Excuse me, @paarsurrey ... can i please have a response? At this point even a simple 'no' would be less rude than being completely ignored.
@FearGod, im interested in your thoughts too, but im not sure if you're still active in the thread.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Atheists: If there's no God, then where did the word "God" come from?
- Thread starter paarsurrey
- Start date
Excuse me, @paarsurrey ... can i please have a response? At this point even a simple 'no' would be less rude than being completely ignored.
@FearGod, im interested in your thoughts too, but im not sure if you're still active in the thread.
leibowde84
Veteran Member
One that is not merely assumed or based on subjective understanding/experience, but, instead, is based on evidence and can be properly supported with facts.
Rick O'Shez
Irishman bouncing off walls
So if there's no Santa Claus, where did the name "Santa Claus" come from?..... 
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
Parsurrey said :
I had given the answers to the person who asked the question, and I have quoted the posts numbers. I agree it is funny.
Regards
Carlita likes this.
Regards
I had given the answers to the person who asked the question, and I have quoted the posts numbers. I agree it is funny.
Regards
Carlita likes this.
I like your liking my post.
Regards
leibowde84
Veteran Member
The post numbers you referenced contains comments from you where you answered questions with more questions. In other words, you didn't actually provide any answers. It's rude to answer a question with a question.
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
The Atheist rhetoric.So if there's no Santa Claus, where did the name "Santa Claus" come from?.....
Does one believe in Santa Claus ?
Regards
FearGod
Freedom Of Mind
I can see that separation and isolationism is the reason behind language diversity.
Rick O'Shez
Irishman bouncing off walls
Children do, but then they grow out of it. Is "God" really any different?
leibowde84
Veteran Member
This is exactly the same question you asked about the word "God". And, many people believe in Santa Clause. So, please point out the difference.
FearGod
Freedom Of Mind
I think the difference that God is a general concept which all humans think about including the atheists
which isn't the case with Santa Clause.
leibowde84
Veteran Member
There are certainly people who don't think about God, as they are never presented with the concept. They are very few in number, as most of the world is religious, but that still doesn't address the question.
The OP asked, "If God doesn't exist, where did the word "God" come from". Just like any other word or name for any entity, like "Santa Clause" (although he was based on a historical figure - St. Nicolaus from Poland I believe), the word "God" was coined by human beings. It didn't start as "God" either, but developed over time.
Rick O'Shez
Irishman bouncing off walls
FearGod
Freedom Of Mind
I didn't understand his point, Did he mean the concept of God or just the word "God",
What about Allah and the other names for God in several different languages?
leibowde84
Veteran Member
He said the "word" God, not the concept of God.
Midnight Rain
Well-Known Member
A viable argument for what exactly? The existence of the word "god"? The same as any other word that has been created by people in the ever evolving construct that is known as "language". In the future there will be new words for "god" just as there are thousands of words for god in countless languages.
I asked him this, precisely, in the first few posts. I didn't even get a vague question in response. I thought that there might be a subtle language issue.
Apparently that isn't the problem.
Tom
cambridge79
Active Member
Wich would be a much more interesting argument and meaningful question
bain-druie
Tree-Hugger!
Perhaps it sounds like ridicule because your OP was just slightly ridiculous? In all seriousness, did you actually read what you wrote?
Of all the arguments in favor of God, the purely linguistic take you present is by far the least logical. Language is entirely a human invention, after all ... 
Etritonakin
Well-Known Member
I know there is a God, but this argument is not valid at all -unless, for example, a Jabberwock is a real thing simply because the word exists.
To be fair -and more accurate -the concept of a "most high God" is perfectly logical.
Not only do examples of leadership, authority, superiority, etc., abound in nature and among humans specifically ( and would certainly be projected upon the greater environment whether a God existed or not), but it is far more logical to attribute that which can be seen in nature to something akin to a creative mind or intellect than to attribute it to essentially nothing.
Even scientists should concede that evolution itself is a sort of creative intelligence -but one which is not aware of itself, and, as we are examples, self-awareness is just a matter of configuration.
It is not logical to base acceptance of the possibility of a creator on the beliefs of those who believe in a creator of a certain description -and to reject the possibility when their specific beliefs are shown to be false (such as with young earth creationists, etc.).
Science cannot accept that for which it does not have proof -but it should consider the possibility that what can be observed required an intelligence to configure it initially.
Thus far, science has found no acceptable proof of the necessity (or existence) of a creator from the big bang to the present, but it also tends to view the big bang as the beginning.
I'm certainly no expert, but I have recently been considering the fact that the big bang -in its state of "singularity" (before it went bang, I suppose), essentially contained an extreme amount of information -and something was required to move it from its state of singularity..... which seems to indicate something external to it -or preceding it -and leads me to think of what might have brought that which preceded the big bang to its state of singularity.
Our universe is essentially an extracted or exploded (or both) package.
The possibility should at least be considered that an arranging intelligence necessarily preceded the big bang -and was necessary to essentially package it.
I am not claiming to know the nature of God -or claiming that he evolved (as we understand evolution or otherwise), but if we can accept that the big bang is "the beginning", why can't we at least consider the possibility that self-aware intelligence was the first thing to ever "evolve". It would certainly explain things much better than assuming otherwise.
To be fair -and more accurate -the concept of a "most high God" is perfectly logical.
Not only do examples of leadership, authority, superiority, etc., abound in nature and among humans specifically ( and would certainly be projected upon the greater environment whether a God existed or not), but it is far more logical to attribute that which can be seen in nature to something akin to a creative mind or intellect than to attribute it to essentially nothing.
Even scientists should concede that evolution itself is a sort of creative intelligence -but one which is not aware of itself, and, as we are examples, self-awareness is just a matter of configuration.
It is not logical to base acceptance of the possibility of a creator on the beliefs of those who believe in a creator of a certain description -and to reject the possibility when their specific beliefs are shown to be false (such as with young earth creationists, etc.).
Science cannot accept that for which it does not have proof -but it should consider the possibility that what can be observed required an intelligence to configure it initially.
Thus far, science has found no acceptable proof of the necessity (or existence) of a creator from the big bang to the present, but it also tends to view the big bang as the beginning.
I'm certainly no expert, but I have recently been considering the fact that the big bang -in its state of "singularity" (before it went bang, I suppose), essentially contained an extreme amount of information -and something was required to move it from its state of singularity..... which seems to indicate something external to it -or preceding it -and leads me to think of what might have brought that which preceded the big bang to its state of singularity.
Our universe is essentially an extracted or exploded (or both) package.
The possibility should at least be considered that an arranging intelligence necessarily preceded the big bang -and was necessary to essentially package it.
I am not claiming to know the nature of God -or claiming that he evolved (as we understand evolution or otherwise), but if we can accept that the big bang is "the beginning", why can't we at least consider the possibility that self-aware intelligence was the first thing to ever "evolve". It would certainly explain things much better than assuming otherwise.
Last edited: