is God a subset of god?

[Napoléon]

Would it be arrogant of me to say I am a gnostic atheist with respect  religious Gods but not the other possible gods?

I don't even think it would be that arrogant to say that with regards to "gods", let alone God.

[ignoramus]

Naps, problem with "gods" is that there is no definition? Does god = creator of us?, the earth?, the universe?
Are you saying that hitech space dudes who came to earth and put us here in testubes 4b years ago is absolutely impossible? Wouldn't that fall under a "god"?

It's hard to get the religious bullshit definitions out of our heads though.

[Pyrrho]

...
Since we cannot discount a "god" as a possible explanation of "things", we are agnostic.
...

What do you mean by "god?"  Do you mean anything that anyone might call a god?  If so, when someone says, "Brad Pitt is a god," my guess is that not only will you not deny the existence of Brad Pitt, but you probably positively believe he exists.

As for your title question, very often "God" (capitalized) is used for a narrower range of options than "god" (not capitalized); notice the distinction separating definitions 1 & 2:

God
Definition of God in English:
noun
1(In Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.

2(god)(In certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshipped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity:a moon godthe Hindu god Vishnu

2.1An image, animal, or other object worshipped as divine or symbolizing a god:wooden gods from the Congo

2.2Used as a conventional personification of fate:he dialled the number and, the gods relenting, got through at once

3(god)A greatly admired or influential person:he has little time for the fashion victims for whom he is a god

3.1A thing accorded the supreme importance appropriate to a god:don’t make money your god

4(the gods) informal The gallery in a theatre:they sat in the gods

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/defini...ctCode=all


I am confident that nothing exists that fits 1 or 2.  There are no gods in those senses of the word.  I am not agnostic about those.

In the case of 2.1, obviously, there are statues said to be gods, and 3, 3.1, and 4 obviously exist.  In the case of 2.2, I don't believe in fate, as typically understood, but it depends exactly on how one uses the term whether I would say that it is or is not possible.


In the context of this site, normally, definitions 1 & 2 are the only relevant ones.  And of them, I am confident that none exist.  Still, the exact degree of confidence varies, as I am certain that nothing exists whose proper description is self-contradictory, which eliminates the Christian God, as typically described.  The nonexistence of Zeus is less certain, as his description is not obviously self-contradictory.  But I am still practically certain that he does not exist.  If his home on Mount Olympus were found with his wine cup on his table, then it would be more reasonable to believe in him.  However, since lightning is understood (by some people, anyway), it can be known that Zeus is not the source of it, so his description is problematic and we can say very confidently that there is no Zeus as described, even if he were found on top of Mount Olympus.


When it comes to these sorts of things, when some people demand absolute certainty about God, and insist that otherwise one should be called an "agnostic," my reply is that the same standards should apply for God as anything else.  Are you an agnostic about leprechauns?  The tooth fairy?  Fairies living at the bottom of a well?  Whatever degree of certainty that is good enough to say, "no leprechauns exist," is good enough to say "no gods exist."

[AFTT47]

Naps, problem with "gods" is that there is no definition? Does god = creator of us?, the earth?, the universe?
Are you saying that hitech space dudes who came to earth and put us here in testubes 4b years ago is absolutely impossible? Wouldn't that fall under a "god"?

I think the reason some people are hard (gnostic) atheists is that their definition of god or God is something logically inconsistent and therefor impossible.

[Redbeard The Pink]

To me, the likelihood of any one "god" depends entirely on how it's defined. The Christian Gaud, for instance, is inherently paradoxical because he can't possibly have the qualities he's described with and still create this universe and behave the way he allegedly does toward humans. In terms of Gaud, I am a gnostic atheist.

Going beyond that, you have the problem of defining exactly what a "god" is, what it would have to do to qualify as one, and what qualities it would have. To me, the very idea of a "god" is a human construction that has no correlation with non-fictional reality. Even if we somehow find something in the natural universe that humans decide to call "god," I believe it will likely have to redefine the term entirely, since part of the definition of gods as I understand them is that they pretty much have to exist outside of natural processes. If we find something that earns the name "god" but is a part of the natural processes of the Universe, I would still not consider that thing a "god" in the traditional sense. By their very definition, the gods have to exist outside what we know as reality.

Anyway, what I'm getting down to is that I pretty much consider myself a gnostic atheist because I think all evidence points to the fact of god being an abstract, human concept that could not possibly "exist" outside human minds and the ways in which we record them. Trying to prove god exists is like trying to prove that particles with mass can travel faster than light speed. Until evidence to the contrary surfaces, I'm confident in the assertion the laws of reality say no to god just as they say no to backward time travel.