[Merged] What's wrong with this definition of God: maker of heaven and earth and everything? [Archive] - Page 5

yrreg

8th January 2010, 02:39 PM

Originally Posted by yrreg
You mean then that matter has always been around.
As long as there has been time, there has been matter.

Originally Posted by yrreg
In which case do you also admit that something else was also around with matter, or it is only matter and nothing else?

As long as there has been time, there has been matter.

There's no evidence of anything else.

You mean you don't have any evidence you know about that there is anything else present with matter, and matter has been always around.

Logically you cannot deny that there is anything else present aside from matter.

Of course you can insist that no one either can affirm that there is something around with matter.

So, we can take it from what you admit that matter has always been around, and prescind from the question which you cannot answer because you have no evidence so far as you are concerned, namely, that aside from matter there is something else present.

You say that matter has always been around.

Is it one matter that has always existed or more than one matter?

Yrreg

Paulhoff

8th January 2010, 02:46 PM

A very good video posted by Aepervius

5wV_REEdvxo

Watch it a few times until you understand it yrreg.

Paul

:) :) :)

yrreg

8th January 2010, 02:50 PM

As long as there has been time, there has been matter.

There's no evidence of anything else.

Sorry, dave, I forgot to mention that you also say, "As long as there has been time, there has been matter."

In which case there has always been aside from matter, time.

So, you maintain that there have always been time and matter, and you have no evidence of anything else.

We can take it from there that matter and time have always existed.

I like to address my question to you again:

Is that matter one matter or there are other matters?

And as regards time, is that time composed of splices of time or it is one time all the time?

I want to honestly thank you that you have not taken the path of bringing in the Flying Spaghetti Monster,

Yrreg

8th January 2010, 03:24 PM

I'll answer this for you.

Yrreg believes that if he can get atheists to admit belief in a concept, and not object to his arbitrary labeling of it as "god", he will have proven that atheists really do believe in God, and are denying it in order to practice guiltless masturbation.I'd kinda guessed that was the idea, I just wondered if Yrreg could be honest enough to admit it.

No, he won't admit it. But it is what he's trying to do.

He created a thread on random mutation in evolution, (which wound up in the science sub-forum) which in the end became a pretense to argue that randomness is the atheist's god.

Mashuna

8th January 2010, 03:34 PM

7. [bingo voice] All the fours : socratic discourse [/voice]

8. What made the rain, what made the snow? Atheists can't answer "I don't know".

ElightenMe

8th January 2010, 03:50 PM

I wanted to start a new topic on atheists cannot escape the God of reason, but the God of devotion, most probably yes because they do exercise free choice.

That is a new approach to the study of atheists, but as can be already seen by readers here who are not atheists they don't want to talk about anything except what they claim that God is no different from the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

And readers here who are not atheists, when you go into the psychological profile of atheists as writers on no God, they will accuse you of being ad hominem and insulting them.

Isn't human behavior all human psychology, unless you want to treat human behavior as akin to the programmed robot.

Here is one trait with atheists who care to discuss about God or no God, they will eventually bring in the "we don't know" card, by which they mean in the last analysis they don't know anything by which God can be accessed from empirical avenues of knowledge.

For example, what comes before the Big Bang, they will insist they don't know nothing or cannot know anything, therefore end of discussion.

If you go further they will complain that you are too proud to claim to any capacity or propensity to speculate on what brought about the Big Bang.

Try asking them this question, and see whether they will come forth with a straight answer:

Has matter always been around from the very beginning or there was something before the appearance of matter?

Yrreg
Wrong. The insistence is that the research is currently in progress, therefore any speculation is just pointless.

Your question is flawed because it makes the assumption of a beginning.

ElightenMe

8th January 2010, 03:56 PM

Are you cyborg an atheist?

That is one question.

This is my next question:

Do you admit that matter has not always been around?

Yrreg

Second question as invalid. By usage of the word "admit", you are implying that the subject of your question is true.

Do you admit that matter (or energy) has always been around?

ElightenMe

8th January 2010, 03:57 PM

There has never been a time when there wasn't matterenergy.

:)

ElightenMe

8th January 2010, 03:59 PM

As long as there has been time, there has been matterenergy.

There's no evidence of anything else.

:)

ElightenMe

8th January 2010, 04:02 PM

Sorry, dave, I forgot to mention that you also say, "As long as there has been time, there has been matter."

In which case there has always been aside from matter, time.

So, you maintain that there have always been time and matter, and you have no evidence of anything else.

We can take it from there that matter and time have always existed.

I like to address my question to you again:

Is that matter one matter or there are other matters?

And as regards time, is that time composed of splices of time or it is one time all the time?

I want to honestly thank you that you have not taken the path of bringing in the Flying Spaghetti Monster,

Yrreg

Strawman. He never said time always existed.

Hokulele

8th January 2010, 07:20 PM

And as regards time, is that time composed of splices of time or it is one time all the time?

Why? Are you trying to reinvent calculus this week?

ElightenMe

8th January 2010, 09:32 PM

Why? Are you trying to reinvent calculus this week?

Surely not possible? Math requires logic! :p

bruto

8th January 2010, 09:39 PM

Strawman. He never said time always existed.Well, there's never been a time that it didn't! Or maybe there was a time when there wasn't time, but that's all right because it didn't matter.

cyborg

9th January 2010, 07:03 AM

Are you cyborg an atheist?

I have no god.

Do you admit that matter has not always been around?

No, I do not admit such a fact.

arthwollipot

10th January 2010, 05:28 PM

Is it one matter that has always existed or more than one matter?You've asked this question several times, yrreg. Exactly what do you mean by "more than one matter"? Matter is a category, not a thing that can be enumerated (look that one up).

There is matter. There are many, many matter particles, of various kinds. But they're still all matter. Not all of them individually have always existed - particles can be created and destroyed, but from a time approximately 3 minutes after the so-called "big bang", there have always been particles.

And yes, I'm sorry, but those who are claiming that matter has always existed are mostly wrong. Before there was matter, there was energy - temperature and pressure were too high for particles to exist. It was only after baryogenesis that the universe had conditions for matter to exist.

godless dave

11th January 2010, 03:28 AM

Sorry, dave, I forgot to mention that you also say, "As long as there has been time, there has been matter."

In which case there has always been aside from matter, time.

So, you maintain that there have always been time and matter, and you have no evidence of anything else.

We can take it from there that matter and time have always existed.

No. Time and matter have existed for approximately 13.7 billion years.

I like to address my question to you again:

Is that matter one matter or there are other matters?

And as regards time, is that time composed of splices of time or it is one time all the time?

Neither of those questions make any sense.

babbits

11th January 2010, 01:28 PM

Gerry is just fascinated by atheists.

But he/she doesn't understand us. Like the origin (if any) of the universe, he/she feels compelled to explain us. But can't.

So why not just call us 'God'?

That's a nice handy label to tack onto 'that which we don't understand'.

babbits

11th January 2010, 01:38 PM

Having just explained the origin of the word 'god', I will now explain the origin of 'religion':

Caveperson #1: "I wonder what started all this stuff going on all around us?"

Caveperson #2: "I don't know. Pass the dinosaur drumstick."

Caveperson #1: "Well somebody musta done it. Some really big strong smart caveperson. His name is god. And in return for giving you that inspired insight, I will keep the drumstick. And from now on I want 10% of every drumstick. And I won't go out hunting, either. It's too damp and cold, and there are nasty things with big sharp teeth. So you can do the dirty dangerous work. I'll just stay here by the fire, eating, and collecting my 10% and continue giving you inspired enlightenment.

"My next enlightenment will deal with 'morality', which is what you must do so as not to offend god. Be aware that my well-being will feature prominently in the revelation."

dafydd

11th January 2010, 01:56 PM

babbits

11th January 2010, 02:24 PM

Seriously, though, Gerry, and in a (rare) spirit of benevolence, I will explain something to you. While not pretending to speak for all atheists, I can speak for one.

Let's define 'the universe' as all that exists and all that ever existed, including me.

I don't understand or 'know' the universe. I don't think anyone else does, either. Many things about it seem very weird. And I have a strong hunch that I don't know the half of how weird it is.

I have a stronger hunch that even if someone explained it to me, I wouldn't understand.

My brain, a product of a very minute part of the universe that I call the 'local universe', has equipped me only with the necessary senses and data processing organs to help me survive for a brief instant in time, probably less than a century, in the body in which my consciousness resides.

I can define, but not 'understand', even such a familiar phenomenon as the Northern Lights.

My brain does not equip me to understand the whole universe, past and present, and its origin, if any.

I'd need a whole new set of sense organs, for example including a sense that can detect past activities. This sense would mean that I could track and interpret light rays that have been traveling away from earth for at least the past six thousand years. If I had such a sense organ, I could 'see' if the Lord created the universe or not. If it was much as it is now, complete with plants and animals and an ocean, and no dinosaurs, then I would know that the O.T. is full of crap. All I know now is that it 'seems' full of crap.

I don't know how the universe began All I know for sure is it's there. Did it have a predecessor? Then that 'predecessor' was just a stage the universe was going through.
Maybe it always was. Why not? Who can show that it did not always exist? That it always existed is no more absurd than that a big man with magical powers built it.

Is 'eternal' a satisfactory description of the universe? For me, sure. Because I'm much more interested in things I can find out than in things I can't find out.

And why is either concept, eternal universe or eternal 'big magic man', absurd? Because we can't imagine anything always existing. Universe or big magic man. Though the majority of people seem more comfortable with the 'big magic man' theory, for some reason.

But because we can't imagine something, does that mean it cannot exist?

I am too humble to believe that just because I can't understand something means that it's not possible.

Many theists, I note, are not as humble as I am.

So until I have reliable information about the 'time before' the universe existed, I will take all claims made by other humans about what existed then as unproven.

babbits

11th January 2010, 02:46 PM

So, Gerry, the final part of this exposition is as follows:

An atheist is someone who prefers the 'eternal universe' explanation to the 'eternal big magic man' explanation.

A theist isn't.

Science doesn't give me any absolute truths. I'm quite prepared psychologically, to receive the shocking news that something can travel faster than light. It will just show me that yet another model of 'how things work' was not quite adequate.

I quite believe that Science (as a discipline) is arrogant. Still, I trust the method -- as long as it is dealing with testable phenomena. I feel that some of the 'theories' of modern physics would more appropriately be called 'hypotheses'.

But I totally reject the 'theory' that a big magic eternal man created everything, and cares deeply that I sometimes masturbate, because it is an infantile notion, and the system that flows from it is clearly designed by people who want to control and exploit me.

(Although some of the cooler notions of religion were likely 'described' by well-meaning and perfectly sincere people suffering from delusional disorders.)

The first part of the views above show that I am a skeptic. But it is the last one that shows I am an atheist.

As for the promise of eternal life in some disembodied form, I got over that one when I was a child; about the same time that I realized, the last time I prayed, that I was essentially talking to myself.

Christian Klippel

11th January 2010, 05:58 PM

So, you maintain that there have always been time and matter, and you have no evidence of anything else.

We can take it from there that matter and time have always existed.

As much as you like to take it from there, fact is that you simply can't do that. "Time" is something that exists here, in this universe. But it is "just" a property of it. It is a dimension, just as space has spatial dimensions. And it came into existence for this universe at the very moment this universe came into existence.

Just because our universe is the way it is does not mean that this has to be the same for any other universe.

The points you are arguing can be turned around against you by simply swapping the word "atheist" with "theist" and vice versa. You fail to understand the points that people make, and try to book that as a win for you. But that's not how things work. If you fail to understand something, it means just that. You failed. It does in no way imply that the others are wrong.

For example, what is you definition of "nothing"? Is it like the vacuum of empty space? In that case, well, sorry but there isn't "nothing" there. Quite the contrary.

Take a look at this video and try to understand what Krauss has to say on this topic it before you talk about the universe:

7ImvlS8PLIo

So yes, it is quite possible that it came from "nothing". In any case, your need to explain things with the need of having a creator has a very huge problem. It may explain for _you_ how things are, but in fact it explains exactly nothing. Instead it shifts the question one level higher.

You can not accept that the universe is simply there? You need a creator for that? Well then, what created the creator? Your argument that the universe can not come from "nothing" would be true also for your creator. Such a creator could not come from "nothing" as well. If you deny that, and insist that such e being could simply exist, then the same holds true for this universe. It could simply exist.

So far, you utterly fail in logic. But then, that's no surprise for the religious indoctrinated people like you.

yrreg

17th July 2010, 03:15 PM

Fascinating concept. Care to prove it?

And even *if* you were to prove it, have you really thought about what kind of god that would be? it would have created the forces that allowed the universe to form and then left it running. In other words, to such a god we are nothing but an insignificantly small set of chemical reactions running shortly in a minor part of his universe that could be removed without any consequence to said universe.
Somehow I doubt that is how you see god.
But by claiming a god runs the universe by creating the observed forces, you are also claiming that god does not care about mercy, justice, love, kindness or any other of the attributes theists claim it has, as none of those are observable forces in the universe.

First, we must come to the concept and existence of God as maker of everything.

What I call the necessary being creator of everything with a beginning.

Then we will work out what is His business with us, which us is also made by Him.

I would love to continue with you on the topic of this thread.

Yrreg

RoboTimbo

17th July 2010, 03:39 PM

First, we must come to the concept and existence of God as maker of everything.

You've done that one to death.

What I call the necessary being creator of everything with a beginning.

Then we will work out what is His business with us, which us is also made by Him.

No we won't. You may define him however you like, all of his attributes. Then we will discuss whether such a thing exists.

So, I'll start. Are you defining your god as just the beginning of the universe with no more attributes to it?

yrreg

17th July 2010, 03:49 PM

Hi Yrreg. You started this thread asking us what our ideas are concerning the Universe. There are some who believe that the Universe had a beginning and that before that beginning there was nothing. In M-theory, this Universe is one of many, and the event we call the Big Bang was the result of membranes colliding with one another; where each “universe” grows off of another like so many bubbles. This would mean that what we call the “Big Bang” was the result of the death of a previous universe, part of an infinitely old cycle of collapses and rebirths. This would mean that there is an infinite number of “universes” where all possibilities are expressed (the “many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics”).

Besides Steven Hawking, Nobel Laureates Murray Gell-Mann, Richard Feynman and Steven Weinberg think the Many-Worlds Interpretation is true.

The possibility of a “multiverse” exists, which contains an infinite number of alternative universes with no beginning and no end. The discovery of dark energy has opened up this idea, and even Edward Witten, a theorist at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton and creator of the M-theory in quantum physics string theory, is coming around to the idea of dark energy and its implications. Perhaps dark energy will eventually cause the conditions that will lead to the “big crunch,” where the Universe will contract in on itself to start another “big bang” that will lead to inflation in a never-ending cycle of infinite universes.

This is what happens when physicists combine eternal inflation with string theory; they see a multiverse with ten to the ten thousandth power types of exponentially large universes split into many worlds co-existing side by side. Many of these scientists are blurring the lines between physics and mysticism.

Perhaps our limited intelligence is unable to grasp the nature of “reality,” and the true nature of our Universe is and will always be unknown. But maybe we do exist in a multiverse, continuously formed through the collapse of giant stars and the formation of black holes where each black hole contains a new point of singularity and a new possible universe; or by the collision between membranes in a space with eleven or twenty-six dimensions.

Who or what is in charge of it all? My guess would be that we are, as a collective consciousness that creates what we think of as matter and energy. But that’s just a guess. I really don’t know.

I submit that your message can very well fit into the totality of existence.

Let scientists speculate all they want, they can't still not get out of the totality of existence, except to pretend to not think about it.

In that totality of existence we humans are also situated and the sun we see arising on the eastern horizon, and also extinct species once upon a time now extinct.

So, we can just leap to the question that an intelligent mind asks, is there a part that exists all the time and in all the space?

You say:

Who or what is in charge of it all? My guess would be that we are, as a collective consciousness that creates what we think of as matter and energy. But that’s just a guess. I really don’t know.

I can take that, the collective consciousness; when we die we will continue in the collective consciousness, do I read you correctly?

That is some collective consciousness not incompatible with a necessary being creator of everything that has a beginning.

Now, we just have to do some needed polishing on the idea.

I would love to continue this idea with you.

Yrreg

Paulhoff

17th July 2010, 04:16 PM

First, we must come to the concept and existence of God as maker of everything.
Which so-called god are you talking about, not that bible one I hope, his a a loser, his solution to everything is death.

Paul

:) :) :)

GeeMack

17th July 2010, 04:16 PM

First, we must come to the concept and existence of God as maker of everything.
You've done that one to death.

Indeed. Quintessential spam. But since it's okay with the admins, I guess it's okay with me. :p

Don't you have any new material, Gerardo?

Paulhoff

17th July 2010, 04:31 PM

So, what does having a so-called god explain, since that so-called god can be anything even a child can think of.

Paul

:) :) :)

yrreg

17th July 2010, 04:33 PM

Originally Posted by RoboTimbo
Originally Posted by yrreg
First, we must come to the concept and existence of God as maker of everything. You've done that one to death. Indeed. Quintessential spam. But since it's okay with the admins, I guess it's okay with me.

Don't you have any new material, Gerardo?

When you have thought about the concept of necessary being maker of everything that has a beginning with total open mindedness, up to death, then you will come to know wisdom.

Think about the concept of necessary being maker of everything with a beginning, think of it up to death, instead of relying on the regurgitations of self-blindered men who cannot even comprehend the idea of thing from itself and thing from another.

Yrreg

yrreg

17th July 2010, 04:36 PM

So, what does having a so-called god explain, since that so-called god can be anything even a child can think of.

Paul

:) :) :)

That is why you have got to be like children to enter into wisdom.

You have been conditioned to not ask all the questions that children ask, because of fear.

Now, work on your fear.

Yrreg

Paulhoff

17th July 2010, 04:58 PM

When you have thought about the concept of necessary being maker of everything that has a beginning with total open mindedness, up to death, then you will come to know wisdom.
Having a so-called god is wisdom, there are a lot of children with wisdom then.

Paul

:) :) :)

Paulhoff

17th July 2010, 05:02 PM

That is why you have got to be like children to enter into wisdom.

You have been conditioned to not ask all the questions that children ask, because of fear.

Now, work on your fear.

Yrreg
You buy into that old saying too, why not you have a small so-called god. Now work on your fear and let go of your childish so-called god that explains nothing.

Paul

:) :) :)

Sun Countess

17th July 2010, 05:23 PM

Okay, today, two lessons, totality of existence and things exist anything.
Does somebody have a yrreg-to-English translator? What does things exist anything mean? Exist is not a transitive verb.
That is why you have got to be like children to enter into wisdom. Wrong. Wisdom comes with age; it's not something that we lose as we mature and develop language and critical thinking skills.

You have been conditioned to not ask all the questions that children ask, because of fear.

Now, work on your fear.
Wrong. I asked childish questions when I was a child. If I want to know something, I'm not going to ask a child how I should phrase my question, and I'm certainly not going to think that a childish question is somehow weightier or meatier than one that I could ask on my own.

What exactly do you think anybody here is afraid of? And didn't you get the answers to your child-like questions when you were an actual child? Get the answers, and move on, man. Why are you so afraid of intellectual progress?

Complexity

17th July 2010, 06:33 PM

First, we must come to the concept and existence of god as maker of everything.

What I call the necessary being creator of everything with a beginning.

Then we will work out what is his business with us, which us is also made by him.

There is no god, there was no creation, nothing was made.

Your idea of what is necessary is wrong.

'We' will work nothing out, for nearly all of us disagree with you.

Something that does not exist has no 'business' with us.

tsig

17th July 2010, 09:38 PM

I submit that your message can very well fit into the totality of existence.

Let scientists speculate all they want, they can't still not get out of the totality of existence, except to pretend to not think about it.

In that totality of existence we humans are also situated and the sun we see arising on the eastern horizon, and also extinct species once upon a time now extinct.

So, we can just leap to the question that an intelligent mind asks, is there a part that exists all the time and in all the space?

You say:

I can take that, the collective consciousness; when we die we will continue in the collective consciousness, do I read you correctly?

That is some collective consciousness not incompatible with a necessary being creator of everything that has a beginning.

Now, we just have to do some needed polishing on the idea.

I would love to continue this idea with you.

Yrreg

Let's all polish the god.

Lukraak_Sisser

17th July 2010, 11:09 PM

First, we must come to the concept and existence of God as maker of everything.

What I call the necessary being creator of everything with a beginning.

Then we will work out what is His business with us, which us is also made by Him.

I would love to continue with you on the topic of this thread.

Yrreg

Well no, first you'd have to prove there IS a god that made everything as opposed to a god made up by primitive humans that could not explain the universe any other way and whose worship has been fixed by tradition and coercion.

Then you'd have to prove that said god actually in any way still interacts with the universe

Then you'd ahve to prove that this interaction stretches to manipulating life on this planet

Once you've proven all of that then you can try to prove that this god cares about humanity over the rest of life

And then and only then can you try to prove that your particular way of worshipping/interpreting god is actually the right way.

And no, the bible nor any other 'holy' text are admissable as proof, as they've clearly been written by humans for humans and been altered by humans to fit the current political need.

Mojo

18th July 2010, 01:43 AM

First, we must come to the concept and existence of God as maker of everything.

Turtles ahoy!

yrreg

18th July 2010, 02:53 AM

Well no, first you'd have to prove there IS a god that made everything as opposed to a god made up by primitive humans that could not explain the universe any other way and whose worship has been fixed by tradition and coercion.

Then you'd have to prove that said god actually in any way still interacts with the universe

Then you'd ahve to prove that this interaction stretches to manipulating life on this planet

Once you've proven all of that then you can try to prove that this god cares about humanity over the rest of life

And then and only then can you try to prove that your particular way of worshipping/interpreting god is actually the right way.

And no, the bible nor any other 'holy' text are admissable as proof, as they've clearly been written by humans for humans and been altered by humans to fit the current political need.

The proof is in the necessary inference from the totality of existence which totality has also parts transient in their duration of existence.

If you cannot learn by inference from looking at your nose, then I guess you are not qualified to ask questions about proof.

Because you could not see it, the proof, even though you have I hope a nose in your face.

Yrreg

dafydd

18th July 2010, 04:04 AM

The proof is in the necessary inference from the totality of existence which totality has also parts transient in their duration of existence.

If you cannot learn by inference from looking at your nose, then I guess you are not qualified to ask questions about proof.

Because you could not see it, the proof, even though you have I hope a nose in your face.

Yrreg

Most people have a nose on their face.Is English your first language? Do you know somebody who can translate your posts into something comprehensible?

Dancing David

18th July 2010, 04:56 AM

That is why you have got to be like children to enter into wisdom.

You have been conditioned to not ask all the questions that children ask, because of fear.

Now, work on your fear.

Yrreg

Here is a childlike question,

How could you tell?

If a universe that has an operator looks exactly like one without?

Gee Unca Yrreg, how could you tell the difference?

Lukraak_Sisser

18th July 2010, 06:01 AM

The proof is in the necessary inference from the totality of existence which totality has also parts transient in their duration of existence.

That sentence makes absolutely no sense at all. Really, it means nothing in english

If you cannot learn by inference from looking at your nose, then I guess you are not qualified to ask questions about proof.

I find it very hard to look at my nose except in a mirror, but I'm guessing you mean that because I do not accept your premise of 'god exists' that I should not ask if god exists, because only those that accept that he exists from the start can question?

Because you could not see it, the proof, even though you have I hope a nose in your face.

If the proof can only been seen by those that want to see it, it is no proof at all.

Loss Leader

18th July 2010, 06:57 AM

The proof is in the necessary inference from the totality of existence which totality has also parts transient in their duration of existence.

That sentence makes absolutely no sense at all. Really, it means nothing in english

"Since some things are created and then cease to exist, the universe itself must have been created. Thus, it is necessarily true that God created the universe."

He just says it backwards, "The proof that God exists is a necessarily true deduction from the fact that the universe had a beginning, which we know because some things in the universe have beginnings."

Deductive reasoning is the only kind Gerry does. Since his premises are always flawed, and since he refuses to inductively learn why they're flawed or what premises might be correct, this generally leads to worthless deductions.

"All cows are red; and some people can survive on nothing but crab grass; thus some people are red."

Elizabeth I

18th July 2010, 07:07 AM

That sentence makes absolutely no sense at all. Really, it means nothing in english

I find it very hard to look at my nose except in a mirror, but I'm guessing you mean that because I do not accept your premise of 'god exists' that I should not ask if god exists, because only those that accept that he exists from the start can question?
Actually I think he's trying to say it's as plain as the nose on your face. Our boy has a habit of trying to fancy up plain English - in another post (I can't be bothered to look up his specific babbles) he said something about an idea being "genuine salt." It would help if he would learn the plain English first, then start quoting his dictionary at us.

bruto

18th July 2010, 07:14 AM

The proof is in the necessary inference from the totality of existence which totality has also parts transient in their duration of existence.

If you cannot learn by inference from looking at your nose, then I guess you are not qualified to ask questions about proof.

Because you could not see it, the proof, even though you have I hope a nose in your face.

YrregBut if you're looking for an eagle it doesn't matter if you see your nose. You have failed from the start to demonstrate the necessity of a creator. Saying it's so is not enough.

Sun Countess

18th July 2010, 07:46 AM

If you cannot learn by inference from looking at your nose, then I guess you are not qualified to ask questions about proof.

Because you could not see it, the proof, even though you have I hope a nose in your face.
It's just the penis argument all over again, this time dressed up for polite company.

You have a nose, therefore God.

"Who made my (insert body part here), mommy?" "God did." Nothing childish about that argument at all. Once you get that answer, stop right there. There's nothing more you need to learn or understand.

Have I got that right, yrreg?

A Lurker

18th July 2010, 08:47 AM

It's just the penis argument all over again, this time dressed up for polite company.

You have a nose, therefore God.

"Who made my (insert body part here), mommy?" "God did." Nothing childish about that argument at all. Once you get that answer, stop right there. There's nothing more you need to learn or understand.

Have I got that right, yrreg?

You've almost got that right; he actually used the Nose argument first...

forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4987782&postcount=311

and then moved it onto Penii (penises? Penises! You know, lots of them, just like in Yerrg's mind!) because he thought that was even more of a clear way of defining himself as existing... he pricks, there for he is.

Probably because as he also revealed around the same time a biblical chauvanism when talking about "domestic help"; he sees himself as a Biblical Man, and women should in turn take the Biblical role set out for them, soft little things that do all the backbreaking domestic work, for the Daddy figure in their lives. Yup, Yrreg has intense difficulty understanding other people just don't always share the same assumptions and prejudices as he does... on gender or on anything else.

But Yrreg it's Sunday; I am sure you've had an intensely religious Sunday, but I'm only coming out of lurking to tell you that I deny god so I can guiltlessly masturbate today. Do you believe me when I say that?

yrreg

18th July 2010, 06:41 PM

Okay, you tell me then, atheists, what concept of God you are denying existence to.

Yrreg

blobru

18th July 2010, 06:58 PM

Is there an echo in here?

six7s

18th July 2010, 07:01 PM

I deny the existence of a thunder-making concept such as Thor

Olowkow

18th July 2010, 07:18 PM

Okay, you tell me then, atheists, what concept of God you are denying existence to.

Yrreg
I think you mean "what concept do we not believe in". I doubt if any of us want to "deny existence to" any gods.

I don't believe the concept of some invisible being that gives me goodies when I believe, and busts my balls when I don't.

Paulhoff

18th July 2010, 07:22 PM

Okay, you tell me then, atheists, what concept of God you are denying existence to.

Yrreg
All the ones that don't tell us anything about the working of the universe.

That pretty much wraps them all up.

Paul

:) :) :)

yrreg

18th July 2010, 07:32 PM

Olowkow

18th July 2010, 07:39 PM

jsfisher

18th July 2010, 07:42 PM

Interpreter! Stat!

He's saying he feels guilty when he masturbates.

bozman

18th July 2010, 07:45 PM

Sun Countess

18th July 2010, 07:49 PM

He's the only one who can talk about his penis without it being a sign of exhibitionism within the impunity of the net.

As far as: Okay, you tell me then, atheists, what concept of God you are denying existence to.
Is there more than one concept? Is there some reason that god-believers don't agree on a single concept of god? Maybe you guys could agree on one concept and then it will be more clear which one the atheists are "denying." Barring that, I deny any and all of them, as all the god beliefs of which I am aware are human constructs, designed to answer the tough questions and gain control over others.

John Jones

18th July 2010, 07:54 PM

Okay, you tell me then, atheists, what concept of God you are denying existence to.

Yrreg

What kinds have you got?

bozman

18th July 2010, 07:58 PM

What kinds have you got?

Oh, I got one. How about Mbombo of Bakuba mythology? He created the world and universe from vomiting. He showed early man how to make fire too.

If the whole puking up the universe thing is too gross for you, we could go with Kamui from Ainu mythology. He built the world on the back of a trout.

John Jones

18th July 2010, 08:03 PM

Oh, I got one. How about Mbombo of Bakuba mythology? He created the world and universe from vomiting. He showed early man how to make fire too.

If the whole puking up the universe thing is too gross for you, we could go with Kamui from Ainu mythology. He built the world on the back of a trout.

I hearby deny to them existence . My denial is final.

18th July 2010, 08:03 PM

What kinds have you got?

All kinds.

Given how flexible yrreg is with his definition of god (which is, at best, uselessly vague), you have a veritable god buffet set before you.

For my part: I deny all the gods conceived of throughout history that you deny, yrreg. Plus one more.

tsig

18th July 2010, 08:05 PM

Okay, you tell me then, atheists, what concept of God you are denying existence to.

Yrreg

Wha'cha got.

bozman

18th July 2010, 08:06 PM

I hearby deny to them existence . My denial is final.

Hmmm... so you're an atheist when it comes to them, eh? Interesting. And what's wrong with the trout story? Unlike talking snakes and trees of good and evil, I've actually seen trout.

RoboTimbo

18th July 2010, 08:26 PM

Okay, you tell me then, atheists, what concept of God you are denying existence to.

Yrreg

Which one are you denying the existence of? Which brand of cigarettes do you not smoke?

Loss Leader

18th July 2010, 08:30 PM

For atheists who want to bring in masturbation in their posts.
That is a shocker, your only contribution?
Typical.
As some atheist from being erstwhile Christian confessed that he became an atheist for cognitive consistency and guiltless masturbation.
But now he seems to insist that he was being funny.
More like into a shocker.
Or he should ask himself which is funny and which is a shocker.
Typical.
I can see some strain of exhibitionism there, with impunity in the net of course.
Yrreg
Interpreter! Stat!

"Those of you who have spoken about masturbation are trying to derail this thread. I can't say I'm shocked that this is your only contribution to the conversation. I remember someone saying he had converted from Christianity to atheism so he could masturbate without guilt. He says he was just being funny, but I think he was trying to shock people and, subconsciously, himself. You who mock me with masturbation jokes are sick, and the internet gives you the anonymity you need to fully express your deviance."

Of course, that's just the translation of what Gerry *said*. Here's the translation of what he meant:

"I am the only person intelligent and moral enough to carry on a serious conversation about philosophy. The very fact that you mock me is proof that you are perverted, lost from God, and, most importantly, dumber than me."

The recent uptick in Gerry threads leads me to believe that he has recently suffered a blow to his ego in real life. For several months, he was able to feel sufficiently superior to others without coming here. Something has changed. Losing an election to be church treasurer would be enough to do it. But, then, I've been watching a lot of "Criminal Minds" and I've started to profile everybody.

I correctly identified my supermarket checkout girl as an arsonist. She hadn't started any fires yet, but she probably will. Yeah, I'm almost sure she will.

Complexity

18th July 2010, 09:53 PM

For atheists who want to bring in masturbation in their posts.

That is a shocker, your only contribution?

I honestly can't think of anything more interesting to discuss with you, and you are one of the last people on the planet that I'd like to discuss sex with.

He's merely trying to adapt his argument to you, his intended audience. I think he's done a good job of taking your interests and capabilities into account.

You are the guy who spent many posts talking about penises, aren't you?

bozman

18th July 2010, 10:02 PM

Since when is masturbation something we're not supposed to talk about? What are you, a Mormon?

six7s

18th July 2010, 10:10 PM

Since when is masturbation something we're not supposed to talk about?If we're talking about it, that makes it oral, right?

bozman

18th July 2010, 10:11 PM

If we're talking about it, that makes it oral, right?

...

Touche, sir. Touche...

Mojo

18th July 2010, 11:49 PM

Okay, you tell me then, atheists, what concept of God you are denying existence to.

One more concept of god than you deny existence to.

laca

19th July 2010, 12:23 AM

:popcorn1

Aepervius

19th July 2010, 01:29 AM

I slowly get the feeling that the only reason Yrreg continue to accuse other of fears, is because he is so unsecure in his faith and he projects his own feeling to others.

He is not trying to convince *US* he is trying to convince *HIMSELF*.

arthwollipot

19th July 2010, 03:57 AM

Okay, you tell me then, atheists, what concept of God you are denying existence to.All of them.

A Lurker

19th July 2010, 05:20 AM

I honestly can't think of anything more interesting to discuss with you, and you are one of the last people on the planet that I'd like to discuss sex with.

He's merely trying to adapt his argument to you, his intended audience. I think he's done a good job of taking your interests and capabilities into account.

You are the guy who spent many posts talking about penises, aren't you?

Well, my audience isn't really Yrreg, as I know he's sealed in his own hermetic little bubble, where the only voices he hears are his own; good and evil, it's all Yrreg all the time.

Being shocking? To Yrreg sure, but I just wanted to illustrate how ridiculous his assumptions are. Ashamed of masturbation? Hardly, I see it just as another fact of life. I masturbate. Complexity masturbates. Hands up who else does? I expect all the men, and most of the women will admit to it. The few that don't will ride a suspiciously large amount of horses :p

I believe you are gay Complexity? Here's the difference between me, and Yrregs medieval view of the world. I could quite happily talk to you about what you've done sexually because I understand that although the mechanics may be a tiny bit different, the joy of love, intimacy and just plain animal passion will be the same. It's all good, there's no guilt about it what so ever. I've been to Swingers clubs and hardly raised an eyebrow; and BDSM clubs too. The only line I draw is truly consenting, which includes pretending it's not there in the short term. After that, do what you will. Penises in mouth, ears, in the fruit bowl, where ever it gives you pleasure will bring beauty, because beauty is seen most strongly in joy. So why be ashamed of the penis, the vagina, or even the anus?

But Yrreg's assuming we're hung up about sexuality just like he is. Which must be what God wants, because Yrreg thinks God designed the entire universe around his assumptions, even though Genesis also says "Be fruitful and multiply". Bit hard to do that if you're ashamed of the tools God has given you to do just that, isn't it?

Yet watch him have a fainting fit at this post too. And ignore everyone once more explaining a-theists have no gods at all. Silly, silly man.

dafydd

19th July 2010, 06:03 AM

Okay, you tell me then, atheists, what concept of God you are denying existence to.

Yrreg

None at all.There are no gods.The concepts of deluded people do not interest me,other than providing a few chuckles on this forum.

dafydd

19th July 2010, 06:04 AM

dafydd

19th July 2010, 06:06 AM

Uhh, that made no sense. And I prefer to call it "beating off."

Us Brits prefer the term wanking.

Robert Oz

19th July 2010, 07:42 AM

Okay, you tell me then, atheists, what concept of God you are denying existence to.

Yrreg

I deny the same gods that you deny plus the Christian god.

Complexity

19th July 2010, 08:14 AM

Well, my audience isn't really Yrreg, as I know he's sealed in his own hermetic little bubble, where the only voices he hears are his own; good and evil, it's all Yrreg all the time.

My idea of hell.

Being shocking? To Yrreg sure, but I just wanted to illustrate how ridiculous his assumptions are. Ashamed of masturbation? Hardly, I see it just as another fact of life. I masturbate. Complexity masturbates. Hands up who else does? I expect all the men, and most of the women will admit to it. The few that don't will ride a suspiciously large amount of horses :p

Yes, I masturbate. I've gotten to be quite good at it. I like porn, too.

I believe you are gay Complexity? Here's the difference between me, and Yrregs medieval view of the world. I could quite happily talk to you about what you've done sexually because I understand that although the mechanics may be a tiny bit different, the joy of love, intimacy and just plain animal passion will be the same. It's all good, there's no guilt about it what so ever. I've been to Swingers clubs and hardly raised an eyebrow; and BDSM clubs too. The only line I draw is truly consenting, which includes pretending it's not there in the short term. After that, do what you will. Penises in mouth, ears, in the fruit bowl, where ever it gives you pleasure will bring beauty, because beauty is seen most strongly in joy. So why be ashamed of the penis, the vagina, or even the anus?

Yep, I'm gay. Have been all of my life. Happy, too.

soylent

19th July 2010, 11:03 AM

Please tell me Gerry is some kind of inane chatbot.

Olowkow

19th July 2010, 11:21 AM

I have always suspected that posting on JREF and hanging with the godless is a form of fundy porn.

bruto

19th July 2010, 03:11 PM

Okay, you tell me then, atheists, what concept of God you are denying existence to.

YrregAt the top of my list of gods to deny I put any deity which, like yours, seems to arise from the failure of understanding and imagination to come up with anything more reasonable or more interesting.

A Lurker

19th July 2010, 04:32 PM

Yep, I'm gay. Have been all of my life. Happy, too.

Wouldn't you rather be self-ashamed and miserable? I can reject you, judge you and secretly despise you if you like... but I'm not making any promises about getting into a cupboard with a huge bag of crystal meth for guilty make out sessions though; I haven't managed to work up enough naughty, naughty dissonance yet...

John Jones

19th July 2010, 04:40 PM

Please tell me Gerry is some kind of inane chatbot.

Gerry is some kind of inane chatbot.

Complexity

19th July 2010, 04:45 PM

Gerry is some kind of inane chatbot.

That works equally well with and without an 's'.

Complexity

19th July 2010, 04:48 PM

Wouldn't you rather be self-ashamed and miserable? I can reject you, judge you and secretly despise you if you like... but I'm not making any promises about getting into a cupboard with a huge bag of crystal meth for guilty make out sessions though; I haven't managed to work up enough naughty, naughty dissonance yet...

Haven't ever been ashamed of myself, but I did spend too many years in the closet.

Have been hurt and had loved ones hurt by fundies and their ilk.

You could, but you wouldn't - you're not phelpsie or bad-evil.

Glad you decloaked.

A Lurker

19th July 2010, 06:02 PM

Haven't ever been ashamed of myself, but I did spend too many years in the closet.

Have been hurt and had loved ones hurt by fundies and their ilk.

You could, but you wouldn't - you're not phelpsie or bad-evil.

Glad you decloaked.

Just to make something clear old chap, I was deliberately playing with the concept of a certain Mr Ted Haggard, who was literally in a closet with a male escort and his crystal meth...

timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article627349.ece

But this is the thing that astounds me; the sheer, willful blindness that seems to affect certain True Believers, in that they seem completely unable to accept that the world now has access to huge levels of information if it chooses to use it. I'm British, but even I know enormous amounts about US politics, even down to the afore-mentioned Haggard... and it's archived online for good now. It doesn't matter how much Ted tries to deny it now, anyone can google his name and find out he's enjoyed homosexual trysts, and they can also find the science which shows it's natural, and built into his nature. It doesn't matter what ridiculous self-hating, truth abusing claims he makes anymore, except to equally deluded fools, the argument is lost.

And it's the same Yrreg today, and Doc and Radrook just before him; all it takes is to open your eyes, and truly, honestly look and you can see the evidence of contradiction, hypocrisy and dishonesty stretch out personally behind them... and then look at the world, and see it's archives are still there too; right now Yrreg is twittering on about Russian history... and my BA was in that, and I've friends who still lecture at University level on the subject now. But he's utterly, utterly blind to just how little he knows.

And then... then they even try and tell us what we think, as if there's a better expert on ourselves than ourselves. The sheer gall of which increasingly makes me delurk more and more... I can't help it, it's just astounding to think there exists people so deluded!

yrreg

20th July 2010, 05:41 PM

About penis and vagina, obviously many posters here are not mature.

I started if memory serves a thread on penis as the ground for an empirical inference to the existence of God, the necessary being creator of everything.

When women posters here or whom I thought were women anatomically started to stray outside the drift to go into irrelevancies and obscenities, I decided to also put up a thread on vagina and the thread actually came out.

However, the people in charge before long locked up both threads.

That is my memory; the people in charge can correct me, though.

As regards penis and vagina as grounds for the empirical inference to God, I think I had stated as a preliminary remark that the threads were only for mature audience.

Obviously many posters here are not mature.

Yrreg

yrreg

20th July 2010, 05:50 PM

Many posts here from atheists are plain shockers only, intended by their authors to call attention to themselves, though they have nothing of any basis for people to think about except the call from them to give some attention to their the authors' presence, and also if readers be preceptive that the authors are exhibitionists.

Yrreg

laca

20th July 2010, 05:51 PM

That's good stuff Yrreg, keep it coming!

Sledge

20th July 2010, 05:53 PM

John Jones

20th July 2010, 06:06 PM

Just to make something clear old chap, I was deliberately playing with the concept of a certain Mr Ted Haggard, who was literally in a closet with a male escort and his crystal meth...

timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article627349.ece

But this is the thing that astounds me; the sheer, willful blindness that seems to affect certain True Believers, in that they seem completely unable to accept that the world now has access to huge levels of information if it chooses to use it. I'm British, but even I know enormous amounts about US politics, even down to the afore-mentioned Haggard... and it's archived online for good now. It doesn't matter how much Ted tries to deny it now, anyone can google his name and find out he's enjoyed homosexual trysts, and they can also find the science which shows it's natural, and built into his nature. It doesn't matter what ridiculous self-hating, truth abusing claims he makes anymore, except to equally deluded fools, the argument is lost.

And it's the same Yrreg today, and Doc and Radrook just before him; all it takes is to open your eyes, and truly, honestly look and you can see the evidence of contradiction, hypocrisy and dishonesty stretch out personally behind them... and then look at the world, and see it's archives are still there too; right now Yrreg is twittering on about Russian history... and my BA was in that, and I've friends who still lecture at University level on the subject now. But he's utterly, utterly blind to just how little he knows.

And then... then they even try and tell us what we think, as if there's a better expert on ourselves than ourselves. The sheer gall of which increasingly makes me delurk more and more... I can't help it, it's just astounding to think there exists people so deluded!

Welcome, and well said.

John Jones

20th July 2010, 06:13 PM

Sun Countess

20th July 2010, 06:37 PM

I started if memory serves a thread on penis as the ground for an empirical inference to the existence of God, the necessary being creator of everything. Yes, a particularly limp argument, as I recall.

Obviously many posters here are not mature.
Sayeth he who started the topic (and who prides himself on presenting evidence that a preschooler can understand).

Who created the tapeworm, yrreg?

Paulhoff

20th July 2010, 07:23 PM

As regards penis and vagina as grounds for the empirical inference to God, I think I had stated as a preliminary remark that the threads were only for mature audience.
Boy, the door is wide open on that remark. It is way to easy to comment about you and being mature, damn I just did. :D

And since we are on those two subjects, is that the best design your so-called god can come up with, having the outhouse plumbing going right thru them, tisk tisk.

Paul

:) :) :)

EventHorizon

20th July 2010, 07:37 PM

I decided to also put up a thread on vagina and the thread actually came out.

*snicker*

Complexity

20th July 2010, 09:08 PM

About penis and vagina

What do you know about either?

bozman

20th July 2010, 09:11 PM

Anyone else read posts from folks like yrreg and think that signing every single post they make with their own name is narcissistic as hell?

Complexity

20th July 2010, 09:13 PM

Anyone else read posts from folks like yrreg and think that signing every single post they make with their name is narcissistic as hell?

I was just thinking that was very odd of him, but 'narcissistic' works quite well.

What a peculiar person...

154

20th July 2010, 09:15 PM

Anyone else read posts from folks like yrreg and think that signing every single post they make with their own name is narcissistic as hell?

Yep.

And as if anything need be said about "Greatest I am"...

bozman

20th July 2010, 09:22 PM

In all fairness, all important documents usually end with a formal signing by the author(s). Consider the Declaration of Independence or The Mayflower Compact. Obviously, when words carry that kind of weight, the author has to sign it. ;)

blobru

20th July 2010, 10:22 PM

Colonists, what's wrong with this declaration of independence: no taxation without representation?

kcocnah nhoj

John Jones

20th July 2010, 10:35 PM

Yep.

And as if anything need be said about "Greatest I am"...

Is he posting on this thread?

For the record, I've read a lot of his posts, and he at least tries to explain his position.

You don't even make a minimal effort. If you have offered anything other than loaded questions, juvenile sneers, and C&P scripture absent any interpretation, I haven't seen it.

If that is an incorrect or unfair recollection of your posting history, I'm open to edification.

Ryokan

20th July 2010, 11:35 PM

I decided to also put up a thread on vagina and the thread actually came out.

Your thread came out of a vagina? :eek:

bozman

20th July 2010, 11:41 PM

Your thread came out of a vagina? :eek:

Yeah but, didn't all of us come out of a vagina...

Fiona

20th July 2010, 11:45 PM

Aepervius

21st July 2010, 12:04 AM

I have always suspected that posting on JREF and hanging with the godless is a form of fundy porn.

I dunno if you are joking or not, but it IS a form of mental masturbation : they do their profession of faith, they do their little my-god-has-bigger-tea-bag-than-yours little dance, they show their supperior intellect over the poor atheist, which they know they can't convince and so they call them stupid, non thinking organism, evolutionist (in a pejorative way, not the historical term) etc...

Mind you atheist do it a bit too, in a way, but we (usually) don't go out of our way to troll over a christian fundie forum. Don't we ?

Aepervius

21st July 2010, 12:11 AM

Yeah but, didn't all of us come out of a vagina...

Noper, some of us had a kiss-kiss with a caesarien, and the hand of a surgeon/nurse without ever seeing those dirty-dirty vagina (interrestingly such baby have a different darm flora/fauna composition and less varied than those which go through the vagina).

bozman

21st July 2010, 12:13 AM

Noper, some of us had a kiss-kiss with a caesarien, and the hand of a surgeon/nurse without ever seeing those dirty-dirty vagina (interrestingly such baby have a different darm flora/fauna composition and less varied than those which go through the vagina).

Touche... I stand corrected.

Ryokan

21st July 2010, 01:31 AM

Yeah but, didn't all of us come out of a vagina...

I once came inside one...

Sorry, I'll get my coat.

yrreg

21st July 2010, 04:31 AM

I am sure that when I started the thread on the penis (and later on the vagina) as empirical evidence via empirical inference that God is the necessary being creator of everything including and specially the penis (and vagina), it was because atheists cannot see the connection between their nose and God as the necessary being creator of everything that has a beginning, starting if they prefer with the nose in their face.

Why choose penis and vagina instead?

Because guys here certainly cannot deny they have one and it is working, also with gals here or true anatomical and physiological gals.

I will not any further continue with penis and vagina, unless you guys still cannot acknowledge that your penis and vagina are most intelligently designed and fabricated by God for the purposes you pursue with them, specially for the perpetuation of life first and foremost, then for the incentive of love and mutual delight.

Yrreg

Mashuna

21st July 2010, 04:39 AM

RoboTimbo

21st July 2010, 04:44 AM

zooterkin

21st July 2010, 04:47 AM

dafydd

21st July 2010, 04:50 AM

dafydd

21st July 2010, 04:53 AM

Yeah but, didn't all of us come out of a vagina...

I once asked God to surround me with pussy.He turned me into a Tampax.Moral of story,there's always strings attached.

dafydd

21st July 2010, 04:55 AM

Boy, the door is wide open on that remark. It is way to easy to comment about you and being mature, damn I just did. :D

And since we are on those two subjects, is that the best design your so-called god can come up with, having the outhouse plumbing going right thru them, tisk tisk.

Paul

:) :) :)

God is a civil engineer,he put the recreation area next to the waste disposal plant.

bozman

21st July 2010, 04:58 AM

Maybe you can get back to the topic of this thread then and give your definition of your god. Are you sticking with the definition that says your god only started the universe and has no other properties?

Wait, wasn't he just saying something about the penis and vagina being god? That was quite a tangent there.

dafydd

21st July 2010, 05:00 AM

Wait, wasn't he just saying something about the penis and vagina being god? That was quite a tangent there.

Vaginas have brought me close to heaven many a time.

bozman

21st July 2010, 05:06 AM

Vaginas have brought me close to heaven many a time.

I personally think all the references to Heaven in the Bible are just metaphors for the vagina.

bruto

21st July 2010, 05:33 AM

Yeah but, didn't all of us come out of a vagina...Nope. Some of us, like MacDuff, were from our mother's womb untimely ripped.

Sledge

21st July 2010, 06:28 AM

I will not any further continue with penis and vagina
I'm sure that'll be a terrible shame for Mrs yrreg.

bozman

21st July 2010, 06:35 AM

I'm sure that'll be a terrible shame for Mrs yrreg.

Not to mention all of us. I don't know he does it, but when yrreg talks about the vagina, it suddenly becomes about as exciting as mowing the lawn.

Not Yrreg

Robert Oz

21st July 2010, 08:05 AM

Shalamar

21st July 2010, 08:41 AM

That is why you have got to be like children to enter into wisdom.

You have been conditioned to not ask all the questions that children ask, because of fear.

Now, work on your fear.

Yrreg

You are talking to the wrong people. Your fear of your god, prevents *you* from asking questions, or even listening to the answers.

'Your fear has you cowering at the lighting and thunder in the sky, because the gods are angry.

The answer of 'I do not know', does not mean 'God'.

paximperium

21st July 2010, 08:56 AM

yrreg wins this thread.

:dl:
That is the reason I follow Gerry's threads. Statements like that is worth it.

Elizabeth I

21st July 2010, 10:41 AM

Why choose penis and vagina instead?

Because guys here certainly cannot deny they have one and it is working
Very weird. He seems to be saying that men have both penises and vaginas, and also declaring that there is no need at all for Viagra.

Robert Oz

21st July 2010, 11:09 AM

That is the reason I follow Gerry's threads. Statements like that is worth it.

Me too. It will be a sad day at the JREF forums if Gerry ever gets banned.

Hilarious.

bruto

21st July 2010, 01:48 PM

That is why you have got to be like children to enter into wisdom.

You have been conditioned to not ask all the questions that children ask, because of fear.

Now, work on your fear.

YrregWrong. I asked all the questions that children ask, when I was a child. From religion I got answers that did not satisfy even a child. Why would I accept them now as an adult? What sort of crackpot god would think that wisdom comes from abandoning all you have learned and accepting things you knew were bunk 50 years ago?

Paulhoff

21st July 2010, 02:22 PM

This says a lot..............

yrreg will miss the point, too bad :o

0kK1YgR7J0g

Paul

:) :) :)

A Lurker

21st July 2010, 02:29 PM

I will not any further continue with penis and vagina, unless you guys still cannot acknowledge that your penis and vagina are most intelligently designed and fabricated by God for the purposes you pursue with them, specially for the perpetuation of life first and foremost, then for the incentive of love and mutual delight.

Yrreg

The purposes we pursue with them? But if they are so intelligently designed, why did God put the clitoris on the outside of the vagina, ensuring the Human woman's greatest pleasure doesn't come from intercourse... and yet he not only gifted Pigs with a huge clitoris, but it's in the right place to receive penile stimulation too? And for that matter, the orgasm for the male pig can last up to 30 minutes. Does God love Pigs more than us?!

And why did he put the pleasurable prostrate gland in such a location in the male Human that it gives them pleasure from anal intercourse? But women don't get one at all? Are women just not supposed to have any pleasure what so ever...

Wait a moment... that's it! God doesn't want us putting it into women at all! He wants us to be entering the anuses of men! God is gay for us all! Or wants us to date pigs. I'm not sure which.

Paulhoff

21st July 2010, 02:50 PM

The purposes we pursue with them? But if they are so intelligently designed, why did God put the clitoris on the outside of the vagina, ensuring the Human woman's greatest pleasure doesn't come from intercourse... and yet he not only gifted Pigs with a huge clitoris, but it's in the right place to receive penile stimulation too? And for that matter, the orgasm for the male pig can last up to 30 minutes. Does God love Pigs more than us?!

And why did he put the pleasurable prostrate gland in such a location in the male Human that it gives them pleasure from anal intercourse? But women don't get one at all? Are women just not supposed to have any pleasure what so ever...

Wait a moment... that's it! God doesn't want us putting it into women at all! He wants us to be entering the anuses of men! God is gay for us all! Or wants us to date pigs. I'm not sure which.
We can guess that the Holy Ghost is male too, so the top three dogs are male, is that saying something? God could be gay, he gets a virgin and doesn't have sex with her. I've also found that those who make the most noise about something they say they don't like, are the ones that are doing it themselves, get my drift.

Paul

:) :) :)

bruto

21st July 2010, 03:04 PM

The purposes we pursue with them? But if they are so intelligently designed, why did God put the clitoris on the outside of the vagina, ensuring the Human woman's greatest pleasure doesn't come from intercourse... and yet he not only gifted Pigs with a huge clitoris, but it's in the right place to receive penile stimulation too? And for that matter, the orgasm for the male pig can last up to 30 minutes. Does God love Pigs more than us?!

And why did he put the pleasurable prostrate gland in such a location in the male Human that it gives them pleasure from anal intercourse? But women don't get one at all? Are women just not supposed to have any pleasure what so ever...

Wait a moment... that's it! God doesn't want us putting it into women at all! He wants us to be entering the anuses of men! God is gay for us all! Or wants us to date pigs. I'm not sure which.

God wants us to be tempted into buggery down at the piggery, so that he can demonstrate his love for us by offering to condemn us to an eternity of suffering and torment for even thinking about it. Fear-driven unpalatable choices are apparently the only way the imagination-impaired demiurge in chief can think of to insure that we have free will.

dafydd

21st July 2010, 04:32 PM

yrreg wins this thread.

:dl:

I was hoping to win it.First prize,a night on the town with Yrreg.Second prize,two nights on the town with Yrreg.

Dancing David

21st July 2010, 04:58 PM

arthwollipot

22nd July 2010, 05:57 AM

I will not any further continue with penis and vagina, unless you guys still cannot acknowledge that your penis and vagina are most intelligently designed and fabricated by God...I still cannot acknowledge that. So I guess you'll have to further continue.

arthwollipot

22nd July 2010, 05:59 AM

Vaginas have brought me close to heaven many a time.I'm still waiting for yrreg to make the connection to the clitoris.

zooterkin

22nd July 2010, 06:47 AM

I'm still waiting for yrreg to make the connection to the clitoris.
From what I've been told, he wouldn't be the first man to fail to make that connection.

yrreg

3rd May 2012, 02:32 PM

What is the concept of God with atheists?

In the West the concept of God among Christians is founded on the following two statements from the Christian faith:

In the beginning God created heaven and earth. Genesis 1:1
I believe in God the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth. Apostles' Creed verse 1

Addressing the atheists of this forum: I would like to inquire whether you have this concept of God as per the two statements above.

Yrreg

DrDave

3rd May 2012, 02:33 PM

Shalamar

3rd May 2012, 02:34 PM

There is no god.

God does not exist. Neither does Santa Claus or the tooth fairy.

erlando

3rd May 2012, 02:35 PM

Hell no

ehcks

3rd May 2012, 02:38 PM

My concept of god is that god is merely a concept. And not a very good one.

AdMan

3rd May 2012, 02:38 PM

It's probably up to the believers to define what their God is to them.

I just don't believe most of those definitions apply to something that actually exists.

Piscivore

3rd May 2012, 02:38 PM

What is the concept of God with atheists?
From my atheist perspective, there are thousands, if not millions of "concepts of gods", each and every one of them the product of a human brain.

Addressing the atheists of this forum: I would like to inquire whether you have this concept of God as per the two statements above.
That's one of them. One of millions, as I say. There is even lots of significant variation between those that espouse those two statements.

And that "concept of god" has no more truth value or evidentiary support than any of the others.

jasonpatterson

3rd May 2012, 02:43 PM

What is the concept of God with atheists?

Unless 'god' is defined, there's no real way to say whether a person accepts a given deity or not. In my case, the only thing I can see that is inherent in the definition of a god as it is commonly used is that it has some level of supernatural power. That alone is a nonstarter for me.

It seems like what you're asking is whether atheists assume god to be the christian god and whether that is what they don't accept. By definition it's true that we don't accept that, but we also don't accept any of the other versions of god that are or have been in use around the world.

Dinwar

3rd May 2012, 02:44 PM

What is the concept of God with atheists?
What do you mean by this? What concept of god do we believe in? None. What concept of god do we DISbelieve in? By definition, all of them. What concept of god are we arguing against? Well, that's a tricky one--I usually go with "whatever concept the theist is arguing in favor of".

Addressing the atheists of this forum: I would like to inquire whether you have this concept of God as per the two statements above.
You're making a critical error here: assuming that atheists are the ones directing the definition of gods. We're not. Theists are. As most theists in the USA and Europe tend to be of the Jewish/Christian/Islamic family of faiths, we often get the same gods coming up in conversation. But Thor is no less wrong than Christ.

Foster Zygote

3rd May 2012, 02:50 PM

Gerry, there are a great many concepts of gods other than just yours. Atheists don't believe in any of them, including yours.

Biscuit

3rd May 2012, 02:54 PM

When you explain to me your concept of Innana you will probably understand my atheist concept of all gods.

catsmate1

3rd May 2012, 03:01 PM

Oh good grief................

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_162724c1244f3a45a2.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=20125)

tsig

3rd May 2012, 03:10 PM

Mick Houlahan

3rd May 2012, 03:13 PM

Gee, I always wondered what the concept of God for western Christians was. Mine's more like:
Imaginary skydaddy for the kids.
Have you ever been told you're so far off the beam that you're "not even wrong?":jaw-dropp

Last of the Fraggles

3rd May 2012, 03:13 PM

The concept of God is whatever the believer the believes in.

Every one I have heard so far has been mistaken.

Baloney

3rd May 2012, 03:16 PM

There is only no god and nobody is his prophet.

joobz

3rd May 2012, 03:21 PM

My concept of god is a giant mega pickle with a human for a penis.

Agatha

3rd May 2012, 03:30 PM

Yrreg, this has never worked for you in the past and will fail to work this time because you just don't seem to understand that atheists lack belief in any and all gods. It's not that we hate gods, or fear them, or are ignorant of any of the concepts of gods which have been recorded by mankind thus far. We understand what gods are, we understand the attributes that you ascribe to your God, we recognise that millions of people believe that your God exists. We are among the millions who do not believe your God exists, and as atheists we go further, we don't believe any god exists.

Your question is as meaningless as this one:

What is the concept of Voldemort and Harry Potter with Yrreg?

In the West,and indeed the East, the concept of Voldemort and Harry Potter among readers of JK Rowling's books is founded on the following statements (amongst others) from the published works:

He disappeared after leaving the school ... travelled far and wide ... sank so deeply into the Dark Arts, consorted with the very worst of our kind, underwent so many dangerous, magical transformations, that when he resurfaced as Lord Voldemort, he was barely recognisable. Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, chapter 18

The one with the power to vanquish the Dark Lord approaches ... born to those who have thrice defied him, born as the seventh month dies ... and the Dark Lord will mark him as his equal, but he will have power the Dark Lord knows not ... and either must die at the hand of the other for neither can live while the other survives ... the one with the power to vanquish the Dark Lord will be born as the seventh month dies ..." Sybil Trelawney's prophecy.

Addressing Yrreg (of this forum): I would like to inquire whether you have this concept of Voldemort and Harry Potter as per the two statements above.

Now, Yrreg, if you can answer my question about Voldemort and Harry Potter, I'll answer yours - as I have done many times before.

yrreg

3rd May 2012, 03:36 PM

Gerry, there are a great many concepts of gods other than just yours. Atheists don't believe in any of them, including yours.

Well, I am glad that you are around, so I can dialog with you.

My point is that since you are in the West unless I am mistaken, or you have an exposure to Western civilization and culture, then I would assume that you would orient your atheist information on God toward the Christian concept of God, which as I have already stated is founded on the the following of course not only but fundamentally on the following two statements of the Catholic faith, namely:

In the beginning God created heaven and earth. Genesis 1:1
I believe in God the Father almighty creator of heaven and earth. Apostles' Creed verse 1

Now, that you don't believe in God as per concept in the Christrian faith, that is beside the point; the point in this thread is to obtain what you know of the information about the concept of God in the Christian faith, in order that you and I and others who have that point in mind, to discuss the concept of God namely that in the Catholic faith.

Yrreg

Hokulele

3rd May 2012, 03:39 PM

What is the concept of God with atheists?

In his house at R'lyeh, he waits dreaming.

Dinwar

3rd May 2012, 03:43 PM

then I would assume that you would orient your atheist information on God toward the Christian concept of God, Tell me, yrreg: Which species of dragon do you reject, the wyverns or the wyrms? As you're from the West, I assume you're orienting your rejection of dragons towards wyverns, which are more in line with Western dragon concepts.

ETA: This is also horrendously racist, by the way. Mere exposure to the Western concept of gods isn't enough to make BILLIONS of people reject their traditional beliefs. You CAN be aware of the Western monotheistic Desert Dogmas and still be a Hindu, or Buddhist, or follower of Shinto. You can even be exposed to Christianity and remain faithful to the Native American traditions. Your assumption is just...disturbing.

the point in this thread is to obtain what you know of the information about the concept of God in the Christian faith, in order that you and I and others who have that point in mind, to discuss the concept of God namely that in the Catholic faith.
Many of us are ex-Catholics or ex-Christians. We are well aware of the Catholic view of faith (which, by the way, you're misrepresenting). Asking us which flavor of god we reject so that you can start a dialog about your pet god is disengenuous. You could easily say "Atheists: What's your understanding of the Christian god?" Or, which is how this whole exchange is starting to look from the outside: "I don't want to offer my definition of 'god' because I know I'll get trounced; please define it for me so that I can poke holes at your definitions and pretend that I have a valid one".

Pope130

3rd May 2012, 03:56 PM

What is the concept of God with atheists?

Yrreg

Asked and answered. See the previous threads you started.

JoeBentley

3rd May 2012, 04:00 PM

Believer: Tell me atheist what version of God you not believe in?
Atheist: Errr well I guess the standard version.
Believer: Well that's not my God! Ah ha you feel into my clever trap!

catsmate1

3rd May 2012, 04:05 PM

Believer: Tell me atheist what version of God you not believe in?
Atheist: Errr well I guess the standard version.
Believer: Well that's not my God! Ah ha you feel into my clever trap!
He never learns................

Quad4_72

3rd May 2012, 04:10 PM

Well, I am glad that you are around, so I can dialog with you.

My point is that since you are in the West unless I am mistaken, or you have an exposure to Western civilization and culture, then I would assume that you would orient your atheist information on God toward the Christian concept of God, which as I have already stated is founded on the the following of course not only but fundamentally on the following two statements of the Catholic faith, namely:
In the beginning God created heaven and earth. Genesis 1:1
I believe in God the Father almighty creator of heaven and earth. Apostles' Creed verse 1Now, that you don't believe in God as per concept in the Christrian faith, that is beside the point; the point in this thread is to obtain what you know of the information about the concept of God in the Christian faith, in order that you and I and others who have that point in mind, to discuss the concept of God namely that in the Catholic faith.

Yrreg

I am not sure what you don't understand. Atheists believe in exactly zero gods. What is your issue with this concept? We believe that all religion is made up by man.

RoboTimbo

3rd May 2012, 04:40 PM

What is the concept of God with atheists?

Yrreg
She's noodly and tastes of tomato, basil and oregano.

Now that you have the concept of The Flying Spaghetti Monster firmly in your mind, do you agree that She exists?

wollery

3rd May 2012, 04:42 PM

6 and a half years, and people are still trying to get Yrreg to come to the point. :rolleyes:

lionking

3rd May 2012, 04:54 PM

cassis

3rd May 2012, 05:25 PM

What is the concept of God with atheists?

What an odd question. I can only guess at your intent given that the phrase "concept of God" is about as obtuse a term as I have heard in this arena. (That you capitalize the word god implies that you are a believer which likely influences your meaning; yet modifying the subject to a concept, as opposed to just saying "What is God [to an] atheist?", in order, presumably, to induce a response which might not otherwise be forthcoming, seems in conflict with the tenets of that belief system and, honestly, a bit disingenuous). Taking your question to mean how do atheists define "God" (as good an interpretation as any) my answer would be: a supernatural being[s] who some, irrespective of creed, believe is[are] at the helm of the good ship[fleet] Intelligent Design.

In the West the concept of God among Christians is founded on the following two statements from the Christian faith:

In the beginning God created heaven and earth. Genesis 1:1
I believe in God the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth. Apostles' Creed verse 1

So if I understand this, you are saying that the concept of God is founded on the premise that he is an engineer. I would argue that such a premise is too narrow and may in any event be incorrect. Is he not also portrayed as omnisicient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent? These seem pretty decent characteristics on which to found a concept for a god. But we are still talking about attributes and not concepts. What about the idea that the concept of God comes from the fact that the universe is so fantastic and vast and beautiful that if one were to assume it is controlled by some intelligent design, such an intelligence must be even more fantastic and vast and beautiful. Since such control is clearly beyond the scope of human beings, there must be some vastly superior being or beings in charge. This inference is the concept of God.

Addressing the atheists of this forum: I would like to inquire whether you have this concept of God as per the two statements above.

You may as well ask if we are still beating our wives. Atheism is the rejection of the existence of gods until such time as sufficient evidence is presented that proves that existence. There is no "concept of God". We do not conceive of a god-image and then come up with reasons to reject it. We can't conceive of it to begin with.

But since that argument could be said to be related more to semantics that anything else, and since I suspect that you are really asking if we are rejecting the particular god-image you have described when we claim to be atheists or skeptics, then I would politely answer that yes, I reject this and every other concept of God.

bruto

3rd May 2012, 05:35 PM

Well, I am glad that you are around, so I can dialog with you.

My point is that since you are in the West unless I am mistaken, or you have an exposure to Western civilization and culture, then I would assume that you would orient your atheist information on God toward the Christian concept of God, which as I have already stated is founded on the the following of course not only but fundamentally on the following two statements of the Catholic faith, namely:

In the beginning God created heaven and earth. Genesis 1:1
I believe in God the Father almighty creator of heaven and earth. Apostles' Creed verse 1

Now, that you don't believe in God as per concept in the Christrian faith, that is beside the point; the point in this thread is to obtain what you know of the information about the concept of God in the Christian faith, in order that you and I and others who have that point in mind, to discuss the concept of God namely that in the Catholic faith.

Yrreg

It doesn't matter. All gods are in the same category: imaginary until proven otherwise. You can dress your concept up in gold lamé, map its anatomy, tell dazzling stories about its exploits, tell me it kills fascists and pees gasoline, hang it on a cross and drink its imaginary blood periodically, but that won't make it any more real. You will not define a god into existence, no matter how hard you huff and puff.

JoeBentley

3rd May 2012, 06:15 PM

How about this.

As an atheist I consider the following statement to be true.

There is no supernatural, otherwordly, omnipotent, omnipresent, all powerful consciousness, thinking intelligence, or being that exists outside of our current understanding of how the universe works that influences our actions, judges our actions, has plans, rules or guidelines for how we should live our lives, rewards or punishes us for our actions either during or lifetime or in some hypothetical period after our lives, and/or created the universe.

This statement includes but is not limited to the major common concepts of God, Gods, or Deities as invoked by the major monotheistic religions such as Judeo-Christian, Muslim, and other faiths, the polytheistic concept of multiple supernatural beings as found in many earlier religions, the worshiping of the dead ancestors, animal totems, natural phenomenon, objects, or events, including the Earth itself, the Watchmaker God concept, deified humans, or any other similar concept.

yrreg

3rd May 2012, 07:26 PM

Well, I am glad that you [Foster Zygote] are around, so I can dialog with you.

[ Etc.]

.

Thanks, everyone for your reactions, but I am still waiting for Foster Zygote to return.

However, just the same I will say to everyone that this question of God or no God, it has engaged also atheists interminably to this day and everywhere in the internet, and more so in the internet because it is easy and quick to write in the internet and get oneself published.

Now, my opinion or conviction even though I must have already said this piece time and again in my writing in this forum, is that atheists are not genuinely thinking when they write about God in the Christian faith, because they insist on not getting the concept correctly.

Not genuinely thinking because to my observation they always delimit their thinking reach when it comes to God, so that in their delimited thinking they already set as off-limits any thinking that they will exercise with their mind as tabooed when it touches on the concept of God, in accordance with as I already stated God in the following two statements in the Christian faith:

In the beginning God created heaven and earth. Genesis 1:1
I believe in God the Father almighty creator of heaven and earth. Apostles' Creed verse 1

If atheists do not impose upon their mind the off-limits consideration of the concept of God as per the two statements above, meaning they do not self-censor their minds, then they must first of all consider how the concept of God came about in the minds of the people who did formulate the statements.

Of course that is a matter of intellectual curiosity, how people come about to inform their mind about the concept of God as per the two statements above.

At least therefore for atheists who still have such an intellectual curiosity, they can dialog with me; otherwise they will go into all directions of irrelevancy.

Yrreg

Loss Leader

3rd May 2012, 07:35 PM

Thanks, everyone for your reactions, but I am still waiting for Foster Zygote to return.

Having once been Yrreg's favorite, my heart bursts with sadness to see the torch passed.

Foster Zygote

3rd May 2012, 07:44 PM

My concept of god is a giant mega pickle with a human for a penis.

Get out of my head!!!

AdMan

3rd May 2012, 07:55 PM

Now, my opinion or conviction even though I must have already said this piece time and again in my writing in this forum, is that atheists are not genuinely thinking when they write about God in the Christian faith, because they insist on not getting the concept correctly.

Not genuinely thinking because to my observation they always delimit their thinking reach when it comes to God, so that in their delimited thinking they already set as off-limits any thinking that they will exercise with their mind as tabooed when it touches on the concept of God, in accordance with as I already stated God in the following two statements in the Christian faith:

In the beginning God created heaven and earth. Genesis 1:1
I believe in God the Father almighty creator of heaven and earth. Apostles' Creed verse 1

As I stated earlier, it is up to believers to state their concept of god, not to atheists. The latter makes no sense.

If the above is your concept of god, I have no problem in stating that based on that concept I am also an atheist, as I see no proof such a being exists.

Next question..?

Foster Zygote

3rd May 2012, 08:19 PM

Well, I am glad that you are around, so I can dialog with you.
I've seen you engage in a great deal of monologue, but to be brutally honest, I've never observed you to actually dialogue with anyone.

Now, that you don't believe in God as per concept in the Christrian faith, that is beside the point; the point in this thread is to obtain what you know of the information about the concept of God in the Christian faith, in order that you and I and others who have that point in mind, to discuss the concept of God namely that in the Catholic faith.
There is no point to this thread. I have already explained to you that atheists do not believe in supernatural agencies such as gods. This includes your god as well. It doesn't matter if you claim that your god is purple, or hermaphroditic, or smells like fish. It doesn't matter if you claim that your god is "Father almighty, creator of Heaven and Earth".

Now please feel free to do your part: Ignore what I've written and respond according to the script that you created in your imagination prior to creating the OP that has since been merged with the other threads you've started regarding this same subject.

Foster Zygote

3rd May 2012, 08:22 PM

It doesn't matter. All gods are in the same category: imaginary until proven otherwise. You can dress your concept up in gold lamé, map its anatomy, tell dazzling stories about its exploits, tell me it kills fascists and pees gasoline, hang it on a cross and drink its imaginary blood periodically, but that won't make it any more real. You will not define a god into existence, no matter how hard you huff and puff.

Ah, but my god smells like fish. You hadn't thought of that definition of God, had you? Ha Ha! Gotcha!

Foster Zygote

3rd May 2012, 08:44 PM

...they must first of all consider how the concept of God came about in the minds of the people who did formulate the statements.

Now we're getting to meat of your argument. We had to trim several pounds of fat away, but there it is.

The problem is that you also have to consider how a great many other gods have been conceptualized in the minds of the people who believed in them. Allow me to offer what seem to me to be the most likely explanation:

We humans have the ability to attribute agency to other members of our species. This is not an ability unique to us, but we are especially good at it. This ability was absolutely critical to our evolution as a social species. It enables us to understand that others in our social groups have motivations similar to ours. This not only enables individuals to adjust their behavior so as to compete with rivals, but more importantly, it allows individuals to recognize their common goals and work together to better attain those goals as a more effective group. The instinct to figure out what others are thinking as a critical survival tactic is so strong, that our ancestors attempted to figure out the motivations of everything that effected their survival, including forces which had no conscious agency such as the sun, the wind, the water etcetera. If they could figure out what these natural forces wanted, then maybe they could adjust their behavior so as to anticipate or even influence them. These are the origins of all gods, including your "Father almighty, creator of Heaven and Earth". They are simply ways of anthropomorphizing nature in the hope of understanding it and surviving it.

yrreg

3rd May 2012, 09:08 PM

Quote:
In the West the concept of God among Christians is founded on the following two statements from the Christian faith:

In the beginning God created heaven and earth. Genesis 1:1
I believe in God the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth. Apostles' Creed verse 1

------------------------

So if I understand this, you are saying that the concept of God is founded on the premise that he is an engineer. I would argue that such a premise is too narrow and may in any event be incorrect. Is he not also portrayed as omnisicient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent? These seem pretty decent characteristics on which to found a concept for a god. But we are still talking about attributes and not concepts. What about the idea that the concept of God comes from the fact that the universe is so fantastic and vast and beautiful that if one were to assume it is controlled by some intelligent design, such an intelligence must be even more fantastic and vast and beautiful. Since such control is clearly beyond the scope of human beings, there must be some vastly superior being or beings in charge. This inference is the concept of God.

[...]

.

You have a very keen insight in saying that:

...the concept of God is founded on the premise that he is an engineer.

.

Yes, God in the Christian faith, before anything else, in His fundamental relation to the universe, is that He built the universe and is the continuous operator of the universe.

That is what exactly is contained in these two statements about God in the Christian faith:

In the beginning God created heaven and earth. Genesis 1:1
I believe in God the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth. Apostles' Creed verse 1

I used to read about Masons, i.e., the Society of Freemasonry, hope I get the name of the organization correctly, they call God The Supreme Architect, and they also thereby indicate that God is also the supreme engineer.

In ancient times, the architect and the engineer is the same creative and constructive genius.

Let me read something about The Supreme Architect in the internet.

The Great Architect of the Universe (also Grand Architect of the Universe or Supreme Architect of the Universe) is a conception of God discussed by many Christian theologians and apologists. As a designation it is used within Freemasonry to neutrally represent deity (in whatever form, and by whatever name each member may individually believe in). It is also a Rosicrucian conception of God, as expressed by Max Heindel. The concept of the demiurge as a grand architect or a great architect also occurs in gnosticism and other religious and philosophical systems.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Architect_of_the_Universe

-----------------

The word "demiurge" is an English word from a Latinized form of the Greek δημιουργός, dēmiourgos, literally "public worker", and which was originally a common noun meaning "craftsman" or "artisan", but gradually it came to mean "producer" and eventually "creator". The philosophical usage and the proper noun derive from Plato's Timaeus, written circa 360 BC, in which the demiurge is presented as the creator of the universe. This is accordingly the definition of the demiurge in the Platonic (ca. 310 BC-90 BC) and Middle Platonic (ca. 90 BC-300 AD) philosophical traditions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demiurge

So, you see, God as engineer and architect or plain builder, lastly creator of the universe, that is an old concept with the thinking men of antiquity.

Let us we two, you and I, Cassis, exchange thoughts about God as engineer of the universe.

Yrreg

Sun Countess

3rd May 2012, 09:14 PM

I used to read about Masons, i.e., the Society of Freemasonry, hope I get the name of the organization correctly, they call God The Supreme Architect, and they also thereby indicate that God is also the supreme engineer. No, I'm pretty sure The Architect is from The Matrix.

AdMan

3rd May 2012, 09:15 PM

Let us we two, you and I, Cassis, exchange thoughts about God as engineer of the universe.

Yrreg

How does this tie in with your question on "What is the concept of God with atheists?"

Are you abandoning it?

You received a number of answers which you failed to address. Why is that? You asked the question. Why didn't the answers merit an answer in return?

jsfisher

3rd May 2012, 09:24 PM

Let us we two, you and I, Cassis, exchange thoughts about God as engineer of the universe.

Gerry, you should probably go first since you are more familiar with what you will eventually prompt Cassis to say. I doubt you'll accept the simple and direct, "My thoughts are that your 'god as engineer of the universe' is pure fiction."

Sun Countess

3rd May 2012, 10:15 PM

arthwollipot

3rd May 2012, 11:13 PM

In the beginning God created heaven and earth. Genesis 1:1
I believe in God the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth. Apostles' Creed verse 1As an atheist, I reject this concept of God as I reject all others.

yrreg

3rd May 2012, 11:13 PM

Originally Posted by yrreg

Thanks, everyone for your reactions, but I am still waiting for Foster Zygote to return.

Having once been Yrreg's favorite, my heart bursts with sadness to see the torch passed.

Well, Loss, you are welcome to exchange thoughts with me here even on one and one basis, if others are just into irrelevancies.

Our last encounter was about evidence, and readers can look up our exchange if they care to read something about evidence from our thinking, which might be useful to them to determine whether the existence of God can be known and is known to Christians from evidence.

I will just say here that it is the teaching of the Christian faith that God's existence is known from evidence in the existence of the material universe.

That is for the atheists who deny the existence of any parts of the universe that are not material; for all other humans who admit the existence of other parts of the universe that are not material, then there is also evidence.

I am at present trying to see who is the most thinking competent here; there might be several but I prefer to choose the one most of course on my observation most competent in thinking: one criterion of which is the habit of focusing on the topic and not going into irrelevancies.

Yrreg

yrreg

3rd May 2012, 11:16 PM

I've seen you engage in a great deal of monologue, but to be brutally honest, I've never observed you to actually dialogue with anyone.

There is no point to this thread. I have already explained to you that atheists do not believe in supernatural agencies such as gods. This includes your god as well. It doesn't matter if you claim that your god is purple, or hermaphroditic, or smells like fish. It doesn't matter if you claim that your god is "Father almighty, creator of Heaven and Earth".

Now please feel free to do your part: Ignore what I've written and respond according to the script that you created in your imagination prior to creating the OP that has since been merged with the other threads you've started regarding this same subject.

Honestly, what I have seen so far with my present attempts to get atheists to think beyond their self-imposed delimitation of their mind's embrace is just insistence that they don't want to think, and period.

But I like us all to think about the origins of the concept of God as creator of the universe, that concept has a long development until at the time when Genesis 1:1 was written, it has already arrived at the formulation that God is the creator of the universe, the heaven and the earth.

And in that connection to delve on what were the grounds for the ancient thinkers to come to such a formulation of God, namely, as creator of heaven and earth, or what I would say to be their totality of the universe.

Yrreg

arthwollipot

3rd May 2012, 11:17 PM

I hate incompetent thinking. Don't you?

pakeha

3rd May 2012, 11:18 PM

Am I the only one who reads Yrreg's post in this fellow's voice?

ztJ_wmr6IS0

Thanks, everyone for your reactions, but I am still waiting for Foster Zygote to return.

However, just the same I will say to everyone that this question of God or no God, it has engaged also atheists interminably to this day and everywhere in the internet, and more so in the internet because it is easy and quick to write in the internet and get oneself published.

Now, my opinion or conviction even though I must have already said this piece time and again in my writing in this forum, is that atheists are not genuinely thinking when they write about God in the Christian faith, because they insist on not getting the concept correctly.

Not genuinely thinking because to my observation they always delimit their thinking reach when it comes to God, so that in their delimited thinking they already set as off-limits any thinking that they will exercise with their mind as tabooed when it touches on the concept of God...

But back on OP

....So, you see, God as engineer and architect or plain builder, lastly creator of the universe, that is an old concept with the thinking men of antiquity.

Let us we two, you and I, Cassis, exchange thoughts about God as engineer of the universe....

I hate to interrrupt this intimate little encounter but I'm confused as to why Yrreg want to delimit God to a Judeo-Christian definition.

arthwollipot

3rd May 2012, 11:20 PM

And in that connection to delve on what were the grounds for the ancient thinkers to come to such a formulation of God, namely, as creator of heaven and earth, or what I would say to be their totality of the universe.The ancients came up with gods because they hadn't invented science yet. Once science was invented and people started to be able to make conclusions based on evidence, there was no longer any need to invoke a god as an explanatory principle.

Richard Dawkins once remarked that Darwin had made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist, by explaining via science what had previously only been explained via god. Every testable statement religion has made about the universe has, on scientific examination, found to be more or less inaccurate.

God is no longer required as an explanatory principle. Now we have science, which is much more reliable.

yrreg

3rd May 2012, 11:32 PM

Now we're getting to meat of your argument. We had to trim several pounds of fat away, but there it is.

The problem is that you also have to consider how a great many other gods have been conceptualized in the minds of the people who believed in them. Allow me to offer what seem to me to be the most likely explanation:

We humans have the ability to attribute agency to other members of our species. This is not an ability unique to us, but we are especially good at it. This ability was absolutely critical to our evolution as a social species. It enables us to understand that others in our social groups have motivations similar to ours. This not only enables individuals to adjust their behavior so as to compete with rivals, but more importantly, it allows individuals to recognize their common goals and work together to better attain those goals as a more effective group. The instinct to figure out what others are thinking as a critical survival tactic is so strong, that our ancestors attempted to figure out the motivations of everything that effected their survival, including forces which had no conscious agency such as the sun, the wind, the water etcetera. If they could figure out what these natural forces wanted, then maybe they could adjust their behavior so as to anticipate or even influence them. These are the origins of all gods, including your "Father almighty, creator of Heaven and Earth". They are simply ways of anthropomorphizing nature in the hope of understanding it and surviving it.

There is just the same what I submit to be the common knowledge of mankind, even though different cultures think differently in concrete particulars of explaining an experience of life.

But of course that also depends on the kinds of experience different cultures have come across, different persons have gone through.

Now, you emphasize that it is anthropomorphical for Christians to address God as Father, that is analogical.

As I said we all have experiences and on the basis of our experiences we come to explanation on what things are and how things come about and who brought them about.

God is the creator of heaven and earth, meaning the universe: heaven and earth cover everything that is experienced by man: but there are many many things not covered by the experience of man, ever.

Power is experienced by man from his father.

Wherefore analogically man addresses God the creator of the universe as also father, but not all completely and restrictively as like his biological father.

You prefer to dwell on your self-delimited way of thinking so as not to go above and beyond what you call anthropomorphical way of knowing, but that is human knowing and it is the only one we have, and still man can go beyond that but still analogical to that.

Yrreg

slingblade

3rd May 2012, 11:56 PM

You know how you get all excited about having new toys, but after a while, you find yourself missing your old toys?

Glad you're back, Gerry.

yrreg

4th May 2012, 12:02 AM

Originally posted by Yrreg

Let us we two, you and I, Cassis, exchange thoughts about God as engineer of the universe.

Yrreg

How does this tie in with your question on "What is the concept of God with atheists?"

Are you abandoning it?

You received a number of answers which you failed to address. Why is that? You asked the question. Why didn't the answers merit an answer in return?

The concept of God with atheists is that they get it all wrong and miss it.

Take this mantra of atheists who always insist that they are against all gods, goddesses, deities, divinities, whatever spaghettis, invisible pink unicorns, celestial teapots, tooth fairies, Santas, sky daddies, they just don't believe them, etc.

That is certainly not to come to the correct concept of God, specially in the Christian faith, namely, God the creator of the universe.

And they don't even have any awareness that they are into irrelevancies although they feel that they are very smart.

First, why bring in so many gods, goddesses, deities, divinities, spaghettis, unicorns, etc., like small town kung-ful fighters who boast they can beat any and all other fighters: when they don't even know who is the #1 champion in their days unless they travel far and wide instead of keeping to their meager village.

Then you don't really think hard to examine God in concept as the creator of the universe.

Start with God as engineer who built the universe: men in antiquity know that if there are houses and there are (primitive) machines), there are men who built them.

So, analogically there are superior entities builders of the universe, and eventually they come to the concept of one builder and that is the God creator of the universe, the cosmic house and cosmic machine of everything that exists and operates and has a beginning and an ending.

Now, I don't reply to every post transmitted and published here, because as I said time and again, if it is not relevant although it seems smart and flippant, I am not investing time and labor in it: because I want to learn from real thinkers the first sign of real thinking is relevancy, not smartness and flippancy.

I have to be careful now, whether by intention or by irrelevant garrulity, some atheists can make me lose my equanimity (that is calm-ness, hahaha) as to get also myself flippant, which flippancy in reply to flippancy ends up with no one the wiser.

But both sink into mean nastiness.

Yrreg

slingblade

4th May 2012, 12:13 AM

This just in: God still not real; Generalissimo Franco still dead.

yrreg

4th May 2012, 12:15 AM

Where is it written that a universe needs an engineer anyway? yrreg, do you have any evidence that there's some engineer operating this universe from behind some sort of veil? What exactly does this engineer do? Does he (because I'm pretty sure you think it's a he) replace the lightbulbs that he's strung up on the firmament or turn the moon on so that we have a soft light in the nighttime? Does he keep track of the cancer to kids and tapeworms to intestines ratios?

You are always looking for authority to depend on, use your own mind to think.

Okay, you don't accept some entity built the universe, then what is your ultimate explanation for the existence of the -- now this is not irrelevant, the nose in your face?

This is the challenge for you to do genuine personal thinking instead of looking for some authority who put it down in writing somewhere, and you just have to look up the text.

Seriously, men in antiquity have thought about the ultimate explanation for everything that has a beginning and an ending, and they have come to the concept of God as the creator of the universe, and they put it down in writing for record to posterity, here are two example of such records:

In the beginning God created heaven and earth. Gen. 1:1
I believe in God the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth. Apostles' Creed verse 1

About evidence, look up my exchange with Loss Mentor I mean Leader on what is evidence, what is the target of evidence, and how evidence operates to be a piece of proof for the existence of something the certainty of whose existence is in doubt.

Yrreg

slingblade

4th May 2012, 12:20 AM

Penis.

Mashuna

4th May 2012, 12:24 AM

You are always looking for authority to depend on, use your own mind to think.

Yrreg, you've got confused again. You're the Christian, you're the one looking for authority to depend on.

About evidence, look up my exchange with Loss Mentor I mean Leader on what is evidence, what is the target of evidence, and how evidence operates to be a piece of proof for the existence of something the certainty of whose existence is in doubt.

Yrreg

It was an excellent exchange, and Loss Leader provided a clear and concise definition of evidence. Unfortunately, you completely failed to understand it, and instead insisted on using your own flawed and erroneous definitions. As you will no doubt continue to do.

yrreg

4th May 2012, 12:28 AM

Am I the only one who reads Yrreg's post in this fellow's voice?

ztJ_wmr6IS0

Originally Posted by yrreg

Thanks, everyone for your reactions, but I am still waiting for Foster Zygote to return.

However, just the same I will say to everyone that this question of God or no God, it has engaged also atheists interminably to this day and everywhere in the internet, and more so in the internet because it is easy and quick to write in the internet and get oneself published.

Now, my opinion or conviction even though I must have already said this piece time and again in my writing in this forum, is that atheists are not genuinely thinking when they write about God in the Christian faith, because they insist on not getting the concept correctly.

Not genuinely thinking because to my observation they always delimit their thinking reach when it comes to God, so that in their delimited thinking they already set as off-limits any thinking that they will exercise with their mind as tabooed when it touches on the concept of God...
But back on OP

Originally Posted by yrreg
....So, you see, God as engineer and architect or plain builder, lastly creator of the universe, that is an old concept with the thinking men of antiquity.

Let us we two, you and I, Cassis, exchange thoughts about God as engineer of the universe....
I hate to interrrupt this intimate little encounter but I'm confused as to why Yrreg want to delimit God to a Judeo-Christian definition.

Think of an entity greater than God in concept in the Christian faith as creator of the universe.

Yrreg

yrreg

4th May 2012, 12:46 AM

Originally Posted by yrreg
And in that connection to delve on what were the grounds for the ancient thinkers to come to such a formulation of God, namely, as creator of heaven and earth, or what I would say to be their totality of the universe.

The ancients came up with gods because they hadn't invented science yet. Once science was invented and people started to be able to make conclusions based on evidence, there was no longer any need to invoke a god as an explanatory principle.

Richard Dawkins once remarked that Darwin had made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist, by explaining via science what had previously only been explained via god. Every testable statement religion has made about the universe has, on scientific examination, found to be more or less inaccurate.

God is no longer required as an explanatory principle. Now we have science, which is much more reliable.

The explanation of Dawkins is not complete and ultimate, and he does not see it.

He is like the blind swordsman of Chinese kung-fu movies, but unlike the blind swordsman Dawkins does not himself woe to him see what he should be driving, thrusting his sword at, above and beyond his contention that science explains everything.

Ask Dawkins and also Hawking where the laws of nature or physics come from, and also in re evolution where does the original rise of life come from; but of course he Dawkins will insist that evolution is not about the rise of life from the very beginning but only the rise of new species from old species.

Well, still the totally mentally blind swordsman, completely unaware of what he should be directing his sword at.

Yrreg

erwinl

4th May 2012, 12:54 AM

Think of an entity greater than God in concept in the Christian faith as creator of the universe.

Yrreg

Try as I might I cannot parse this sentence.
Maybe if you switch 'than God' and 'in concept' would that be more what you meant to say?

yrreg

4th May 2012, 01:06 AM

You know how you get all excited about having new toys, but after a while, you find yourself missing your old toys?

Glad you're back, Gerry.

I do enjoy this forum and the posters here, but are you interacting with me?

Can't seem to see you as one familiar to me in my history here.

What do you say, the concept of God in the Christian faith as creator of the universe came about from thinkers of antiquity who looked around and observed the universe and come to the conclusion that there is an entity creator and in charge of the whole cosmos; now atheists are so insistent that there is no entity in charge -- which is obviously an irrational attitude.

So, what do you think?

And I get this idea that atheists just miss totally and to themselves blindly what the concept is all about: God creator of the universe; consider that they keep harping on their not believing in any gods, goddesses, deities, divinities, when only one God is enough to keep them busy, why diffuse their attention on so many, except to hide behind them all which are of no worth whatever if they the multitude of gods etc. don't create the universe.

Yrreg

pakeha

4th May 2012, 01:07 AM

...Okay, you don't accept some entity built the universe, then what is your ultimate explanation for the existence of the -- now this is not irrelevant, the nose in your face?...

It's not something I've ever thought about.
Could you share your thoughts on the subject?

Think of an entity greater than God in concept in the Christian faith as creator of the universe....

The entity that created that particular god, for example.

slingblade

4th May 2012, 01:09 AM

I do enjoy this forum and the posters here, but are you interacting with me?

Can't seem to see you as one familiar to me in my history here.

You're getting forgetful. We've "interacted" many times.

So, what do you think?

God doesn't exist.

I can't really get much more clear or concise on that.

Last of the Fraggles

4th May 2012, 01:22 AM

Think of an entity greater than God in concept in the Christian faith as creator of the universe.

Yrreg

God's mum?

yrreg

4th May 2012, 01:39 AM

Originally Posted by yrreg
You are always looking for authority to depend on, use your own mind to think.
Yrreg, you've got confused again. You're the Christian, you're the one looking for authority to depend on.

Originally Posted by yrreg
About evidence, look up my exchange with Loss Mentor I mean Leader on what is evidence, what is the target of evidence, and how evidence operates to be a piece of proof for the existence of something the certainty of whose existence is in doubt.

Yrreg
It was an excellent exchange, and Loss Leader provided a clear and concise definition of evidence. Unfortunately, you completely failed to understand it, and instead insisted on using your own flawed and erroneous definitions. As you will no doubt continue to do.

There is no panel of judges to decide on the merits of each poster.

And besides, you should not be talking because you are one poster here hostile to me, and I am a lone poster with a mind of my own in hostile territory, where everyone has a uniform mindset and congratulates each other mutually among themselves, like those guys who review each other's works glowingly which are subsidized by their own shallow patrons.

About authority for the existence of God creator of the universe, the Christian faith does not teach that you need a text revealed by God Himself to know His existence insofar as creator of the universe.

Man's reason can and does come to the certainty of God's existence; now about Jesus Christ and the particulars of His doctrines and disciplines, a lot of that are based on God's revelation.

Yrreg

Mashuna

4th May 2012, 01:45 AM

There is no panel of judges to decide on the merits of each poster.
I've used my own reason to determine this Yregg, you should give it a try.

And besides, you should not be talking because you are one poster here hostile to me, and I am a lone poster with a mind of my own in hostile territory, where everyone has a uniform mindset and congratulates each other mutually among themselves, like those guys who review each other's works glowingly which are subsidized by their own shallow patrons.
I'm not hostile to you Yregg, you're light entertainment. I think much of your success in remaining amusing is that you periodically absent yourself, so your repeated failures in logic remain funny rather than tedious. Well done!

About authority for the existence of God creator of the universe, the Christian faith does not teach that you need a text revealed by God Himself to know His existence insofar as creator of the universe.

Man's reason can and does come to the certainty of God's existence; now about Jesus Christ and the particulars of His doctrines and disciplines, a lot of that are based on God's revelation.
Yrreg

See, still funny! For now, at least.

Lowpro

4th May 2012, 01:50 AM

There is no panel of judges to decide on the merits of each poster.

And besides, you should not be talking because you are one poster here hostile to me, and I am a lone poster with a mind of my own in hostile territory, where everyone has a uniform mindset and congratulates each other mutually among themselves, like those guys who review each other's works glowingly which are subsidized by their own shallow patrons.

About authority for the existence of God creator of the universe, the Christian faith does not teach that you need a text revealed by God Himself to know His existence insofar as creator of the universe.

Man's reason can and does come to the certainty of God's existence; now about Jesus Christ and the particulars of His doctrines and disciplines, a lot of that are based on God's revelation.

Yrreg

Is it hostile to ask you to explain what you're saying? Is it hostile to remind you that you've only repeated yourself?

Also, the belief that because a painting needs a painter means that the universe needs a creator is irrational now. It doesn't require a creator and as such it makes God unnecessary.

Because God is unnecessary the belief that God created the heavens and the Earth isn't a tenable conclusion.

yrreg

4th May 2012, 01:57 AM

[ Enumeration provided by Yrreg]

Originally Posted by yrreg
...Okay, you don't accept some entity built the universe, then what is your ultimate explanation for the existence of the -- now this is not irrelevant, the nose in your face?...
(i) It's not something I've ever thought about.
Could you share your thoughts on the subject?

Originally Posted by yrreg
Think of an entity greater than God in concept in the Christian faith as creator of the universe....
(ii) The entity that created that particular god, for example.

On (i): the nose is certainly testimony to the creator God architect and engineer and operator who keeps your nose on your face otherwise it should fall off.

On (ii): that is the fallacy of escapism for a complete and ultimate explanation, the infinite regress.

It keeps you smug but it is a double sword so that you stab yourself with it.

Examine infinite regress and tell me what you find out.

The ancients have already thought of that gimmick and discarded it as fallacious and unworthy of serious thinkers.

Here is why it is not any complete and ultimate explanation for the nose if you ask the question which atheists are always setting forth and feeling so smug about, where is the complete and ultimate explanation with that question, who created God if God created everything.

Folks who go in that direction really don't know what it is to come to a complete and ultimate explanation of things.

Again, go examine and research and think about infinite regress and come tell me what you find out.

Yrreg

slingblade

4th May 2012, 02:03 AM

I found out god doesn't exist.

yrreg

4th May 2012, 02:05 AM

You're getting forgetful. We've "interacted" many times.

God doesn't exist.

I can't really get much more clear or concise on that.

Let us examine the concept of God in the history of ideas.

There used to be a free online history of ideas in the internet, then some university it seems got the copyright to it, and now I can't use it easily, but it takes a lot of work to dig up the nuggets there.

I will look up that free online history of ideas again, and you do likewise; then we will exchange thoughts on what the ancients think about the concept of God as creator of the universe, what are their grounds for accepting and propounding this concept of God, the complete and ultimate explanation for the existence of the universe.

Yrreg

yrreg

4th May 2012, 02:16 AM

Is it hostile to ask you to explain what you're saying? Is it hostile to remind you that you've only repeated yourself?

Also, the belief that because a painting needs a painter means that the universe needs a creator is irrational now. It doesn't require a creator and as such it makes God unnecessary.

Because God is unnecessary the belief that God created the heavens and the Earth isn't a tenable conclusion.

Well, I don't think you are thinking properly, when you say that the universe needs no creator, unless you insist that the universe is eternal and/or created itself, in which case the universe is God, it created the parts of Itself which are changeable and have a beginning and an ending.

Now, you will say that I am admitting the existence of a pantheistic God, everything is God.

Well, everything is God for coming from God, but in that everything there is a God that is Himself not a part of anything but everything else comes forth from Him.

So, if you just attend to that God Who is the author of everything else that is not Himself, then you have got to God in His concept as the creator of the universe.

Honestly, in this new thread but merged with an old one by the powers that be here, I am into asking atheists with that question, The Concept of God with Atheists, namely, what do you have in substitute for God?

So, your answer is that the universe has always been around; I can take that but with my explanation above, and then I don't have to deal with scientists who tell us that the universe has a beginning.

Yrreg

slingblade

4th May 2012, 02:22 AM

Let us examine the concept of God in the history of ideas.

There used to be a free online history of ideas in the internet, then some university it seems got the copyright to it, and now I can't use it easily, but it takes a lot of work to dig up the nuggets there.

I will look up that free online history of ideas again, and you do likewise; then we will exchange thoughts on what the ancients think about the concept of God as creator of the universe, what are their grounds for accepting and propounding this concept of God, the complete and ultimate explanation for the existence of the universe.

Yrreg

Why should I? God doesn't exist.

JoeBentley

4th May 2012, 02:28 AM

The Concept of God with Atheists, namely, what do you have in substitute for God?

*Very slowly and clearly* Nothing.

You're assuming the need you have to fill in the blanks in our knowledge with all purpose thought Spackle, personify it, and label it God is a need that we all share.

I've seen this dance before. You're going restate and redefine your question again and again until you get an atheist to describe some personal opinion of theirs that sorta sounds like something vaguely religious or spiritual if you take it out of context, squint at it, and tilt your head then make some sad attempt at declaring atheist just as religious as everyone else.

Agatha

4th May 2012, 03:01 AM

Yrreg, your God does not exist. It's a story, made up by primitive peoples with a limited understanding of the universe and how it came to be.

We also have a limited understanding of the universe and how it came to be, albeit a far greater understanding than people thousands of years ago, but instead of making up a story, we're content to say "we don't know yet, we'll try to find out".

The source of your misunderstanding is revealed by your question above where you ask what atheists have in substitute for God. We've been telling you for years, we don't have anything as a substitute for God.

Until you understand this very basic and vital point, your monologues here (for your posts are not dialogue; you rarely discuss anything but merely restate your argument with increasing rudeness until you get carded) are pointless exercises.

Ryokan

4th May 2012, 03:07 AM

As you're from the West...

He isn't. Yrreg is Filipino.

Ryokan

4th May 2012, 03:08 AM

You are always looking for authority to depend on, use your own mind to think.

That's a really strange accusation, coming from a Catholic...

Mojo

4th May 2012, 03:12 AM

What sort of crackpot god would think that wisdom comes from abandoning all you have learned and accepting things you knew were bunk 50 years ago?

All of them.

Mojo

4th May 2012, 03:14 AM

What is the concept of God with atheists?

We've been through this before: one of a number of imaginary beings.

Mojo

4th May 2012, 03:17 AM

Your question is as meaningless as this one:

What is the concept of Voldemort and Harry Potter with Yrreg?

Actually, Yrreg's question is even more meaningless - at least your question specifies particular fictional characters.

RoboTimbo

4th May 2012, 04:55 AM

Think of an entity greater than God in concept in the Christian faith as creator of the universe.

Yrreg

Everything that actually exists is greater than the Christian god. Spiderman wouldn't be defeated by iron chariots. Superman wouldn't get nailed to a cross.

Can you think of anything less powerful than the Christian god? Why didn't people make up a really powerful and intelligent god rather than the stumbling boob they have to apologize for now?

RoboTimbo

4th May 2012, 04:57 AM

Foster Zygote

4th May 2012, 05:15 AM

You received a number of answers which you failed to address. Why is that? You asked the question. Why didn't the answers merit an answer in return?

They went off-script.

Foster Zygote

4th May 2012, 05:31 AM

Honestly, what I have seen so far with my present attempts to get atheists to think beyond their self-imposed delimitation of their mind's embrace is just insistence that they don't want to think, and period.
I do want to think. But your intellectually empty posts offer nothing to think about. You say that you believe your god to be "Father almighty, creator of Heaven and Earth". What is there to think about? I get it. I still see no evidence to conclude that your Catholic god exists any more than any other god exists. What now? How about introducing something to actually think about, such as an argument for the existence of your god.

But I like us all to think about the origins of the concept of God as creator of the universe, that concept has a long development until at the time when Genesis 1:1 was written, it has already arrived at the formulation that God is the creator of the universe, the heaven and the earth.
So the desert tribes that invented YHWH decided that this imaginary construct created the universe before they wrote this belief down? That's brilliant! You're certainly on to something now.

And in that connection to delve on what were the grounds for the ancient thinkers to come to such a formulation of God, namely, as creator of heaven and earth, or what I would say to be their totality of the universe.
Their imaginations.

catsmate1

4th May 2012, 05:39 AM

6 and a half years, and people are still trying to get Yrreg to come to the point. :rolleyes:

Indeed. It's pointless trying to engage him in productive debate, but people still try. He's worse than a hard core truther in this regard.
He has too much ego invested in his god beliefs and his self-believed superiority because of them. He can't afford to accept even the possibility that he's wrong, it'd be too damaging to him.

I've seen you engage in a great deal of monologue, but to be brutally honest, I've never observed you to actually dialogue with anyone.
That's because others fail to read their parts from the script he's imagined.

Now please feel free to do your part: Ignore what I've written and respond according to the script that you created in your imagination prior to creating the OP that has since been merged with the other threads you've started regarding this same subject.
Hence the petunias.

Our last encounter was about evidence, and readers can look up our exchange if they care to read something about evidence from our thinking, which might be useful to them to determine whether the existence of God can be known and is known to Christians from evidence.
Yep. You utterly failed to show any evidence for your god or any reason to believe it exists.

I will just say here that it is the teaching of the Christian faith that God's existence is known from evidence in the existence of the material universe.
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/162724c684b1c5ab80.png (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=20754)
Religions are generally reluctant to do this because they know there is no such evidence.

That is for the atheists who deny the existence of any parts of the universe that are not material; for all other humans who admit the existence of other parts of the universe that are not material, then there is also evidence.
Will you be supplying some this time? And here's a hint, your unsupported beliefs aren't evidence.

I am at present trying to see who is the most thinking competent here; there might be several but I prefer to choose the one most of course on my observation most competent in thinking: one criterion of which is the habit of focusing on the topic and not going into irrelevancies.
I assume by "irrelevancies" you mean hard questions you're unable to answer?

Honestly, what I have seen so far with my present attempts to get atheists to think beyond their self-imposed delimitation of their mind's embrace is just insistence that they don't want to think, and period.
:rolleyes: Perhaps someday you'll learn to think beyond your "god" and your ego-driven need for it.

But I like us all to think about the origins of the concept of God as creator of the universe, that concept has a long development until at the time when Genesis 1:1 was written, it has already arrived at the formulation that God is the creator of the universe, the heaven and the earth.
You mean some primitives, striving to understand the universe, made the concept up. No evidence remember?

This just in: God still not real; Generalissimo Franco still dead.
And the god botherers are still unable to accept this reality.

MRC_Hans

4th May 2012, 05:50 AM

Well, I don't think you are thinking properly, when you say that the universe needs no creator, unless you insist that the universe is eternal and/or created itself,

Who are you to judge who is thinking properly?

Apparently, the universe is not eternal, since time is a property of the universe. Or, if you will, this imples that the universe has existed for all time.

in which case the universe is God, it created the parts of Itself which are changeable and have a beginning and an ending.

I suppose such a definition of god is workable, if somewhat superfluous.

Now, you will say that I am admitting the existence of a pantheistic God, everything is God.

Well, everything is God for coming from God, but in that everything there is a God that is Himself not a part of anything but everything else comes forth from Him.
That does not really make sense, does it?

So, if you just attend to that God Who is the author of everything else that is not Himself, then you have got to God in His concept as the creator of the universe.

From that it follows that if the universe created itself, god does not exist.

Honestly, in this new thread but merged with an old one by the powers that be here, I am into asking atheists with that question, The Concept of God with Atheists, namely, what do you have in substitute for God?

Nothing. Why would we need a substitute for god?

So, your answer is that the universe has always been around; I can take that but with my explanation above, and then I don't have to deal with scientists who tell us that the universe has a beginning.

Since time does not exist outside the universe, the universe existed for all times. That does not mean it cannot be finite, however.

If this is too complex for you, I suggest you stick with your god figure.

Hans

catsmate1

4th May 2012, 05:51 AM

Think of an entity greater than God in concept in the Christian faith as creator of the universe.Yrreg

The entity that created you god.
The entity that created the multiverse of which your (putative) god's universe is a infinitesimal element.
The entity that backed the forces that defeated your god's "Chosen People" so many times in your babble.

There's three.

Tony99

4th May 2012, 05:56 AM

Start with God as engineer who built the universe: men in antiquity know that if there are houses and there are (primitive) machines), there are men who built them.

So, analogically there are superior entities builders of the universe, and eventually they come to the concept of one builder and that is the God creator of the universe, the cosmic house and cosmic machine of everything that exists and operates and has a beginning and an ending.

Yrreg

How and why would one "eventually" come to the concept of "one" builder/creator? Multiple builders, engineers and creators satisfies the same imaginary nonsense just fine.

Foster Zygote

4th May 2012, 06:03 AM

There is just the same what I submit to be the common knowledge of mankind, even though different cultures think differently in concrete particulars of explaining an experience of life.

But of course that also depends on the kinds of experience different cultures have come across, different persons have gone through.
Sorry, Gerry, but the incredible variety of gods and cosmologies created throughout human history doesn't support your assertion that these are all the result of there being a real god. It certainly doesn't support a god as specific as your Christian god.

Now, you emphasize that it is anthropomorphical for Christians to address God as Father, that is analogical.
It's "anthropomorphic", not "anthropomorphical". And yes, your god, like most all gods, is an anthropomorphic construct created by people attempting to understand how the universe works by attributing to it the sorts of thoughts and motivations that they could understand.

As I said we all have experiences and on the basis of our experiences we come to explanation on what things are and how things come about and who brought them about.
Good. Let's talk about these experiences that led people all over the world to conclude that many different gods exist.

God is the creator of heaven and earth, meaning the universe: heaven and earth cover everything that is experienced by man: but there are many many things not covered by the experience of man, ever.
Now you're just asserting things. Let's talk about the experiences that led people to believe in the Aten, Zeus, Ahura Mazda, Huitzilopitchli, Jesus, Marduk, Ma Zu, Bathala, etcetera.

Power is experienced by man from his father.

Wherefore analogically man addresses God the creator of the universe as also father, but not all completely and restrictively as like his biological father.
So what? Many cultures created gods with female aspects as well. Many cultures were ruled by kings and imagined their gods to be kings. What is your point?

You prefer to dwell on your self-delimited way of thinking so as not to go above and beyond what you call anthropomorphical way of knowing, but that is human knowing and it is the only one we have, and still man can go beyond that but still analogical to that.
In other words, you are upset that I, and others, will not accept your assertions about your god without any evidence to back them up. We first need to pretend that your god is real in order to believe in it. You are right. I do delimit my model of the universe to those things for which there is evidence. I reserve judgement and lack belief in things for which there is no evidence, such as leprechauns, fairies and your god.

Mojo

4th May 2012, 06:16 AM

I am at present trying to see who is the most thinking competent here...Well, I don't think you are thinking properly...

http://people.psych.cornell.edu/~dunning/publications/pdf/unskilledandunaware.pdf

Foster Zygote

4th May 2012, 06:32 AM

The concept of God with atheists is that they get it all wrong and miss it.

Take this mantra of atheists who always insist that they are against all gods, goddesses, deities, divinities, whatever spaghettis, invisible pink unicorns, celestial teapots, tooth fairies, Santas, sky daddies, they just don't believe them, etc.

That is certainly not to come to the correct concept of God, specially in the Christian faith, namely, God the creator of the universe.
You still have no evidence for your "correct" concept of God. That is why we lack belief in it. We understand that you believe that your god is the creator of the universe (You've only repeated it like a thousand times, like a mantra). We also understand that you can't offer any evidence that this god exists.

And they don't even have any awareness that they are into irrelevancies although they feel that they are very smart.
It is not irrelevant that there are many other versions of gods that differ greatly from your "correct" version. Many other gods are regarded as the "correct" gods by their worshippers. You are like a defense attorney trying to claim that the fact that your client's version of events is contradicted by the testimony of others is irrelevant.

By the way, just as a bit of advice, when you start asserting that others are trying to seem very smart simply because they counter your arguments, it suggests that you may be the one to whom it is very important to seem smart.

First, why bring in so many gods, goddesses, deities, divinities, spaghettis, unicorns, etc., like small town kung-ful fighters who boast they can beat any and all other fighters: when they don't even know who is the #1 champion in their days unless they travel far and wide instead of keeping to their meager village.
Because the great variety of gods, supernatural beings and cosmologies throughout human history points to these things being imaginary creations of many different cultures. You can't ignore this fact.

Then you don't really think hard to examine God in concept as the creator of the universe.

Start with God as engineer who built the universe: men in antiquity know that if there are houses and there are (primitive) machines), there are men who built them.

So, analogically there are superior entities builders of the universe, and eventually they come to the concept of one builder and that is the God creator of the universe, the cosmic house and cosmic machine of everything that exists and operates and has a beginning and an ending.
And here we go with William Paley's watchmaker argument. Paley was quite bright, but he lacked the information that has become available to us over the last two centuries. We now understand the natural mechanisms that lead to the accretion of greater complexity from simpler origins. No conscious designer is needed to explain what we observe. And the universe may well be finite and unbounded in space/time, without any creation. If your "correct" god can exist uncreated, then why can't the universe?

The reality of the bottom up generation of complexity that we see in nature is counterintuitive, but then so are many other important discoveries about nature. By imposing your intuition on nature you are once again attempting to anthropomorphize it.

Now, I don't reply to every post transmitted and published here, because as I said time and again, if it is not relevant although it seems smart and flippant, I am not investing time and labor in it: because I want to learn from real thinkers the first sign of real thinking is relevancy, not smartness and flippancy.
Then address the very relevant fact that gods and supernatural cosmologies have been invented in huge varieties.

AvalonXQ

4th May 2012, 06:39 AM

I think "the creator of the physical universe" is not a bad definition for capital-G God.

It makes the question "Does God exist?" equivalent to the question "Is there a Creator?"

Foster Zygote

4th May 2012, 06:41 AM

Okay, you don't accept some entity built the universe, then what is your ultimate explanation for the existence of the -- now this is not irrelevant, the nose in your face?

Here's one possible hypothesis that conforms with what we know of natural laws:

The universe was not created. There is no "before the Big Bang". Space/time is boundless yet finite, like the surface of a sphere. Along the time dimension, energy and matter arrange themselves according to natural laws to generate greater complexity. Stars process hydrogen into the elements that we know. Thermodynamics eventually results in self reproducing polymers that evolve by the process of natural selection until noses result. One of these nosed species eventually produces someone who looks at his nose and concludes that an imaginary authority figure created it.

Foster Zygote

4th May 2012, 06:46 AM

Think of an entity greater than God in concept in the Christian faith as creator of the universe.

Yrreg

That's easy! The Christian god is appallingly inept. It can't even get its creations right. It keeps blaming them for their own imperfections and smashing them, then insisting that it will get them right in the future and that this is "all part of the plan".

Mojo

4th May 2012, 06:48 AM

Foster Zygote

4th May 2012, 06:51 AM

The explanation of Dawkins is not complete and ultimate, and he does not see it.

He is like the blind swordsman of Chinese kung-fu movies, but unlike the blind swordsman Dawkins does not himself woe to him see what he should be driving, thrusting his sword at, above and beyond his contention that science explains everything.

Ask Dawkins and also Hawking where the laws of nature or physics come from, and also in re evolution where does the original rise of life come from; but of course he Dawkins will insist that evolution is not about the rise of life from the very beginning but only the rise of new species from old species.

Well, still the totally mentally blind swordsman, completely unaware of what he should be directing his sword at.

Yrreg
They would insist so because it would be a correct objection. If the inability to explain the existence of the universe invalidates evolutionary biology, then it also invalidates every other field of human science. Is chemistry invalid because it doesn't explain the existence of the universe? Scientists say "we don't yet know" while you pretend to understand.

Hokulele

4th May 2012, 07:15 AM

I think "the creator of the physical universe" is not a bad definition for capital-G God.

It makes the question "Does God exist?" equivalent to the question "Is there a Creator?"

Eh, all that does is push the messy questions back one level. Instead of asking "Who created the universe?", you are left with "Who created God?". Or "If God doesn't need a creator, why does the universe?"

My personal favorite is the argument "God answers the question of why there is something rather than nothing." If this is true, what answers the question of why there is God and not no-God? Gerry talks about infinite regress, but why stop at the level of his God? Why not one or two levels higher? Why not be parsimonious and say that the universe, like yrreg's God, is uncreated? "God" doesn't really answer any of the big questions, and yrreg's God is simply a tautology.

bruto

4th May 2012, 07:17 AM

Thanks, everyone for your reactions, but I am still waiting for Foster Zygote to return.

However, just the same I will say to everyone that this question of God or no God, it has engaged also atheists interminably to this day and everywhere in the internet, and more so in the internet because it is easy and quick to write in the internet and get oneself published.

Now, my opinion or conviction even though I must have already said this piece time and again in my writing in this forum, is that atheists are not genuinely thinking when they write about God in the Christian faith, because they insist on not getting the concept correctly.

Not genuinely thinking because to my observation they always delimit their thinking reach when it comes to God, so that in their delimited thinking they already set as off-limits any thinking that they will exercise with their mind as tabooed when it touches on the concept of God, in accordance with as I already stated God in the following two statements in the Christian faith:

In the beginning God created heaven and earth. Genesis 1:1
I believe in God the Father almighty creator of heaven and earth. Apostles' Creed verse 1

If atheists do not impose upon their mind the off-limits consideration of the concept of God as per the two statements above, meaning they do not self-censor their minds, then they must first of all consider how the concept of God came about in the minds of the people who did formulate the statements.

Of course that is a matter of intellectual curiosity, how people come about to inform their mind about the concept of God as per the two statements above.

At least therefore for atheists who still have such an intellectual curiosity, they can dialog with me; otherwise they will go into all directions of irrelevancy.

Yrreg

I believe your assertion above is just plain wrong. Simply not correct. Implacably, repeatedly, boringly wrong. Many atheists, like theists, have thought well and hard about all the things you're mentioning here. Some have gone through catechism and even divinity school and lost their faith, while others have found faith in a flash. Many have probably studied it in greater depth than you have, including long and tedious study of the scholastic arguments for and against ontological proof, and the anthropological, psychological and philosophical discussion of how some of those ideas came about. You should probably do the same thing before assuming that the issue is as simple as you make it out to be. There are reasons why theists and atheists, as well as everything in between, still exist, and you have not even scratched the surface.

jsfisher

4th May 2012, 07:24 AM

What do you say, the concept of God in the Christian faith as creator of the universe came about from thinkers of antiquity who looked around and observed the universe and come to the conclusion that there is an entity creator and in charge of the whole cosmos; now atheists are so insistent that there is no entity in charge -- which is obviously an irrational attitude.

You have repeated that the concept of God in the Christian faith as creator of the heavens and Earth. However, that concept is far from complete. Sure, characterizing something by its deeds and accomplishments is reasonable, but you have limited yourself to just two (creator of heavens, creator of Earth), so your personal concept of God in the Christian faith has little to distinguish it from the concept of God in many, many other faiths.

Is not your God distinguishable from all the rest? Your insistence that God as maker of the heavens and Earth is sufficient for the Christian concept is obviously an irrational attitude.

jond

4th May 2012, 07:25 AM

I, for one, am happy that FZ has been designated as Yyreg's special friend for this go-round. I was worried that FZ had been a bit bored lately and that he might have been engaged in guiltless masterbation.

jsfisher

4th May 2012, 07:32 AM

I have another question, Yrreg: How many gods are there in the Christian faith?

No, I don't mean whether it is one or three or three-in-one. Besides the creator of heavens and Earth, how many others are there? One of the commands, "Thou shalt have no other gods before me," clear admits to the existence of other deities. I'm just curious as to how many there are.

JoeBentley

4th May 2012, 07:56 AM

I've heard it argued that some flavors of Christianity are polytheistic in everything but name, with concept of the Trinity, the Virgin Mary being considered a Goddess by any practical definition, and Saints qualifying as demigods.

Dinwar

4th May 2012, 08:40 AM

Now, my opinion or conviction even though I must have already said this piece time and again in my writing in this forum, is that atheists are not genuinely thinking when they write about God in the Christian faith, because they insist on not getting the concept correctly.

Which is funny, because many of us wait until the theists define "god". Which means YOUR SIDE is the one not defining it correctly. ;)

Of course that is a matter of intellectual curiosity, how people come about to inform their mind about the concept of God as per the two statements above.
First, you have to prove that those two statements are relevant to the discussion. You've yet to do so--you've merely insisited that we accept them as relevant, and say we're "not genuinely thinking" if we disagree with you.

Ask Dawkins and also Hawking where the laws of nature or physics come from, and also in re evolution where does the original rise of life come fromThat's like saying "Paintings don't exist--the painters can't explain the process by which canvase and pigments form!" Abiogenesis=/=evolution. The fact that you equivocate between the two strongly suggests that you do not have an informed opinion on the matter.

Sun Countess

4th May 2012, 08:57 AM

I will just say here that it is the teaching of the Christian faith that God's existence is known from evidence in the existence of the material universe. And I will counter by saying it is the teaching of the Scientology faith that the evil Lord Xenu sent frozen thetans into the volcanoes of the earth, thereby infecting humans with bad thoughts.

In other words, it's an assertion. Is not my imaginary friend, Susie, evident to everybody with a properly working brain? Susie seems to think so. How can you argue against somebody who takes such a childish position as "My boss man is real because he says so!!"

That is for the atheists who deny the existence of any parts of the universe that are not material; for all other humans who admit the existence of other parts of the universe that are not material, then there is also evidence.
Can they prove this evidence? There are people who believe that ghosts and demons are real, and they seem to admit that evidence to themselves. The big problem is they can't seem to show it to other people. It's all inside your heads.

Now, you emphasize that it is anthropomorphical for Christians to address God as Father, that is analogical. Yes, dear, of course it is. Women ain't ***, version 1.0.

Power is experienced by man from his father. Women ain't ****, part 2.0.

Wherefore analogically man addresses God the creator of the universe as also father, but not all completely and restrictively as like his biological father. For a mother is really just an afterthought in the whole biological creation process. Or, as I like to call it, women ain't ****, part 3.0

Yrreg, can you explain why men are the only important entities in all the religions that have been invented and enforced by men? You seem to be delimiting yourself with this particular concept.

You are always looking for authority to depend on, use your own mind to think. Since this was addressed to me, I'd like you to ask whose mind you think I'm using to do my thinking? Or what authority you think I depend on? Certainly not a bunch of misogynistic religious zealots who need an imaginary bully behind them to keep their women in line.

Here's the thing, yrreg. I could figure out that all this "god" stuff was a crock of nonsense about the same time I figured out that Santa was all make-believe. I learned about the greek and roman gods before I ever learned anything about Yahweh, and he seemed just as silly and make-believe as the others. Only a lot meaner.

Okay, you don't accept some entity built the universe, then what is your ultimate explanation for the existence of the -- now this is not irrelevant, the nose in your face? There's a whole lot of biological processes that could explain the existence of the nose on my face, and it doesn't start with someone imaginary entity who got the whole universe started. I suggest you read some books on biology and evolution if you want those answers.

Seriously, men in antiquity have thought about the ultimate explanation for everything that has a beginning and an ending, and they have come to the concept of God as the creator of the universe, and they put it down in writing for record to posterity, here are two example of such records: <snip religious musings of ancient men> Are we no better than superstitious men in antiquity? Maybe you don't think you are, because you think they give you some extra authority that atheists and good Christian women don't have. "Well, I'm just as cool as those ancient goatherders because I've got Yahweh on my side! Go me! Woman, get me a sandwich, and make sure you don't use the wrong pickles!"

Do you think that ancient men got it all right when it came to disease prevention, sewage systems, or space exploration? Why in the world do you look to them as an authority when it comes to any type of "ultimate explanation?"

About evidence, look up my exchange with Loss Mentor I mean Leader on what is evidence, what is the target of evidence, and how evidence operates to be a piece of proof for the existence of something the certainty of whose existence is in doubt. yrreg, I've read this entire thread. I find your definition of evidence very, how shall we say.....delimiting.

Lowpro

4th May 2012, 09:16 AM

Well, I don't think you are thinking properly, when you say that the universe needs no creator, unless you insist that the universe is eternal and/or created itself, in which case the universe is God, it created the parts of Itself which are changeable and have a beginning and an ending.

Yes universe created itself (without anthropomorphized intention), and you saying that the universe must be God then is untenable. The creator is not his creation.

Now, you will say that I am admitting the existence of a pantheistic God, everything is God.

Well, everything is God for coming from God, but in that everything there is a God that is Himself not a part of anything but everything else comes forth from Him.

Which is why your assumptions that the Universe is God is untenable. You say that if the universe created itself then it must be God by virtue of being of God, that is simply untrue. That's like saying God saw the Universe create itself then took all the credit...

So, if you just attend to that God Who is the author of everything else that is not Himself, then you have got to God in His concept as the creator of the universe.

I don't believe in a God that created everything, or even anything. It's unnecessary and because God is unnecessary, a redundant useless fifth wheel if you want to be poetic about it, then to conclude that God is required for the universe flies in the face of reason and is an untenable conclusion.

Honestly, in this new thread but merged with an old one by the powers that be here, I am into asking atheists with that question, The Concept of God with Atheists, namely, what do you have in substitute for God?

So, your answer is that the universe has always been around; I can take that but with my explanation above, and then I don't have to deal with scientists who tell us that the universe has a beginning.

Yrreg

Beginning is relative to your reference frame. Your explanation above is not tenable and to accept it as such means you are unreasonable.

pakeha

4th May 2012, 09:18 AM

On (i): the nose is certainly testimony to the creator God architect and engineer and operator who keeps your nose on your face otherwise it should fall off.

On (ii):...Again, go examine and research and think about infinite regress and come tell me what you find out...

On (1): Could you explain why my nose is a testimony to any god, let alone a creator one?

On (2): Not a lot, actually. Is this question related to your concept of a correct god?

...
So, your answer is that the universe has always been around; I can take that but with my explanation above, and then I don't have to deal with scientists who tell us that the universe has a beginning. ...

That's interesting.
Where did you find scientists who said that?
I'd like to read it for myself.

4th May 2012, 10:23 AM

I think "the creator of the physical universe" is not a bad definition for capital-G God.

It makes the question "Does God exist?" equivalent to the question "Is there a Creator?"

The problem is that yrreg does not stop there.
He defines his god as the "creator of the universe", and then assumes that such a definition clearly indicates the triune Christian god of the Catholic faith.

His definition, is so vague as to be almost useless for his purposes. Earlier in this thread he admitted that if the universe were uncaused (or self-caused), then the universe would be god. He intentionally keeps his definition this vague because then he can claim that anything, anything at all, is god.

It's part of his ever-lasting "gotcha" attempt, to try and prove that non-believers believe in something he can retroactively define as god. And therefore we're all Catholics.

Maybe one day he'll address the many problems with his convoluted argument. But I doubt it.
Part 1 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=7959064#post7959064)
Part 2 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=7959082#post7959082)