**Upvote this comment if you agree with OP, downvote this comment if you disagree with OP.** Elsewhere in the thread, please upvote comments which contribute to debate (even if you believe they're wrong) and downvote comments which are [detrimental to debate](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/wiki/faq#wiki_downvoting) (even if you believe they're right). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateAnAtheist) if you have any questions or concerns.*

I kept waiting for the part about praying to Joe Pesci and was extremely disappointed that the OP wasn’t an elaborate George Carlin reference.

I must have deleted it, it was originally in there and this whole thing is inspired by George Carlin.

So because primitive cultures referred to the sun as a deity, that makes it an actual deity? Is that basically your argument? If so, I would like to add this rebuttal: just because Geico is so easy a caveman can do it doesn’t mean you could take a time machine, go back 10,000 years, find a caveman, hand him a laptop and expect him to file an insurance claim.

I'm saying that when people invent a word to describe something it means what they're describing despite later people changing the meaning.

Why should we care what those people are describing vs, say, the Westboro Baptists?

So you *are* saying that because primitive cultures describe the sun as a deity, then that’s what it is despite modern science saying otherwise. So are manatees actually mermaids then??

>The sun is the theos of Dyeus and the theos of humanity and is the inspiration of the early words for God like Deus, Dios and Divine, the sun was a God in the beginning of modern religion as Surya and the sun was a God in the beginning of civilization as Shamash, the sun was one of the first supreme gods as Atum and the supreme God before it was Anu, the sky which the sun is still part of, the first monotheistic singular God in history Aten was the sun, the sun is the heavenly form of the supreme personality of God in Hinduism Krishna, the bible says the Lord God is a sun, a sun-god Helios shares the name of the modern scientific view of reality that describes the sun as embodying the root meaning of theos as placer of our world, the sun gives life, the sun guides, rules and sustains humanity. The sun is pretty much God. You are missing the fact that the way words are defined does not actually make them true. Take the expression "He's going to shit a brick." People don't actually shit bricks. The definition of brick is not "a measurement of shit," nor is the definition of shit "excrement that is measured in bricks." They are using these words in this way to illustrate an idea that is not *literally* true, but is still meaningful. The fact that lots of people referred to the sun as godlike, or a god itself, does not mean that that was actually *true*.

Dyeus referred to the whole bright sky not the sun as far as we are aware. Nothing to do with placement as far as I can see. The sky was seen as divine in a spiritual way not just a physical thing and I don’t imagine in the way that monotheists think of God now. The fact that the sky exists is irrelevant to whether it’s really god which meant more then and even more to people now. To summarise they didn’t mean the sun .. and if they did they didn’t mean the sun as the physical object we know now ..and people don’t mean the sun now when they say god - so it’s completely irrelevant that the actual sun exists to whether an actual God exists. As far as what Theos - you quite deliberately conflate the sun and an invented phenomena that deliberately ‘put’ the sun there. One moment the sun is God because you claim people say it is and then suddenly God is what you claim put the sun there. As far as what Theo’s means - its *meaning* is irrelevant to whether the phenomena to which it refers actually exists. And in as much as it means God it certainly doesn’t mean simply the physical sun or anything like that to people. As far as it means any kind of God just saying the word means something doesn’t make that thing real. The meaning of Theos is whatever enough people agree it to be , the existence of that phenomena isn’t. And conflating a real object with an invented one proves nothing.

Yes, I know Dyeus refers to the whole bright sky and I'm saying all that brightness is placed by the sun. I never said the sun is not Theos I say some consider God to be theos of Theos, the placer of the placer but the sun is still the placer of the bright sky, I never said it isn't theos. I was just highlighting an outlier to my theory, most other religions and early civilizations confirm the sun as God, only Islam doesn't. You think it proves nothing because I didn't prove the anime character in your mind, I'm not here to debate you on that, I'm just saying the original meaning of the word was for the light in the sky, specially the Sun's light. Still the sun is pretty significant as we need it to live and it dictates time and allows us to see and sleep. It's kinda our ruler regardless of what meaning we use for Theos. Consider this, I know a Christian who thinks the Bible is predicting that giant scorpions come in the end of the world and will sting people so hard it hurts for 5 months. I claim it's talking about Scorpio starting 5 months of winter and that's the actual torment and there's no giant scorpions it's just symbolism. Whose interpretation will be more useful? Preparing for winter or giant scorpions? Astrotheology is not some crazy idea it sometimes makes more sense than the literal exoteric historical approach. Some people read the description of Jesus having fire eyes and burning feet and white hair and golden clothes and they're like yeah that's the sun, maybe you might not see it but it connects.

>Yes, I know Dyeus refers to the whole bright sky and I'm saying all that brightness is placed by the sun. So what. That doesn’t make them the same thing. >I never said the sun is not Theos I say some consider God to be theos of Theos, the placer of the placer but the sun is still the placer of the bright sky, I never said it isn't theos. And I never said you didn’t. I said that you conflated Theos and the Sun when they aren’t the same thing. I have no idea whether your weird emphasis on the word placer is something to do with English not being you first language or just another attempt to misuse language for a preferred effect, Because it’s an odd choice of word. >I was just highlighting an outlier to my theory, most other religions and early civilizations confirm the sun as God, only Islam doesn't. Which is just historically nonsensical. The God is Islam is just a version of the God of Christianity which is just a version of the God of the Jews which is just a version of the Babylonian etc Some people saw the sun as something divine , others the sky. The Abrahamic faiths are base Don a sky God nit specifically a Sun God …. *and nine of that matters because it wasn’t the sun as we know it exists now they were talking about **and** because what they believed has no bearing on the truth of any gods.* >You think it proves nothing because I didn't prove the anime character in your mind, No. It proves nothing because it’s unsound. The premises are false and the conclusion doesn’t follow. The anime character of whatever you want to call it is in your mind. It’s dishonest to try to pretend God mean sun to believers, and just as dishonest to pretend that them worshipping a sun *god* means that if a sun exists so does their god. It’s absurd. >I'm not here to debate you on that, I'm just saying the original meaning of the word was for the light in the sky, specially the Sun's light. No it wasn’t the light in the sky it was the bright sky. Again I don’t know if it’s a language issue on your part but these are not identical. And again nit that it matters because a sun God and a sun are not the same thing, >Still the sun is pretty significant as we need it to live and it dictates time and allows us to see and sleep. It's kinda our ruler regardless of what meaning we use for Theos. No again perhaps it’s a language issue but need x to live and x is our ruler dint me a the same thing. And your link to time and sleep are just trivial and simplistic. >Consider this, I know a Christian who thinks the Bible is predicting that giant scorpions come in the end of the world and will sting people so hard it hurts for 5 months. >I claim it's talking about Scorpio starting 5 months of winter and that's the actual torment and there's no giant scorpions it's just symbolism. >Whose interpretation will be more useful? Neither are useful. They are both silly. And once you start picking and choosing your interpretation of holy text , *everything* in it becomes open to interpretation. The point is a religion is by definition what the believers believe. And when believers talk about God they aren’t for the most significant kart talking about the sun or something metaphorical. >Preparing for winter or giant scorpions? Well unless you have actual evidence of what the anonymous writer actually believed when they write it, early Christians believed amd most Christians be,Evie now , your interpretation is simply your invention. >Astrotheology is not some crazy idea it sometimes makes more sense than the literal exoteric historical approach. Whether it makes any sense , which I doubt , is irrelevant. Religious believers believe crazy , weird and ridiculous stuff. You can’t just decide to reinterpret for them. You can make up anything. >Some people read the description of Jesus having fire eyes and burning feet and white hair and golden clothes and they're like yeah that's the sun, maybe you might not see it but it connects. It’s entirely trivial whether it connects. And on a reading of the whole New Testament ludicrous to suggest that the writers thought Jesus was the sun! You appear to be the one not understanding poetic language now. But again who cares - it doesn’t make any of it true. They certainly weren’t suggesting that Jesus or God is just a ball of fission.

I don't have an anime character in my head, you atheists do which is why you keep saying the sun doesn't align with it and this prevents you from admitting it places us and is the shining part of Dyeus. Placer is not a defect in my character, it's the word from the established meaning along with put and do. Why are you all so concerned with personally attack me and refuse to engage in a discussion on whether a Theos exists. If you reject placer as theos or the sun as Dyeus then I don't care I didn't make these up they were just the only available meanings to me, so I am asking you if you insist I don't use them give me new meanings of theos to use so we can actually discuss whether it exists. If I say Theos A exists and you say I don't care it's not Theos Z. Im not here to say Theos is Theos A, I can change to discussing your Theos Z Y'all are kinda too contentious towards me that it prevents any intellectual progress, it's just a belittling of me and a bunch of downvotes far from a discussion more likes bullying echo chamber It's not hard to just suggest we discuss a different meaning no need to go on and on about how my definition is wrong and it makes me a bad person

>I don't have an anime character in my head, Magic suns are as much anime as anything else.. >you atheists do We only have the picture theists give us >which is why you keep saying the sun doesn't align with it and this prevents you from admitting it places us and is the shining part of Dyeus. No what irevebts us is as I pointed out you just invented this and it’s not what most theists believe, >Placer is not a defect in my character, it's the word from the established meaning along with put and do. You don’t speak English as a first language do you. >Why are you all so concerned with personally attack me and refuse to engage in a discussion on whether a Theos exists. This is basically a lie. I’ve nit attacked you. I’ve responded precisely , engaging with and quoting you, and you’ve not provided any evidence a Theos exists. >If you reject placer A word that in this context you hav3 just made up and as I pointed out have provided no sound grounds for doing so. >as theos or the sun as Dyeus Again as I have pointed out , something you just made up and not what th3 weird even used to mean nir what it means now except to you. >then I don't care I didn't make these up You have >they were just the only available meanings to me, As I pointed out they aren’t even the correct original meaning, they aren’t the meaning people use now, and meaning doesn’t make something exist. >and so I am asking you if you insist I don't use them give me new meanings of theos to use so we can actually discuss whether it exists. Theos is basically Greek for god. And you’ve done nothing to demonstrate such a creature exists. >If I say Theos A exists and you say I don't care it's not Theos Z. If you use an at hand word , make up a purely personal meaning for it then you have done nothing to say it exists. Theis doesn’t mean sun to theists in general. The sun existing doesn’t mean a god does. >Im not here to say Theos is Theos A, I can change to discussing your Theos Z You aren’t here to say anything precisely or clearly. Nor to legitimately demonstrate anything god-like exists as far as I can see. You keep repeating the word Theos without actually defining it at all , let along demonstrating it exists outside of your head. >Y'all are kinda too contentious towards me You mean I have pointed out the vagueness, inaccuracy and unsoundness of your ‘argument’. >that it prevents any intellectual progress, Not using precise, truthful language on your part does that. >it's just a belittling of me and a bunch of downvotes far from a discussion more likes bullying echo chamber Don’t complain about being schooled. >It's not hard to just suggest we discuss a different meaning no need to go on and on about how my definition is wrong and it makes me a bad person You haven’t provided a clear meaning. Meanings are public not private. You can’t just pretend anyone else means what you do. You can’t just define something into existence with an obvious sleight of hand substitution of word meanings. God doesn’t mean and never did simply mean sun. The sun existing doesn’t make it divine not mean that gods exist. Just pretending god and sun are synonymous is absurd. Oh god I’ve only just noticed your name - pretty sure you’ve created these completely useless discussions that begin with nonsense and go no where before. Fool me once …

First of all, Greek θεός "theós" and Latin "deus" are false cognates. "Theós" derives from a separate Proto-Indo-European (PIE) root: *dʰeh₁- ("to do, to put, to place"). Secondly, the argument is predicated on an etymological fallacy. Words are defined by descriptions of their common, colloquial usages - not by the intricacies of their etymologies. To illustrate this, let's apply the same reasoning to the word "god". English "God" derives from Proto-Germanic *gudą (meaning "god"), which traces back to the PIE lemma: *ǵʰutós (meaning "one/thing that is invoked", and "thing that is libated/poured out"); deriving from the PIE root: *ǵʰew- ("to pour"). Therefore, cognates of "God" include Russian звать "zvať ("to call") and also of Latin "fūtilis" ("easily poured out; leaky"), whence English "futile". Therefore, God is "that thing which holds no water and which is invoked pointlessly." You see the problem here, yes?

>God is "that thing which holds no water and which is invoked pointlessly." To be fair, I see no problems with this statement\*, as this is a perfectly logical argument, metaphorically speaking. ^(\*For the people in the back: the argument of "God" holds no water, and the invocation of any kind of deity is done pointlessly, since no such entities has ever been proven to exist.)

Good point, conceded. Then establish the proper meaning of Theos that isn't to do to put or to place so we can discuss it, everyone keeps denying me using the root of it but hasn't provided an alternate so we can move forward and discuss the existence of Theos. If we can't agree on terms, how can we debate? That's more like a person refusing to debate.

>Then establish the proper meaning of Theos that isn't to do to put or to place so we can discuss it, everyone keeps denying me using the root of it but hasn't provided an alternate so we can move forward and discuss the existence of Theos. If you define theos as "to do, to put, to place" then that's perfectly fine. What we're saying is that this is completely and utterly irrelevant to whether a god exists or not.

>establish the proper meaning This is your problem. There is no "proper meaning" because meanings change. You insisting on establishing a proper meaning is you misunderstanding how language works and therefore your entire argument fails.

Genuine question: are you wanting to debate/discuss the etymology of the word itself, as in talking about it from a linguistics perspective instead of as part of a god claim? If so, that might be where the confusion lies, though it also would mean that this is more suitable for some kind of linguistics subreddit.

>The sun is the original divine/deus/dios/theos/deity by literal root meanings. Some say God is the theos of this theos. Either way, theos exists. The evidence is the sun in the sky. Rejected. This is a [definist fallacy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definist_fallacy) and thus [useless.](https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Definist-Fallacy) As always, definist fallacies are not helpful, not useful, do not add information, understanding, or comprehension. Instead, they confuse, they occlude, they muddy the waters, they conflate, they equivocate. And they inevitably result in implicit or explicit, intentional or unintentional attribute smuggling. As you attempted to do. You see, you *already know* people don't mean 'the sun' when they talk about deities. They use that word to encompass something with very different and other attributes distinct from a ball of hydrogen undergoing fusion. Nothing you said subsequent to that in your post changes this or supports your attempt to invoke this fallacy. Instead, it repeats it and doubles down on it. Such is that demonstrably inaccurate statement: >The only modern major (over 5%) religion where the sun isn't God or God isn't the sun or sun-like is Islam where the Qur'an still has descriptions of God that fit the sun like Lord of Daybreak, Alternator of Day and Night, Light of the Heavens and The Earth, and Abraham concluded the Sun was his Lord and the greatest until it set. But for Islam, Allah is the creator of the sun and the sun is a sign of God. So I find myself fundamentally unable to do anything but reject this entire thing immediately. Your attempt is dismissed as fatally faulty. But, if it makes you feel any better, I concede the sun exists.

Very good response. Thank you for putting it so concisely.

When people used to refer to the sun as a deity, they thought the sun had some form of intelligence or agency along with supernatural powers. We know the sun does not possess any of these qualities. When people refer to a god today, they are almost universally not referring to the sun. Trying to say a god exists because it is the sun is mere equivocation at best. It's an attempt to redefine "god" to refer to something mundane, which no theist actually believes, and to sneak in additional attributes and theological baggage that we disagree on under a label for something that we do agree exists. So this line of argument is pretty much useless. It neither addresses the actual beliefs or disagreements of either side.

The Bible clearly says God is a sun regardless of what people believe. Krishna of Hinduism says he is the sun regardless of what people believe. These are the texts of the religions almost half of humanity believe in and you're acting like I'm saying an outlier opinion. Regardless of modern opinions, the origin of the words Theos and Deus apply to the sun and hence it is Theos and Deus. You haven't established the new derived meaning of Theos and Deus and you haven't proven why they retcon the original meaning so the sun remains Theos. You say it is mundane and unintelligent but you haven't proven either and also haven't established their connection to the word Theos it's just your opinion, but inversely placement is an established connection to theos which isn't my opinion, it's just objectively true.

>The Bible clearly says God is a sun regardless of what people believe. Where? And so what? The bible also says that god walked in the garden of Eden and lived on top of a mountain. The bible says a lot of things about this supposed god, and almost none of them resemble the actual sun. >Krishna of Hinduism says he is the sun regardless of what people believe. Again, so what? As I said before, back when people referred to the sun as a god they believed the sun possessed qualities that it clearly does not. And people today who believe in a god do not believe it is the sun. >Regardless of modern opinions, the origin of the words Theos and Deus apply to the sun and hence it is Theos and Deus. The origin of words doesn't magically imbue those words with special meaning. Ancient peoples who didn't know any better believing the sun was a god doesn't make it so any more than these ancient people believing the sun revolved around the earth. The people who came up with the word can be just as wrong about what they believed as anything else. >You haven't established the new derived meaning of Theos and Deus and you haven't proven why they retcon the original meaning so the sun remains Theos. I don't have to establish anything. The modern common usage of the word "god" not being synonymous with "sun" is already well established as part of common knowledge and parlance. If it weren't you wouldn't have bothered to make this whole post arguing the point in the first place. >You say it is mundane and unintelligent but you haven't proven either and also haven't established their connection to the word Theos it's just your opinion, but inversely placement is an established connection to theos which isn't my opinion, it's just objectively true. I see no need to establish the sun as mundane and unintelligent beyond my own satisfaction at this point. Anyone who wants to dispute that the massive fusion reactor in the sky exhibits any qualities resembling agency or intelligence, or any supernatural qualities whatsoever beyond a giant burning ball of ionized gas is welcome to try.

You're simultaneously saying people believing the sun is God doesn't make it God while saying people not believing the sun is God makes it not God. Which is it? Psalms 84:11 says God is a sun. Are you questioning how authoritative scripture is relevant to God? It's the canon that literally defines what God is and isn't. Whether they mythicized the sun with features it doesn't have, it doesn't change the fact that it is the character the story represents. I never claimed the sun does anything you can't confirm, I'm mainly confirming it does the verbs contained in Theos and deus which is place and shine, do you have any contention for this?

>You're simultaneously saying people believing the sun is God doesn't make it God while saying people not believing the sun is God makes it not God. Which is it? Well, I'm not actually but I'll take this strawman on anyway. The word people choose to call something doesn't change what the thing actually is. If people call the sun a god, and by that they mean an intelligent, supernatural, agent, then just because they call it that doesn't make it so. People *used* to believe the sun was a god. They were wrong. People who still believe in gods *don't* currently generally believe their god is the sun. These are two different, distinct categories of people and beliefs, and they are *not* simultaneous. I even used temporal words like "used to" and "currently" to distinguish they are not simultaneous. The people who don't believe their god is a sun are still wrong, but not about the sun not being a god part. That's just a coincidence. Sort of like how people might call Vlad "The Impaler" Tepesh of Walachia a vampire named Dracula; it doesn't make him an actual vampire or make vampires real. Vampires are fictional creatures that possess supernatural powers. Calling a man who actually existed a fictional monster does not magically or retroactively turn the actual man into a literal vampire, nor does it make vampires real as they are commonly understood. Or how referring to St. Nicholas of Myra, a real person who actually existed in 3rd century Greece, as Santa Clause, doesn't make the immortal christmas character who delivers presents around the world once a year a real thing, just because there was once a real guy who the myth refers to. Myths are just that, mythical. I.e. not true. Made up. Fantasy. That we can point to a real, mundane thing the myth is based on doesn't grant credence to the made up parts of the myth. People choosing to refer to something as something else can simply be *wrong.* The words we use to describe things, and the things themselves are two distinct things, and the accuracy of the words is determined by how well they reflect the actual properties of the things they are referring to, not the other way around. >Psalms 84:11 says God is a sun. And Genesis 1:16 says god created the sun on the 4th day. So which is it? God is the sun, and created himself 4 days after he creating a bunch of other stuff first? Was creating himself not higher on his to-do list? >Are you questioning how authoritative scripture is relevant to God? Of course. Why should I care about how "authoritative" one scripture I don't believe in over any other scripture I don't believe in has to say about a god I don't believe in? The bedtime stories of ancient desert nomads who didn't know where the sun goes when it sets at night doesn't have any bearing on what's factually true, just on what those people believed. >It's the canon that literally defines what God is and isn't. It doesn't "literally" define anything because definitions of extant objects cannot be prescriptive. If I'm the first person to arrive on an uncharted island, and I scribble on a piece of paper a random blob and say it is the map of the island, does that scribbling have any bearing on how accurate my map is on the actual contours or topography of the land mass I'm standing on? Will the island reshape itself under my feet to more accurately fit the shape of the map I drew just because I drew it? How can the contours of reality behave any different according to the fantastical scribblings of ignorant people who couldn't know any better? >Whether they mythicized the sun with features it doesn't have, it doesn't change the fact that it is the character the story represents I think it changes at least one very relevant fact: whether or not the character the story represents is actually accurate, or whether the story itself is actually true. >I never claimed the sun does anything you can't confirm, I'm mainly confirming it does the verbs contained in Theos and deus which is place and shine, do you have any contention for this? I stated my contentions right up at the top: It's an attempt to smuggle unjustified attributes and theological baggage under a mundane label that is not warranted.

Good points I appreciate this response. 1) I never said the sun was supernatural or intelligent, what is supernatural and intelligence? you are assuming these things are necessary for Theos possibly because you have a cartoon character in your mind. I'm just discussing the roots of Theos and Deus. 2) If humans create humans God can be a sun who created our sun, regardless of how the Bible works it clearly says God is a sun which at the very least means the sun is godlike 3) The Bible is authoritative to it's religion, if you can't respect the canon of a mythos, you don't deserve to discuss it because you're just making a strawman rather than investing the truth. Within religion, scripture is truth. If you refuse to entertain it's authority to arrive to conclusions about religious beliefs, don't discuss religious beliefs. If you enter into someone's house, go by their rules and don't rearrange their house. 4) this is not an inaccurate map, people say the sun shining high above and that's the origin of the word God to me, you have adopted the corrupted meaning and have the audicity to use it to retcon the original 5) you consider a truthful story to be historical or literal but there is much truth in the esoteric and symbolic 6) If my attributes are unjustified, inform me of the justified attributes of Theos

>I never said the sun was supernatural or intelligent You don't need to explicitly state those exact words. That's why I called out the term "smuggling" and "sneaking" and "equivocation". And let's not play this game now shall we? You've already invoked the bible a couple times now, and despite only cherrypicking one measly passage from the literal book of poems that refers to god metaphorically as a sun, while ignoring the innumerable counterexamples (at least one of which I provided) where the bible describes god as a literal entity clearly distinct from the sun, and explicitly as a supernatural entity that has agency, intelligence, and acts with intent and purpose. So you can't go trying to have it both ways, it comes off as even more disingenuous than when you started. Either drop the god terms entirely as they add nothing to the description or understanding of the sun, or drop the act. No one is buying it either way.

>Psalms 84:11 says God is a sun. Psalms 137:9 says "blessed are those who take the infants and dash them against the rocks".

I was waiting for someone to find a verse like this. Have an updoot.

That makes the Bible look silly but doesn't negate the fact that God is called a sun in the Bible. I'm not saying the Bible is true or moral, I reference to say look even the most popular text in religion says God is a sun to show how it isn't some outlier idea. I don't care what else the Bible says irrelevant to the sun.

>but doesn't negate the fact that God is called a sun in the Bible. You provided 1 verse, other poster(s) pointed out that was a metaphor. Do you have any other sources of the abrahamic god being called a sun--or more specifically "THE sun"? But even then, with all your wordplay and dodgy logic, that doesnt make our sun a god.

>You're simultaneously saying people believing the sun is God doesn't make it God while saying people not believing the sun is God makes it not God. Which is it? It's both! The fact that people claim something doesn't make it true. The fact that people don't claim something also don't make it true. >Psalms 84:11 says God is a sun. *In a metaphorical sense*. Psalm 84:11 says, "**For the Lord God is a sun and shield;** the Lord bestows favor and honor; no good thing does he withhold from those whose walk is blameless."  The verse wasn't literally saying that God is a sun, just like it's not literally saying that God is a shield. It's metaphorically discussing how God protects and provides for his people by lighting their way and shielding them from danger. >Are you questioning how authoritative scripture is relevant to God? It's the canon that literally defines what God is and isn't. Of course we're questioning it. We're atheists. The Bible is no more meaningful or authroritative for us than the Avesta or the Rigveda. (Also, the Bible does not say that God is a/the sun.) It's based entirely on the beliefs and opinions of Bronze Age people and not any actual facts or evidence. Whether they mythicized the sun with features it doesn't have, it doesn't change the fact that it is the character the story represents. That's exactly what it does - although you still have not successfully argued that Christians understand their God and the sun to be one and the same. This is the problem when you jump on a root word and assume that the root is meaningful across millennia and cultures.

So you think because humans, who exist on a planet which relies on the sun, being fixated on the sun in distinctly human ways, makes the sun god??????

Is your point like all religions throughout time have been worshipping the sun so it’s always been the same god and because the sun is real god is real? And it’s Abrahamic god?? Abrahamic god isn’t a sun god it’s a fuckin storm god from a Bronze Age polytheistic system.

We know the sun isn't intelligent, do we?  It perpetually emmits wavelengths which literally are responsible for all life and intelligent manifestation on the planet.  It is the source of the energetic field/embryo that intelligence such as we call it develops within.   All life forms are the suns rays transmitted through the medium of matter in its various phases.  Don't be quick to assume it's a being  utterly devoid of thought :)

>We know the sun isn't intelligent, do we?  Yes. We do. By any reasonable definition of intelligence, the sun does not qualify. > It perpetually emmits wavelengths which literally are responsible for all life and intelligent manifestation on the planet. So? >All life forms are the suns rays transmitted through the medium of matter in its various phases. No. Once the energy has transferred to the planet's surface, or been photosynthesized by plants, it's no longer the sun's rays anymore. The energy has been converted to another form. Just like how you are not a cow just because you eat a hamburger. Seriously, this line of thinking doesn't even rise above the level of a deepity.

I mean stars are a source of very low entropy, and many theories show that life is a thing that can happen during the process of changing from low entropy to high entropy. Life makes that transfer happen more quickly and efficiently. But I agree, the sun itself is not alive, it is a thing that allows for life to form in the first place and is absolutely necessary for life to continue. You can't have life without a source of low entropy to convert to higher entropy. Same goes for an information processing and in computing. There are objects in the universe, however, that are countless orders of magnitude better at increasing entropy: black holes. In face the entropy created by black holes dwarfs everything else by a huge margin, that being said, there's not natural way for a low entropy source to generate black holes, so life is going to be an emergent thing that happens to increase entropy when given a source of low entropy and the materials in the right states to do so. The sun and all stars are potential bringers of life, but they, themselves are not life nor intelligent.

> It perpetually emmits wavelengths which literally are responsible for all life and intelligent manifestation on the planet.  It also perpetually emits wavelengths that are literally lethal for all life on the planet (not to mention huge quantities of charged particles which have a similar effect).  If the sun does have an intelligence,  it's a homicidally negligent one. 

>The sun is the original divine/deus/dios/theos/deity by literal root meanings "Literal root meanings" is not how definitions work, nor is "original". Words mean what we agree on them to mean (for some definition of "agree" and "we"). You can decide to make an argument where the sun is God, but you should be aware that that is a different meaning than most people use it.

I'm not talking about the opinions of people. I'm saying the roots of the word Theos and deus refer to the sun. Do you have any argument to contend this point? You're kinda saying words don't work by roots which to me seems incorrect, a runner is someone who runs, a governor is someone who governs, the insides of words define the word, that's why an atheist is someone without Theos and it's about Theos, you wouldn't tell me atheism has nothing to do with Theos so why say Theos has nothing to do with what's within it? a Theos is someone who "the's" and we find this the or dhe means to place, the sun places us, the sun is theos. Same for Deus which the de means to shine. The sun shines the sun is deus. And then they say it goes back to Dyeus which is the bright day sky and that's clearly placed by the sun. You're bringing up the word God but that word has a different root so it's irrelevant to theos and deus which are similar.

> You're kinda saying words don't work by roots which to me seems incorrect And yet, it's possible to split an atom, malaria isn't caused by bad air, biological men can act hysterically, an asteroid is nothing like a star, and sleeping in the moonlight won't make you a lunatic. > a Theos is someone who "the's"  Yes, the etymology of "deus" comes from dyeus, "diurnal sky" (also giving us "dies", day) and "theos" from dhe, "to do" or "to place." To pose a deliberate relationship seems like apophenia and doesn't aid you any. It's completely non-controversial that ancient religions had "sky father" figures, the Greek equivalent being Zeus, etymologically related to dyeus (unlike theos.) But... So what? You seem to insist that all religions are literally sun religions because of the etymology in SOME languages, but Islam isn't... Because the Quran says so? Why is the Hebrew Elohim (same root as Allah) condemned to Latin etymology (despite creating the sun in Genesis 1) but Allah isn't? And why does the story matter? What if I said Bob was the _theos_ of Allah? Did I just disprove Islam?

Good points. So then how can I discuss anything with anyone until there is a usable definition for Theos?

How come there's no usable definition? You are a theist, right? Do you know what you believe in?

There's no usable definition because you all are denying the one I found when I search the meaning which says a Theos refers to placement. Right now what I believe is that atheists cannot define Theos themselves and yet deny it.

> There's no usable definition because you all are denying the one I found [Except you did not find a *definition*, what you provided is in the *ETYMOLOGY* section of the dictionary, which are two very different things.](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%B8%CE%B5%CF%8C%CF%82) The definitions are as follows: Adjective θεός • (theós) - divine (used only in comparative: θεώτερος (theṓteros))   Noun θεός • (theós) m or f (genitive θεοῦ); second declension (Epic, Attic, Ionic, Doric, Koine) - a deity, a god, God - title of a ruler - sometimes feminine (ἡ θεός): a goddess

What does any of those words mean? Divine, deity, God, etc. Be more specific I have no clue. I know what a ruler is though and the sun is that. It rules us.

[Divine](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/divine) [Deity](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/deity) [God](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/god) >Be more specific I have no clue. That is what dictionaries are for.

Again the sun fit the first definition from earlier by being a ruler. The sun fits definition 2b of divine by being heavenly as it is a heavenly body in the heavens. The sun fits definition 3 of deity by being supremely powerful, not necessarily everywhere but in the realm of affecting the earth is it supremely powerful The sun fits definitions 3 and 4 of God by being a powerful ruler and a thing of supreme value because it gives life and controls the seasons and weather. Definition 1a of God is the Christian God and the Bible says that the Lord God is a sun. Even if metaphorical, the God compares himself to the sun so the sun is God-like. God-like confirms some of the other definitions of divine and deity.

>There's no usable definition because you all are denying the one I found when I search the meaning which says a Theos refers to placement. You are fractally wrong. First, you found etymology. Etymology is not a definition. Second, you can't pretend two different etymologies are parts of the same sentence. In Greek, there is a theos who is also a deus (i.e. "the one who puts together" who is also a Sky Father) but there are also theoi who are not. Third, claim all religions are bound by this etymology... except your own. When it comes to Islam, suddenly it's super important what the Quran actually says. Fourth, *all this is irrelevant* *to your point* because who cares about an unsupported claim that such-an-such-a-god is a "placer of the sun." Again, if I say it was Bob, why can't it be Bob? There is as much evidence for Bob placing the sun as for Allah. >Right now what I believe is that atheists cannot define Theos themselves and yet deny it. I'll be happy to define it but I'm afraid you'll complain.

You are 100% talking about the opinions of people because *that's where the roots came from*. The root of *dyaeus* means "shining" because people believed the sun was a god. Not because it is scientifically proven to be a god, or because it has any kind of demonstrated supernatural power - because in their age, the sun was the biggest separator between life and death. Before the invention of modern technology, without the sun, crops don't grow, which means everyone starves. It doesn't mean that the sun or the sky are actually gods. You are also combining them incorrectly. *Theos* does come from a root meaning "to place," but it's not related to *deus* despite sounding similar. So you can't make the conclusion that it means "to place the sun" - it doesn't. (Also, I would not argue that the "bright day sky is placed by the sun." The sun doesn't place anything. It simply appears in the bright day sky, and the appellation Dyaeus referred to a deity who personified *both* things, not just the sun.)

>runner  >a rod, groove, or blade on which something slides. >a roller for moving a heavy article. >a ring capable of slipping or sliding along a strap or rod or through which something may be passed or drawn. >a shoot, typically leafless, which grows from the base of a plant along the surface of the ground and can take root at points along its length. >a long, narrow rug or strip of carpet, especially for a hall or stairway. >a revolving millstone. >a fast-swimming fish of the jack family, occurring in tropical seas. None of those other meanings of "runner" have anything to do with "a person that runs".

If you reject the established meaning of Theos as placement and Deus as shining which I got from scholars as the only answers I can find, then establish the actual meaning of the verbs of Theos and deus so we can discuss if they apply to the sun still.

What about all the other ancient (and modern) languages where the word for the sun doesn't have anything to do with a god? You've cherry picked 2 words from 2 different languages to twist into a "proof" that a massive ball of superheated gas is a god. This is middle school level semantic fallacies brought about by massive indoctrination into whatever religion you subscribe to.

>I'm not talking about the opinions of people. I'm saying the roots of the word Theos and deus refer to the sun Cool. And the roots of the word Wednesday is Oden. Who cares and why is that related to discussions about theism today?

>runner is someone who runs Is it always? I can think of a couple usages that aren't someone who runs. Would that make you go away? This goes way beyond pedantry. Do you understand that language isn't static?

If you reject the established meaning of Theos as placement and Deus as shining that I didn't derive myself but got from scholars, then you yourself define the meaning of the verbs in Theos and deus so we can discuss if it fits the sun.

I don't care about theos and deus since they're not the words we use now.

Random, unrelated question that I'll tie back in after you answer it: Yes or no. Do you consider yourself to be a nice person?

>I'm not talking about the opinions of people. Cool, nor am I. >I'm saying the roots of the word Theos and deus refer to the sun. Do you have any argument to contend this point? Yep, and it is the same one I already made, the historical source of the words do not define their meaning. >You're kinda saying words don't work by roots which to me seems incorrect, a runner is someone who runs, a governor is someone who governs, the insides of words define the word, that's why an atheist is someone without Theos and it's about Theos, you wouldn't tell me atheism has nothing to do with Theos so why say Theos has nothing to do with what's within it? Excellent, so this is something we can work out. The root of the word often tells us what the history of the word is, which in turn often tells us the meaning (which is why you will be able to find examples like "runner"), but not necessarily. For instance, "Awful" used to have the same meaning as "Awesome", so if you went by root or history, it still would mean awesome, but actually, it now means terrible. Words and their meaning change over time, and while several of them retain some or all of their original meaning, we can't rely on it. Dictionaries, for instance, will gladly tell you the etymology of a word, but when it comes to working out the actual meaning, they refer to contemporary usage. >You're bringing up the word God but that word has a different root so it's irrelevant to theos and deus which are similar. This is an appropriate example. In modern English, an atheist is not defined as someone who lacks that-which-was-once-upon-a-time-known-as-"theos", it is defined with respect to a God in the modern sense.

These kinds of definitionist arguments necessarily do not accomplish anything. The best you can possibly do is convince me to use different words for what I believe, without those beliefs actually changing; I still would not believe there is some sentient creator whose prophet split the moon. This is a non-argument for someone who believes they've discovered a "gotcha" in pursuit of some hollow idea of a win, not something that will actually change minds.

Who said I have to change minds? Or "win"? Is this sub actually r/ConvertAnAtheist? You're fine the way you are as an atheist. I'm just here to arrive to truth and it seems the truth is that Theos refers to placement and Deus refers to shining, do you have another truth I can arrive to?

>I'm just here to arrive to truth and it seems the truth is that Theos refers to placement and Deus refers to shining If that's really all you wanted, you wouldn't be posting it in /r/DebateAnAtheist.

>The sun is the original divine/deus/dios/theos/deity by literal root meanings Cool. >Either way, theos exists. Don't care, didn't ask. >If so let's begin the new argument of what is Theos, how do we know that's what Theos is and what can this description apply to? Would the sun still be theos? Not relevant. When are you talking about theism and not about the sun?

The whole foundation of an atheist is their position on Theos, what do you mean you don't care, you care about Theos so much you base your whole identity around it so yes it is relevant, what is the thing you are identifying as being without? I'm saying the word refers to placement and since we are placed by the sun it is Theos And you claim actually Theos is rather what based on what? Do you have an actual rebuttal to my claim?

>The whole foundation of an atheist is their position on Theos Nope. It's a response to theists. Take it up with them if they don't believe in the nonsense you're spouting.

It's not a response to theist but Theos, you're not negating theists you're negating Theos, so then what is Theos? Why can no one answer? Is everyone a troll not willing to discuss whether Theos exists?

>It's not a response to theis It is and always will be. I wouldn't be an atheist if it weren't for theists to respond to. I don't care about your Theos. You don't understand and don't want to understand my position

>The whole foundation of an atheist is their position on Theos *Gods >what do you mean you don't care I neither care about your strawman, nor about your definition. Noone here means "the sun" they are atheists about. >what is the thing you are identifying as being without? Gods. >I'm saying the word refers to placement and since we are placed by the sun it is Theos Cool. Don't care. >And you claim actually Theos is rather what based on what? What theists mean when they say "God". >Do you have an actual rebuttal to my claim? Didn't ask, don't care. When are you going to present evidence for God's?

I don't think you'll find many people disagreeing that the sun exists. However, much has changed in human society and culture over the last several centuries, and many words now refer to a concept which is either subtly or explicitly distinct from their etymological roots. As I understand it, the word "God" most frequently refers to either a being who created the universe or a transcendent principle which supercedes everything, neither of which concept applies to the sun.

So your claim is that there are 100 billion gods in just our galaxy alone? Ok, fine. Suns are gods. I'm no longer an atheist. **Now what?** How is that useful or meaningful? Where does your argument go next?

No I did not claim that. I said the sun is the origin of Dyeus the bright day sky and our Theos or placer because we orbit it, so it only applies to one thing that we orbit it and one thing that lights up the whole sky during day, which is the sun and cannot be the stars. The meaningful thing is to realize you've took a word for the sun (placer or sky father) and formed a cartoon character for it and now have made an entire identity centered around denying a character you made in your own mind that is a corruption of its original archetype. The sun is so meaningful that without it, you couldn't talk to me.

>you've took a word for the sun (placer or sky father) and formed a cartoon character for it ... LOL I have done so such thing. People did that thousands of years before I was born. I work with our language as it exists today. To do anything is is ridiculous. >and now have made an entire identity ... Lol atheist is not my identity. The fact that I hold no god beliefs is absolutely irrelevant to 99% of my life. >...centered around denying a character you made in your own mind First of all, I didn't invent shit, I'm simply saying I'm not convinced the character that other people made up exists. And it's not just **a** character, I have not been convinced that *any* supernatural characters exist. All you have to do to convince me that one of them exists is to focus on providing good reasons or good evidence instead of playing word games.

If you are atheist, then yes you have based your whole identity on denying a Theos exists. Then refusing to admit the root meaning of Theos or divine exists just shows you equate them with a cartoon in your mind. Whether you invented it or got it from others you still hold a caricature in your head that you identify your personality as. Otherwise there's no need to identify as atheist just go on living without accepting Theos. I don't believe we can time travel but I don't make or join a sub called debate non-time travellers and defend why you can't time travel, people who aren't affected by a belief don't make a sub to debate it or join those subs and definitely don't comment in them trying to debunk people who believe contrary. It clearly affects you.

> I don't believe we can time travel but I don't make or join a sub called debate non-time travellers and defend why you can't time travel, people who aren't affected by a belief don't make a sub to debate it or join those subs and definitely don't comment in them trying to debunk people who believe contrary. Because the people who believe in time-travel typically do not: 1. Have a history of discriminating against non-believers 2. Impose rigid moral standards that can get codified into laws, even if non-believers do not follow or accept those moral standards 3. Encourage non-acceptance of minority groups such as lgbtq people 4. Denigrate scientific theories such as evolution when it contradicts their beliefs 5. Employ emotionally abusive tactics (such as threats of disownment or injury) upon believers to make sure they do not deconvert 6. Make up the vast majority of the world and are very motivated to have more members either through conversion or through having children that will adopt those beliefs So yeah, there's a reason why atheist subreddits are a thing: theists have made it a thing because most of the time, theism isn't just a harmless 'agree-to-disagree' set of beliefs.

>If you are atheist, then yes you have based your whole identity on denying a Theos exists. 1. No, because you just said Theos means the sun. I believe the sun exists. It's just not a person. Or alive. Or sentient. 2. I'm thousands of things in addition to being an atheist.

It's funny that I said "Fine, you're right—now what?" and you have no reply whatsoever. Let's proceed as if I agree with everything you said. Now what?

I did reply, you said how is the sun useful or meaningful and I said it allows you to exist and without it you couldn't talk to me. The meaning of the sun fitting the meaning of Theos and origin of divine shows what the word originally referred to, nothing more. I'm not tryna strip your identity, George Carlin recognized the sun was God and is still atheist, he turned it into a joke, is it not kinda amusing to realize the heavenly father this whole time was just the light in the sky rather than the cartoon in your mind, I think it's world shattering and interesting but of course I'm not tryna guide your life or beliefs I'm just saying what the origin of a word is, the sun can be the original divine Theos and yet not the common idea of God but I still felt it was worth mentioning If you're more interested in another thing it refers to you gotta let me know if you want to discuss that but until you mention it, I dont know what you think is actually Theos as in the cartoon in your mind

Other people have already explained to you how languages and words change, and original meanings can become irrelevant. If you didn’t understand it then, there’s nothing more I can say. Enjoy whatever it is you think you’re accomplishing 😂

premise one: i call my spoon "god" premise two; the spoon was referred in the past as a god conclusion; my spoon is god this is basically what you are saying. you still need to show that the thing that was referred as a god is actually a god

>I don't see how if I made a word using a specific verb that later people could make the word no longer mean what it originally refered to Word definitions are descriptive not prescriptive, definitions are based on word usage. Given enough time the definition of a word can change completely, literally. If a definition is not used it will eventually be removed or classified as archaic because no one uses that word to mean that any more. > if there's multiple meanings of theos, my argument hasn't been debunked Your argument doesn't need to be debunked because it proves nothing. You are playing with words, their definitions, and their root meanings. None of what you have posted shows a single bit of evidence that a god actually exists, let alone that the Abrahamic god of Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and Mormonism actually exists. >If so let's begin the new argument of what is Theos, how do we know that's what Theos is and what can this description apply to? Why? Playing with words does not get us to evidence of a deity.

I'm not playing with words, I'm trying to reach an understanding of what Theos is, you act like I made up a definition. If you refuse to define Theos and refuse to accept the established definition and yet identify as an atheist, your entire personality is absurd as you base who you are on you denying the existence of something you can't even define

>I'm not playing with words You absolutely are and you damn well know it. It's been explained to you multiple times how this etymological nonsense you're doing is fallacious and bad linguistics. I've seen you come in here on and off for months, you post some dishonest nonsense, much like this post, refuse to engage in good faith and eventually delete your post. It's a weird hobby.

Looking up the meaning of Theos referring to placement and Dyeus referring the bright sky and accepting it without changing it is not playing with words. Atheist denying the meanings is playing with words. I don't refuse to engage in good faith, you guys are just extremely rude and contentious and always refuse to address my points and instead turn it into a psychoanalytical personal attacks. No one here is establishing the actual meaning of Theos to allow a discussion.

Ok, Theos means toast. Now what?

You can search and find for yourself that Theos refers to placement, you saying Theos is toast is made up and only claimed by you. Nothing I provided was made up by me or my opinion just a relaying of information. What then do you actually believe Theos is that you base your entire personality around denying it if it is not placement?

I don't believe it's anything. I don't use it/

>You can search and find for yourself that Theos refers to placement I haven't found that, neither has anyone else. Please cite a source, otherwise this is one of the most bad faith discussions I've ever witnessed. And I've witnessed some bad ones.

>Looking up the meaning of Theos referring to placement Where can I find this? Every resource I've used defines Theos as a god or goddess. There's never a reference to placement, so I want to understand where you're getting that from so I can engage your questions. Can you do that for me?

> I'm not playing with words, I'm trying to reach an understanding of what Theos is, you act like I made up a definition. No, I did not say you made up a definition, I stated that the etymology of a word is irrelevant to the way people use a word today. Theos is a word in Greek, Dyeus is a concept from Proto-Indo-European mythology, you are combining things in an attempt to play word games because you do not have any actual evidence for your deity. >If you refuse to define Theos and refuse to accept the established definition I didn't refuse to define anything, not did I refuse to accept any definition. I accused you of playing fucking word games with no point or value. >and yet identify as an atheist, your entire personality is absurd as you base who you are on you denying the existence of something you can't even define Atheism is not my entire personality, it is one trivial fact about me.

Let’s ignore the issue with using root definitions. Everyone else has pointed out the problem there, so we can just skip that. Let’s focus on what your argument actually is. These words are defined as A, so A must be true. This is fallacious. Anyone can define any word as anything, that doesn’t automatically mean that it’s true. So you have to prove A is true separately from said definition.

The sun shines and places us regardless of definitions. We orbit it, it brightens the sky. That's all I'm saying. If Theos is something else then AGAIN define it so we can discuss it's existence Everyone here is concerned with personal attacks and being contentious to the point where they refuse to cooperate in agreeing on what a term means so we can discuss it The fact that NO ONE has define Theos shows no one is interested in discussing it and possibly may be basing their personality on denying something they don't even understand

>”The sun shines and places us regardless of definitions. We orbit it, it brightens the sky. That's all I'm saying.” That doesn’t make it a god. >”If Theos is something else then AGAIN define it so we can discuss it's existence” Like I said, I’m going to ignore the definition issue, that means I’m granting your definition to you. >”Everyone here is concerned with personal attacks and being contentious to the point where they refuse to cooperate in agreeing on what a term means so we can discuss it” I haven’t seen any personal attacks, though I’ve seen quite a few point out how bad your argument is with less than polite commentary. >”The fact that NO ONE has define Theos shows no one is interested in discussing it and possibly may be basing their personality on denying something they don't even understand” I thought you didn’t like personal attacks? because that’s what this is. Especially as it’s a completely unsubstantiated accusation. Us not defining your word for you has absolutely nothing to do with our personalities. I don’t need to define your word, you already did. Now you have to prove that your definition is accurate to reality. Prove the sun is a god, without relying upon defining it as one.

>The sun shines and places us regardless of definitions. We orbit it, it brightens the sky. That's all I'm saying. I'm pretty sure no one has a disagreement with that. >If Theos is something else then AGAIN define it so we can discuss it's existence You've made several claims that theos means a placer. I can't find sources to back this up, so I think it's up to you to define it, and it's also up to you to tell us why we as atheists we should debate or discuss it. >Everyone here is concerned with personal attacks and being contentious to the point where they refuse to cooperate in agreeing on what a term means so we can discuss it The burden of proof is on you to define your terms and lay out your premise. I've read this whole thread and you haven't done that. The fact that NO ONE has define Theos shows no one is interested in discussing it and possibly may be basing their personality on denying something they don't even understand I'll repeat myself--you're using the term, you need to define it and give us a reason to discuss it. And I'm pretty certain that noone bases their personality on denying the word "theos". We're atheists, we have no belief any any god, because no evidence has been presented to generate belief.

"The sun exists. Checkmate atheists." The sun is a star, mate. Every single star you see at night is just like the sun. There's nothing special/unique about it. Stars are a simple, common occurrence in the universe.

The stars do not have the same observable life forms the sun has orbiting it. The stars do not travel freely in the sky like the sun they are relatively fixed and they are tiny by the sun and erased by the sun. The sun is unique. The word is Dyeus, the daytime sky, stars aren't even shining then, they're hidden.

“The stars do not have the same observable life forms the sun has orbiting it” Prove it “The stars do not travel freely in the sky like the sun” Prove it “They are relatively fixed” Prove it “They are tiny by the sun and erased by the sun” OBVIOUSLY false. “The sun is unique” OBVIOUSLY false “Stars aren’t even shining then” OBVIOUSLY FALSE This is why no one takes you seriously. All you’ve been posting is a bunch of flowery nonsense sprinkled with OBVIOUSLY FALSE BULLSHIT.

From our view, the stars are not visible when the sunlight is present because it's too bright and hides them, the only things I seen shine while the sun shines is the moon and venus which are not stars. I'm not saying the stars don't exist but rather they're not visible and when they're seen they appear smaller than the sun appears, I'm also saying I only observe life within the solar system and I have never seen life beyond it but if you know of some feel free to show me.

>From our view, the stars are not visible when the sunlight is present because it's too bright and hides them But just because we don't see them, they don't become 'erased', and just because they're further away than our sun, they aren't 'tiny'. Imagine a city full of identical brick buildings. I walk next to one building and all other buildings beyond it get 'erased' because the one I'm next to blocks my view. Surely that doesn't make the building I'm next to 'unique' just because I'm right next to it and it 'seems' the biggest relative to my perspective of other buildings, right?

Yeah I didn't mean they are actually tiny and erased, the whole discussion was about if the sun was unique, he claims it's not unique to detract from my point of it causing the appearance of Dyeus, the origin for Deus, dios and divine. To make it seem like Dyeus also applies to stars is what I'm rejecting. Stars don't create day time and they're never visible during day time. Also to apply a theory unaware to the ones who developed the word also makes no sense, they didn't have a sci enti fic story about the stars being bigger than the sun just really far away, from their perspective it's a big ole sun causing day time and they called it a word that became deus and divine and God. That's what I'm talking about. Everyone is avoiding my point, I'm saying the earliest word that became God was about the sun, to point out the sun being a star in a sci enti fic story doesn't dismiss this is the specific star that causes daylight which is the only thing relevant to the word Dyeus.

> Stars don't create day time and they're never visible during day time. They absolutely do this on planets with atmosphere. Earth isn't unique in this aspect. Our star is the closest one so that is the one that causes it to happen on our planet. Other stars can do this to planets with atmosphere on their own galaxies. And we know that earth isn't the only planet with atmosphere because Mars has a day and night cycle too. > Also to apply a theory unaware to the ones who developed the word also makes no sense, The point isn't that ancient people should have known that our sun is just one of many stars. The point is that your criteria for considering our sun as unique isn't compelling if we look at actual facts. If all you want to say is "ancient people didn't know any better" then sure, but now we do. Language has evolved to consider the word 'god' as not just the sun. > Everyone is avoiding my point, I'm saying the earliest word that became God was about the sun Nobody is avoiding your point. It's just that your point hardly feels relevant to modern day theological discussion. If you ask me today if I'm a bachelor, I'd say 'yes', because I'm an unmarried man, but the root word of bachelor is a Latin word that means 'field hand', and *nobody* that speaks English is ever going to suddenly start using the word to mean 'field hand' unless there is another paradigm shift in language. And by the way, you realize that there are other languages that have a word for 'god' that do not rely on your root word, right? So here's a point that you keep avoiding: why come to atheists about this? Wouldn't this perspective be better shared with theists? > sci enti fic Why do you spell scientific like this?

Stars doing something elsewhere does not create the earth day that inspired the word relevant to discussion. That is an argument I made no claims about irrelevant to what causes the bright sky on Earth . Earth is unique in having life which again is related to the sun unless you can show me life beyond the solar system, I'd be happy to be wrong as I've been waiting for us to discover it. Perhaps we found life and I'm unaware. Feel free to enlighten me. Are these words for God outside the root of shining and sky as early as Dyeus? I found dingir which I found also goes back to the sky with An. If you know a word for a God as early Dyeus not about the sky feel free to enlighten me. You think I don't realize we evolved to consider God as not the sun, I mentioned it in my post with Islam, who says God is creator of the sun, do you agree with that definition of God, perhaps we could discuss it. Is there a debate a theist sub? Perhaps I'll tell them too. Good idea. I spelled sci-enti-fic as it is spelled. That's the spelling.

> Are these words for God outside the root of shining and sky as early as Dyeus? The point is that not every word for god has its roots in the word 'Dyeus'. To assume that it does (or that all words relating to god in every language has its roots in describing the sun) is quite the assumption to make. You are in danger of the black swan fallacy. > Is there a debate a theist sub? Perhaps I'll tell them too. Good idea. r/DebateReligion is a pretty active sub. You could also discuss on more general subs like r/religion >I spelled sci-enti-fic as it is spelled. I've not seen the word spelled with those specific portions of the word hyphenated or separated into separate word portions. Are you trying to emphasize the wordage in some way?

>Stars don't create day time and they're never visible during day time. Some of the very brightest stars such as Sirius can be seen with the naked eye during the daytime, if the conditions are right.

And they also create daytime in their own solar system.

>The stars do not travel freely in the sky like the sun they are relatively fixed and they are tiny by the sun and erased by the sun. Without offense, do you not understand how large distances work? That parallax is a thing? That is two objects move at the same speed, the one further away appears to move slower even though it is not?

Without offense, do you not understand how the word relative works? The stars relatively as in they appear to stay still and follow the same circle while the sun appear to quickly move and makes it own pattern. Why are y'all so contentious and arrogant? You do not need to understand parallax to understand what appears in the sky, it's almost witchcraft the way you use spells (spelled words) to accuse me of stupidity for not invoking your myth about the stars, perhaps I only see my own reality as existent and you as a dream character and your idea of reality as another myth, as opposed to what is observable in the sun being gigantic compared to the stars and being fundamental for life on earth unlike the stars, y'all are talking crazy to affirm your own psychosis of creating an identity centered around denying a cartoon character you created in your mind. Bro look at the meanings of words and let's investigate the truth of what is the foundation of the word Theos?

> Why are y'all so contentious and arrogant? Because you come in here with a poorly thought out linguistic argument that has no bearing on atheism or the existence of God as defined in classical theism? Maybe? >it's almost witchcraft the way you use spells (spelled words) to accuse me of stupidity So language is about spells now. And you wonder why people treat you the way they do here. >perhaps I only see my own reality as existent and you as a dream character and your idea of reality as another myth, as opposed to what is observable in the sun being gigantic compared to the stars and being fundamental for life on earth unlike the stars Perhaps you do. But nobody here is interested in "your own reality". We are interested in a demonstrable reality. >Bro look at the meanings of words and let's investigate the truth of what is the foundation of the word Theos? I did look at the meaning of words and explained to you multiple times that foundations dont mater. Usage matters. You are trying to discuss a dead meaning that is not used anymore because the language it belonged to is not spoken anymore. What is the point? Would you also like to discuss the etymological meaning of words from made up languages while we are at it?

>what is the foundation of the word Theos? I think you have yet to explain why it matters

"The stars do not have the same observable life forms the sun has orbiting it." How do you know? Have you visited every star? Lol "The stars do not travel freely in the sky like the sun they are relatively fixed and they are tiny by the sun and erased by the sun." The sun is also fixed, and has the same size range as other stars. This is basic cosmology. If you gonna use the sun as your argument.... [Maybe learn what the sun is first.](https://www.open.edu/openlearn/science-maths-technology/galaxies-stars-and-planets/content-section-5#:~:text=The%20Sun%20is%20a%20typical,the%20same%20amount%20of%20light.)

Do you realize what observable means? I said we have observed no life around another star, are you aware of a time we have? The idea of sustaining life applies to the realm of one sun alone. I know what the sun is in your myth, I was indoctrinated too, I'm talking the geocentric observable reality where the sun is clearly supreme to us. It's different than the stars. Even in your myth named after the sun-god Helios, the sun is responsible for life on earth not the stars, y'all are making crazy points to dismiss the sun fitting root meanings and embodying what it means to be a sustainer, ruler and influence on life.

"I said we have observed no life around other stars" No you didn't. You said "the stars DO NOT have the same observable life...." Which is very different from "we have not observed no life...." Just because we have never observed life on other planets, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I have never observed life in abbysmal waters, that doesn't mean I should assume it doesn't exist. It just means I never been there/analysed it with the proper tools. With all due respect, on top of presenting pathetic excuses for arguments, you're now twisting your own words once they get debunked as a poor attempt to defend a failed argument. Therefore, continuing to argue with you is utterly pointless, and I'm done here. Better luck next time.

You’re trying to make your argument sound impressive with all the verbal diarrhea you just excreted all over our fine subreddit, but all you’re actually trying to do is define “God” as the star around which our ball of rock revolves. Sol is one of an estimated 200 billion trillion stars in the universe, and a pretty unimpressive one as far as stars go. However since people thousands of years ago didn’t realize that Sol wasn’t anything particularly special, they decided it had to be something supernatural, and you’ve decided to be as willfully ignorant as they were unwillingly because you think that if you shit yourself while declaring it “God,” then you will have proven that God exists. You may as well define your most recent physical bowel movement as “God.” Frankly, your degree effort here stinks. Try again.

This just hurts my feelings man. If I shouldn't use the meaning of Theos as placement or reference Dyeus, what then wouldn't make me get attacked and allow me to have an actual discussion whether Theos exists. Is anyone here willing to engage in discussion or is it just downvotes and personal attacks?

If you don't want to get downvoted, then don't make such a poor-quality argument. The definist fallacy is a very basic logical fallacy.

Magic isn't real Playing word games like a conspiracy theorist doesn't make me more likely to believe in magic That rambling red string corkboard of nonsense doesn't convince me a magic being made the universe

I never implied Theos or Deus was magical or made the universe, I'm going by the meaning I found when looking into the verbs that make the words which both refer to placement and shining. I'm not here to confirm the fantasy character in your mind, I'm here to investigate what Theos originally refers to.

Then what does it matter what fictional magic being some primitives who would be astounded by indoor plumbing mistakenly believed put the sun in the sky? The sun is a huge ball of imploding gas that didn't need anyone to put it anywhere

>I'm here to investigate what Theos originally refers to. No, you aren't. You're using one word in one ancient language as evidence there's a god. >So in conclusion, the Sun is the original divine deus/dios/Dyeus/theos and has always been a God.

What does that have to do with atheism if you are not connecting it to a god (magic)?

>I never implied Theos or Deus was magical or made the universe Then it's irrelevant to atheists, because we all agree the sun exists.

Early people invented the concept of God(s) to explain the world around them. Sun worship is one of the oldest forms of religion. Viewing the origins of contemporary religions in this context makes it clear that it’s all made up.

I'm saying the word Theos and Deus was made to describe the sun specifically. Like how a pen was made to describe the writing utensil. The word pen is made up and so is the word God but what they describe are real. The sun clearly exists as our placer and as a shining in the sky.

OK, great the sun exists. We agree about that. The word Deus describes the sun… I won’t argue about that, but would like to see sources. This is evidence that ancient people worshipped the sun, which is corroborated by other sources. The logical conclusion is that modern religion is derivative from sun worship. We can explain the sun, which is clearly not a god, as one of many stars. If contemporary religion is derived from something wrong, then it must be wrong.

Source for Deus[Source for deus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deus#:~:text=Latin%20deus%20and%20d%C4%ABvus%20(%22divine,Proto%2DIndo%2DEuropean%20pantheon): Read the first paragraph on Deus wiki page about the latin, it comes from Dyeus and referred to the bright sky and the root means shining, it applies to the sun and Dyeus is directly the effect of the sun. The sun is still a God, you just have to let go of that cartoon character in your head of God as some multi-omni person and realize the singular God originally was the sun. This multi-omni person to me is Superman who is also the power of the sun. The sun is still your Theos as in placer, it controls where you live and if you live, it is your giver of life and savior and sustainer and ruler, it just isn't a genie or wish-granter or a judge, it shines on everyone and does what it does regardless of what you got to say. George Carlin is atheist and even he figured it out and said the Sun was God and always there for him but it doesn't answer prayers so he's gonna pray to Joe Pesci, a guy who can get stuff done. Most people who figured out that God originally is the sun become astrotheologists and reinterpret religion as myths about lights in the sky and you'd be surprised how close they match. They say it's not that the ancient were dumb and told literal stories that we now understand metaphorically it's that the ancients told metaphorical stories that later people were dumb enough to take literally!

So, what’s your argument? If you are arguing that myths can be useful, due to metaphor and literary meaning, I agree, but not more than other literature. If you are arguing for the existence of the supernatural, I disagree.

I don't even know what the supernatural is. A phone today is supernatural for the ancient if we mean beyond scientific understanding. A God if it exists does everything by its nature so it's not supernatural, I'm not sure what a supernatural thing would be or if it's even relevant to theos. I'm arguing the sun is Theos, I may have responded to a detracting point and went on a tangent but my argument is just that the sun is Theos going by root meaning. Do you have another meaning for Theos?

Supernatural means *beyond natural*. Just because science doesn’t understand something, doesn’t mean it’s outside of the laws of nature. A creator god would be supernatural, because (s)he created those laws and is not bound by them. The sun is not supernatural. So, again, I’m not clear about your claim. If your claim is about language, then I have nothing to debate. Are you making any claims about the nature of reality?

>my argument is just that the sun is Theos going by root meaning. As far as I'm aware, theos means divine or a god. I can't find any connection where it's used to define the sun. Could you provide some clear sources on how you made that link please?

[The sun is mass of incandescent gas, a gigantic nuclear furnace Where hydrogen is built into helium at a temperature of millions of degrees](https://youtu.be/3JdWlSF195Y?feature=shared) No one placed the sun. The sun does not know we exist. It doesn’t know anything exists. It is not sentient. The sun is a small star in a small galaxy in a vast universe of innumerable thousands of galaxies. Despite that ancient Egyptian cheer — there is only ONE god, he is the SUN god Ra! Ra! Ra! — there is nothing godlike about the sun, and its existence is no proof any gods exist.

"I'm chasing a unicorn." Unicorn is a word. The thing it refers to doesn't exist. Words do not make a thing exist. "She is my sunshine." Sunshine exists. People aren't that, this is metaphor. "The lizard looked at me incredulously." Lizards exist, looks exist, but they don't have expressions like that. This is anthropomorphizing. All you've done is a combination of these things. You've got a word that doesn't mean the thing exists, calling a 'being' sunlight, which is a metaphor, and are giving the sun human-like abilities, anthropomorphizing.

The whole metaphor of calling people sunshine goes back to the sun representing greatness which further proves my point of it as the origin archetype of God. If Theos is not a placer and deus is not a shining, what then does the verbs in Theos and deus mean?

Here's the thing. It doesn't *matter* whether *theos* means "to place" and *dyaeus* means "to shine" (those are true etymologies). People named the concepts they associated with those words that way because that's what they *believed*, not because it's actually true. It's kind of like how we call an animal that is not closely related to a panda a "red panda," or a hat that is originally from Ecuador a "Panama hat," or a legume that is related to peas but is not a nut a "peanut." We name things wrong all the time because our understanding of the concept was dim and got brighter over time.

>Conclusion: The Theos/deity of Dyeus (deus/dios/divine) is the sun, as in the placer of the bright sky is the sun. The terms of originally meant a sky god sure. But that's not what "god" means. For example if I say "Hades is the god of the underworld". I'm obviously not talking about the sun or the sky.  Obviously also none of the major religions think the sun is a god. I don't deny it's the origin of the word but it's pretty much irrelevant to philosophy of religion. 

Hinduism isn't a major religion? It's the 3rd biggest and the single most oldest living religion, thats not major? They don't have the sun as a God? But thank you for conceding the origin of the word refers to the sun/sky. What then is the modern meaning of Theos relevant to philosophy of religion?

Calling a burning ball of gas a "god" doesn't make it one. Rejected on the premise of this argument being stupid as fuck.

If Theos doesn't mean placing and deus doesn't mean shining, then provide evidence of what the words mean? Also, I'm not using God only as an English translation of Theos and Deus, this discussion is about Theos and Deus, what do they mean if not the placer or shining one?

Who fucking cares? I'm fairly certain that none of us come here to argue etymology, which is completely irrelevant when discussing faith and the lack thereof. Does the origin of a word help to prove any gods? If so, please share that information or fuuuuuuuuuuck right off.

>So in conclusion, the Sun is the original divine deus/dios/Dyeus/theos and has always been a God.

[удалено]

The sun is real and it's energetic transmissions are responsible for the formation and development of what we call life.  It is a "God" but that word is a misnomer.  It is merely a being whose intelligence transcends our own to such a degree that it's comprehension can really only be grasped abstractly while in this form.  Like insects trying to comprehend rocket science, we really aren't designed to comprehend the nature of this beings objectives and such.

> The sun is real and it's energetic transmissions are responsible for the formation and development of what we call life. One of many things and events responsible, yup. > It is a "God" Nope, as it clearly doesn't match the typical meaning and usage of that word, and the inherent implicit attributes contained within, this can't be accepted. >It is merely a being whose intelligence transcends our own to such a degree that it's comprehension can really only be grasped abstractly while in this form. Unsupported and contradicted by all available evidence. Dismissed. That's a bit like saying the pixels making up the letters of the words you're reading now mean pixels can read. They can't. Emergent properties are a thing. >Like insects trying to comprehend rocket science, we really aren't designed to comprehend the nature of this beings objectives and such. Unsupported. Fatally problematic. Attempts to reverse the burden of proof. Thus dismissed.

[удалено]

I can only state that all life and intelligence as we define it develops only through the medium of light emitted by the being known as the sun.   Without the sun no intelligent activity is possible, so far as we definite it.   All vegetable and animal life and the activities of all nervous systems thus have as their prerequisite biological mechanisms capable of channeling and concentrating the qualities present within the suns rays.   Perhaps one of those qualities is in fact intelligence. 

You're invoking the same kind of equivocation and definist fallacies as did the OP. No, that can only be rejected.

[удалено]

In a matter of speaking.  But carbon isn't transmitted like light is. I mean we as a species already transmit all of our intelligence in the form of a wireless radiation that saturates our environments and when received directs our activities.  We can also transmit information directly through light. Is it absurd to assume that on the distant future "we" or some intelligent force will continue this trend on a far greater scale utilizing technologies presently unfathomable?

>Dyeus was a word for the bright day sky Where did you get the "bright day" part from? I cant find it in any of the dictionaries explaining the etymology of this word.

First sentence of wiki page for the word https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/*Dy%C4%93us

Yeah but that meaning is not the original one is it, it is borrowed from an older one [dyḗws](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/dy%E1%B8%97ws) meaning sky, heaven sky god, Dyeus No mention of a bright day anywhere.

Good find, what I was looking at kept saying shining. If we then apply Theos meaning placer to deus meaning the sky, what would be the placer of the sky, not the brightness but the sky itself? I concede the sun doesn't place the sky itself just the brightness of it. What then would be theos?

> What then would be theos? Maybe you need to take a step back and explain why the word theos is important and why the definition as it is used currently is insufficient.

Okay... The Sun physically exists That in no way validates or provides ANY evidence for ANY supernatural or theistic claims relating to or relying upon the physical existence of the Sun >If so let's begin the new argument of what is Theos, how do we know that's what Theos is and what can this description apply to? Would the sun still be theos? Thanks for demonstrating that you are unwilling to clearly define your own terms and that you are only interested in playing at Equivocation Fallacies

What does supernatural have to do with anything? It is theistic because I used the actual meaning of Theos which is placement. Me allowing the opportunity for others to change the definition shows I am open-minded and want to be talking about the same thing. Again, what is Theos so we can discuss whether it exists.

>It is theistic because I used the actual meaning of Theos which is placement. I'm asking you again for a source on this, because I can't find anything the defines theos that way.

Why should we tacitly accept your definition? Why can’t I simply reject your definition and supplant it with one of my own? After all, that’s exactly what you are attempting to do.

You can't reason about reality from the language used to describe it. It's like saying you have legs, and a table has legs, so you shouldn't scratch your leg because you might get splinters

I can look up meanings of words and when I identify things that fit the description, conclude it's the word. That's all I did. I didn't go on further to say because God does X the Sun does X like your table example. All I'm doing is saying a placer is a placer, a shining is a shining.

Then your argument only talks about language and not about reality. It has nothing to do with atheism. Go to r/debateLinguists, they'll be more interested in it than we are

Our reality is literally dictated by language. We only know a thing exists because we identify it as separate and put a name on it, otherwise we're all just the universe. The whole identity of an atheist is about language, you're negating a word. What does this word mean in reality? What would be a Theos in reality? If it has no meaning, your entire identity has no meaning and this is a sub of trolls

“Our reality is dictated by language” OBVIOUSLY FALSE, reality existed before language you absolute knob “We only know a thing exists because we identify it as separate AND put a name on it” OBVIOUSLY FALSE, reality existed before language “The whole identity of an atheist is about language, you’re negating a word” OBVIOUSLY FALSE, and frankly really offensive. For someone that pretends to care about etymology and words so much, you fail spectacularly at using them, understanding what they mean, and how language functions.

Everything you said relied on language. Obviously I know there is reality beyond words thanks for assuming I was unaware and misunderstanding me but to further clarify what I meant, all of this God, atheist, stuff is a bunch of words and none of it exists unless someone is using language. It's all just words bro. God is a word, atheist is a word. You can't identify as atheist without using words If words didn't exist, there would be no atheists

Atheists OBVIOUSLY existed before language and words. You are equivocating the word and label “atheist” with the concept of “not believing in god” “If words didn’t exist there would be no atheists” This is where you’re equivocating. Correct: If words didn’t exist there would be no beings labeling themselves as atheist. Incorrect: if words didn’t exist there would be no atheists. You are INCREDIBLY sloppy with your language. Which is why this entire thread has been a massacre of pointlessness and confusion. The concept of food existed before we labeled those things as food. Amoebas consume things, yet have no word for it.

>If it has no meaning, your entire identity has no meaning and this is a sub of trolls This is pretty antagonistic, not to mention entirely untrue. You seem to be making a link that one must accept a particular definition of "theos" in order to be an atheist. While Atheist shares a root with theos, that doesn't create the direct relationship you're referring to. Modern defintions of atheist center around the lack of belief in a diety. I'm sure you know this, but in Latin, "a-" as a prefix means lack or anti. We've already established that "theos" means deity, but it's also the root of "theism" and "theist". Therefore atheist means lack of god or lack of theism/theist. But the difficult part for me to see here is that you seem overly concerned that people understand what theos means with regard to atheism, but are completely losing track that your OP is about the sun being a god because of how you've interpreted words from 2 different ancient languages.

>If it has no meaning, your entire identity has no meaning and this is a sub of trolls Again, our entire identity is not based solely around the fact that we don't believe in any gods, that is, for quite a few of us if not most of us, a very small part of our identity.

I have no reason to believe that the sun is an agent, intelligent, or created anything. I see no reason to worship it or call it god. WHAT IS YOUR POINT?

What is YOUR point? Why are you mentioning agency, intelligence and creation when we're discussing the word Theos? Can you show a direct correlation like I can with placement? What does Theos mean? Break down the word and show how it isn't to do or to put or to place.

Because we’re talking about god? My point is that, in the modern era, God is an agent. If you’re just wanting to say that in the past people worshipped the sun, congrats, no one gives a fuck. If you want to say that god isn’t an agent, congrats, no one gives a fuck. You might as well tell me that ancient people with a fundamental misunderstanding of the cosmos worshipped a pinecone. Why should anyone care about the word Theos? I don’t care about that word at all. That’s why I asked, WHAT IS THE POINT?

Congrats, you’ve proved the sun exists. We have a perfectly good word for sun, it’s called the sun. It even has a name, Sol… That doesn’t mean god exists. We don’t need to attach such baggage to the sun, now we actually know what it is. The Latin name for the Indian rhinoceros is rhinoceros unicornis, yes unicorn, and yes they exist… That doesn’t mean the mythological unicorns exist.

I agree that the sun exists. If you define god as the sun then that is fine. But the sun doesn’t write books or speak or see the future or have thoughts or create things (aside from some base elements and heat and light) or anything that people think of when they think of a god.

I have a dog named bigfoot, therefore bigfoot exists. qed Sure, but you're just not talking about the same concept as everyone else in the debate.

The sun exists. Just because someone called the sun a god doesn't make the sun a god. It just makes the people who called the sun a god idiots.

>The only modern major (over 5%) religion where the sun isn't God or God isn't the sun or sun-like is Islam   >Thus Allah is the theos of the theos of dyeus. Ýou will need to explain this leap, because this does not logically follow.

People worshipped the sun therefore Islam is true? You're going to need to walk me over that as if I'm 5 years old, because I can't see how those ideas are related at all.

> If so let's begin the new argument of what is Theos. You already answered this question. According to your definitions, it is the Sun. What word should we use to describe the idea that there is a powerful being that created the universe and cares where we stick our genitalia? Because the whatever that thing is, it's not merely "the Sun". How does this kind of reasoning move the conversation forward, though? We already had a set of words that mean things. Why change them?

We have a word for those who care about actions and decree punishments for them, it's called a judge, why change it to God? What is the trait exclusive to the word God?

Agreed. Comedian George Carlin was a sun worshiper because (unlike sone gods) you can see his. Unless it's night, or cloudy.

Yep. The sun exists. The sun doesn't have a personality, doesn't make decisions, doesn't take actions, and only has "power" insofar as the chemical reactions going on inside it expel energy. It's not a god, no matter the etymology of any word. Discussion over? Good.

The sun is real. It's a star. We have mountains of evidence it exists, and have even sent probes close to it that have given us so much interesting information about the nature of it. God's are not real. They are made up myths and legends by those with no idea of how reality works, trying to explain it. At best they myths are fun stories. At worst...well look at the nonsense people push on others....

With all due respect, I think arguing based on definitions of "god" vs. "sun" is a waste of everyone's time. Proving that the early etymology of the word was based on a physical object that exists doesn't change the fact that they're related because early humans thought the sun and moon were gods and thus magic. The sun may exist both in real life and as the root of the concept of divinity but that doesn't make it a magical being and it really doesn't prove the existence of magical beings. Lots and lots of words have very unexpected and intriguing etymologies, but when it comes down to it, those roots just tell us about how they were conceptualized at earlier points of human development. Nothing more.

Welcome to the evolution of language. Like sure, if you want to play the language game I am perfectly fine and won't even bother to double check your root word stuff at the start. I will even grant sure all that history about what people believed. So the sun! Well we have astronomers which examine it. That is how we know what it is.

If you define the sun as a god and attribute to it no consciousness, agency or supernatural powers, and regard it as just a giant ball of fire we orbit around, then, yes, I believe in your god. Is that really the god you worship, though? Almost nobody else does, so I'm not sure what the point of this debate is.

Yes, if you redefine "God" to mean "potato," then clearly gods exist. And if you redefine "God" to mean "sun" then God exists. This is known as the definist fallacy.

Can you prove the Sun was “placed”? As far as I can tell, the sun is just a star, its creation and location is simply a result of natural processes. 

Can you provide a source that supports Premise 4: The root of Theos and deity refers to placement? I cannot find anything that identifies Theos as anything other than god, or anything that refers to placement. Thank you.

The sun is a mass of incandescent gas. It's a giant nuclear furnace where hydrogen is built into helium at tempuratures of millions of degrees. 

Yes the sun is a God.  It is in fact an intelligent organism which transmits instructions which guide the development of planets through the medium of light .  It does not shine stupidly but it's rays are more of an irresistible song which matter dances to.   It is in fact a more evolved / mature version of the very planetary being we ourselves exist as now.  In truth we will become a star.  And we ourselves will one day become such a being and communicate through light in order to guide other planets through their pupal stages.  All nouns are really vast collections of verbs.   Which hunts at the fact that all things are really communication of the verbal sort transmitted by a higher intelligence.   Hence why the one verse is our word for the totally amalgamation of all reality.  Uni Verse.  And why beings described Biblically are called the word.   All we are is a transient vibration within the medium of existence, which is a reverberation of the communication of the one true divinities will.