God or god -> do you capitalize God/god?


Do you capitalize God/god?  

212 members have voted

  1. 1. Do you capitalize God/god?

    • God - I do it religiously
      85
    • God - I do it because it accepted, but dont belive in God
      67
    • god
      60


Recommended Posts

It depends on the context.

It's just like the word moon. There are many moons in the universe, but the one orbiting around Earth is a proper noun and it's name is The Moon, therefore it's capitalized. The same with suns and The Sun.

Also, you would capitalize things like Big Foot, Santa, The Loch Ness Monster, etc., because they are all proper nouns. It doesn't matter if you believe in them or not.

Exactly.

I don't really believe in 'God' (well I'm on the fence, how can anyone know?) however if I am talking about the God that monotheists believe in I can stomach capitalising it because I can distinguish between talking about something "in theory" and "as though it's real". I.e I know that talking about God with a capital G does not necessarily mean that I believe in Him.

Also, refusing to capitalise it would probably be offensive to some people, and really, what's the point?

Its because God is supposedly a proper noun (ie: a specific instance of a type of object), but how can a noun be proper if it does not exist?

Yeah, and when you read a book the characters names are capitalized, and you obviously know they are not real. Its proper grammer, so quit trying to be a smart ass, becuase you're wrong.

capitalizing God has nothing to do with whether you believe in him/her/it, and everything to do with the fact that God is a 'being', and names are capitalized.

Huckelberry Finn is capitalized, but do any of you believe he exists? No. It's irrelevant.

god = regular noun referring to any deity

God = proper noun referring to the Christian god

Exactly.

I don't really believe in 'God' (well I'm on the fence, how can anyone know?) however if I am talking about the God that monotheists believe in I can stomach capitalising it because I can distinguish between talking about something "in theory" and "as though it's real". I.e I know that talking about God with a capital G does not necessarily mean that I believe in Him.

Also, refusing to capitalise it would probably be offensive to some people, and really, what's the point?

+1

I'm a Christian, so I capitalize the word when referring to my God (as it is a proper noun), but if I am referring to the general concept of a supreme being, or when referring to the supreme beings of polytheistic religions, I do not (such as saying "the gods of the Egyptians and Romans", etc.), as they have their own names. Now, if I were to refer to one of those other gods by their name, I'd capitalize that name (such as "Ra", "Thoth", "Zeus", etc.).

I capitalize it when I am referring to the Christian god, otherwise no.

there is no christian god...all gods are the same (christian, jewish,muslim)

anyway i never capitalize the word god.

now things like Ra, Budha, Jupiter etc. is different :)

The Islamic God is also capitalized (if you want to argue if it is the same god as the Christian god, I'm doing a paper on it as we speak)

"There is no God but Allah"

The way I understand it, Muslims believe that Allah is the same as the God of Christians and Jehovah of the Jews (whose name is never supposed to be completely written out in their beliefs, only "Jhvh"). Many names, but all the same being called God.

Its a grammatical issue. Whether you believe in God or not, you need to capitalize it if you are reffering to God (as opposed to a god, like a mythical god of war). The fact that you are an atheist is absolutely irrelevant: you probably agree that Harry Potter is a fictional character, but you capitalize his name, right? It in no way implies that you believe in God's existance to capitalize his name, it just serves to differentiate between God the entity and god the noun.

Its a grammatical issue. Whether you believe in God or not, you need to capitalize it if you are reffering to God (as opposed to a god, like a mythical god of war). The fact that you are an atheist is absolutely irrelevant: you probably agree that Harry Potter is a fictional character, but you capitalize his name, right? It in no way implies that you believe in God's existance to capitalize his name, it just serves to differentiate between God the entity and god the noun.

Indeed you are correct. God is a proper noun, which means it has to be capitalized because it's referring to a name. It doesn't matter whether or not you believe in "God", it's proper English grammar.

On the other hand, there are exceptions to this rule if you are using Gods in a plural tense. If you are just saying Gods in a sentence without mentioning specific names (ex: By the Gods!), you should capitalize it because you are using it as a proper noun (specific names aren't mentioned so you are sort of 'wrapping' up all Gods in one word). However, if you are mentioning the names in a list after saying 'gods', it doesn't have to be capitalized (ex: The gods of Roman time were Jupiter, Juno, Mars, etc).

Edit: There are so many rules in the English language. :s

Edited by Lexcyn

Indeed you are correct. God is a proper noun, which means it has to be capitalized because it's referring to a name. It doesn't matter whether or not you believe in "God", it's proper English grammar.

On the other hand, there are exceptions to this rule if you are using Gods in a plural tense. If you are just saying Gods in a sentence without mentioning specific names (ex: By the Gods!), you should capitalize it because you are using it as a proper noun (specific names aren't mentioned so you are sort of 'wrapping' up all Gods in one word). However, if you are mentioning the names in a list after saying 'gods', it doesn't have to be capitalized (ex: The gods of Roman time were Jupiter, Juno, Mars, etc).

Edit: There are so many rules in the English language. :s

Tell me about it :p English isn't my first language, but I strive to write as correctly as possible so I'm not misunderstood. If you think English has a lot of rules, though, try Spanish hehe. The amount of rules and exceptions are absolutely ridiculous. I handle them because it is my first language and I am well read, but I imagine it must be extremely difficult for foreigners to grasp some of it's finer details. In fact, I'd be willing to say I like English better than Spanish since it manages to create better balance between simplicity and eloquence. To write something in Spanish and make it sound fancy, it's not just using the proper words..you have to employ some phrase structures that are so absurdly difficult to come up with it's not even funny :laugh:

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • Onkyo Dolby Atmos AV receivers are really solid deals by Sayan Sen Recently we covered great deals on several soundbar models from the likes of Sony, JBL, Samsung and others for really good prices (the lowest in several months). Aside from that we also reported on the Edifier S3000MKII, a hi-fi two-way bookshelf monitor that's available for only $800. Today we bring a list of AV receivers from Onkyo that are available at great prices including the Onkyo NR7100, RZ30, and 8470 (purchase links under the specs table down below). The Onkyo TX-NR7100 and Onkyo TX-RZ30 are both 9.2-channel AV receivers designed for immersive home theater setups but they occupy slightly different tiers within Onkyo’s lineup with the RZ30 positioned as the more advanced model. The TX-NR7100 is a THX Certified 9.2-channel receiver offering up to 100 W per channel (8 ohms, 2 channels driven). It supports Dolby Atmos, DTS:X, and IMAX Enhanced formats, with flexible configurations such as 5.1.4 or 7.1.2 speaker layouts. A key highlight is its built-in Dirac Live Room Correction which should help optimize sound based on your room and its acoustics. In comparison, both models share several core capabilities though the RZ30 is geared toward enthusiasts seeking more precise calibration and system flexibility, while the NR7100 is positioned as a slightly more accessible, value-focused option with strong all-round performance. The technical specs of the RZ30 and NR7100 9.2 AVRs are given in the table below: Specification Onkyo TX-RZ30 Onkyo TX-NR7100 Power Output (FTC, 2ch driven) ~100 W/ch (8Ω, 20Hz–20kHz, 0.08% THD) 100 W/ch (8Ω, 20Hz–20kHz, 0.08% THD) Dynamic / Peak Power 9 × 170 W (6Ω, 1kHz, 1% THD, 1ch driven) 220 W/ch (6Ω, 1kHz, 10% THD, 1ch driven) Frequency Response 5 Hz – 100 kHz (+1/-3 dB) 10 Hz – 100 kHz (+1/-3 dB) THD 0.08% 0.08% Room Correction Dirac Live (full bandwidth) Dirac Live (with AccuReflex support) Immersive Audio Dolby Atmos, DTS:X, IMAX Enhanced Dolby Atmos, DTS:X, IMAX Enhanced Speaker Layout Support Up to 7.2.2 / 5.2.4 / 9.2 processing Up to 7.2.4 / 5.2.4 / 9.2 processing HDMI Inputs / Outputs 6 inputs / 2 outputs (eARC) 6 inputs / 2 outputs (Main + Sub/Zone 2) HDMI 2.1 Support 8K/60, 4K/120, VRR, ALLM, QFT, DSC, eARC 8K/60, 4K/120, VRR, ALLM, QFT, DSC, eARC Video Formats HDR10+, Dolby Vision, HDCP 2.3 HDR10+, Dolby Vision, HDCP 2.3 Streaming / Network Wi-Fi, AirPlay 2, Chromecast, Bluetooth, DTS Play-Fi Wi-Fi, AirPlay 2, Chromecast, Bluetooth, DTS Play-Fi Get them at the links below: Onkyo TX-RZ30 9.2-Channel AV Receiver: $797.00 (Sold and shipped by Electronic Expo) Onkyo TX-NR7100 9.2-Channel AV Receiver: $699.00 (Sold and shipped by Adorma) Onkyo TX-8470 2 Ch Stereo Receiver: $449.00 (Sold and Shipped by Adorma) Good to know This Amazon deal is U.S. specific, and not available in other regions unless specified. We only use first-party seller links or authorized dealer links (at the time of article publishing); ensure that you purchase from such links only. Check out Today's Deals on Amazon | or our recent tech deals. Become a Prime member (for Students or SNAP) via Neowin Get Prime Access - Prime for half price (for qualifying Medicaid, EBT, SNAP) Subscribe to Prime Video, Audible Plus, Music Unlimited or Kindle Unlimited via Neowin As an Amazon Associate, we earn from qualifying purchases.
    • A different thing with Russia. When you say is it better, depends on things. It is better that we don't have the E.U making rules and laws that have nothing to do with them. Is the trading part better? No, that is really mucked up, but then we knew that was going to happen and we would have make agreements, like we do with other parts of the world. Freedom of movement is certainly better, but could be improved, we still need more control over our borders. do you live in the U.K?
    • So what am I quoting from them? I never listened to what Farage or his cronies said. I wanted the U.K to leave the E.u years before the referendum and it had nothing to do with Farage and his cronies. So what country do you live in? Did we work much better together? We were always at logger heads with the E.U because we disagreed with them so much. Maggie was always on at them. I would have thought the E.U was glad to get rid of us as we stopped the integration or made it a two tier. Now without us they can integrate more. I would not have voted out if it was just a trading block and we can still work together on somethings.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Week One Done
      flexorcist earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Month Later
      Woland13 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      Woland13 earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Year In
      bernmeister earned a badge
      One Year In
    • Week One Done
      Scoobystu earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      498
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      224
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      148
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      74
    5. 5
      FloatingFatMan
      70
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!