0

My position is grounded in the fact that many atheists use faulty logic in their position that because there is no evidence for gods, they do not exist. That in itself is faulty logic because lack of evidence does not equate to non-existence. A definition of god that can be proven has been requested of me, as has the evidence to support that “god’s” existence.

Definition: I propose the definition of one who is worshiped through invocation and sacrifice. This, unlike the supernatural requirements of many of the atheists’ definition, meet all standards of being deemed a god. To clarify, the word “god” is a title that originates in the early proto language of the Indo-European peoples. Not that I care for Wikipedia, but its handy and understandable:

>>> The Proto-Germanic meaning of *Ç¥uđán and its etymology is uncertain. It is generally agreed that it derives from a Proto-Indo-European neuter passive perfect participle *ǵʰu-tó-m. This form within (late) Proto-Indo-European itself was possibly ambiguous, either derived from a root *ǵʰeu̯- “to pour, libate” (Sanskrit huta, see hotá¹›), or from a root *ǵʰau̯- (*ǵʰeu̯h2-) “to call, to invoke” (Sanskrit hÅ«ta). Sanskrit hutá = “having been sacrificed”, from the verb root hu = “sacrifice”, but a smallish shift of meaning could give the meaning “one who sacrifices are made to”.

Depending on which possibility is preferred, the pre-Christian meaning of the Germanic term may either have been (in the “pouring” case) “libation” or “that which is libated upon, idol” – or, as Watkins[1] opines in the light of Greek χυτη γαια “poured earth” meaning “tumulus”, “the Germanic form may have referred in the first instance to the spirit immanent in a burial mound” – or (in the “invoke” case) “invocation, prayer” (compare the meanings of Sanskrit brahman) or “that which is invoked”. <<< The notion of worship is as follows: worship (n.) Look up worship at Dictionary.com O.E. worðscip, wurðscip (Anglian), weorðscipe (W.Saxon) "condition of being worthy, honor, renown," from weorð "worthy" (see worth) + -scipe (see -ship). Sense of "reverence paid to a supernatural or divine being" is first recorded c.1300. The original sense is preserved in the title worshipful (c.1300). The verb is recorded from c.1200. Pay close attention to the above dates as regards the evolution of the word into their modern christian, and oddly enough atheist, usages. Now, the definitions being set the argument is simply this: We know that the Germanic tribes honored their ancestors, wells, trees, and kings with sacrifice, invocation and deemed them worthy of praise (worship). We also know that early tribal structures elevated their ancestors and heroes to godly status. Therefore, gods have existed and still exist. You cannot resort to the literary sources to deny the above definitions of "god" because, according to your responses in my other question, the literary evidence is not reliable. Likewise, the literary evidence does not necessarily support the actual cult of the time - not being contemporary and all. You cannot say that the above definition is invalid, because it is actually a real definition and not influenced by christian world-view. And apparently according to your fellow atheists, since atheists don't believe in gods, they don't have to define the subject matter of their arguments. So, can you, as atheists, still make the blanket, all encompassing claim that "no gods exist" ? Again, this is not about the christian god, because I'll side with atheists on that any day of the week. It is also not about the gods of literature, because again, I'll side with atheists. It is about what gods are themselves and the evidence to support them. Can you refute my position and provide evidence to support it? Happy Wife: Absolutely. Your definition does not refute my position, thank you though for answering an earlier question here. David M: Atheists do in fact make that claim. Refer to my previous questions. They are also not inventions because the word "god" is a title. If you were capable of following along, the premise of supernatural power is a different definition of god and does not refute or support my position but is a different world-view entirely. Andre: Definitions are the expression of the symbol system known as world-view by which someone defines and approaches the world around them. Therefore, any argument must be placed in context. Because we don't all speak the same language and approach things in the same manner, the groundwork must be laid for context. I'm sorry you don't understand the nature of argument. The definition sets the stage and the archaeological evidence of feast, ritual and adoration at the grave side or kings hall is the proof. Gorgeous: You are quite correct there is no evidence for any "God" to exist, a god that is with a capital "g". EverDemon: The definition is not arbitrary. But, I did offer for atheists to define their notion of what a god is in a previous question. http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AjiXHElOiYrWSgvgGEyWIs7sy6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20080829075511AA1PNEz And if you'll notice I did agree with one of the definitions and logic. This is a test in logic and argument. If atheists want to rely on it, the have to demonstrate it. Just as they demand christians and others demonstrate their positions. Mr Samsa: Exactly! Thank you for the demonstration of logic. Christian the Atheist: Your logic is correct, except that I haven't lowered the bar, just cleared up the misconception that the notion of god is somehow related to the christian notion of a supreme being. AT THIS POINT I'm hard pressed to decide between Mr. Sams and Christian the Atheist for best answer. Green_meklar: Do you have proof that your aztec emperor would not have been recognized as a god to his people? You assume that his subjects attributed anything supernatural to him, that is your assumption and would be invalid unless you can supply the evidence to support it. In other words, they're claims not evidence. You define "god" according to the influence of a very-late world-view -- ie that of christianity and the influence on it from the Classical world. That definition may be sufficient for you, but does not meet the standards of other cultures who define what their gods are for themselves. Your definition may allow you to sleep at night, but it does not hold water when applied to world-view's other than your own. Your example of the element of water and the compounds of elemets is invalid because it does not relate. The notions are not mutually exclusive nor are they even remotely similar, because, wait for it... here it comes.... they are differing world-views.