Atheists: If there's no God, then where did the word "God" come from?

[FearGod]

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.

It did.

 

[Mindmaster]

I've always wondered why popular religions settle for one God when there apparently were thousands... Variety is the spice of life you know...

Anyway, historically... At first, there were no gods. Every culture was Animist... That became difficult to manage as we grew in population -- it was impossible for our old shamans to keep up (in the old days, you had to work with the spirits of the land/air/sea...Often this guy would have to personally keep up with hundreds of individual spirits for the good of the tribe) so these "evolved" into polytheistic priesthoods and consolidated into the idea of having gods... These gods were worshiped as a matter of convenience mostly, as it had become too cumbersome to interact with all of the little spirits in a domain -- they were little more than personifications of vast hierarchies of nature energies at first. It was easier to work with Pan than a forest full of plant spirits -- and so it began. Modern concepts of god take the generalization further -- they just nixed all the particular gods and said there was only one. (Despite tons of historical evidence to the contrary). These god(s) (the monotheistic) became almighty because to enforce totalitarian holy states one has to have a cohesive message. It was a branding decision -- but, also this god had to become some nebulous transcendent no-thing because otherwise he couldn't "contain" the concepts of the previous gods.

So, if you ask me... God is the most meaningless word there is because people have just changed it to mean whatever they are talking about as time goes on. Even the people who believe in God can't actually explain what God is, and that is the basis for lunacy. It's not an atheist's job to prove you aren't speaking to a delusional spoiled brat spirit daddy that can't exist -- it's yours.

 

[Etritonakin]

It did.

That actually supports the OP somewhat

If you think about it -those who worship false gods essentially obey and give power to the nonexistent

 

[Etritonakin]

I've always wondered why popular religions settle for one God when there apparently were thousands... Variety is the spice of life you know...

Anyway, historically... At first, there were no gods. Every culture was Animist... That became difficult to manage as we grew in population -- it was impossible for our old shamans to keep up (in the old days, you had to work with the spirits of the land/air/sea...Often this guy would have to personally keep up with hundreds of individual spirits for the good of the tribe) so these "evolved" into polytheistic priesthoods and consolidated into the idea of having gods... These gods were worshiped as a matter of convenience mostly, as it had become too cumbersome to interact with all of the little spirits in a domain -- they were little more than personifications of vast hierarchies of nature energies at first. It was easier to work with Pan than a forest full of plant spirits -- and so it began. Modern concepts of god take the generalization further -- they just nixed all the particular gods and said there was only one. (Despite tons of historical evidence to the contrary). These god(s) (the monotheistic) became almighty because to enforce totalitarian holy states one has to have a cohesive message. It was a branding decision -- but, also this god had to become some nebulous transcendent no-thing because otherwise he couldn't "contain" the concepts of the previous gods.

So, if you ask me... God is the most meaningless word there is because people have just changed it to mean whatever they are talking about as time goes on. Even the people who believe in God can't actually explain what God is, and that is the basis for lunacy. It's not an atheist's job to prove you aren't speaking to a delusional spoiled brat spirit daddy that can't exist -- it's yours.

Some valid points, but considering a being which is more powerful than all others is quite reasonable.

(I was just thinking of "Last Shadow" from Avatar)

 

[Etritonakin]

Please note edits to my post above

I don't see why people worry so much about what other people believe -or cause such misery because of it.

It is one thing to focus on actions which are harmful -which can be associated with beliefs -but beliefs (and actions) will change more through a peaceful and sincere exchange of information.
If we have a valid point, we should do our best to make it acceptable to others.

 

[Mindmaster]

Some valid points, but considering a being which is more powerful than all others is quite reasonable.

(I was just thinking of "Last Shadow" from Avatar)

Mostly, it is an issue of propaganda... If your religion is an almighty no-thing which can contain all else then it makes it easier to kill, convert, or subvert everyone that believes something differently. It is quite obvious that the no-thing god that represents Jehovah can't actually exist or it ceases to be the container -- that which "holds something" cannot "be the something"... Even by The Bible this knowledge was known, but as the time progressed Jehovah started to become anthropomorphous, thus leading to something with an ego and personality.. Hence the old references give more of this viewpoint than the modern one.

Being the container however doesn't mean one is actually "powerful" it means one has spawned agents of power whom 'handle the rest'... That much is evident throughout the universe anyway...If there is a god... It probably killed itself to become us, or it expects us to do the work. It's will is largely irrelevant and more a projection of certain groups of humans wills...

 

[Etritonakin]

Mostly, it is an issue of propaganda... If your religion is an almighty no-thing which can contain all else then it makes it easier to kill, convert, or subvert everyone that believes something differently. It is quite obvious that the no-thing god that represents Jehovah can't actually exist or it ceases to be the container -- that which "holds something" cannot "be the something"... Even by The Bible this knowledge was known, but as the time progressed Jehovah started to become anthropomorphous, thus leading to something with an ego and personality.. Hence the old references give more of this viewpoint than the modern one.

Being the container however doesn't mean one is actually "powerful" it means one has spawned agents of power whom 'handle the rest'... That much is evident throughout the universe anyway...If there is a god... It probably killed itself to become us, or it expects us to do the work. It's will is largely irrelevant and more a projection of certain groups of humans wills...

I'm not certain what you meant by the containing/being thing -as "everything" -whatever it is -is self-contained if it can be or requires it (or whatever).

There is definitely an issue with representation. An existent God could be misrepresented by those able to misunderstand or misrepresent -but I do not agree that an almighty God would not have an ego or personality.

If God is the one by whom all things consist -is the self-aware mind of all things -then all things are indicative of his personality and define his ego -even us. (Realization of existence and activity would logically produce or include ego and personality. Decision would define -not necessarily contain -reality)

I disagree that God probably killed himself to become us -but do believe that God gave over some of himself and his power to create us. Whereas once God had dominion over all that he was and made of himself, he set apart things over which he would not have direct dominion. Material, space, power of decision and action, etc... similar to cell division or self replication -where no new "stuff" is created, but more similar things are made from what already exists ("stuff" possibly being infinite in its nature) ...but, in the case of God, retaining overall dominion, decision-making power, etc...

 

[Iti oj]

if elves don't exist where did the word elf come from ?

#worstopever

 

[FlyingTeaPot]

Atheists: If there's no God, then where did the word "God" come from?

I will answer your question after you answer this question: "If there are no mermaids, where did the word "mermaid" come from?

 

[J. F. Gallant]

Physical things (like humans) can't create ex-nihilo (out of nothing). It does argue that something not what we understand as physical must exist.

No, it does not.

Firstly, what evidence do you have that anything was ever created?

 

[George-ananda]

No, it does not.

Firstly, what evidence do you have that anything was ever created?

Because 'I think' tells me something has been created. And as what we call the physical can not create 'ex nihilo' (out of nothing), something above the physical must exist.

 

[J. F. Gallant]

Because 'I think' tells me something has been created. And as what we call the physical can not create 'ex nihilo' (out of nothing), something above the physical must exist.

"I think?"

Are you saying that because you can think, it somehow tells you that something has been created? How?

 

[George-ananda]

"I think?"

Are you saying that because you can think, it somehow tells you that something has been created? How?

How could 'I Think' if there was nothing created?

 

[tjgillies]

and kraken and unicorn and leviathan and pixie and manticore and griffin and menehune, etc. All imaginary, all ex-nihilo.

Menehune? Haha are you from Hawaii?

 

[J. F. Gallant]

How could 'I Think' if there was nothing created?

Have you considered the possibility that- instead of things being created- they merely evolve from one form to another endlessly, infinitely, and eternally?

You see, we as humans have conditioned our perceptions insomuch as we constantly look for a beginning and an ending to the existence of things. We see babies being born, and old folks dying; a seed is planted, and a tree dies; a house is built, and over time it crumbles to the ground.

We base our understanding of existence upon what we perceive, which may not reflect the actual reality. So what if the actual reality was that nothing is ever created, but rather everything has always existed in one way, shape, or form? We cut down a tree, and then cut it and shape it into a chair, or something else. Then, the chair gets old and deteriorates and crumbles to dust, which is absorbed and recycled by the earth and processed into something else all over again. It's an endless cycle, that never had a beginning, and therefore will never have an ending.

What was the earth before it was the earth that we know today? Could it have been part of a pre-existing planet that got destroyed, sending its fragments hurtling through space until the one fragment that became the earth got trapped in the suns' gravity, and then reshaped by solar winds into the shape it is today?

Why does there have to be a beginning? Why do you accept that things had to be created? What if it can be demonstrated that both infinity eternity exist? For example, by merely counting numbers you will know that the countable numbers are infinite, and since they are infinite, they could be counted eternally.

Since science has shown us that energy cannot be created nor destroyed, how then does it exist when it was never created, and can never be destroyed?

Is it possible that what you perceive to be truth may in fact only be a perception, and the real truth is far greater than anything you currently perceive?

Are you willing to consider alternatives in an effort to ascertain what the most likely truth actually is?

 

[George-ananda]

Have you considered the possibility that- instead of things being created- they merely evolve from one form to another endlessly, infinitely, and eternally?

You see, we as humans have conditioned our perceptions insomuch as we constantly look for a beginning and an ending to the existence of things. We see babies being born, and old folks dying; a seed is planted, and a tree dies; a house is built, and over time it crumbles to the ground.

We base our understanding of existence upon what we perceive, which may not reflect the actual reality. So what if the actual reality was that nothing is ever created, but rather everything has always existed in one way, shape, or form? We cut down a tree, and then cut it and shape it into a chair, or something else. Then, the chair gets old and deteriorates and crumbles to dust, which is absorbed and recycled by the earth and processed into something else all over again. It's an endless cycle, that never had a beginning, and therefore will never have an ending.

What was the earth before it was the earth that we know today? Could it have been part of a pre-existing planet that got destroyed, sending its fragments hurtling through space until the one fragment that became the earth got trapped in the suns' gravity, and then reshaped by solar winds into the shape it is today?

Why does there have to be a beginning? Why do you accept that things had to be created? What if it can be demonstrated that both infinity eternity exist? For example, by merely counting numbers you will know that the countable numbers are infinite, and since they are infinite, they could be counted eternally.

Since science has shown us that energy cannot be created nor destroyed, how then does it exist when it was never created, and can never be destroyed?

Is it possible that what you perceive to be truth may in fact only be a perception, and the real truth is far greater than anything you currently perceive?

Are you willing to consider alternatives in an effort to ascertain what the most likely truth actually is?

But where does the elements that continually change come from? What you are talking about is 'infinite regression'. And that argument can go on forever. Plato argues against infinite regression (from Wikipedia); Plato posited a basic argument in The Laws (Book X), in which he reasoned that all movement in the world and the Cosmos was "imparted motion". This required a "self-originated motion" to set it in motion and to maintain it.

One though I have is that the universe does not have infinite regress but began with the Big Bang.

 

[J. F. Gallant]

But where does the elements that continually change come from? What you are talking about is 'infinite regression'. And that argument can go on forever. Plato argues against infinite regression (from Wikipedia); Plato posited a basic argument in The Laws (Book X), in which he reasoned that all movement in the world and the Cosmos was "imparted motion". This required a "self-originated motion" to set it in motion and to maintain it.

One though I have is that the universe does not have infinite regress but began with the Big Bang.

What you subscribe to is known as the "First Cause Effect." The problem with that is obvious; what caused the First Cause to exist? Perhaps you accept it as being a god of some sort or other. If you think a god created everything, then what do you suppose this god was doing before anything was created? Was this god merely existing in eternity all by himself for an infinite amount of time before he decided to create things? Trillions and trillions of years this god just sat there doing nothing? Does that seem reasonable to you? And even so- if you believe this- then it again demonstrates infinity and eternity.

Or, if you think the Big Bang is the First Cause, well then where did the matter that consisted of the singularity come from and what existed before that?

You see, not matter how you look at it, infinite regression exists and can be demonstrated. However, a finite existence of all matter and energy in the universe cannot be demonstrated since no origin has ever been proven, only theorized.

 

[George-ananda]

What you subscribe to is known as the "First Cause Effect." The problem with that is obvious; what caused the First Cause to exist?

True, but one point is that the first cause I posit is something non-physical. As the physical can not create the physical ex nihilo (out of nothing), people posit a cause that transcends the physical and is the cause of the physical.

Perhaps you accept it as being a god of some sort or other. If you think a god created everything, then what do you suppose this god was doing before anything was created? Was this god merely existing in eternity all by himself for an infinite amount of time before he decided to create things? Trillions and trillions of years this god just sat there doing nothing? Does that seem reasonable to you? And even so- if you believe this- then it again demonstrates infinity and eternity.

Or, if you think the Big Bang is the First Cause, well then where did the matter that consisted of the singularity come from and what existed before that?

You see, not matter how you look at it, infinite regression exists and can be demonstrated. However, a finite existence of all matter and energy in the universe cannot be demonstrated since no origin has ever been proven, only theorized.

Well, in us just thinking about things we will never figure anything out that our minds can grasp. In adding to our logical thinking I personally have come to accept what many sages and mystics have to say about the issue. The best explanation I can give us that Brahman Alone is Real. What the heck does that mean? Brahman is best described as pure being-bliss-awareness consciousness. Only consciousness is real and matter is the derivative of the fundamental (Consciousness/Brahman/God). Nothing exists besides consciousness and matter is congealed consciousness, the play thing of Brahman. The universe is likened to a play/drama of the divine in which He separate Himself from Himself in Act I and returns Himself to Himself in Act II. Why? The play/drama emanates from Brahman's creative aspect.

Now if you ask why Brahman exists, I will say I don't know. The mystery remains in all cases but my position pushes the question back to something that transcends and is fundamental to the physical. Even many great physicists have said that we can't get behind what 'consciousness' is.

 

[J. F. Gallant]

True, but one point is that the first cause I posit is something non-physical. As the physical can not create the physical ex nihilo (out of nothing), people posit a cause that transcends the physical and is the cause of the physical.

You posit "non-physical," but do you have evidence supported by reason as to why you posit this position? You see, if there is absolutely no evidence to support the existence of something that cannot be detected as existing, the most honest position to hold will be the position based upon the current state of our knowledge, as opposed to a position based completely upon the wholly unsupported theoretical.

Since we can demonstrate conceptually the existence of infinity and eternity by merely counting numbers, and by acknowledging that energy exists externally despite it never being created (no beginning) and never being destroyed (no ending), we can use this as actual evidence to reason that both infinity and eternity co-exist. Since we can approximate this as a plausible truth, it follows that both the finite and the time-line cannot truly exist because they would be incapable- impossible- to contain infinity and eternity.

We can demonstrate how all matter is in a constant state of flux, forever changing, and breaking down to release its energy. Matter constantly breaks down and converts into energy, and now science can also demonstrate how energy is converted back into matter. It's a never ending cycle of change.

You see, we humans largely base our positions upon perspective rather than what the most likely and plausible truth could actually be.

 

[George-ananda]

You posit "non-physical," but do you have evidence supported by reason as to why you posit this position? You see, if there is absolutely no evidence to support the existence of something that cannot be detected as existing, the most honest position to hold will be the position based upon the current state of our knowledge, as opposed to a position based completely upon the wholly unsupported theoretical.

I am an avid student of things colloquially called 'paranormal'. The evidence I have seen makes me believe that consciousness occurs without a physical brain beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, what is this non-physical thing called consciousness? I believe after thorough consideration that the eastern (Indian) wisdom traditions have an understanding that exceeds western wisdom traditions (religious and scientific). Eastern traditions and many post-materialist western scientists see that this all starts from consciousness (the fundamental we can not get behind).

Since we can demonstrate conceptually the existence of infinity and eternity by merely counting numbers, and by acknowledging that energy exists externally despite it never being created (no beginning) and never being destroyed (no ending), we can use this as actual evidence to reason that both infinity and eternity co-exist. Since we can approximate this as a plausible truth, it follows that both the finite and the time-line cannot truly exist because they would be incapable- impossible- to contain infinity and eternity.

We can demonstrate how all matter is in a constant state of flux, forever changing, and breaking down to release its energy. Matter constantly breaks down and converts into energy, and now science can also demonstrate how energy is converted back into matter. It's a never ending cycle of change.

You see, we humans largely base our positions upon perspective rather than what the most likely and plausible truth could actually be.

Do you believe in the Big Bang theory? What you say above may be fine for after the Bang but I'm getting to the source of even that in my position.