The etymology of God comes from the proto-germanic word for “that which is invoked”.
Which is not a bad term to use for a supreme being; so why don’t I like it?
Perhaps it is the sound: too short, too round, too hard. It should rhyme with cod, sod, mod, rod, but doesn’t; the vowel-sound is lengthened unlike any word I can find (in Australian English, mind you).
It stands alone, doesn’t fit, which could be fitting for the subject.
But the word of our ancestor’s faith is Deus. Deus from the same root as Zeus, both from a root that means to gleam or shine, God being the shining thing.
Familiarity breeds contempt. Perhaps “God” is an invocation now so worn from over and mis-use it no longer shines?
In via negativa fashion we don’t have to give it a name. “The name which can be named is not the eternal name”. And when denoting an ineffable transcendent reality, a name is only as good as its power to invoke the thing named, or as a reminder of what it is and what it isn’t.
It’s hard to go beyond “I am He who is”.
We are supposed to go beyond concepts, let alone beyond names. So there’s no problem in not liking “God”, when what we really don’t like is centuries of accretion, familiarity, worldly meaning and false piety. The more important thing is to know what we’re naming, whether and however we name it or not.