnipotence has not been proven.
 * Omnibenevolence has been disproven by the only authority save Death that could be considered (i.e. God himself).
 * Omnipresence and limitless teleportation have neither been proven nor referenced unduly, either on this site or on the show.

The point is simple enough: all we know about this entity is the say-so of his peer(s) (which only appears to include Death, fittingly enough) and himself. All else if from the mouth of beings who either believe to the exclusion of asking questions (Michael, Joshua), rebel because they don't understand or weren't told why (Lucifer), or are simply following orders because that's the game as is played u(Zachariah). Assuming without proof that this means everything attributed to God by the Judeochristian writ must therefore be true reveals some amount of bias, I should think. One would almost have to be a fundamentalist to assume that all these qualities would permit omnibenevolence, because logic does not permit it.

We do know, however, that Supernatural's God is more powerful than his creations, including Lucifer and Michael. He seems to have some form of "root access" to the universe, meaning he can circumvent a certain portion of its laws. That does not mean he's powerful enough to allow absolute free will while at the same time allowing everyone to be happy all at once for eternity (which would require... yes, omnipotence, aka the power to set aside logic and make several opposing things true at the same time).

Chuck (assuming he's God, which evidence and narration seems to suggest) doesn't have that power. We do see that he can't, for instance, effortlessly change the situation with Lucifer and Michael so that it never happened. We see that he actually expresses remorse. He thinks himself cruel, and why would he not think so? He's powerful enough that he thinks he should have been able to do better than he did.

If we posit, however, that all the other pantheons and the Judeochristian God are fundamentally the same order of beings, then we can begin to talk. God (JC variety) is then an immensely powerful (the most powerful) member of these beings; in fact, he's so powerful his own first-order creations and servants are easily capable of tearing apart a roomful of these lesser-order deities. True, they are by their own admission much reduced from their former status, but even so, Lucifer didn't doubt the outcome for an instant, and neither did Gabriel. At any rate, however, this is a God who manifestly (today, at least) feels empathy for his creations. All of them. Still, undoing the bad parts and changing everything for the better in an instant is beyond his abilities. And so, he uses the Winchesters to fix things as well as he can.

One could hardly fault him for wanting to take a break and assume the persona of Chuck.

-- one incidental fan, 15:55, June 29th, 2010 (GMT +1)


 * NEWSFLASH: We only got a limited sighting of God on the show, therefore your over-analysis on his powers appears to be overcompensating at best and wishing merely to have something more to argue about on this page at worst. We didn't see all that Death could do on the show either, are you going to also argue that he doesn't have all the powers he suggested he does? Death basically put God on his own level, one of the few beings that Death didn't find to be "insignificant". And has it ever occurred to you that Chuck was merely feigning ignorance of his powers to avoid detection as God???? Did it ever occur to you that the reason God didn't display all the powers we've heard that he has on the show is because he was trying to avoid being detected on the Earth??? And did it ever occur to you that nearly every "Judeo-Christian" being depicted on this show has simply put been based entirely on their real-life counterparts???? And you assume that God couldn't turn back time and change things, yet we see Gabriel do it multiple times in a row and yet you say that God is stronger than His creations??? Sorry but you're not making any sense, and I think it's time for you to either constructively analyze the article and contribute something of substance rather than criticize for criticism's sake, or move on. Lucifer1987 13:38, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * The source and strength of your hostility baffles me. Why is it overly analytical to point out that the present statements about said powers are derived from thin air, with no support whatsoever given by the show? If you want to prove omniscience and all the rest, why not simply do so, instead of shrieking about me "wishing to argue", when the only stridently argumentative tone here so far has been your own? It is interesting that you immediately jump to ascribe me motives where I have professed none, and I can't fathom why you would do that instead of noting my words and meeting them, which would be the honest thing to do. What I did was to read an interesting page, note some things that I may not have fully agreed with, and then added a discussion note which took me a nontrivial amount of time to write. In other words, I did you the favour of collating my arguments, moderating my tone as I did in order to be as clear and succinct as I could be, and then posting something that you could expand on if you wished, add to if you liked, in the spirit of contribution.
 * The source and strength of your hostility baffles me. Why is it overly analytical to point out that the present statements about said powers are derived from thin air, with no support whatsoever given by the show? If you want to prove omniscience and all the rest, why not simply do so, instead of shrieking about me "wishing to argue", when the only stridently argumentative tone here so far has been your own? It is interesting that you immediately jump to ascribe me motives where I have professed none, and I can't fathom why you would do that instead of noting my words and meeting them, which would be the honest thing to do. What I did was to read an interesting page, note some things that I may not have fully agreed with, and then added a discussion note which took me a nontrivial amount of time to write. In other words, I did you the favour of collating my arguments, moderating my tone as I did in order to be as clear and succinct as I could be, and then posting something that you could expand on if you wished, add to if you liked, in the spirit of contribution.
 * The source and strength of your hostility baffles me. Why is it overly analytical to point out that the present statements about said powers are derived from thin air, with no support whatsoever given by the show? If you want to prove omniscience and all the rest, why not simply do so, instead of shrieking about me "wishing to argue", when the only stridently argumentative tone here so far has been your own? It is interesting that you immediately jump to ascribe me motives where I have professed none, and I can't fathom why you would do that instead of noting my words and meeting them, which would be the honest thing to do. What I did was to read an interesting page, note some things that I may not have fully agreed with, and then added a discussion note which took me a nontrivial amount of time to write. In other words, I did you the favour of collating my arguments, moderating my tone as I did in order to be as clear and succinct as I could be, and then posting something that you could expand on if you wished, add to if you liked, in the spirit of contribution.




 * And so I must ask this: are you willing or even capable of offering me the same courtesy? Why is discussion of what's written - why is the first offering I make in which I dare wonder as to how these qualities would be ascribed to the God in Supernatural - enough to induce white-hot rage? Isn't that... you know... antithetical to the spirit of Wikipedia, and/or basic honesty?
 * Then again, we apparently have a radically opposing view of what constitutes substantial contribution. You seem to assert that adding material without sourcing (in other words, padding the canon with non-canon crap) would be a worthier goal than actually discussing what's added. As a manager of a few wikis of my own, I find that notion disturbing and self-defeating.
 * Your other arguments are similarly dubious. What would I be "overcompensating" about, precisely? You compare Death's power with God's and attempt to draw a parallel, forgetting that Death has personally spoken about the scope of his abilities while God has not. Furthermore, an omnipotent being would by definition not be constrained by the need to avoid detection, because were he omnipotent... nothing would be beyond his power. Including, of course, hiding and exercising the full use of his abilities.
 * Looking at the scare quotes around the words "Judeo-Christian," they're awfully explanatory, especially given your unprovoked hostility. This term (one used by creatures on the show) is a purely scholarly one; you appear to look upon it as some sort of personal insult. Regarding the statement about this version of God being based "entirely" on their real-life counterparts, I will say that this holds no more true than it does for the works of Neil Gaiman, from which Kripke has clearly drawn a ton of inspiration. "Based on" does not mean equivalency. Shall we consider Starbuck in the new Battlestar Galactica reimagining to be a man, as well? After all, she was based on a male character.
 * Finally, I assume no such thing. I am, of course, fully aware that Gabriel could "turn back time". I am also aware that, just like in Terminator I, there is no real need to posit that anything was "changed" when Sam and Dean went back, or by Gabriel's actions. There are clearly things you can do to shift the time flow, but obviously, it can't be done willy-nilly. Lucifer himself pointed to this set of events as being more or less set in stone. Even though Sam breaks Lucifer's control at the last minute, that only proves that events can be nudged a bit. It does not prove that they are infinitely mutable.
 * However, from your tone and your excessive use of exclamation marks, I predict that you most likely won't read this far into my response. For some reason, you decided to begin screaming when I first posted here, perhaps due to my crack about conflating show canon with scripture as if they were somehow one and the same. I doubt you will inform me of the reason why, though, and I'm honestly not sure you even have one.
 * Looking at the scare quotes around the words "Judeo-Christian," they're awfully explanatory, especially given your unprovoked hostility. This term (one used by creatures on the show) is a purely scholarly one; you appear to look upon it as some sort of personal insult. Regarding the statement about this version of God being based "entirely" on their real-life counterparts, I will say that this holds no more true than it does for the works of Neil Gaiman, from which Kripke has clearly drawn a ton of inspiration. "Based on" does not mean equivalency. Shall we consider Starbuck in the new Battlestar Galactica reimagining to be a man, as well? After all, she was based on a male character.
 * Finally, I assume no such thing. I am, of course, fully aware that Gabriel could "turn back time". I am also aware that, just like in Terminator I, there is no real need to posit that anything was "changed" when Sam and Dean went back, or by Gabriel's actions. There are clearly things you can do to shift the time flow, but obviously, it can't be done willy-nilly. Lucifer himself pointed to this set of events as being more or less set in stone. Even though Sam breaks Lucifer's control at the last minute, that only proves that events can be nudged a bit. It does not prove that they are infinitely mutable.
 * However, from your tone and your excessive use of exclamation marks, I predict that you most likely won't read this far into my response. For some reason, you decided to begin screaming when I first posted here, perhaps due to my crack about conflating show canon with scripture as if they were somehow one and the same. I doubt you will inform me of the reason why, though, and I'm honestly not sure you even have one.
 * However, from your tone and your excessive use of exclamation marks, I predict that you most likely won't read this far into my response. For some reason, you decided to begin screaming when I first posted here, perhaps due to my crack about conflating show canon with scripture as if they were somehow one and the same. I doubt you will inform me of the reason why, though, and I'm honestly not sure you even have one.
 * However, from your tone and your excessive use of exclamation marks, I predict that you most likely won't read this far into my response. For some reason, you decided to begin screaming when I first posted here, perhaps due to my crack about conflating show canon with scripture as if they were somehow one and the same. I doubt you will inform me of the reason why, though, and I'm honestly not sure you even have one.




 * In case I'm wrong, however, I'll bookmark this page. I hope I am. The alternative would be honestly disquieting.
 * Regards,
 * Björn Paulsen
 * Once again, purely over-analytical. My point is you're wasting your time and everybody's time analyzing every word about this one page in particular when there's multiple other pages that really need help. Who honestly cares whether we've seen examples on the show of God's omnibenevolence or what not? Most people the world round associate those traits with Him without question because that's how He's depicted to be in real lore. And the show's version of God is based solely and directly upon that real-life lore of God. Simply because we haven't seen an example of every one of God's powers or abilities on the show doesn't mean He doesn't have them. As I said, Death made clear he had powers beyond what even Lucifer or Dean could imagine and made clear that what he was doing in the Apocalypse were merely parlor tricks. Are you going to start arguing that Death doesn't really have much power beyond what he displayed despite the fact that he himself stated he has them??
 * Once again, purely over-analytical. My point is you're wasting your time and everybody's time analyzing every word about this one page in particular when there's multiple other pages that really need help. Who honestly cares whether we've seen examples on the show of God's omnibenevolence or what not? Most people the world round associate those traits with Him without question because that's how He's depicted to be in real lore. And the show's version of God is based solely and directly upon that real-life lore of God. Simply because we haven't seen an example of every one of God's powers or abilities on the show doesn't mean He doesn't have them. As I said, Death made clear he had powers beyond what even Lucifer or Dean could imagine and made clear that what he was doing in the Apocalypse were merely parlor tricks. Are you going to start arguing that Death doesn't really have much power beyond what he displayed despite the fact that he himself stated he has them??


 * And very typical, you're assuming I'm being "hostile" to you, which is completely baffling to me, because I'm simply making the statement that you're wasting everyone's time, including yours, overanalyzing and reading too deeply into minor details that most the world round associate with God without question. And you want to know why I'm telling you all I am, it's because you're making a nuisance of yourself and wasting time. The "conflating show canon with scripture" issue is ridiculous because the entire show is based upon real-life lore. The story of Lucifer's falling out with God is one of the oldest and most timeless stories in the world, and you try to come here and tell us that we shouldn't mention anything about that real-life lore that the characters are based upon simply because you want us to be identical in lock-step with the other wiki? Sorry, but we're a separate entity and we're not the other wiki, that is why I told you that if you prefer their style, nobody is stopping you from going to their wiki. I'm of a mind that you're someone from their site merely trying to come here and influence our wiki to conform to the other wiki's standards. And if that is the case, then do us all a favor including yourself, and go back to the other wiki where you came from. If you genuinely are not out simply to try to manipulate this wiki to be identical to the other, then do something useful, like building articles or improving those that need it, not criticize and overanalyze and rant on and on relentlessly about stupid things that really have no merit. Every single one of your statements thus far has been dubious, and filled with stupidity in their merit. You make the statement, for example, that God may not be able to turn back time, yet we see a lesser creature beneath him do so repeatedly and it is made clear that He is far more powerful than Gabriel. You don't think through some of the things you let slip out, and in the end, the merit of your statements remains highly questionable, as do your intentions.


 * So, with all courtesy, do us all a favor and re-evaluate what you're really here to do. Are you really some person from the other wiki that's here merely to try to turn us into SupernaturalWiki II because we don't go by their standards? Or are you actually here to do some constructive work and help us actually build the wiki in our own way? If this is the case, then quit overanalyzing little things and open your eyes to the bigger picture. We've got articles on this wiki that need serious help with content and pictures, and we don't have time for piddly stuff like this. In other words, we have bigger fish to fry than to sit here and debate the meaning of some descriptive words about God that most the world over automatically associate with Him in any given situation. So here's what I would suggest: start looking for some pages on here that actually need help and start doing something constructive like helping add content or pictures to them. Quit wasting everybody's time on this piddly stuff.


 * And one last thing: make up a real account like everybody else and learn to sign your posts with four "~". Lucifer1987 13:41, July 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * First point: Which wiki? This is the first Wiki on Supernatural that I've read. The posts above are the first two attempts I've made (overlong as they are) to write on any Supernatural wiki. Reason was that I finished watching the finale, saw the end, started googling, saw the page on God, and liked it enough to comment.
 * Point the second: Here, I have to apologize, because I severely misread your use of punctuation and your wording. I thought you strove for sarcasm; obviously you didn't, and it was poor form from me to misread it that way. I am not from The Other Wiki, whichever that would be. I guess I could have been, and there is no proof to this effect, but primarily I haven't simply due to a lack of time - I am active here only, on my own wikis, and on Stardestroyer.net. Accusing me of shenanigans pertaining to identity is a bit amusing (given that I had already given my real name, as I tend to do by habit nowadays, and you have not). You couldn't have known that, of course. Still, wasn't the problem with that wiki that they posted theories specious theories as fact, such as the idea that Castiel would be God (that seemed to be what you guys were arguing higher up on the page)? Why would I be part of a page that if anything seems to care even less about accuracy than this one?




 * Which leads me to the third point - I don't think what I wrote would contribute to your wiki, nor help it be built "your way". I understand what you're trying to do now, and I respect it. But that needs unity of purpose even - especially! on wikis. I don't think I would be the best help you can get; I'd be the guy in the corner referring to numbers of the faithful and who would reasonably associate what with which god (/God), etc. Put even more simply, I'm probably not an asset at this time, or any other.


 * However, while I am grateful for you specifying what you refer to, your assertion that I'm stupid is... well, anyone is free to hold whatever opinions they like. Perhaps "[e]very single one of [my] statements thus far" actually have been "dubious, and filled with stupidity in their merit", but you have failed so far to prove why (also managing to misuse the word "merit," which semantically muddles the sentence). Indeed, in the very next sentence, you show that you simply don't comprehend my argument in the first place: that if we see creature X manipulate time, and we know creature Y is more powerful, you cannot declare that creature Y therefore must have no limits in this regard. That is not hyperbole: it is what your equation demands, and it is on those grounds you apparently base your opinion on my intelligence. Points for audacity, I suppose.




 * But you then go around questioning my "intentions" as if this were some sort of hostile takeover, and I am again bemused. "Intentions" toward what? A noncommercial wiki? It's very nice, and you have content, and that is good. What else would there be to it? Why else, to be frank, would I bother to hold any intentions - so as to annex it in the Dark Lord's name? In order to suborn it beneath the crushing gears of My Legions Innumerable? Does my very name portend Dread? :D


 * So no, not really. Your clarifications are appreciated, and your goal with this Wiki (which I had misunderstood) I now get and fully respect. However, you do not really seem to understand how to apply either logic or reason, and your tendency to employ ad hominems instead of actually answering questions is slowly growing tiresome.




 * /Björn Paulsen (aka Eleas on bbs.stardestroyer.net - if you ever visit, you'll probably understand why I'm such a hardass)
 * and i say you're in the wrong place for all the logic/theory bs man. all that jargon you just rattled off above doesn't make a lick of sense in laments terms. i agree you're way too analytical and hard-nosed about some of the stuff you been goin on about. 131.230.191.8 19:39, July 2, 2010 (UTC)


 * I couldn't have said it better myself. Said user relies WAY too much on overanalyzing and confusing those whom he speaks to. Most would think your theories on "logic and reason" are "out there" my friend, we're not in a classroom learning logic, we're here to build a wiki. And I can understand logic and reason just fine and apply them just fine, while I disagree with your assertions to the contrary. Rather I think you have an overinflated sense of your grasp of such things and you think that by throwing around a lot of scientific terms that it is going to impress everyone while in reality you are merely confusing them and making yourself look ridiculous. And I'm afraid that most would agree with me when I say that it is you that is "growing tiresome" here, with your pointless arguing and laughable attempts to try to impress with a bunch of what I quite frankly would call bull****. And as for names, I have an actual account here and have developed a name where people can actually communicate on this site with me. What do you have? Oh that's right, you still have no signature here, so I would say it is you that still hasn't identified yourself properly, b/c you could make up any bull**** name claiming it's your real name but unless you actually have an account name and a signature that people can communicate with, that smacks of cowardice to me. At least I and everyone else here aren't afraid to set up pages of our own. Lucifer1987 19:44, July 2, 2010 (UTC)


 * Björn? Forgive me for prying, but are you, perhaps, Swedish or Scandinavian? No offence if offended, but I have just never heard of a non-Scandinavian with that name before. At any rate, I apologize for my highly likely grammar mistakes and typos; I'm still working on it.


 * About your arguements, I find yours very easy to read and understand. I do not think you are overanalyzing things, ever since I read the "the making of a movie" book and our class got a visit from a movie-maker from Oslo to teach us about movie-making and symbolism, I see hints and symbols everywhere, and I do believe that the creators and directors had most things planned out very well. As such, I can also understand what you mean that many points of Supernatural-God's powers are not prooven and only assumed because of his underlings' powers. One thing I hope I may argue against, however: Telerportation, or some kind of it, was prooven at the end of the final, as we see Chuck disappear. this does not equal ominipresence, as you have said, but I'm being picky and noted it anyway, I apologize if I'm mistaken. however, I agree in most of your statements. While I must admit myself guilty of taking highly likely non-canon for canon in my own wiki, I like to think that I make sure to add in words such as "it is likely", "assumed", etc., in order to avoid people think it is actually canon, but rather just non-canon that is highly likely canon. At the very least, this page should add in "Speculated powers" instead of "Powers", but I am not one to judge.


 * Also, to Lucifer1987: I have admired your previous arguements at this talk-page, as well as other topics such as the pagan gods and more. But in this subject, all I can see is a lot of immaturity that cannot accept the points that Björn Paulsen (even if this is not his real name, if he wishes to be referred to as such, I will respect it) pointed out. They make good arguements, and if this wiki should be as canon as possible, the best way is to discuss thigns such as these properly, instead of going against it just by reading the first paragraph. I admot I was too a little doutful at first, but that was more because of my bad experrience with anonymous editors than his arguemments; as soon as I read his first, I admit I agree with most of what he is saying. please consider what he is writing and respect that he has used time to come up with good arguements and actully act like a true gentleman about the subject, respecting your views and not being aggressive toward your bad attitude to him. At the very least, if nobody here can come with an answer that satisfy everyone, I suggest asking the attention of the admin. and have him/her come to a conclusion for the wiki. We all are allowed to have our own opinions, but that does not mean they are the opinions for the wiki.


 * Penamesolen 22:07, July 3, 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks Penamesolen. I'll keep this brief, mostly because whatever other things were said, I'm still a guest here. Guests should contribute, and while I argue I'm not contributing to Lucifer1987's wiki, and that's just how things are. But you asked a few questions, and I'll try to answer them. (From the discussion I got the assumption this was Lucifer1987's own wiki - if I'm wrong, feel free to correct me).


 * Firstly, yeah, I'm a Swede (resident of Malmö). The question isn't a bother to me, really, so don't worry about that. I actually think it's a much greater hassle to have different nicknames in the long run. From my brief stint in Germany, I was however shocked to realize that there are people there called Björn as well. It doesn't mean anything, far as I can tell (Björn means "bear" in Swedish), but Germans consider it a (fairly unusual) given name nontheless, it seems.


 * Secondly, I'm fond of the approach you mention of adding a qualifier (i.e. to note that this is likely, or this is what you infer) because that way it's not stated as Law. But it's not my call. Edit: Also, yeah, you're right - I slipped up on the teleportation bit. Chuck can clearly teleport, contrary to what I said. He can also shift his appearance (or else, he's absurdly good at dressing himself in a hurry).


 * Thirdly, thanks for arguing in my favor. I will say in retrospect that I should have worded the part about "bias" differently. I was sloppy there, and it became rather more insulting than I had wanted it. In fact, it crossed a line, and I would have apologised if I thought the response was proportionate or justified in any sense.


 * Anyway, I'm not staying. Your questions deserved answers, but I'm not going to stick around; if I do, the argument will never end. And since I liked most of the original God article, what kind of gratitude would I show by turning its discussion page into a trainwreck? :) So I think it's better that I leave, and people here can go on with business as usual.


 * Best regards,
 * Björn Paulsen // Eleas (easily found with Google, aside from a few false positives)

Actually I tend to agree with Lucifer on this one, this Bjorn and sorry but you too paulenson have failed to really show much merit in this case to me. Really why has so much time been wasted arguing such petty stuff as this? 68.171.234.209 23:33, July 4, 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks to whomever the previous poster was for defending sense. I disagree with the pointless arguments Bjorn or whoever he is makes, and I see no merit to his arguments, contrary to Paulensen's take on things. Granted, I'm sure Bjorn has good intentions, however confusing or unclear they may be. And no, this is not my wiki or any one person's wiki, it belongs to the community as a whole Bjorn, and the community should be able to shape it as they like. Lucifer1987 03:49, July 5, 2010 (UTC)

Wow.
@Lucifer1987:

This is the reason talk pages, bulletin boards and the like are so frustrating to read. Anyone who has good command of the language, and the ability to argue his or her point logically and politely, is almost always shouted down, and they are usually too polite to descend to the level of their opponents. I'm literally staggered by the hostility of the initial response to what I thought was an interesting point. Especially considering you are usually much more adept at arguing your points.

I have so many things I want to say, so many ways I would like to attempt to convince you that perhaps, if you take a step back and think about them, might be valid. But I have the sad feeling that any attempt at all to argue something contrary to your strongly-held beliefs would be futile.

Don't get me wrong - there's something to be said for the kind of conviction you hold for your opinions and beliefs. It is admirable. But it is even more admirable to consider that sometimes you may be wrong.

Politeness costs nothing. Incoherent rants cost you readers. I hope some day you understand that that kind of overly-aggressive behaviour alienates precisely the kind of people you need to make a good wiki.

And no, I am not from The Other Wiki. I generally prefer this one. Which is why I was so disappointed when I saw this talk page.

Oh well. You've lost one reader in me, but I don't imagine that will worry you too much. I wish you all good luck.

Regards,

Vid Welsh

Omnibenevolence
I took the liberty of deleting the lines about god being omnibenevolent since there isnt the slightest hint of that in the series. On the contrary it took Castiel about 2 seconds as the new god to turn to violence and threats.

Of course a page about God will confuse scriptual interpretations and religious beliefs with the actual canon of the fictional universe, but that particular line stems entirely from Jesus preaching a purely benevolent god.

And no, i dont want to get into a larger discussion.

Hugomanen 23:07, July 16, 2011 (UTC)

Uriel is the Lord
I'm only going by a number of things, but by the general basis that the Lord would have to be black, and He created the first humans, such as Adam and Seth, who were black. Just like Raphael, Uriel only possess black folks, and due to his general insistence that there is no God, it would seem to fit the picture: To quote Monty Python, "Only the true Saviour denies his divinity!"

Uriel killing angels could be seen as the Lord's wrath - Remember Joshua, "He'll be home soon, and you know how He is with the whole wrath thing." What if Uriel, as the Lord, wasn't seeking to free Lucifer so he could destroy mankind, but so Lucifer could versus the Lord in the climactic battle. Joshua also says the Lord is on Earth. Uriel is actually only seen on Earth. Joshua, being an angel who uses a black man as a manifestation, could also be seen as one reason why the Lord would only speak to Joshua. Uriel could also, in a dark way, be described as a "gardener" as he clips away at rebellious angels like weeds. Castiel describes Uriel as a specialist, meaning he specializes in demolition, which is precisely what the Lord shows a lot in the Old Testament.

But then, you say, he was killed by Anna, so doesn't that not make him the Lord?

Not at all. Remember how Christ (seen by some as the Lord incarnate) sacrificed himself and then returned for a while. Uriel's death could be seen as his sacrifice for when he truly returns at the End. (DarkIngRidley 20:56, December 16, 2011 (UTC))

SCREWED UP THE PAGE!
im sorry everyone, but i screwed up the God page. I just added a picture of chuck and was about to add an old painting of God to the description but somehow i deleted the whole description! if anyone could replace it i would be in your debt

Typo:
There's a very small error on the "Powers and Abilities" section, it says "Gos". I tried to fix it but the page is protected. 186.2.136.115 04:31, May 22, 2012 (UTC)

ONE THING NO ONE SAW WAS THAT GOD IS NOT ALL POWERFUL AS DEATH SAYS HE WILL KILL GOD ONE DAY!!!!! SO WHY IS IT SAID IN THE BIO HE IS IMMORTAL THAT MAKES NO SENSE AT ALL.

I agree with that God isn't immortal as far as we know. Neither is he 100% omniscient as he does not know whether he or Death is older.

Update
Since Death said that leviathans were God's first creations, shouldn't they be added into the "Family" section as God's children as well (like angels and humans are)? Thank ye kindly for your time. ;)


 * Maybe, but the Levis never call him father, whereas Angels do, and even humans, Christians, call him Heavenly Father. So yes, he did create them, but... You know what, you're right, they should be credited. -- ImperiexSeed, 8:44 PM, June 30th 2012

Omniscience and Immortality.
As far as we know, God isn't truly omniscient, seeing as he didn't know whether he was older than Death or not. Neither were able to remember. As for God's immortality, this is something that only Death possesses. According to Death he will reap God and nothing lasts forever other than himself. Both of these exceptions should be added because it shows incredible bias towards real lore.L4D2 Ellis 00:49, July 20, 2012 (UTC)
 * Fact is, Death knows diddlysquat compared to God, seriously. As he's been evidently wrong on at least one occasion. So who's to say everything else that exits his mouth is factual. Death's just an almost All-powerful senseless old Reaper. -- ImperiexSeed, 11:24 PM July 19th 2012


 * So according to you, just because Death was wrong on one occasion it automatically means that we should never ever trust his words again? That posts of yours makes you sound like an incredibly biased person who seems to hate Death. L4D2 Ellis 03:52, July 20, 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, and you sound like one who's obsessed with Death's so-called power. No, I like him, he's powerful, more so than Leviathan, Angels, and even Archangels. So, of course, he's cool. He's just not as smart as God. -- ImperiexSeed, 1:50 PM, July 20th 2012


 * You like him? Could've fooled me with "senseless old reaper". Besides Death was wrong on a minor thing that he could care less about. I'd rather take the word of a Horseman who has co-existed with God than just senseless speculation. No one knows whether or not God can kill him especially after he said, "Nothing lasts forever. Well I do." You also basically stated that you tossed every bit of credibility Death had just because he had a minor thing wrong.L4D2 Ellis 23:57, July 20, 2012 (UTC)