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

    • Calling GTA 6 overhyped crap doesn’t make you edgy, it just makes you sound like someone who hasn’t enjoyed anything since the PS2 era.
    • I’m not arguing whether Rockstar likes money. Obviously, they do, they’re a business. I’m saying this isn’t new. They’ve always launched console first. This is just how Rockstar operates.
    • I'm not sure how old the school is, but they've been doing this since GTA 3. Back in those days we'd be lucky for game companies to release on the PC at all. And with the current state of Sony (or Microsoft) their gaming wing won't be getting a penny from me.
    • We now know when and how the Universe may truly end by Sayan Sen Image by Marek Pavlík via Pexels| Not representative A study by physicist Henry Tye of Cornell University suggests that the universe may not expand forever. Instead, it could eventually stop expanding, begin contracting and end in a "Big Crunch" roughly 20 billion years from now. The research, published in the Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, was conducted by Tye, Horace White Professor of Physics Emeritus at Cornell University. Using recent observations from major dark-energy surveys, Tye and his collaborators developed a cosmological model that predicts the universe could have a total lifespan of about 33 billion years. Since the universe is currently estimated to be 13.8 billion years old, the model places it near the midpoint of its existence. According to Cornell University's summary of the research, the study centers on the cosmological constant, a term introduced by Albert Einstein in his theory of general relativity. In modern cosmology, the cosmological constant is commonly used to describe the simplest form of dark energy, the unknown phenomenon believed to be driving the accelerating expansion of the universe. "For the last 20 years, people believed that the cosmological constant is positive, and the universe will expand forever," Tye said in a Cornell University news release. "The new data seem to indicate that the cosmological constant is negative, and that the universe will end in a big crunch." The study draws on data from the Dark Energy Survey (DES) and the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument (DESI), two major projects designed to investigate the nature of dark energy. According to Tye, recent observations suggest that dark energy may not behave exactly like a simple cosmological constant. To account for those observations, Tye and his collaborators proposed a model involving an extremely light hypothetical particle that evolves over time. In their calculations, this produces a negative cosmological constant and leads to a future collapse of the universe. The model predicts that cosmic expansion would continue for approximately another 11 billion years before reaching a maximum size, after which the universe would begin contracting and eventually collapse. Scientists have long debated how the universe might end. As explained in an article published in The Conversation by Stephen DiKerby of Michigan State University, several possibilities have been proposed. If dark energy remains constant and positive, the universe could continue expanding indefinitely, gradually becoming colder, darker and more diffuse in a scenario often called the "heat death" of the universe. Other theoretical possibilities include a Big Rip, in which cosmic expansion accelerates so dramatically that galaxies, stars and even atoms are torn apart, or a Big Crunch, in which expansion reverses and the universe collapses back into an extremely dense state. DiKerby notes that the Big Crunch idea itself is not new. What distinguishes Tye's work is that it attempts to use current observational data to estimate when such a collapse might occur and how it could unfold. Much of the universe's long-term evolution remains uncertain. According to current astrophysical understanding, stars will continue to form and die for billions of years. The Sun, for example, is about halfway through its expected lifespan. Galaxies are also expected to continue merging; the Milky Way and Andromeda galaxies are projected to collide several billion years from now. At the same time, the nature of dark energy remains one of the biggest unanswered questions in cosmology. While observations indicate that the universe's expansion is accelerating, scientists still do not know what is causing that acceleration. Future observations may therefore alter current predictions about the cosmos's ultimate fate. Tye emphasized that additional evidence will be needed before firm conclusions can be drawn. DESI continues to collect data, while upcoming observations from missions and observatories including Euclid, SPHEREx and the Vera C. Rubin Observatory are expected to provide more precise measurements of dark energy. "People have said before that if the cosmological constant is negative, then the universe will collapse eventually. That's not new," Tye said. "However, here the model tells you when the universe collapses and how it collapses." For now, the study presents one possible future for the cosmos rather than a settled prediction. Whether the universe ultimately ends in a Big Crunch, expands forever, or follows another path entirely remains an open question that future observations will help answer. Source: Cornell University, The Conversation This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing.
    • If you look around on Amazon, some of these are available for $9
  • Recent Achievements

    • First Post
      AndreaB earned a badge
      First Post
    • Week One Done
      Huge Trailer earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      Classifyskilleducation earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Month Later
      eurospharma62 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      With What earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      570
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      175
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      73
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      68
    5. 5
      neufuse
      64
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!