An epic battle is currently dividing adherents of that newest of religions, Wikipedia. The point of division is whether it ought to be permissible to apply capitalization to our "Universe" when using it on a regular Wiki page, or to title such a page. When it comes to such controversies, these people don't hold back. There has been an exchange of opinions stretching 475k (some 15 times longer than the site's own recommended maximum page size) leading.... well, nowhere near a conclusion. And that's only the part on the 'picky page'; there have been side talks in other places, not least of which the one which led to the moving of "God becomes the universe" (itself forcefully wrenched out from Wiki's Pandeism page) to "God becomes the Universe"-- succeeding on the theory that, like Wiki's similarly-capped "Fine-tuned Universe," the theological usage of the word is somewhat distinct from the astronomical.

Incidentally "God becomes the Universe" in fact used to be the title until that particular page got lumped together with a bunch of actual astronomical topics and moved the year before. But, obviously it is not a topic in astronomy, but in theology, and so ought to have the same capitalization provided in its theological cousins. One conclusion to be drawn from the drawn-out debate of this matter is, lowercasing "universe" is itself presently only a question if we speak of universe-as-celestial-object.

This, it may be argued, reflects the fact that when we speak of a theologically conceived Universe, we mean everything which exists, however it has come to exist, whether we speak of a many-billions-of-years-old stretch of galaxies and stars and planets, or a weeks-old manufacture simulating one but made of no more than a patch of ground on the back of a great turtle, with all the stars in the sky simply being holes punched in the blanket of the night sky (or even a construct on the scale set by Hinduism, where our Universe is hundreds of billions of years older than even we know, and consequently more vast).

And here are some examples showing how writings which relate to theological propositions of our Universe (and specifically to theories of "God" ''being'' our Universe (in the vein of Pantheism/Pandeism/Panentheism). So if the the language proposition of MOS is addressed to circumstances "when used in an astronomical context to refer to a specific celestial body" then Universe surely ought to be capitalized in because it is referred to as a theological construct instead of an astronomical one.

*"From the Religion (Divinity) point, Our Universe is part of the superior, original dot, God. Unless we have proof that Our Universe is not part of God, we can only rely on religion to say that Our Universe can only be religiously understood as part of God." Peter Kien-Hong Yu, God Is, by Inference, One Dot: Paradigm Shift, pages 53-54, 2010.

*"The Balance in the Universe is synonymous with the Central Force in the Universe. This is the only God of the Universe, and is as close to a supernatural-omnipotent God as we're going to get." Jay Thomas Willis, God, Or Balance in the Universe, page 21, 2006.

*"Everything that happens in God's Universe and here on God's Earth is a result of the invisible Power of God pervading the Universe." Bedrich V. Hettich, The Reality of God in the Universe: Humankind Integrating with Life on God's Earth, page 105, 2009.

*"Personally, I believe that the Universe and the Creator are one. I capitalize Universe for the same reason that I capitalize God. For me, they are one and the same." Wu Wei, I Ching Life: Becoming Your Authentic Self, 2013.

*"We are spirits in the Universe (I capitalize Universe because it is our home), and the day we really understand the meaning of this, then—religious or not—we will begin living in peace as God intended." William Moreira, God! the Realities of the Creator, page x, 2010.

But even leaving aside the theological-versus-celestial divide, our planet is named "Earth"; our galaxy is named "Milky Way"; so what is our Universe named? If it has no other name how could it be named anything else but "Universe"? Do we not even address it familiarly, as such. "Good morning, Universe!!"

Now, it may readily be conceded that where used generically (there is a universe of cats to feed, the phenomena is restricted to the local universe) that decapitalization is in order. But for an instance such as "God becomes the Universe," different considerations apply. Leave it uncapitalized when speaking of one thing in an object class, of traipsing across parallel universes, or of a universe of bicycles or mementos. But when addressed to our Universe, its age, its span, its future, its divineness, we address the proper name of a proper place. A very, very big place, but a place, like Ulster and Uruguay and Uranus, same "U," different letters to follow.

Log in or register to write something here or to contact authors.