What's wrong with this definition of God: maker of heaven and earth and everything?

[yrreg]

[...]

Posted by yrreg
I am exasperated with atheists way of thinking and speaking, like repeating the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Santa Claus, Xenu, etc. argument against God which I understand to be:

"Maker of heaven and earth and everything."



I've asked before, but I'll try again. Do you have a better definition of God, because that one's really terrible. I mean it's just no use to your argument at all.


What's exactly, specifically wrong with my definition of God? as maker of heaven and earth and everything.





Yrreg

[Wally]

Too vague.

[Minarvia]

I'd say, too vague. And I'd say, until heaven is proved to be real, how can you include that in a definition?

[Tanstaafl]

Yes, it's too vague.

How are you supposed to know which people to hate from only that?

[yrreg]

Too vague.



That's not being exact and specific; please be exact and specific.



That is why I am very exasperated in exchange of ideas with you guys, you tend to tergiversate and/or prevaricate and even calumniate, instead of being exact and specific in reacting to the issue.





Yrreg

[Foster Zygote]

The problem is that you have yet to offer any supporting evidence that this is true.

[quixotecoyote]

Please see the half dozen threads you've posted in where this was explained to you for pages and pages in formulations of various numbers of words.

In fact, I think this might be the challenge for this thread.

Who can tell me what's wrong with this definition in the form of a limerick? First one to do so can pick the next format.

[Wolfman]

I we are simply discussing potential definitions of gods, there's no problem with it.

Just as I can define god as "a human-like father figure who lives on Mount Olympus and shoots lightning bolts at people" or "a creature made of spaghetti and meatballs that has supernatural powers".

Simply stating a definition has no relevance to the actual existence of the entity in question. And I'm just as justified in questioning/doubting/disbelieving the existence of Zeus or FSM as I am your god.

Heck, why don't I just define god as "the entity who created your god". My god is then, by definition, more powerful than yours. It has no actual impact on reality, of course...but if we're just talking definitions, then my god is, by definition, better than your god.

[Mojo]

What's exactly, specifically wrong with my definition of God? as maker of heaven and earth and everything.Too vague.I'd say, too vague. Yes, it's too vague.That's not being exact and specific; please be exact and specific.


It's not exact and specific enough.

[Foster Zygote]

That's not being exact and specific; please be exact and specific.



That is why I am very exasperated in exchange of ideas with you guys, you tend to tergiversate and/or prevaricate and even calumniate, instead of being exact and specific in reacting to the issue.





Yrreg

But when people get exact and specific (even redundantly so) you demand that they write posts no longer than a few sentences.

[Dumb All Over]

What's exactly, specifically wrong with my definition of God?
as maker of heaven and earth and everything.




Yrreg
I like to define God as "The Sum of All Things". What's wrong with this definition?

[Tanstaafl]

God is an imaginary figure used by the unethical to extract money and loyalty from honest people.

[Foster Zygote]

A tergiversator named Gerry
Who's grammatic usage was hairy
Offered a proof of God
Quite logically flawed
Was evidence lacking? Yes, very


Next contestant must write a Haiku. If Dr. A or Mercutio join this thread perhaps one will treat us to a sonnet.

[Wally]

That's not being exact and specific; please be exact and specific.
That is why I am very exasperated in exchange of ideas with you guys, you tend to tergiversate and/or prevaricate and even calumniate, instead of being exact and specific in reacting to the issue.
Yrreg

Because that definition can just as well apply to the laws of physics. Not enough differentiation from natural phenomenon.

[asmodean]

That is why I am very exasperated in exchange of ideas with you guys, you tend to tergiversate and/or prevaricate and even calumniate, instead of being exact and specific in reacting to the issue

Drop the thesaurus and BACK AWAY SLOWLY!

[billydkid]

It doesn't mean anything.

[Twiler]

A tergiversator named Gerry
Who's grammatic usage was hairy
Offered a proof of God
Quite logically flawed
Was evidence lacking? Yes, very


Next contestant must write a Haiku. If Dr. A or Mercutio join this thread perhaps one will treat us to a sonnet.

Guy talks about God.
Does he speak English with skill?
Apparently not.

And the problems with the definition are:

1. The assumption of the existence of heaven.
2. The assumption of a unified creator.
3. The assumption all things requiring a creator.

[Mojo]

Next contestant must write a Haiku.


Yrreg makes demands.
Result can be nothing but
tergiversation.

[Foster Zygote]

Guy talks about God.
Does he speak English with skill?
Apparently not.

Now you must choose the new form of Gozer the Traveler. And no Torgs, that's been done to death.

[Wolfman]

What's exactly, specifically wrong with my definition of God? as maker of heaven and earth and everything.Yrreg
Actually, if we were really to argue the definition on a logical level, then you are stating that God created three things:
Heaven
Earth
Everything
The way this is stated, "Heaven" and "Earth" are not included in "Everything"; they are somehow separate. But if "Everything" doesn't include "Heaven" and "Earth", then its not "Everything", is it?

You may argue that, obviously, that is not what you intended; and that it should be adjusted to say, "maker of Heaven and Earth and everything else"

But then, we have the problem of God himself. Would not god be included in "Everything"? If "Everything" doesn't include god, then again its not "Everything". So if God really created "Everything", then God created Himself. But that obviously just doesn't make sense.

So, from both logical and linguistic viewpoints, your definition just doesn't make sense.

:D

Well...you asked!

[Foster Zygote]

Actually, if we were really to argue the definition on a logical level, then you are stating that God created three things:
Heaven
Earth
Everything
The way this is stated, "Heaven" and "Earth" are not included in "Everything"; they are somehow separate. But if "Everything" doesn't include "Heaven" and "Earth", then its not "Everything", is it?

You may argue that, obviously, that is not what you intended; and that it should be adjusted to say, "maker of Heaven and Earth and everything else"

But then, we have the problem of God himself. Would not god be included in "Everything"? If "Everything" doesn't include god, then again its not "Everything". So if God really created "Everything", then God created Himself. But that obviously just doesn't make sense.

So, from both logical and linguistic viewpoints, your definition just doesn't make sense.

:D

Well...you asked!

Maybe Gerry is as witty as Douglas Adams? No, you're right. Probably not.

[joobz]

Too vague.
That's not being exact and specific; please be exact and specific.

Nominated!

It's not too often you see someone reprimanded for a post by giving the meaning of that post.

[joobz]

What's exactly, specifically wrong with my definition of God?
as maker of heaven and earth and everything.

Yrreg

In truth, I see nothing inherently wrong with that definition. In fact, it's practically the exact definition given in the Nicene creed.

So, I say, go ahead and use that definition.

Now, all you need to do next is prove that there is indeed a maker of heaven and earth and everything.

You'll also need to prove there's a heaven, but I'll be happy if you can prove that the earth has a maker.

[Twiler]

Now you must choose the new form of Gozer the Traveler. And no Torgs, that's been done to death.

Okay. Someone try expressing these threads in the form of a flow-chart.

[quixotecoyote]

Now you must choose the new form of Gozer the Traveler. And no Torgs, that's been done to death.
Okay. Someone try expressing these threads in the form of a flow-chart.

Sorry, a sonnet has already been requested.

What can one do with an ideal idea
Which can only be said in very few words
Or tergiversation grows like chia
That evil atheists farm on the boards
And refuse to follow wordcount restraints
Leading to prevarication and hate
It truly would try the patience of saints
While I am left here to dangle my bait
Posting my questions until satisfied
That my definitions are well taken in
While all have agreed that atheists lied
As false evolution left them in sin
But I the believer never once strayed
From my true god the impossibly vague

Please forgive the meter.

Now we can do flowcharts

[Sven]

What's exactly, specifically wrong with my definition of God? as maker of heaven and earth and everything.


It doesn't define your god, you're just summing up things you claim your god did.

[Piscivore]

Now you must choose the new form of Gozer the Traveler. And no Torgs, that's been done to death.

Forget marshmallow men, I want a giant Natalie Portman made out of mackarel.

[Tanstaafl]

Hey, I'm easy, I'll take Natalie Portman exactly as she is!

[Wolfman]

Forget marshmallow men, I want a giant Natalie Portman made out of mackarel.
Holy Mackerel...Piscivore can't even spell the word properly.

[Hawk one]

I like to define God as "The Sum of All Things". What's wrong with this definition?
After reading the bible, the best definition for the Christian God is arguably "The Scum of All Things".

[X]

It is not a definition, yrreg. It explains nothing about the god you claim it defines.

I've pointed this out to you before. Here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4299057#post4299057), for example.


Suffice to say that "maker of heaven and earth and everything" defines nothing.


It does not tell us if god is powerful, loving, good, evil, female, past, of if any of those terms even apply.

That is what is wrong with your "definition". It does not define anything.


Feel free to use it if you want, but don't go flinging accusations of "Tergiversator!" and "Non-Thinker!" when somebody tells you it fits the concept of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or the Invisible Pink Unicorn, or the Great Green Arkleseizure.

You failed to provide information on your god that would rule such things out. Thus, with your "definition", you cannot claim those ideas are not your god.

[Sven]

Forget marshmallow men, I want a giant Natalie Portman made out of mackarel.

The proper way to serve Natalie Portman is covered with hot grits.

[JFrankA]

Okay. Someone try expressing these threads in the form of a flow-chart.


"Maker of heaven and earth and everything."


Okay..

Flow chart:

God --> makes heaven

God --> makes Earth

God --> makes everything

Everything =/= Heaven

Everything =/= Earth

God =/= Heaven

God =/= Earth

Therefore:

God c Everything (Sorry, that's the best I can do to get the "is a subset of" symbol)

Therefore:

God created God.

....what do I win?



oohh I hope it's Natalie Portman..... alive, please....no dressing... :)

[quixotecoyote]

Okay..

Flow chart:

God --> makes heaven

God --> makes Earth

God --> makes everything

Everything =/= Heaven

Everything =/= Earth

God =/= Heaven

God =/= Earth

Therefore:

God c Everything (Sorry, that's the best I can do to get the "is a subset of" symbol)

Therefore:

God created God.

....did I get it?

:clap: Not bad!

You just need to pick the new form.

[Mojo]

I like to define God as "The Sum of All Things".
Can we have that as a spreadsheet formula?

[Bob Klase]

What's exactly, specifically wrong with my definition of God? as maker of heaven and earth and everything.

I made my own breakfast today. Since I made it and not god, either god isn't god because he didn't make everything, or I am god because I made something that must be included by the term 'everything' even though it isn't everything itself.

Either way, your definition fails.

[Merko]

What's exactly, specifically wrong with my definition of God?

as maker of heaven and earth and everything.

If God made everything, then God made the table I'm sitting in front of. However, I made the table I'm sitting in front of. Therefore, it follows from your definition that I am God.

However, I am not God. You know this, because if I was God, I would be infallible, and therefore you can trust me absolutely on this matter.

[Piscivore]

Holy Mackerel...Piscivore can't even spell the word properly.

I make that sort of mistake often when I try to spell phonetically.

[godless dave]

It's a good definition of the deist god. Most of the gods of existent religions have more attributes in addition to the ones you've listed: they intervene in human affairs, they have opinions about human behavior, and they seem to have emotions or something like them.

[joobz]

Okay. Someone try expressing these threads in the form of a flow-chart.
Here you go!

[Sunstealer]

You'll also need to prove there's a heaven, but I'll be happy if you can prove that the earth has a maker.Slartibartfast?

[arthwollipot]

What's exactly, specifically wrong with my definition of God? as maker of heaven and earth and everything.The exact, specifi problem with this definition of God is that it accurately describes any one of a host of mutally exclusive God concepts.

It describes Yahweh of the Bible.
It describes Brahmin
It describes Ymir
It describes Ptah
It describes the Flying Spaghetti Monster
It describes the Great Green Arkleseizure.

If you want to define the God of the Bible, you will have to be a lot more specific.

[Ginarley]

Can we have that as a spreadsheet formula?

I tried =SUM(1:65536) but it just gives a circular reference error...

:)

[godless dave]

To be fair, he didn't say he was defining the God of the Bible.

[Dumb All Over]

I tried =SUM(1:65536) but it just gives a circular reference error...

:)
That's it! God is a circular reference error! Eureka!

[Lord Emsworth]

Maker: Means what? Normally if I am faced with the word maker I will assume that if refers to a human being. But I doubt that this is the case here. So, if what I would perceive as the literal meaning does not apply, I would have to opt for understanding it as a metaphor. There is nothing wrong with that per se, it is only that there are software packages, like File Maker, which use the word "maker" as well.

So, without further specification I have no clue how to imagine that "maker" in question, let alone imagining how what the making is like.

Heaven: Not sure what this refers to. Might be a reference to the various magical, mystical places of various believers. Might also be a reference to the sky, or to the rest of the universe as seen from earth.

Earth: That one is fairly clear cut.

Everything: This is used to refer to all that exists, or further specified to all that exhibits certain characteristics.


The biggest problem is that "maker" does not compel a specific meaning, and could refer to anything ranging from human beings to software packages. "Maker of everything" is even contradictory, because "everything" by definition asserts that the maker is part of everything, while the meaning of "maker" asserts that the maker is not part of everything. Saying "maker of everything apart from the maker" would solve the problem, and is probably what is intended, though.

If the latter here is intended this would amount to the assertion that there are certain things which exist just so, while other things are contigent up upon them for their existence. This may even be true, and we may even refer to the necessary things as "God." However, it might mean that your "maker" is something that exhibits an exceptional naturalistic uglyness and is utterly boring.

IOW, you take a label with "God" written on it, and then have to slap it onto ANYTHING that fulfills a certain criterion. Even is that something is called, say, quantum chaos, or brane, or whatever, by other people.



Me, I reject this kind of God. It makes me feel betrayed. Nowhere in there is something that talks, that listens, that has family, that sits around on thrones, that lives ^^^^^ up there, that has emotions, that is subject to some sort of time etc pp. Nowhere in there is any of the childish crap that people utter when they don't watch their words carefully enough. Nowhere in there is anything that justifies the hidden borderline anthropocentric premise of the fine tuning argument ("Look, isn't this set of universal constants special, it allows (human)life!"). Nowhere in there is there is the assertion of intentionality. And so on and so forth.

The only exception is maybe "maker of ... heaven...". What is your version of "heaven?" Some magic, mystical place, or just the boring rest of the universe as seen from earth?

[arthwollipot]

To be fair, he didn't say he was defining the God of the Bible.That's very true. But immaterial to the discussion at hand. The definition Maker of heaven and earth and everything tells us virtually nothing about said deity.

[Sven]

To be fair, he didn't say he was defining the God of the Bible.

The problem is, he didn't define anything, he just made claims about his god.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

To be fair, he didn't say he was defining the God of the Bible.

And there is no way that this definition does describe the GoB because it leaves out His constant interfering in our reality and the affairs of man. Together with the lack of responsiveness (unless it's by not responding in any useful way) to whining prayers sent His way by his billions of accolades. :boggled:

[H3LL]

I think the answer Yrreg wants is HERE (http://dictionary.com).




It might need a little rearranging.

[Tricky]

What's exactly, specifically wrong with my definition of God?
as maker of heaven and earth and everything.

Yrreg
There is absolutely nothing wrong with your definition of God, Yrreg. Heck, I've used it myself. It is the favorite definition that was used by Kurt Vonnegut Jr. It is simple and clear.

In the same way, the definition of a unicorn as "A horse with a single horn growing out of it's forehead" is a wonderful definition of a mythological creature. It is simple and clear. Anyone can picture it.

So I am fine with your definition, Yrreg, totally happy. If you ever reach the part where you show that this definition is anything other than the description of a mythological creature, then I'll be even more pleased.

[ParrotPirate]

Having a word for something means the word exists. It doesn't mean that the thing supposedly defined or described by the word exists.

[bruto]

Yrreg, the biggest problem with your definition is that it is gratuitously redundant, and by being so it introduces possibilities for nitpicking disputes that deflect the discussion from what I presume you intend, since there is potential disagreement about the meaning of the word "heaven," and a question about why some parts of creation are made specific while others are not.

If all of the criteria of your definition are correct, then it can be simplified to this:

God is the creator of everything.

Of course that's still open to argument, but perhaps at least the argument would be about the existence or nature of God, rather than the language of Yrreg.

[Sun Countess]

yrreg, would you be happy with an equivalent definition of god as "maker of hell, Jupiter, and everything?" It's got your requisite fictional place, your requisite planet from our solar system, and the ever-vague "everything" so that your list could be exactly three items long.

What does "everything" include anyway? The two items it follows are completely different, what with one being fictional and the other based in reality. I get that they're both places. Is your god the maker of all places, fictional and non? Did he create Hogwarts, for instance?

I don't know what this "everything" is supposed to include, but if god created my car, maybe you can ask him why it's breaking down every two months. Thanks.

[alfaniner]

Its tupid.

[joobz]

Slartibartfast?
I thought he just did the fjords.

[MIKILLINI]

How about this Yrreg? Since you asked what's wrong with your definition of God, why don't you enlighten us on how the definition would be correct.

[learner]

I see nothing wrong with yreggs definition. I just wish we could move on to the evidence of existence part of the course...
I'm all ears here.
The prevaricating is intense. ( Is prevaricating still the latest word of the moment? Im keeping notes)

[Phase Inverter]

The prevaricating is intense. ( Is prevaricating still the latest word of the moment? I'm keeping notes)



Nope. its calumniate

[learner]

Nope. its calumniate
Thanks for that.
Gonna have to start a new page now. C-a-l-u-m-n-i-a-t-e
I like it, Rolls off the tongue.

[roger]

The hippopotomonstrosesquipedalian posts of gerry annoys me.

[MIKILLINI]

Nope. its calumniate

And a phrase: Omnis definitio periculosa est.{Definition of the term Embryo}

[tsig]

What's exactly, specifically wrong with my definition of God? as maker of heaven and earth and everything.





Yrreg

If god made everything he must have made himself.

"Q. 163. What is God?

A. God is a spirit infinitely perfect.


Q. 206. What is the difference between making and creating?

A. Making" means bringing forth or forming out of some material already existing, as workmen do. "Creating" means bringing forth out of nothing, as God alone can do."(Baltimore catechism)

[six7s]

I like to define God as "The Sum of All Things". What's wrong with this definition?If the sum is merely a count, it's meaningless without specifying what qualifies as a 'thing'

The sum of all electrons, protons and neutrons?
The sum of all atoms?
The sum of all molecules?

[tsig]

A tergiversator named Gerry
Who's grammatic usage was hairy
Offered a proof of God
Quite logically flawed
Was evidence lacking? Yes, very


Next contestant must write a Haiku. If Dr. A or Mercutio join this thread perhaps one will treat us to a sonnet.

I think it odd
Of god
To have a bod
That is of sod

[yrreg]

Thanks for your reactions, in particular I find the following posts: 11, 20, 23, 39, 42, 53, 57 to be conducive to the learning of people who read this thread in the hope of getting something useful into their brain:


The title of the thread is:

What's wrong with this definition of God: maker of heaven and earth and everything?


First, we have to agree on what is a definition of a word good for.

It is good or useful for people to know what actual or at least possible entity outside your brain or even inside your brain the word you use refers to.


Does my definition of God serve that purpose for people to know what entity outside their brain and/or inside their brain the word God refers to?

Does it tell people what atheists and what theists are talking about with the word God?

If they know what is a maker, what is heaven, what is earth, and what is everything, then they should find nothing wrong with the word God defined as the maker of heaven and hearth and everything.


If you find something wrong with that definition of God, then it is because for you: you can't know what people are talking about with the word God, whereas they know what they are talking about, even kids in nursery school have no trouble with the word God and its meaning.

The cause could be some kind of peculiar brain configuration on your part, not found in people who do know what is being talked about with the word God.

Or perhaps you have some kind of dread with the word itself of God, what is that dread all about?





Yrreg

[Mashuna]

Oops, I see there's an entirely new thread on this question. As I'd posted in the original thread, I'll repost my objections over here (even though I see the question has been covered by others).

Your definition of God would cover anything from The Laws of Physics, to Zeus, to the IPU or FSM, the Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu Gods or anything else you could think of. It tells us nothing about your God, just what you claim he has done.

[Soapy Sam]

yyreg- Human language is an evolved extension of human minds.
It deals adequately with concepts understandable by such minds and for which a vocabulary of description, analogy and metaphor exists. It tends to become unreliable in dealing with concepts outwith our daily experience, such as quantum or relativistic effects, which are , nonetheless, aspects of our universe.

The creator of the universe you postulate must exist outwith that universe.

Define the specific and precise meanings, if you can, of the words in red, as used in that sentence.
I respectfully suggest to you that this is what people mean by "too vague". Your description conveys no useful information. It is hard to see how any desription of such a creature or process actually could.

[Twiler]

Okay, how about this definition of God:

'Being you can't see who is supposedly responsible for everything that happens.'

Everyone would recognise that, right?

[JFrankA]

I believe in 42. It's a fact. 42 is the answer to life, the universe and everything.

So if Yrreg can make his statement and say it's a fact. I know that in fact, god isn't a fact. 42 is.

:)

[zooterkin]

The creator of the universe you postulate must exist outwith that universe.

Define the specific and precise meanings, if you can, of the words in red, as used in that sentence.

I think that's a little unfair. Yrreg is having enough trouble with English, now you're asking him to deal with Scottish too. (Have we stopped the poetry, or should we have next one in the style of Rabbie Burns?)

[joobz]

First, we have to agree on what is a definition of a word good for.
If we discuss anything (From economics to star trek trivia) this is true.

It is good or useful for people to know what actual or at least possible entity outside your brain or even inside your brain the word you use refers to.
For conversation purposes, yes.


Does my definition of God serve that purpose for people to know what entity outside their brain and/or inside their brain the word God refers to?
certainly.

Does it tell people what atheists and what theists are talking about with the word God?
In this conversation, yes. But note, it isn't the sole definition for god.


If they know what is a maker, what is heaven, what is earth, and what is everything, then they should find nothing wrong with the word God defined as the maker of heaven and hearth and everything.
certainly.


If you find something wrong with that definition of God, then it is because for you: you can't know what people are talking about with the word God, whereas they know what they are talking about, even kids in nursery school have no trouble with the word God and its meaning.
This is false. Finding something wrong with that definition simply means that that person has a different Idea for god. There is nothing in your definition that makes it more accurate than other definitions. Simply put, your definition is popular with christians and diests but probably less popular than with pagans.

The cause could be some kind of peculiar brain configuration on your part, not found in people who do know what is being talked about with the word God.
Nope.

Or perhaps you have some kind of dread with the word itself of God, what is that dread all about?
nope.


ETA:
Yrreg, you do realize that in your last two sentences, you basically said, "IF you don't agree with me, you're either afraid of god or mentally ill."

[GeeMack]

Does it tell people what atheists and what theists are talking about with the word God?


No. You've failed. Again. But at least you're consistent.

ETA...

Yrreg, you do realize that in your last two sentences, you basically said, "IF you don't agree with me, you're either afraid of god or mentally ill."


And an interesting accusation his is, because yrreg has provided much evidence that he is afraid of non-belief and/or non-believers, and that he is mentally ill. Perhaps we're seeing a little projection going on there? :)

[CriticalSock]

http://i448.photobucket.com/albums/qq207/criticalsock/Godspread.jpg

I created a range value of Universe and then did the formula to see if god equalled that range. I'm sorry but Excel says no. :)

[gambling_cruiser]

Snip
Yrreg, you do realize that in your last two sentences, you basically said, "IF you don't agree with me, you're either afraid of god or mentally ill."
I think the bolded part describes the basic assumption of yrreg exactly.

[Aitch]

I think that's a little unfair. Yrreg is having enough trouble with English, now you're asking him to deal with Scottish too. (Have we stopped the poetry, or should we have next one in the style of Rabbie Burns?)

I suspect the style of William Topaz McGonagall would be more fitting/apt/suitable/appropriate/etc (yes, I have access to a thesaurus too!) :rolleyes:

[Stout]

I see nothing wrong with yreggs definition. I just wish we could move on to the evidence of existence part of the course...
I'm all ears here.
The prevaricating is intense. ( Is prevaricating still the latest word of the moment? Im keeping notes)


What he/she said.

I have no problem with the definition either, sure it's a little flowery and redundant, Rather Koranish IMO.

[Ryokan]

What's exactly, specifically wrong with my definition of God? as maker of heaven and earth and everything.

Sounds more like the definition of Odin and Ymir (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ymir) to me. Neither were gods.

[Dumb All Over]

The sum of all electrons, protons and neutrons?
The sum of all atoms?
The sum of all molecules?
Yes, and everything else, too.

The qualifying word is "all".

[MRC_Hans]

What's exactly, specifically wrong with my definition of God?
as maker of heaven and earth and everything.




YrregNothing is wrong with it, if it works for you.

Hans

[Lord Emsworth]

Thanks for your reactions, in particular I find the following posts: 11, 20, 23, 39, 42, 53, 57 to be conducive to the learning of people who read this thread in the hope of getting something useful into their brain:

Do you count yourself amongst these people?

The title of the thread is:

What's wrong with this definition of God: maker of heaven and earth and everything?


First, we have to agree on what is a definition of a word good for.

It is good or useful for people to know what actual or at least possible entity outside your brain or even inside your brain the word you use refers to.


Does my definition of God serve that purpose for people to know what entity outside their brain and/or inside their brain the word God refers to?

No.

Does it tell people what atheists and what theists are talking about with the word God?

Hardly. It could strictly speaking refer to things that conform to materialistic/naturalistic or some such philosophies.

If they know what is a maker, what is heaven, what is earth, and what is everything, then they should find nothing wrong with the word God defined as the maker of heaven and hearth and everything.

If.

If you find something wrong with that definition of God, then it is because for you: you can't know what people are talking about with the word God, whereas they know what they are talking about,

Indeed. Do you know what this one people (me is people as well) is talking about with the word God? I do know. A logical impossiblility. And whatever does not conform to my definition of God, does not pass muster as God. Sure, I am aware that there are a bunch of people who hold to different definitions, deists and pantheists for example, but to me that is hardly worth debate, it would just boil down to a semantic argument.

As for some of the remaining people, I indeed "can't know what people are talking about with the word God" because they assert that God is beyond our understanding, that finite minds cannot grasp the infinite, or that you can merely apprehend yet not comprehend the divine, that our conceptions will always be faulty or some such.


even kids in nursery school have no trouble with the word God and its meaning.

A man in the sky up there. I speak from experience here.

The cause could be some kind of peculiar brain configuration on your part, not found in people who do know what is being talked about with the word God.

Or perhaps you have some kind of dread with the word itself of God, what is that dread all about?

Would it make you happy if I took that word "God" and slapped it onto the totality of all existence and called myself a pantheist instead of strong atheist/ignostic instead? It would be a trivial, definitional thing for me to do.

[Frinkiak7]

Yrreg, I accept that your definition of "God" is:

maker of heaven and earth and everything

Now, I would ask that you consider the following. This is (one of) the dictionary definition(s) of "God". I chose this portion out of the 9 available listed definitions, because I think that it is the most clear and relevant.

"1. God
a. A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.
b. The force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being.

2. A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality."

Would you accept this as an acceptable definition for "God"? Please explain why or why not.

[Piscivore]

Would you accept this as an acceptable definition for "God"? Please explain why or why not.

...In less than twenty words and using E-prime.

[slingblade]

Is this the thread where we finally get to use the penis?

[Mashuna]

Is this the thread where we finally get to use the penis?

Or find out if it really is mightier than the sword?

[bruto]

Thanks for your reactions, in particular I find the following posts: 11, 20, 23, 39, 42, 53, 57 to be conducive to the learning of people who read this thread in the hope of getting something useful into their brain:


The title of the thread is:

What's wrong with this definition of God: maker of heaven and earth and everything?


First, we have to agree on what is a definition of a word good for.

It is good or useful for people to know what actual or at least possible entity outside your brain or even inside your brain the word you use refers to.


Does my definition of God serve that purpose for people to know what entity outside their brain and/or inside their brain the word God refers to?

Does it tell people what atheists and what theists are talking about with the word God?

If they know what is a maker, what is heaven, what is earth, and what is everything, then they should find nothing wrong with the word God defined as the maker of heaven and hearth and everything.


If you find something wrong with that definition of God, then it is because for you: you can't know what people are talking about with the word God, whereas they know what they are talking about, even kids in nursery school have no trouble with the word God and its meaning.

The cause could be some kind of peculiar brain configuration on your part, not found in people who do know what is being talked about with the word God.

Or perhaps you have some kind of dread with the word itself of God, what is that dread all about?





Yrreg

There is a difference between a definition and a label. If you are intending a designation of what sort of god you believe in, your so-called definition is certainly adequate as a working definition (or more properly, perhaps as a label for what definition you are working from), and when we argue about God we know more or less what we are arguing about when you use it. But the understanding of what we are arguing about depends largely on an understanding of ideas that are not contained in the definition. If you were to provide that definition to someone with no cultural, religious or historical context by which to understand what you consider to be the properties of the God you believe in, the definition would be of little use in conveying an understanding of what sort of God you're talking about, since it includes no idea of the actual properties of that God, only the statement that something or other engaged once in an act of creation. All else, including even the current existence of the god in question, is inferred from a cultural context, and is not found in your definition.

In any case, you asked for opinions on what is wrong with the definition, and people have pointed out problems. It has nothing to do with one's attitude toward God, toward you, or anything else, except the quality of the definition.

I pointed out, and I continue to maintain, that the definition is needlessly redundant. "Heaven and earth" are part of everything. Your definition is as silly as defining God as the creator of butterflies, twist drills and stuff.

Others have pointed out that if one wishes to go any deeper into the implications of the definition, beyond its function as a label for more comprehensive definitions that are implied, "everything" is problematic. Even though one can pretty easily understand in the loose, conversational sense what you mean by "everything," it's obvious that if one were interested in theological or ontological accuracy, God did not create "everything" unless you are an idealist of the most radical sort, believing that the entire universe exists only in the mind of God. Otherwise, it is pretty safe to assume that He is not the author of my current post, and not, in a direct sense, at least, the creator of mortgage-backed securities, dildoes, Barbie dolls, locomotives, the Australian brush fires or the dust bunnies under my computer desk (well, I'll give him that last one).

So, if you ask for what is wrong with your definition, don't crab and start casting aspersions on people's religion, character, motivation or mental capacity when they flat out tell you what is so painfully obvious to nearly everyone but yourself: it's a poor definition, and even to call it a definition is a kindness.

edited to add: I see that Frankiak7 has provided a definition which I suspect is closer to what you mean when you speak of God," and if so, makes it clear what essential properties or attributes are missing from yours.

[yrreg]

Please do not bother with labels.

What's in a name? that which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet.


And also don't nitpick on redundancy, what to you is redundant is to others, greater connoisseurs of definitions, more explicit.




That is why the readers here are my witnesses, it is to my very serious and dismaying impression that exchanging thoughts with atheists here is so exasperating: because they either are playing naive or are really born naive.

The effect is the just the same though that you can't have any productive exchange of ideas with them.


Conclusion is that they really don't want to be relevant; which is a good topic for dissertation candidates in psychology of human behavior to work on for their doctorates.





About my definition of God as the maker of heaven and earth and everything, if that is not what atheists are writing against about...

Then tell me what they are writing about and selling books for people like their fellow atheists to buy, in order to feel so smart for having swallowed a lot of code phrases, which they repeat without ever knowing anything really solid about the semblance of reasoning, semblance only just to be kind, behind the code phrases.






Yrreg

[RoboTimbo]

... that exchanging thoughts ...

When does this part begin?

[Piscivore]

Please do not bother with labels.

What's in a name? that which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet.


And also don't nitpick on redundancy, what to you is redundant is to others, greater connoisseurs of definitions, more explicit.




That is why the readers here are my witnesses, it is to my very serious and dismaying impression that exchanging thoughts with atheists here is so exasperating: because they either are playing naive or are really born naive.

The effect is the just the same though that you can't have any productive exchange of ideas with them.


Conclusion is that they really don't want to be relevant; which is a good topic for dissertation candidates in psychology of human behavior to work on for their doctorates.





About my definition of God as the maker of heaven and earth and everything, if that is not what atheists are writing against about...

Then tell me what they are writing about and selling books for people like their fellow atheists to buy, in order to feel so smart for having swallowed a lot of code phrases, which they repeat without ever knowing anything really solid about the semblance of reasoning, semblance only just to be kind, behind the code phrases.






Yrreg

That's more than twenty words, and you did not use E-prime. Stop tergiversating. Try again, only this time you must use eighteen words exactly, and two of them must be "ficus".

[MIKILLINI]

Is this the thread where we finally get to use the penis?

Or find out if it really is mightier than the sword?

:dl:

Touche!

[yrreg]

I must apologize to the author of the following post, for not mentioning it as one which is of useful contribution to the brain storage of readers here who do care to learn something useful to their intellectual culture.

I see nothing wrong with yreggs definition. I just wish we could move on to the evidence of existence part of the course...
I'm all ears here.
The prevaricating is intense. ( Is prevaricating still the latest word of the moment? Im keeping notes)




And the two posts, 77 and 82, are also enrichment to the intellectual culture of people who are not playing naive or regrettably born naive.




If anyone want me to react to your post, just pm me, but you have to give me the permission to respond to you in open public forum.




Yes, we will go to the evidence of God's existence as the maker of heaven and earth and everything -- eventually.

But no productively enriching exchange of thoughts can ensue between discussants, unless and until they come to a mutually acceptable definition of the object they are discussing about.





Yrreg

[godless dave]

About my definition of God as the maker of heaven and earth and everything, if that is not what atheists are writing against about...

Then tell me what they are writing about and selling books for people like their fellow atheists to buy,

Those books are about all god beliefs, including belief in the kind of god you describe in your definition as well as the more common beliefs in gods that, in addition to creating the universe, actually interact with it.

[MIKILLINI]

About my definition of God as the maker of heaven and earth and everything, if that is not what atheists are writing against about...

Then tell me what they are writing about and selling books for people like their fellow atheists to buy, in order to feel so smart for having swallowed a lot of code phrases, which they repeat without ever knowing anything really solid about the semblance of reasoning, semblance only just to be kind, behind the code phrases.




So far, all you have pointed out for evidence is the first 2 chapters of Genesis...Where is Genesis, Yrreg? In a book? Is this a book of evidence?

[Miss_Kitt]

What's exactly, specifically wrong with my definition of God? as maker of heaven and earth and everything.


Yrreg

Yrreg,

What is wrong with this definition is that it assumes a lot, and informs us of nothing useful. Let me break this down a little more:

It assumes that something made "heaven and earth and everything"; it further assumes that all of those had the same maker. That is, it ignores the possibility that, once Heaven and Earth existed, everything else developed from them; or, perhaps, that Heaven was created by Entity One, but Earth was created by Entity Two, and everything else by Entity Three.
There's also the possibility that Earth was created, but that everthing but Earth did not require intervention.

The other issue is that it tells us nothing about God's nature. It simply describes something(s) he has done. This is equivalent to a DA saying in a press conference, "We know who the killer is!" and then adding, "It's the person who murdered Mr. Jensen, Mrs. Jensen, and stole Mrs. Jensen's jewelry." An attorney who made that statement would be laughed at, and rightly so; it's a useless statement.

To identify the suspect, there would have to be some characteristics or attributes, such as: "A tall, dark-haired male, with a heavy build; quite strong; not a native English speaker; intelligent, patient, and not likely to draw attention to himself--pretty average looking." These are things that the police likely derived from information about what was done, and how it was done, but from that evidence they have concluded how the perpetrator is.

Further, they have described it in terms that make sense. Based, perhaps, on witness testimony, they have come up with a tall, dark, strong male with an accent and/or grammar errors in spoken English. Anyone who is short, female, blonde and erudite can be eliminated from the discussion.

By contrast, your description of your Supreme Being lacks even the specification that it is a being! It doesn't say if God is conscious, aware or self-aware; it doesn't say if God is living or dead--hey, creating Everything is a big job, may it gave Him heart attack--or if She has any physicality. It doesn't say if She's interested in what She created, or if it was the divine equivalent of excrement.

It's a big bag of words that can't be used to define anything, or eliminate anything from the discussion.

That's "what's wrong with" the definition you used. It doesn't serve any useful purpose for discussion God's nature, attributes, or likely existance/ non-existance.

Resepectfully, Miss Kitt

[Lord Emsworth]

About my definition of God as the maker of heaven and earth and everything, if that is not what atheists are writing against about...

Then tell me what they are writing about and selling books for people like their fellow atheists to buy, in order to feel so smart for having swallowed a lot of code phrases, which they repeat without ever knowing anything really solid about the semblance of reasoning, semblance only just to be kind, behind the code phrases.

What is the point of asking a question in which the answer is already contained? Or asking a question that is tied to so much baggage that you will have a hard time finding anybody to agree to all of that baggage?

Asking what the heck atheist authors are writing about is entirely sufficient. (You even sort of have a point) Somehow stuffing things into that sentence about swallowing, feeling smart, or not knowing anything solid is unnecessary.

Then tell me what yrreg is writing about and selling stuff to his own mind to buy into, in order to feel so smart for having swallowed a lot of code phrases, which he repeat without ever knowing anything really solid about the semblance of reasoning, semblance only just to be kind, behind the code phrases.

Well, well, that was easy. But seriously, what exactly do you understand by "maker" in your definition? What is below the 'code phrase'? Any source, referred to in a metaphorical way?

[Lord Emsworth]

So far, all you have pointed out for evidence is the first 2 chapters of Genesis...Where is Genesis, Yrreg? In a book? Is this a book of evidence?

Is this true?

In the first creation story in the Bible, God does not create everything, at least not in the sense everything would be understood nowadays. The waters of the deep, though they may embody unordered chaos, are not created, rather that which is given order. So, 'maker of ... everything' would not mesh with the first creation story in Genesis. (I am far less familiar with the second, but if I am not misunderstood, this is not a creation of everything either.)

What is more, is that God talks, produces speech. If that is to be understood at face value it has several extremely unpalatable consequences for the God concept. If it is not to be taken at face value, but rather is a metaphor, is seriously needs to be cleared up.

[joobz]

My definition of God:

God is a Jellyroll with tofu and creamcorn.


I will justify my definition as soon as we move to that phase of the thread.

[bruto]

Please do not bother with labels.

What's in a name? that which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet.


And also don't nitpick on redundancy, what to you is redundant is to others, greater connoisseurs of definitions, more explicit.




That is why the readers here are my witnesses, it is to my very serious and dismaying impression that exchanging thoughts with atheists here is so exasperating: because they either are playing naive or are really born naive.

The effect is the just the same though that you can't have any productive exchange of ideas with them.


Conclusion is that they really don't want to be relevant; which is a good topic for dissertation candidates in psychology of human behavior to work on for their doctorates.





About my definition of God as the maker of heaven and earth and everything, if that is not what atheists are writing against about...

Then tell me what they are writing about and selling books for people like their fellow atheists to buy, in order to feel so smart for having swallowed a lot of code phrases, which they repeat without ever knowing anything really solid about the semblance of reasoning, semblance only just to be kind, behind the code phrases.






Yrreg

I see the answere is in your usual combination of bad faith and gratuitious insult. You ask what is wrong with your definition but you no actual interest in hearing opinions, only in dismissing them as signs of inferior thought or what you choose to think of as naiveté, for some odd reason, perhaps an unawareness of the proper definition of the term.

Your definition is a bad one. Any definition which depends for full understanding of its subject on sources other than itself is a bad definition. It matters not whether, in ordinary discourse, we rely on that dependency and manage to understand each other. That does not make the definition a good one. If you think that it does, you're an idiot.

[thought_fugitive]

And also don't nitpick on redundancy, what to you is redundant is to others, greater connoisseurs of definitions, more explicit.



The term "everything" can't be made more explicit in the context you've applied it. Therefore, I think even the greatest "connoisseur of definitions" would consider your definition of God superfluous and redundant, eliciting more confusion than clarity.

[X]

Yrreg; Read The Following.


You asked us what we felt was wrong with your definition of god (maker of heaven and earth and everything).

This has been provided, although you dismiss the posts as signs of naivete. Which is insulting, frankly. But then, so is most of what you write.


Here is the issue:

You routinely and reliably get angry whenever somebody brings up the Flying Spaghetti Monster or the Invisible Pink Unicorn or other deity concepts to prove a point.

The trouble is, these deity concepts are perfectly compatible with your definition of god.

Yet you refuse to acknowledge the analogies made, instead insulting the posters by saying people who bring up such concepts are "non-thinkers".

If these concepts are not your god, the fault lies with you.
Your definition, as presented, gives no way of differentiating between many hundreds of deity concepts (many of which are mutually incompatible).

Since you obviously have a specific god-concept in mind (or else you wouldn't reject the others as "non-thinking"), and since your definition fails completely to describe the specific concept you have in mind (or any other specific concept, for that matter), it is not a very good definition. By definition.


That is what is wrong with it. As a definition of a concept, it works, but doesn't really clarify anything. As a definition of a specific deity-concept, as you are using it for, it fails utterly. It is too vague, and it eschews actual description in favour of giving a resume.

[MIKILLINI]

Is this true?

In the first creation story in the Bible, God does not create everything, at least not in the sense everything would be understood nowadays. The waters of the deep, though they may embody unordered chaos, are not created, rather that which is given order. So, 'maker of ... everything' would not mesh with the first creation story in Genesis. (I am far less familiar with the second, but if I am not misunderstood, this is not a creation of everything either.)

What is more, is that God talks, produces speech. If that is to be understood at face value it has several extremely unpalatable consequences for the God concept. If it is not to be taken at face value, but rather is a metaphor, is seriously needs to be cleared up.

This is where yrreg's belief is derived from. I certainly would like to see him explain where his "everything" evidence came from and present it here, except Yrreg becomes very selective of what posts he responds to. He avoids specificity and is very evasive when it comes to giving a direct answer.

[slingblade]

I like to read Yrreg's posts, especially the ones that are really insulting.

It makes me laugh, because he seems to have no idea whatsoever that he's talking only about himself. :D

[joobz]

I've decided to change my definition of god.

God is no longer jellyroll with tofu and creamcorn.

God is now defined as being Slingblade.

[bruto]

Yrreg, what in your definition distinguishes a personal, or intentional deity from any creative force that could be imagined to be responsible for the creation of the universe? I see none. Your definition is entirely devoid of descriptive content, and can be equally applied to any imagined entity, force or process that can be said to have created the universe, from the Biblical Jehovah to the big bang.

No matter how many times, in how many ways, with how many malapropos dribblings you squeeze out of your thesaurus you insult me, or anyone else, if your definition remains as it is, it is a sloppy and careless definition, redundant and too dependent on ideas inferred from outside itself ever to be considered adequate. If it suits your purpose to use it in your arguments, go right ahead - we can all guess from the cultural context what you mean with or without the definition. But even if you don't respect those who honestly answer the questions you ask, your rude and clumsy manner of responding does you no service.

[arthwollipot]

I've decided to change my definition of god.

God is no longer jellyroll with tofu and creamcorn.

God is now defined as being Slingblade.I'll join that church.

[Hokulele]

God is supernovae!

[slingblade]

Right on! 2 new Official Worshipers, and the bonus is that I actually exist!

Please see Hokulele for her recipe for macadamia nut brownies, which she has established constitute the only Appropriate Sacrificial Offering.

The Only Commandment is "Don't Steal," and it covers pretty much everything, if you think about it.

The Golden Rule is "Think. Then, Think Some More."

The High Sacrament is exactly what it sounds like, and we recommend you bring a designated driver so you can celebrate properly.

You will be invested as a member in a 12-hour ceremony at The Temple of The Voluptuous Sex-Crazed Priestesses, and that, too, is exactly what it sounds like. You lucky devils.

Oh, and the part of said Devil is a random rotation of Shemp, Tricky, MdC, Tragic Monkey, and Piscivore. Hokulele sometimes takes weekends.

There is no Hell. There are occasional field trips to AAH.

Heaven is here and now. Make the most of it.

The Sacred Texts are too numerous to list, but include such authors as Pratchett, Adams, Sagan, and Randi. Look, if it makes you think and/or laugh, I probably approve.

Our Credo:
Don't Worry, Be Happy.

Welcome aboard! :D :p :D

[quixotecoyote]

I call painting the ceilings!

[Mashuna]

Please do not bother with labels.

What's in a name? that which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet.



Not if you call it the stinkypoopoo plant.

[Mashuna]

Right on! 2 new Official Worshipers, and the bonus is that I actually exist!

Please see Hokulele for her recipe for macadamia nut brownies, which she has established constitute the only Appropriate Sacrificial Offering.

The Only Commandment is "Don't Steal," and it covers pretty much everything, if you think about it.

The Golden Rule is "Think. Then, Think Some More."

The High Sacrament is exactly what it sounds like, and we recommend you bring a designated driver so you can celebrate properly.

You will be invested as a member in a 12-hour ceremony at The Temple of The Voluptuous Sex-Crazed Priestesses, and that, too, is exactly what it sounds like. You lucky devils.

Oh, and the part of said Devil is a random rotation of Shemp, Tricky, MdC, Tragic Monkey, and Piscivore. Hokulele sometimes takes weekends.

There is no Hell. There are occasional field trips to AAH.

Heaven is here and now. Make the most of it.

The Sacred Texts are too numerous to list, but include such authors as Pratchett, Adams, Sagan, and Randi. Look, if it makes you think and/or laugh, I probably approve.

Our Credo:
Don't Worry, Be Happy.

Welcome aboard! :D :p :D

I'll gladly join, although I'm a bit concerned about that Devil. :eye-poppi

[Fiona]

A long long long time ago, in another thread far far away, there lived a people who were quite Polite: they were called the Polite People. They went about being polite to each other nearly all the time. The other thing they did was try to Find Things Out, and so they lived: asking each other questions and listening Politely to the answers they got: and then thinking about those answers to see if they had Found Anything Out. And when they had Found Something Out they were all pleased and they had a party. They were a happy people and they hardly ever bothered the neighbours.

The neighbours who lived in different threads were not as they were though: they did not believe that being Polite was so important: and they did not believe in Finding Things Out. They had a different way of doing things and they were sure it was a better way.

One day a person from another thread decided to visit the Polite People in their thread. And so he came on a very long journey. He crossed the big desert called I Don't Much Care to Find Things Out, where a lot of people called the Don't Know, Don't Care lived. He forded a big river called Confusion. He walked over the land of the Politeness Has Limits (a people who lived right next door to the Polite People's thread and occasionally strayed into it) and finally he arrived at the Polite People's thread.

The Person from another thread was called Proselytiser. He did not think it was good to be polite. In fact he thought the best way to go about his business was to be very rude indeed. Now Proselytiser had heard all sorts of stories about the Polite people. And because he came from the thread called What I Tell You Three Times Is True, he believed everything he had been told three times. And he had been told a lot of things about the Polite people. He had been told all of these things three times. Once a person from What I Tell You Three Times Is True has been told something three times, he can never, ever change his mind again. This saves a lot of time and trouble and thinking.

One of the things he had been told about the Polite people was that they liked to Find Things Out. And this was true. So Proselytiser wanted to help the Polite people. Proselytiser knew everything. He knew everything he knew was true. And he wanted the Polite people to know everything too. Then they could stop wasting time Finding Things Out and do something else instead. Like go on journeys to other threads, maybe

So Proselytiser told the Polite people the things that he knew. He told them three times. But do you know what happened, children? Why, the Polite People did not believe what Proselytiser told them. Not even though he told them three times. In VERY BIG WORDS.

Proselytiser could not understand this. He thought about it. This was difficult for him because all the things he had been told three times were obviously true. So what was he to think? Well one of the things he had been told three times was that the Polite People were polite. So maybe, he thought, that was why the polite people did not believe him: maybe they could not hear the things he told them three times because he was very very impolite when he told them. He did not see why that should matter so long as he told them three times: but he had to try something

So Proselytiser pretended to be sorry for being so rude. He said he was sorry and he promised to be polite in future. And the Polite People were very pleased to hear this. And they listened to him again, politely.

But they still didn't believe him. And so Proselytiser, who did not find it easy to be polite anyway, realised that wasn't getting him anywhere. And he became rude all over again.

The Polite people weren't Finding Anything Out either, and this made them sad. Some of the people from Politeness Has Limits, who were visiting the Polite People's thread to try to Find Things Out became annoyed. They were on holiday after all: they only had a little while to Find Things Out and they saw that Proselytiser was wasting their precious vacation. And so they stopped being so Polite:usually they thought "when in Rome": which means they thought they should be polite when they were in the Polite People's thread. And so they were polite when they were there. But they thought if Prosylitser was so rude they should be rude back: and so they were

And it was clear that nobody was Finding Anything Out.

I do not know what happened at the end of the story, children. Some say they are all still there trying to Find Things Out: but they have not had a We Found Something Out party for a very long time: and some say Proselytiser went home. But some say that all the Polite People were driven out of their land and they went to stay with the Politeness has Limits and lived happily ever after.

[Mashuna]

That's a nominated story, that is.

[MetalPig]

Please do not bother with labels.
What? Isn't "God" a label?

[Cuddles]

If the sum is merely a count, it's meaningless without specifying what qualifies as a 'thing'

Fear.

God is now defined as being Slingblade.

Now we just need a definition of Slingblade and we're all set.

[Mashuna]

Now we just need a definition of Slingblade and we're all set.

Slingblade is defined as being God.

Circular definitions. Keeping religions going for millennia.

[slingblade]

Fear.



Now we just need a definition of Slingblade and we're all set.

Oh, that's easy.

Slingblade is the mocker of heaven and earth and everything.

I mean, come on, guys. It writes itself. :p

[wollery]

That's a nominated story, that is.That's a TLA frontrunner, that is.

[quarky]

God hates all of you except yrreg.

[jond]

Yrreg,

What is wrong with this definition is that it assumes a lot, and informs us of nothing useful. Let me break this down a little more:

It assumes that something made "heaven and earth and everything"; it further assumes that all of those had the same maker. That is, it ignores the possibility that, once Heaven and Earth existed, everything else developed from them; or, perhaps, that Heaven was created by Entity One, but Earth was created by Entity Two, and everything else by Entity Three.
There's also the possibility that Earth was created, but that everthing but Earth did not require intervention.

The other issue is that it tells us nothing about God's nature. It simply describes something(s) he has done. This is equivalent to a DA saying in a press conference, "We know who the killer is!" and then adding, "It's the person who murdered Mr. Jensen, Mrs. Jensen, and stole Mrs. Jensen's jewelry." An attorney who made that statement would be laughed at, and rightly so; it's a useless statement.

To identify the suspect, there would have to be some characteristics or attributes, such as: "A tall, dark-haired male, with a heavy build; quite strong; not a native English speaker; intelligent, patient, and not likely to draw attention to himself--pretty average looking." These are things that the police likely derived from information about what was done, and how it was done, but from that evidence they have concluded how the perpetrator is.

Further, they have described it in terms that make sense. Based, perhaps, on witness testimony, they have come up with a tall, dark, strong male with an accent and/or grammar errors in spoken English. Anyone who is short, female, blonde and erudite can be eliminated from the discussion.

By contrast, your description of your Supreme Being lacks even the specification that it is a being! It doesn't say if God is conscious, aware or self-aware; it doesn't say if God is living or dead--hey, creating Everything is a big job, may it gave Him heart attack--or if She has any physicality. It doesn't say if She's interested in what She created, or if it was the divine equivalent of excrement.

It's a big bag of words that can't be used to define anything, or eliminate anything from the discussion.

That's "what's wrong with" the definition you used. It doesn't serve any useful purpose for discussion God's nature, attributes, or likely existance/ non-existance.

Resepectfully, Miss Kitt

Well said, Miss Kitt. Too bad it won't be read by the OP. Or at least, comprehended by same.

[dafydd]

Ah've jist channelled ma great great great great Uncle Rabbie.

Yrreg, tersivigating in word and deed
Wit delusions are in yer hied?
is trolling how ye pass yer time?
wi' lang words and mystic sign
gi'e us yer arguements,in warp and woof
cease this postin' or gi'e us some proof

[Lord Emsworth]

As an additional comment to my earlier post ...

Yrreg, there is nothing wrong as such with your defintion of God, as long as you realize that there are people with different conceptions (like me) who will simply not see your definition as sufficient. In a similar vein there is nothing wrong as such with Deism; it is only that I, as an atheist, will not necessarily feel contradicted by it.

[Z]

Can I volunteer for part-time devil in the Church of Slingblade? Say... on every other Saturday?

[babbits]

"Does it tell people what atheists and what theists are talking about with the word God?"

Now you see, Yrreg, here is your problem. Atheists and theists aren't talking about the same thing when they use the word "god".

Some theists may be satisfied with a definition such as "the maker of everything and the reason why my son was born with a cleft palate".

But atheists define god as "the name superstitious people use for whatever they can't understand."

[Macoy]

And also don't nitpick on redundancy, what to you is redundant is to others, greater connoisseurs of definitions, more explicit.
Yrreg

As I'm a bit of a connoisseur of definitions myself, perhaps we could pop upstairs later, and you might view my collections in a more salubrious and studious atmosphere?

Potential mutual definitional studies might be certainly more explicit, but are nonetheless guaranteed guilt-free.

[Aitch]

How about a (not very good) Triolet?

Yrreg has tried to define God,
but it turned out rather wooly
and his language went a bit odd.
Yrreg has tried to define God;
but, challenged. he acts like a clod,
becoming a frothing bully.
Yrreg has tried to define God
but it turned out rather wooly.

Anyone fancy trying a Villanelle?

[yrreg]

Read this post again, giving utmost attention and concentration and thus compliance to the lines in bold.




Title of Post: First, we have to agree on what is a definition of a word good for.


Thanks for your reactions, in particular I find the following posts: 11, 20, 23, 39, 42, 53, 57 to be conducive to the learning of people who read this thread in the hope of getting something useful into their brain:


The title of the thread is:

What's wrong with this definition of God: maker of heaven and earth and everything?


First, we have to agree on what is a definition of a word good for.

It is good or useful for people to know what actual or at least possible entity outside your brain or even inside your brain the word you use refers to.


Does my definition of God serve that purpose for people to know what entity outside their brain and/or inside their brain the word God refers to?

Does it tell people what atheists and what theists are talking about with the word God?

If they know what is a maker, what is heaven, what is earth, and what is everything, then they should find nothing wrong with the word God defined as the maker of heaven and hearth and everything.


If you find something wrong with that definition of God, then it is because for you: you can't know what people are talking about with the word God, whereas they know what they are talking about, even kids in nursery school have no trouble with the word God and its meaning.

The cause could be some kind of peculiar brain configuration on your part, not found in people who do know what is being talked about with the word God.

Or perhaps you have some kind of dread with the word itself of God, what is that dread all about?





Yrreg


So, judge the definition whether at least it gives the possible object in your brain or brains of people except in yours of the concept of God as the maker of heaven and earth and everything.






Yrreg

[Hokulele]

No.

[Piero]

Sorry to butt in so late, but as Russell proved a century ago, "everything" does not exist. because it would have to contain "everything" within it, so it would be a member of itself ad infinitum. Therefore, since "everything" does not exist, the creator of "everything" does not exist either. QED.

[GeeMack]

Read this post again, giving utmost attention and concentration and thus compliance to the lines in bold.

[...]

So, judge the definition whether at least it gives the possible object in your brain or brains of people except in yours of the concept of God as the maker of heaven and earth and everything.


No.

[Lord Emsworth]

So, judge the definition whether at least it gives the possible object in your brain or brains of people except in yours of the concept of God as the maker of heaven and earth and everything.

I have no clue whether it gives me or other people that "possible object". Really, how should I?

[bruto]

Read this post again, giving utmost attention and concentration and thus compliance to the lines in bold.Yrreg, you really ought to break that spamming habit of yours.






So, judge the definition whether at least it gives the possible object in your brain or brains of people except in yours of the concept of God as the maker of heaven and earth and everything.That is a convoluted and confusing sentence. I challenge you to parse it into clear English, but since one can more or less guess what is meant, I will answer it anyway:

In a word,NO.

It conveys no concept of God beyond an action imputed to something with no other named attributes. The definition you provide is applicable to all gods and all creative processes, real or imaginary, without either distinguishing or excluding any.

We know what sort of God you refer to only because we guess from your other writings, and from the cultural context of Christianity, what sort of God you likely mean. If we did not, your definition would be like meeting an explorer from another planet, providing the definition "a guy who kicks a ball" and expecting him to know you're speaking of David Beckham.

It's a poor definition, Yrreg. If you don't like the answer, don't ask the question.

[bruto]

Sorry to butt in so late, but as Russell proved a century ago, "everything" does not exist. because it would have to contain "everything" within it, so it would be a member of itself ad infinitum. Therefore, since "everything" does not exist, the creator of "everything" does not exist either. QED.I must confess I have not read enough Russell to have found this, but wonder about the statement. Is this an ontological paradox, or are we dealing with Russell's and others' thoughts on sets? Granted that a set of specific objects cannot be a member of itself, if it is not the object in the set, and the set of all sets not members of themselves provides an amusing paradox, but not all sets are so compromised. The set of all sets does include itself. What prevents the set of everything from being a member of itself?

[Piero]

I must confess I have not read enough Russell to have found this, but wonder about the statement. Is this an ontological paradox, or are we dealing with Russell's and others' thoughts on sets? Granted that a set of specific objects cannot be a member of itself, if it is not the object in the set, and the set of all sets not members of themselves provides an amusing paradox, but not all sets are so compromised. The set of all sets does include itself. What prevents the set of everything from being a member of itself?

Oh, it was just a joke. But anyway, the set of everything seems to me an ill-defined idea. What would its cardinality be, for instance?

[Aitch]

I must confess I have not read enough Russell to have found this, but wonder about the statement. Is this an ontological paradox, or are we dealing with Russell's and others' thoughts on sets? Granted that a set of specific objects cannot be a member of itself, if it is not the object in the set, and the set of all sets not members of themselves provides an amusing paradox, but not all sets are so compromised. The set of all sets does include itself. What prevents the set of everything from being a member of itself?

cf the ending of The Farnsworth Parabox - in which the universe contains the box that contains the universe...

[catbasket]

Just wanted to say that I'm up for joining the Church of Slingblade ... and Fiona - you are so nominated ;)

[arthwollipot]

It is good or useful for people to know what actual or at least possible entity outside your brain or even inside your brain the word you use refers to.Surely I'm the best judge of what the word I use refers to? I am, after all, the one using the word. Presumably I chose that particular word for a reason, hmm?

[bruto]

cf the ending of The Farnsworth Parabox - in which the universe contains the box that contains the universe...I suppose, but does that really say anything more than that the box is not a possible construct in a universe that is defined to exclude nothing? I don't see why we need to abandon the idea of "everything" if we simply acknowledge that the a box which "contains" everything is a paradox and thus impossible. If we found the box, we'd be in trouble, of course, but have we?

[babbits]

So does that mean we have arrived at:

"If god made everything then he made himself" which, as the Scholastics would have said, is absurd?

[Elizabeth I]

so, judge the definition whether at least it gives the possible object in your brain or brains of people except in yours of the concept of god as the maker of heaven and earth and everything.

What?

[Silentknight]

So, judge the definition whether at least it gives the possible object in your brain or brains of people except in yours of the concept of God as the maker of heaven and earth and everything.

At the risk of my coming off crass
I must now head you off at the pass
The ontology's bunk
So your argument's sunk
Then again, it was pulled from your-- butt



(I'd have spent more than 10 seconds on this, but I still have to finish a much longer piece for an assignment this weekend.)

[X]

Read this post again, giving utmost attention and concentration and thus compliance to the lines in bold.

<snipped by X>

(1) It is good or useful for people to know what actual or at least possible entity outside your brain or even inside your brain the word you use refers to.


(2) Does my definition of God serve that purpose for people to know what entity outside their brain and/or inside their brain the word God refers to?

(3) Does it tell people what atheists and what theists are talking about with the word God?

(4) If they know what is a maker, what is heaven, what is earth, and what is everything, then they should find nothing wrong with the word God defined as the maker of heaven and hearth and everything.

(5) If you find something wrong with that definition of God, then it is because for you: you can't know what people are talking about with the word God, whereas they know what they are talking about, even kids in nursery school have no trouble with the word God and its meaning.

(6) The cause could be some kind of peculiar brain configuration on your part, not found in people who do know what is being talked about with the word God.

(7) Or perhaps you have some kind of dread with the word itself of God, what is that dread all about?



(8) So, judge the definition whether at least it gives the possible object in your brain or brains of people except in yours of the concept of God as the maker of heaven and earth and everything.



Responses to points in numbered order:

(1)
The trouble is that your "definition" does not let other people know what entity you are referring to. Is it Vāhigurū? Allah? Brahmā? Chaos? The Flying Spaghetti Monster? The Great Green Arkelseizure? You complain every time someone mentions these concepts, accusing the person bringing them up of being idiots. Yet your own definition does not rule them out.
So, as far as trying to inform others of what entity you are referring to, you "definition" is insufficient.


(2)
See previous answer. Your "definition" does not tell me what your use of the term "God" refers to. There are many god concepts, and many of them fit your definition. Your "definition" does not let me know which "God" you are talking about.


(3)
No, it does not. See (1) and (2).


(4)
I am familiar with the concepts of Heaven, Earth and everything. THey are well defined. Heaven is a paradise afterlife, Earth is the planet on which we live, and everything is well, everything (which includes Heaven and Earth, by the way).
However, since your definition of God is merely as the maker of those objects and no more specific than that, you should find nothing wrong with me using the Flying Spaghetti Monster as the concept of god for this discussion. It fits your definition, after all. If you don't like it, come up with a more explicit definition.


(5)
You're right. I can not know what people are talking about when they use the word God. There are many different religions, each with their own god or gods. Further, in my experience, each individual has their own interpretation of god. It's very much a personal concept. I can claim that you are talking about the genocidal, vindictive, maniacal and petty god of the Torah. But I have no way of knowing for sure. There are simply too many god concepts for the word "god" to have any specific and clear meaning.


(6)
You really do need to stop insulting everyone who doesn't ascribe to your belief system. Or else we might start flinging insults at you for not following our beliefs or lack thereof.


(7)
I have no more fear of the word "god" (or even it's general implications) than I do of the word "leprechaun".


(8)
Very well. I judge it to fail. It does not provide a concept of "the possible object [...] of the concept of God as the maker of heaven and earth and everything". Why not? Because you ask if it provides a singular concept. It doesn't. It encompasses many many god concepts.




Again, please read my earlier post, quoted below:


Yrreg; Read The Following.


You asked us what we felt was wrong with your definition of god (maker of heaven and earth and everything).

This has been provided, although you dismiss the posts as signs of naivete. Which is insulting, frankly. But then, so is most of what you write.


Here is the issue:

You routinely and reliably get angry whenever somebody brings up the Flying Spaghetti Monster or the Invisible Pink Unicorn or other deity concepts to prove a point.

The trouble is, these deity concepts are perfectly compatible with your definition of god.

Yet you refuse to acknowledge the analogies made, instead insulting the posters by saying people who bring up such concepts are "non-thinkers".

If these concepts are not your god, the fault lies with you.
Your definition, as presented, gives no way of differentiating between many hundreds of deity concepts (many of which are mutually incompatible).

Since you obviously have a specific god-concept in mind (or else you wouldn't reject the others as "non-thinking"), and since your definition fails completely to describe the specific concept you have in mind (or any other specific concept, for that matter), it is not a very good definition. By definition.


That is what is wrong with it. As a definition of a concept, it works, but doesn't really clarify anything. As a definition of a specific deity-concept, as you are using it for, it fails utterly. It is too vague, and it eschews actual description in favour of giving a resume.

[MIKILLINI]

So, judge the definition whether at least it gives the possible object in your brain or brains of people except in yours of the concept of God as the maker of heaven and earth and everything.




In order to find a consensus for the definition of God as maker of everything, perhaps you could specify which God you have in mind so we could narrow it down to one?

[yrreg]

Man is the measure of everything even God, wherefore man defines God.

Of course, now that we are so concerned about whether He does exist or not, then we start with the concept itself of God in our brain.

Here is my concept of God in my brain:
The maker of heaven and and earth and everything.
And here is my idea of what a definition is good or useful for to man, as understood by man, who is himself the measuring entity of everything that is of concern to man.




[...]

It [ a definition ] is good or useful for people to know what actual or at least possible entity outside your brain or even inside your brain the word you use refers to.

[...]




At this point of the thread I like to invite people to concentrate on the word God as at least referring to a possible entity inside the brain of humans at least some, which word God refers to the concept again in the brain of at least some people connoting:
The maker of heaven and earth and everything.


If you have trouble with everything, it means everything that man knows now and can know in the future and also they thought they knew in the past but now know better.

So if you are a man or a woman or anything in between provided still human with a genetically human brain,* everything means everything you know now or in the future.

Some people know more things than others of course, but everyone knows everything he does know.

If you are again and still having trouble with knowing everything, then just pretend that you don't know something of the everything that you know, then that should still be all right in regard to the everything that you now know, whereas you actually know one more than everything you now know with the pretended ignorance of one thing of the everything you know without pretending to not know the one thing you do know without the said pretension*.


Please, for the love of viable communication, don't be more smart and thus all entangled in useless knots because you want to imagine that you are a super intelligence all knowing entity, and not just a human knowing entity, knowing the limited number of things you do know which to you is everything you know, and include in that also all the things you don't know but can know, and even cannot know because your brain no matter how much it exposes itself to and for how long, will still not know everything in objective reality that can be known by what I postulate to be the concept of God:
The maker of heaven and earth and everything.



And please don't bring in names of gods and goddesses of earlier folks or more technologically backward peoples, unless and until you update and upgrade them to the level and quality of our current cognitive sophistication.

Rule 12 violation removed.



Okay? So, for the present let us all if I may include all of you to consider just the intrinsic possibility of the concept of God as:
The maker of heaven and earth and everything.

Then we will work on His existence outside the concept in our brain, but of course corresponding to the concept.




Yrreg
Edited per mod-box above

[Hokulele]

If you have trouble with everything, it means everything that man knows now and can know in the future and also they thought they knew in the past but now know better.


So if man doesn't know it now, won't know it in the future, and didn't know it, or even think they knew it, in the past, god didn't make it.

Got it.

What about if a woman knew it? Something like, say, the location of the car keys?

[blobru]

Standing on the bridge over the koi pond, Gozu asked master Boshi: "What is God?"

The master leaned over the handrail and shook the collected moths out of the lamp basin. They floated on the water like cherry blossoms. The koi came to the surface to feed. One slapped its tail on the water as it circled, briefly disturbing the reflection of the two men.

"You're welcome," laughed Boshi.

"What is God?" asked Gozu, unsure if he had been heard.

"You hang the lantern tonight," said Boshi; "here," and walked away.

That night the light illuminated the rice hut's porch, the gathering moths, as the two men slept. Gozu had worried as he lit the lamp that the wind would blow it out.

commentary: the lamp, the flame, the wind, the moths, the koi, the light, the cherry blossom... Who will you thank?

[MIKILLINI]

Man is the measure of everything even God, wherefore man defines God.

Which God? Are you unable to reveal this God? Can't you define him with a name? If you can't, then your argument goes nowhere.

Of course, now that we are so concerned about whether He does exist or not, then we start with the concept itself of God in our brain.

Here is my concept of God in my brain:

The maker of heaven and and earth and everything.


I believe you have mentioned this before.:rolleyes:


At this point of the thread I like to invite people to concentrate on the word God as at least referring to a possible entity inside the brain of humans at least some, which word God refers to the concept again in the brain of at least some people connoting:

The maker of heaven and earth and everything.


You really like wasting time and forum bandwidth, don't you?

If you have trouble with everything, it means everything that man knows now and can know in the future and also they thought they knew in the past but now know better.

So if you are a man or a woman or anything in between provided still human with a genetically human brain,* everything means everything you know now or in the future.

Some people know more things than others of course, but everyone knows everything he does know.

If you are again and still having trouble with knowing everything, then just pretend that you don't know something of the everything that you know, then that should still be all right in regard to the everything that you now know, whereas you actually know one more than everything you now know with the pretended ignorance of one thing of the everything you know without pretending to not know the one thing you do know without the said pretension*.


Seriously, did you have Don Rumsfeld write this?

Please, for the love of viable communication, don't be more smart and thus all entangled in useless knots because you want to imagine that you are a super intelligence all knowing entity, and not just a human knowing entity, knowing the limited number of things you do know which to you is everything you know, and include in that also all the things you don't know but can know, and even cannot know because your brain no matter how much it exposes itself to and for how long, will still not know everything in objective reality that can be known by what I postulate to be the concept of God:

The maker of heaven and earth and everything.

:words:


And please don't bring in names of gods and goddesses of earlier folks or more technologically backward peoples, unless and until you update and upgrade them to the level and quality of our current cognitive sophistication.



Your God is...Allah? Jehovah? Did Protestants and Catholics fight over the same God? Why are Americans considered infidels in some countries?

I wished you guys would not keep playing naive, or you are really born naive; if you keep playing naive, then suppose you just proclaim yourselves born-again naive -- then I will not invest time and trouble to read your posts here.*

Perhaps you could stop being so evasive and be more specific?


Then we will work on His existence outside the concept in our brain, but of course corresponding to the concept.


Why don't you get started right now?

[Ron_Tomkins]

What's exactly, specifically wrong with my definition of God? as maker of heaven and earth and everything.





Yrreg

Well

What's exactly, specifically wrong with my definition of the tooth fairy?

A lovely little fairy, pink dress, magic wand, capable of magically transforming old teeth into golden coins

I'll let you think on that one

Ron

[Mojo]

And please don't bring in names of gods and goddesses of earlier folks or more technologically backward peoples, unless and until you update and upgrade them to the level and quality of our current cognitive sophistication.


Assuming that you are talking about the God mentioned in the Bible, does this mean that we can still talk about post-Bronze Age gods such as the FSM (a God of the internet age)?

[yrreg]

This is my concept of God as a theist:

The maker of heaven and earth and everything.


That's a concept of God expressed in eight words.


Now, atheists, you tell me in less than ten words what is your concept of God.






Yrreg

[Mashuna]

Imaginary friend to help people who can't deal with reality.

[Aitch]

Imaginary being used to threaten anyone who disagrees with you.

[Twiler]

Component of an obsolete social control mechanism.

[wollery]

A human construct used to explain misunderstood natural phenomena.

[zooterkin]

Now, atheists, you tell me in less than ten words what is your concept of God.


..

[AndyD]

This is my concept of God as a theist:

The maker of heaven and earth and everything.


That's a concept of God expressed in eight words.


Now, atheists, you tell me in less than ten words what is your concept of God.

I'm not certain your earlier demand for exactness and specificity meets with your new demand for brevity but here you go anyway...

An apparently imaginary being that some believe made everything.

Whoo! Nine words! What do I win?!?!

EDIT: Damn! zooterkin has succinctness down to a fine art.

[joobz]

The metaphysical synergy between the quantum conscious and unconscious shakras.

[slingblade]

Fungible.

[zooterkin]

Imaginary friend to help people who can't deal with reality.

Imaginary being used to threaten anyone who disagrees with you.

The metaphysical synergy between the quantum conscious and unconscious shakras.

Where did you guys learn to count? He said "less than ten words". :)



(Of course, he should have said "fewer than ten words".)

[AWPrime]

Man is the measure of everything even God, wherefore man defines God.Therefore god comes from man. However how can a human produce a maker of everything?
In short, mankind can't, therefore its a mere Delusion, with a pint of supreme arrogance.


And please don't bring in names of gods and goddesses of earlier folks or more technologically backward peoplesYou mean like your god? Don't you know that the faith in your god is stronger in more backward areas.

[bruto]

Okay? So, for the present let us all if I may include all of you to consider just the intrinsic possibility of the concept of God as:
The maker of heaven and earth and everything.

Then we will work on His existence outside the concept in our brain, but of course corresponding to the concept.




Yrreg



If the concept of god in your brain is actually nothing but what it says in your definition, then you have no concept of any particular god at all. If that definition is truly all you are working from, then you have not gone beyond the stage of imagining that the universe is created, to consider what might have created it. Yrreg, no matter how much verbiage you pile on, your definition is not the definition of any particular god with any particular attributes. It is only the shell of a definition, or a label for a more complete concept of God defined elsewhere. Whether you like it or not, or take offense at the suggestion or not, the definition you provide is applicable to any creation myth, real or imagined, and contains no specifications that could distinguish the God you (presumably) believe in from pantheistic deities, myths and parodies. If we did not infer it from your peevish responses, and from the context in which you operate here in this forum, your definition would give us no reason at all to presume that you are speaking of a monotheistic deity of the sort christians and muslims worship, rather than some Coyote myth or the Spaghetti Monster.

Since this is so, I wonder that you are taking so much trouble with the question. It is true that the definition you have put forth, despite its flaws, can be reasonably understood for the purposes of discourse about God and his existence, but it would be both simpler and more accurate simply to refer to some better definition in a dictionary,or in the doctrine of whatever religious persuasion you prefer, and say you are speaking of that concept. It would save you much trouble, and spare you the embarrassment of many many pages of incoherent writing and misdirected insults.

Your apparent inability to distinguish between the content of your definition and the content of your brain continues to trip you up. If what we are seeing here is the content of your brain, you would do well to be more circumspect in revealing it. It's not a pretty sight.

[Mashuna]

Where did you guys learn to count? He said

I'm sorry, I had to stop reading after nine words.

[Mojo]

This is my concept of God as a theist:

The maker of heaven and earth and everything.


That's a concept of God expressed in eight words.


Now, atheists, you tell me in less than ten words what is your concept of God.


Imaginary being with supernatural powers.

Five words.

[Lord Emsworth]

This is my concept of God as a theist:

The maker of heaven and earth and everything.


That's a concept of God expressed in eight words.


Now, atheists, you tell me in less than ten words what is your concept of God.


A first cause style creator with libertarian free will.


Which is about as possible as a square circle. Anything that does not conform to this, say, something that could be seen as a first cause on one hand, that does not however have a choice to chose between different creations, does not count.

Preferably, that which is to be called 'God' exhibits clear anthropomorphic characteristics, like for example possesses speech. But I am less insistent here.

Ten words you wanted? Then run with the first line ... if you wish.

[Bob Klase]

Now, atheists, you tell me in less than ten words what is your concept of God.


concept of god (http://www.conceptofgod.com/)

[catbasket]

Now, atheists, you tell me in less than ten words what is your concept of God.

Yrreg

My concept of god is too great or extreme to be expressed in words though there is a school of thought that it is simply too sacred to be uttered. It's also ten words long. Sorry.

[joobz]

MY concept of god is best understood through dance.

:mdance::monkeyr:

[X]

And please don't bring in names of gods and goddesses of earlier folks or more technologically backward peoples, unless and until you update and upgrade them to the level and quality of our current cognitive sophistication.


Ahura Mazda (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahura_Mazda) fits your definition. So does Bagadjimbiri (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bagadjimbiri), and Nanabozho (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanabozho). Along with Tezcatlipoca (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tezcatlipoca), Kaang (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaang) and Bunjil (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bunjil).
In fact, every god on this list (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Creator_gods) (some appear more than once under different names) fits your definition.

If a god concept fits your definition (maker of heaven and earth and everything), then what grounds do you have for rejecting it?
"earlier folks" and "more technologically backward peoples" are not grounds to dismiss a claim. They are (say it with me): Ad-Hominem attacks.

If you don't like people bringing in god concepts of "earlier folks or more technologically backward peoples", then perhaps you should ensure that your definition makes clear which particular god concept you are talking about.

The definition you have given is not sufficient convey the concept of a particular god. All it can do is convey a very general concept which applies equally well to many different god concepts.
So you can either improve the definition, or stop whining every time someone mentions a god you don't believe in.


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


Further, I don't think much of your demands that we make short posts. I mean, look at your own. They are long, repetitive, and needlessly wordy.

Until you make your posts short and to the point, your demands that we do so are hypocritical. And I for one will not acquiesce to them.

You asked the question, you've had your answers.

Deal with it.

[Ron_Tomkins]

Sorry, yrreg but never told me what was wrong with my definition of the Tooth Fairy. Could you please reply to my post?

[MIKILLINI]

This is my concept of God as a theist:

The maker of heaven and earth and everything.


That's a concept of God expressed in eight words.


Now, atheists, you tell me in less than ten words what is your concept of God.




Evasive as this thread's author.
5 words, Gerry.
Now get to the point.

[Mojo]

The definition you have given is not sufficient convey the concept of a particular god. All it can do is convey a very general concept which applies equally well to many different god concepts.


It also excludes all non-creator gods, which have as much right to be included in the definition of "god" as creator gods, at least from the point of view of atheists, who yrreg claims to be trying to engage with here.

[Hokulele]

Now, atheists, you tell me in less than ten words what is your concept of God.


Penis.

[Elizabeth I]

Man is the measure of everything even God, wherefore man defines God.

Of course, now that we are so concerned about whether He does exist or not, then we start with the concept itself of God in our brain.

Here is my concept of God in my brain:
The maker of heaven and and earth and everything.
And here is my idea of what a definition is good or useful for to man, as understood by man, who is himself the measuring entity of everything that is of concern to man.

At this point of the thread I like to invite people to concentrate on the word God as at least referring to a possible entity inside the brain of humans at least some, which word God refers to the concept again in the brain of at least some people connoting:
The maker of heaven and earth and everything.


If you have trouble with everything, it means everything that man knows now and can know in the future and also they thought they knew in the past but now know better.

So if you are a man or a woman or anything in between provided still human with a genetically human brain,* everything means everything you know now or in the future.

Some people know more things than others of course, but everyone knows everything he does know.

If you are again and still having trouble with knowing everything, then just pretend that you don't know something of the everything that you know, then that should still be all right in regard to the everything that you now know, whereas you actually know one more than everything you now know with the pretended ignorance of one thing of the everything you know without pretending to not know the one thing you do know without the said pretension*.

Please, for the love of viable communication, don't be more smart and thus all entangled in useless knots because you want to imagine that you are a super intelligence all knowing entity, and not just a human knowing entity, knowing the limited number of things you do know which to you is everything you know, and include in that also all the things you don't know but can know, and even cannot know because your brain no matter how much it exposes itself to and for how long, will still not know everything in objective reality that can be known by what I postulate to be the concept of God:
The maker of heaven and earth and everything.


And please don't bring in names of gods and goddesses of earlier folks or more technologically backward peoples, unless and until you update and upgrade them to the level and quality of our current cognitive sophistication.

Okay? So, for the present let us all if I may include all of you to consider just the intrinsic possibility of the concept of God as:
The maker of heaven and earth and everything.

Then we will work on His existence outside the concept in our brain, but of course corresponding to the concept.

He writes this stuff in his native language (Lower Middle Incoherent), then does a copy-paste into Babelfish and posts the resulting "translation," doesn't he?

[blobru]

Now, atheists, you tell me in less than ten words what is your concept of God.

Penis.


Batur asked the master: "Is God yin, or yang?" :yinyang:

Said master: "God can go **** himself. You figure it out."

commentary: guess apples weren't the only fruit in the garden.

[Silentknight]

And please don't bring in names of gods and goddesses of earlier folks or more technologically backward peoples, unless and until you update and upgrade them to the level and quality of our current cognitive sophistication.

Right, because those Bronze Age tribal folk from 1800 bce who thought that the Earth was flat and created in six days couldn't possibly have known what they were saying about God.

[yrreg]

Before anything else, I apologize to any people for my unacceptable words.


Please, in the name of camaraderie -- addressing also Tricky as a common poster here, abstain from reporting what you think is an offensive line in my message which you believe should be reported, because it is not necessary to report it to the moderator for him to issue a warning.

Just tell me directly and ask me to rewrite the post with no more offense to you, and also demand even an apology.

That should save a lot of unnecessary time and trouble for all concerned.




I'm not certain your earlier demand for exactness and specificity meets with your new demand for brevity but here you go anyway...

An apparently imaginary being that some believe made everything.

Whoo! Nine words! What do I win?!?!

EDIT: Damn! zooterkin has succinctness down to a fine art.


That is a useful description of God, it says essentially the same concept as mine: the maker of heaven and earth and everything.


I award you with the reference to an online text of The Cloud of Unknowing (http://www.lib.rochester.edu/camelot/teams/cloud.htm), a mystical work attributed to a 14th century English monk.


You see AndyD, what I am trying to find out is whether atheists here can accept that concept of God, namely: the maker of heaven and earth and everything, as one that is possible in the human brain, but prescinding from the question of God's existence at this point of the thread.





Yrreg

[Mojo]

Before anything else, I apologize to any people for my unacceptable words.


Please, in the name of camaraderie -- addressing also Tricky as a common poster here, abstain from reporting what you think is an offensive line in my message which you believe should be reported, because it is not necessary to report it to the moderator for him to issue a warning.

Just tell me directly and ask me to rewrite the post with no more offense to you, and also demand even an apology.

That should save a lot of unnecessary time and trouble for all concerned.


On the evidence of the rest of this thread (and of your last few threads) it doesn't appear that you take much notice of anything that others post here, so this would probably be a futile course of action.

[yrreg]

For the rest of you, just point out what is impossible in my concept of God as concept.

The maker of heaven and earth and everything.


You see, everyone, atheists bring in so many concepts of God, but theists like yours truly tell you that in many of their concepts of God, they are missing out on what theists like myself harbor in our brain as the concept of God.






Yrreg

[Elizabeth I]

You see AndyD, what I am trying to find out is whether atheists here can accept that concept of God, namely: the maker of heaven and earth and everything, as one that is possible in the human brain, but prescinding from the question of God's existence at this point of the thread.

Prescind: v.tr. To separate or divide in thought; consider individually.
v.intr. To withdraw one's attention. (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/prescind)

In this context, I'm not sure prescind is the word you wanted.

[yrreg]

Quote:
You see AndyD, what I am trying to find out is whether atheists here can accept that concept of God, namely: the maker of heaven and earth and everything, as one that is possible in the human brain, but prescinding from the question of God's existence at this point of the thread.


Prescind: v.tr. To separate or divide in thought; consider individually.
v.intr. To withdraw one's attention. (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/prescind)

In this context, I'm not sure prescind is the word you wanted.



You must remember that language is greater and deeper and higher than any dictionary can contain.


And it is a great catastrophe that people have this idea that they should be enslaved by dictionaries which are made by fellow men who need not be the most versatile and prolific in the use of language.



Anyway, Elizabeth, suppose you tell me what I want to say with that phrase, prescinding from, and rewrite my disputed line for me, then I will examine it and tell you whether you get my thought correctly or not.



Or you want to witness a contest of bringing up the nth number of dictionaries to prove... what?

When people start arguing on the basis of dictionary definition, I usually prescind from their presence.

Wrong use of prescind in that line? You have got to be versatile and prolific in language to understand that word prescind in that line from me.


Haha, gotcha!


Oooops, might get in trouble with some people again.


Can't people here some not ever get any magnanimity of spirit, but must complain to the police precinct for any so much as the most effervescent ether of an offense in the words of Yrreg here?





Yrreg

[RoboTimbo]

Just tell me directly and ask me to rewrite the post with no more offense to you, and also demand even an apology.

You've already said that you don't read posts. How about just stopping with the name calling?

That should save a lot of unnecessary time and trouble for all concerned.

I don't mind you getting in trouble.

[bruto]

For the rest of you, just point out what is impossible in my concept of God as concept.

The maker of heaven and earth and everything.


You see, everyone, atheists bring in so many concepts of God, but theists like yours truly tell you that in many of their concepts of God, they are missing out on what theists like myself harbor in our brain as the concept of God.






YrregThe problem with your definition is not that it is impossible. It is that it is incomplete. I do not think you have considered just what a definition is. A definition defines, and in so doing, it does not only state what it applies to, but what it does not apply to. It is in that latter area that your definition falls short.

I truly think that you have not taken this seriously, and also that you are quite mistaken as to what other theists "harbor in their brains as the concept of God." If your definition were what they harbor in their brains, it would be the definition that we see in dictionaries, and it would be the definition arrived at by theologians when they discuss at length the nature of God. But it is not. Those definitions you spurn are the definitions of other theists, not of atheists, for whom the details of God's specific properties and attributes are irrelevant.

[GeeMack]

Just tell me directly and ask me to rewrite the post with no more offense to you, and also demand even an apology.

That should save a lot of unnecessary time and trouble for all concerned.


Okay, yrreg, since you first arrived here you've been rude, insulting, and demanding. You've refused to even acknowledge all but a few legitimate replies to your posts. You've changed the subject more times than anyone here can count, yet you get all pissy when other people slide off topic a bit. You've bailed out completely on threads where you've been proven to lack the knowledge or sense to continue the discussion, instead of showing some integrity and admitting that you've failed. You've regularly shown you don't have the courage to admit you're wrong about anything. You choose your vocabulary in an effort to sound smart rather than in an effort to communicate effectively, and you ignore everyone's request that you make yourself clear. You rely on the most ridiculous collection of strawmen. You won't refine your definition of god to make it useable in a conversation. And you've threatened through hundreds and hundreds of posts to bring in your evidence to substantiate the existence of a god but never even remotely begun to do that.

You need to essentially start over and rewrite pretty much all your posts. The raw stupidity in most of them is offensive. The complete blind ignorance certainly is, too. You owe us all an apology for the total lack of consideration and respect you've shown to the people here who have made an honest effort to engage you in a productive dialog.

You see AndyD, what I am trying to find out is whether atheists here can accept that concept of God, namely: the maker of heaven and earth and everything, as one that is possible in the human brain, but prescinding from the question of God's existence at this point of the thread.


We accept that concept as one that is possible in the human brain. That concept, ridiculous as it is, obviously exists in your brain.

[Shalamar]

This is my concept of God as a theist:

The maker of heaven and earth and everything.


That's a concept of God expressed in eight words.


Now, atheists, you tell me in less than ten words what is your concept of God.


Yrreg

"Man created God in his own image."

Seven words. What do I win?

[Lord Emsworth]

For the rest of you, just point out what is impossible in my concept of God as concept.[/indent]


Clear up "maker" and I might tell you. Until then, your concept remains insufficient to me. A machine, for example, would not count as God, even if it *could* be called "maker:"
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/coffeemaker


And then there is still this "everything" problem. By definition there cannot exist anything apart from everything, maker or not. This ain't cleared up either and if it is to be taken at face value, then you have your impossibility. A something that is not amongst the existing.

[Elizabeth I]

You must remember that language is greater and deeper and higher than any dictionary can contain.

And it is a great catastrophe that people have this idea that they should be enslaved by dictionaries which are made by fellow men who need not be the most versatile and prolific in the use of language.

Anyway, Elizabeth, suppose you tell me what I want to say with that phrase, prescinding from, and rewrite my disputed line for me, then I will examine it and tell you whether you get my thought correctly or not.

Or you want to witness a contest of bringing up the nth number of dictionaries to prove... what?

When people start arguing on the basis of dictionary definition, I usually prescind from their presence.

Wrong use of prescind in that line? You have got to be versatile and prolific in language to understand that word prescind in that line from me.


'To be sure I was!' Humpty Dumpty said gaily as she turned it round for him. `I thought it looked a little queer. As I was saying, that seems to be done right -- though I haven't time to look it over thoroughly just now -- and that shows that there are three hundred and sixty-four days when you might get un-birthday presents --'

`Certainly,' said Alice.

`And only one for birthday presents, you know. There's glory for you!'

`I don't know what you mean by "glory",' Alice said.

Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. `Of course you don't -- till I tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"'

`But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument",' Alice objected.

`When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'"

Of course, one can operate in this manner, but then one shouldn't expect anyone to understand what he says. And language, whether spoken or written, is intended to communicate.

How the hell should I know what you meant?

Can't people here some not ever get any magnanimity of spirit, but must complain to the police precinct for any so much as the most effervescent ether of an offense in the words of Yrreg here?

Yep, I was right. It's a Babelfish translation, cut and pasted.

[yrreg]

Posted by yrreg
For the rest of you, just point out what is impossible in my concept of God as concept.

The maker of heaven and earth and everything.

You see, everyone, atheists bring in so many concepts of God, but theists like yours truly tell you that in many of their concepts of God, they are missing out on what theists like myself harbor in our brain as the concept of God.





The problem with your definition is not that it is impossible. It is that it is incomplete. I do not think you have considered just what a definition is. A definition defines, and in so doing, it does not only state what it applies to, but what it does not apply to. It is in that latter area that your definition falls short.

I truly think that you have not taken this seriously, and also that you are quite mistaken as to what other theists "harbor in their brains as the concept of God." If your definition were what they harbor in their brains, it would be the definition that we see in dictionaries, and it would be the definition arrived at by theologians when they discuss at length the nature of God. But it is not. Those definitions you spurn are the definitions of other theists, not of atheists, for whom the details of God's specific properties and attributes are irrelevant.


Dear Bruto, I hope you are not one to lack in magnanimity unlike pusillanimous souls here who would swoon in fits of anger at the mention of brain peculiarity on their part.


You say about my description of God as the maker of heaven and earth and everything:

The problem with your definition is not that it is impossible. It is that it is incomplete. I do not think you have considered just what a definition is. A definition defines, and in so doing, it does not only state what it applies to, but what it does not apply to. It is in that latter area that your definition falls short.


Let's attend to this particular text from you:

"A definition defines, and in so doing, it does not only state what it applies to, but what it does not apply to. It is in that latter area that your definition falls short."

To be diplomatic I will just say that you have a peculiar idea that dictionaries have the job of restricting people from applying a word to objects they don't include in their definitions.

I for my own part definitely maintain something altogether distinctly different from your idea of the job of dictionaries, namely, that if they do at least imply what objects their definitions apply to, they don't in effect restrict their definitions to only those objects.


I will just seriously suggest to you to think: whether your employment of dictionaries in that respect is doing yourself a service or a disservice, and giving credit to the authors of dictionaries.




Yrreg

*See my post here (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4244182&postcount=166), in a past thread.

[MIKILLINI]

Of course, one can operate in this manner, but then one shouldn't expect anyone to understand what he says. And language, whether spoken or written, is intended to communicate.

.

He is one who speaks of mastery in English. He may know all the words but does not structure them well for effective communication. In fact, it seems he tries to use every English word there is in one thread.

Case in point: Look at post #186. :rolleyes:

[NobbyNobbs]

To be diplomatic I will just say that you have a peculiar idea that dictionaries have the job of restricting people from applying a word to objects they don't include in their definitions.

I for my own part definitely maintain something altogether distinctly different from your idea of the job of dictionaries, namely, that if they do at least imply what objects their definitions apply to, they don't in effect restrict their definitions to only those objects.


I will just seriously suggest to you to think: whether your employment of dictionaries in that respect is doing yourself a service or a disservice, and giving credit to the authors of dictionaries.




Yrreg,

Your basketball is most definitely liquidity and sharp.

And by "basketball" I mean "argument". By "liquidity" I meant "ridiculous" and by "sharp" I meant "pointless".

But since you and I don't let dictionaries restrict us in the use of words, you already understood what I meant, didn't you?

:rolleyes:

[yrreg]

You want to tell people what you deny or lack in your repertory of concepts, yet you don't want to concur with people on their concepts like God which you deny or maintain to lack knowledge of.


That is why it is almost impossible to have any productive exchange of thoughts with atheists.


Thanks just the same for your contributions, because I am sure from my part that people are having fun here who do derive enjoyment from reading our posts, and also in some way to some extent they are getting some enhancement of their intellectual culture.


Apologies to folks where whose posts I do not react to, because as the saying goes, ars longa, vita brevis,* i.e., art is long but life is short, that is why I have to just limit myself to the posts that I usually answer to, the ones in particular that come immediately after my last post of the previous session.



Another thing, I stop using the word mind, but instead use the word brain, because it is certainly most empirical compared to the word mind.


So, please bear with me: brain is the only thing in a human that no human can deny without erasing himself from the universe of existence as human.





Yrreg


*Ars here has nothing to do with the posterior sewage opening of animals, it is the latin word for art.

[MIKILLINI]

Well Yrreg you can have your concept of God, but that's all you have: A concept. How did you acquire the conception of God?
Or did you just come up with the concept all on your own?

Simple questions, yrreg. Can you answer them?

[X]

Just tell me directly and ask me to rewrite the post with no more offense to you, and also demand even an apology.

That should save a lot of unnecessary time and trouble for all concerned.


Here's a novel idea, mate: Stop insulting people. Seriously. I cannot fathom how you manage to think the problem lies with people reporting your posts. It lies with the way you write them. Stop being rude, and your posts won't get reported.


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


For the rest of you, just point out what is impossible in my concept of God as concept.

The maker of heaven and earth and everything.


You see, everyone, atheists bring in so many concepts of God, but theists like yours truly tell you that in many of their concepts of God, they are missing out on what theists like myself harbor in our brain as the concept of God.



"Impossible" is an odd word choice. If I say nothing is impossible with that definition, will you jump out, yell "Haha Gotcha!" and claim I admitted your god is possible?

Read carefully: Your definition fails to inform other people of what you are talking about.

Allow me to quote you: "theists like myself harbor in our brain as the concept of God."

"the concept of God."

"THE CONCEPT OF GOD"

"THE CONCEPT OF GOD"


What do you notice about the bit I've emphasized?

No, not the fact that I've quoted is multiple times.
No, not the fact that I've written it in caps.
No, not the fact that it is bolded.

The important thing here is that it is singular. You are plainly talking about one specific concept of one specific god.
But your definition does not tell us which god this is.

As has been pointed out to you (repeatedly), there are many (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Creator_gods) (that "many" is a link, btw, to a list of creator gods) god concepts which can easily be described as the "maker of heaven and earth and everything".

The fact is that you obviously have a specific god concept in mind.
Your definition, however, does not inform the reader of which one you have in mind.
That is why your definition is not good enough.




I've said this same thing 3 or 4 times now, in this very thread. Yet thus far you have ignored it.

Please reply, Yrreg, so I know that you understand why I reject your definition of god.






Edit: One final point: Verbosity does not equal eloquence.
(In simpler terms: using lots of big words does not mean you are communicating well.)

[bruto]

Dear Bruto, I hope you are not one to lack in magnanimity unlike pusillanimous souls here who would swoon in fits of anger at the mention of brain peculiarity on their part.


You say about my description of God as the maker of heaven and earth and everything:

The problem with your definition is not that it is impossible. It is that it is incomplete. I do not think you have considered just what a definition is. A definition defines, and in so doing, it does not only state what it applies to, but what it does not apply to. It is in that latter area that your definition falls short.


Let's attend to this particular text from you:

"A definition defines, and in so doing, it does not only state what it applies to, but what it does not apply to. It is in that latter area that your definition falls short."

To be diplomatic I will just say that you have a peculiar idea that dictionaries have the job of restricting people from applying a word to objects they don't include in their definitions.

I for my own part definitely maintain something altogether distinctly different from your idea of the job of dictionaries, namely, that if they do at least imply what objects their definitions apply to, they don't in effect restrict their definitions to only those objects.


I will just seriously suggest to you to think: whether your employment of dictionaries in that respect is doing yourself a service or a disservice, and giving credit to the authors of dictionaries.




Yrreg

*See my post here (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4244182&postcount=166), in a past thread.

Nobby nobs has said it more artfully that I can, perhaps, but I will just say that you are quite wrong about what you presume I believe about dictionaries. Dictionaries help us to understand the meaning of words as we use them in discourse with each other. It is thus that we can make sure that when we use a word it accomplishes the job of clear communication. If we define a word in our own peculiar way, communication is impeded.

Let me see if I can try once more to express what I mean as if I were speaking to someone who cares about meaning and has a willingness to understand something other than what he already thinks (I realize it's a long shot, but here goes....)

Let us define God, in a way that is incontrovertible, if there is a god at all.

I define God as "something creative"

Now if there is a god at all, this statement is entirely true, and cannot be denied.

But is it a good definition? I don't think so. I think it is a very stupid definition.

Why is it a stupid definition? Because it does not DEFINE. It omits what we need to know to distinguish the thing we are speaking of from other things that are not it.

I could define a dog as "an animal," and would be 100 percent correct, yet the definition would be a bad one, worthless in fact, because other things that are not dogs are animals too.

You see, a statement, even if it is true, is not necessarily a good definition if it does not establish some difference between what it refers to and what it does not.

Now let us look at the definition of god as the creator of everything (including heaven and earth, in case we cannot comprehend what the word "everything" might include). Is that a good definition? Does it distinguish the god belonging to one faith from the god belonging to others? Does it impute any actual characteristics, properties, or attributes to the god in question? It does not. Does it exclude possible forces other than those generally reckoned to be divine? It does not.

So, if you define God as you have, you have perhaps defined the concept of "first cause," which in most theologies is one of the several attributes of God, just as being an animal is one of the several attributes of a dog. You have not, however, come up with a very good definition of God.

And I continue to wonder why you bother with this discussion, since if you chose, you could almost certainly provide a better and fuller definition, or reference one, which would resolve much of this debate even if it did not convince anyone that the god in question actually exists.

[Ron_Tomkins]

Ok..... ............how about this one for the "Tooth Fairy"?

A kindred spirited little girl with pointy ears and transparent wings who floats in a pink cloud of dust, is about 12 centimeters tall and has the ability to grant wishes to children

[Hokulele]

Batur asked the master: "Is God yin, or yang?" :yinyang:

Said master: "God can go **** himself. You figure it out."

commentary: guess apples weren't the only fruit in the garden.


Well, that is certainly a new interpretation of kenshō . :eye-poppi

[Mojo]

For the rest of you, just point out what is impossible in my concept of God as concept.

The maker of heaven and earth and everything.


OK, let's go through it...

Your definition contains redundancies: "heaven" and "earth" are included in "everything". "The maker of everything" is the same definition.

Your definition contains a potentially ambiguous term: "heaven" could mean the physical universe apart from the earth, or it could mean the supernatural realm in which the afterlife is alleged to occur. If you are to use this definition as a basis for trying to prove that god exists, you will need to prove the existence of "heaven" (I suspect that atheists will accept that the physical universe exists).

Your definition is to broad to be useful to theists, as it doesn't provide enough detail to identify a particular creator god. Theists are generally very specific as to which particular god they believe in.

Your definition is too narrow to include all gods, as some are not creator gods.

Allow me to suggest a definition of a specific "God" that can be used as a basis for discussion, and which I think you can agree with:

The God of the Bible.

[six7s]

Your definition is too narrow to include all gods, as some are not creator gods.

Allow me to suggest a definition of a specific "God" that can be used as a basis for discussion, and which I think you can agree with:

The God of the Bible.One question:

Which Bible? (there's (http://bessel.org/bibles.htm) oodles (http://www.essortment.com/all/historyoftheb_rwza.htm) to pick (http://www.aboutcatholics.com/faith_beliefs/why_are_catholic_bibles_different/) and choose from (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=))

[yrreg]

Well Yrreg you can have your concept of God, but that's all you have: A concept. How did you acquire the conception of God?
Or did you just come up with the concept all on your own?

Simple questions, yrreg. Can you answer them?


I got that concept of God from The Apostles' Creed which I have memorized from childhood:

I believe in God,
The Father Almighty,
Creator of heaven and earth,

Etc. etc. etc.


I just rewrite it as a definition of God, making it easy to understand for any brain with a minimum command of English vocabulary:

The maker of heaven and earth and everything.





Yrreg

[six7s]

I got that concept of God from The Apostles' Creed which I have memorized from childhood:

I believe in God,
The Father Almighty,
Creator of heaven and earth,

Etc. etc. etc.Fairy nuff

One question:

Why the Apostles Creed and not In Which a Search Is Organdized, and Piglet Nearly Meets the Heffalump Again?

[paximperium]

Ahhhh, Yrreg, now wasn't that easy?
Your Definition of God:

Apostles Creed
I believe in God, the Father Almighty,
the Maker of heaven and earth,
and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord:


Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost,
born of the virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, dead, and buried;


He descended into hell.

The third day He arose again from the dead;
He ascended into heaven,
and sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty;
from thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.


I believe in the Holy Ghost;
the holy catholic church;
the communion of saints;
the forgiveness of sins;
the resurrection of the body;
and the life everlasting.


Amen.
You could have easily defined your god as "God of the Bible" and I doubt many here would have much of an issue with that definition.

[Aitch]

I got that concept of God from The Apostles' Creed which I have memorized from childhood:


So it's not your concept; it's someone else's that you accepted as a child and still hold.

Have you ever queried/examined it?

[nescafe]

For the rest of you, just point out what is impossible in my concept of God as concept.The maker of heaven and earth and everything.You see, everyone, atheists bring in so many concepts of God, but theists like yours truly tell you that in many of their concepts of God, they are missing out on what theists like myself harbor in our brain as the concept of God.Getty, it is not about whether the God you conceptualize is logically possible, it is about whether the God you conceptualize is logically necessary. These are two very different things.

I am an atheist. I will happily concede that any concept of God that is not obviously internally incoherent or flat out contradicted by our observations of the Universe may be logically possible. I will then proceed to point out that the Flying Spaghetti Monster, a small teapot in orbit around Saturn, and the majority of dieties and fairy tales that humankind has ever believed in are also logically possible. I do not believe in them either, so why should I believe in your concept of God?

If you want to claim that your concept of God is logically necessary, you must show your work and be able to convince skeptics who will do their best to show that your concept is not logically necessary. So far, all your attempts have been complete and utter failures.

[Mojo]

You see, everyone, atheists bring in so many concepts of God, but theists like yours truly tell you that in many of their concepts of God, they are missing out on what theists like myself harbor in our brain as the concept of God.


What about theists other than yourself? You are missing out on the concepts of god of all those theists whose concept of god differs from yours.

[bruto]

I got that concept of God from The Apostles' Creed which I have memorized from childhood:

I believe in God,
The Father Almighty,
Creator of heaven and earth,

Etc. etc. etc.


I just rewrite it as a definition of God, making it easy to understand for any brain with a minimum command of English vocabulary:

The maker of heaven and earth and everything.





Yrreg

You should not have rewritten it. "The father almighty" is an essential element. Even so, I doubt very very much whether any one of the church fathers responsible for standardizing the apostles' creed would have considered that a full definition, rather than a shorthand definition for a concept much more fully fleshed out elsewhere.

In any case, though, you have at least provided us with a background for your definition. We now know that your definition is, indeed, based on a larger context, and whether you acknowledge it or not, the idea in your brain which that definition calls up is based, not only on the definition, but on the unspoken ideas that that context provides. This is no problem. Most of our ideas of complex concepts owe much to context. Your problem is not that this is so, but that you seem unwilling to acknowledge it.

You could as easily, and more productively, simply say "when I mean God I mean the God of the Apostles' Creed." You could even be justified in appending to that a slightly snarky, but entirely permissible comment, such as "if you don't know what that is, look it up." Since there is abundant information and scholarship regarding the creed and its object, anyone needing further clarification could then go to that creed, read it, and if needing even further clarification, study its origins, and from that point on you could, in all good conscience, accuse any opponent of nitpicking and derailment for pretending not to understand what you meant. Anyone can dispute the validity of the creed and its object, but nobody of good sense arguing in good faith could pretend that you are being vague, obscure, disingenuous or misleading for citing the god identified by that creed as what you mean when you use the word. It would be rampant optimism to suggest that this would free your threads of all bickering, but at least we'd be bickering about something more substantial than your arguable understanding of what a definition is.

It requires a certain kind of obstinate hubris to believe that something as elegantly pared down as the Apostles' Creed needs editing. I'm reminded of the verse in John 11:35. Alexander Woollcott once noted that there was only one English sentence that he knew that could not be improved upon: that from the KJ Bible, "Jesus wept." The Jehovah's Witness version reads "Jesus gave way to tears."

[yrreg]

Posted by yrreg
I got that concept of God from The Apostles' Creed which I have memorized from childhood:

I believe in God,
The Father Almighty,
Creator of heaven and earth,

Etc. etc. etc.






Fairy nuff

One question:

Why the Apostles Creed and not In Which a Search Is Organdized, and Piglet Nearly Meets the Heffalump Again?


Because I thought it is a pretty smart definition of God.


And I can see that the people who produced that very early statement of belief for Christians were very pretty smart and sharp and very versatile and prolific in language of the plain kind.





Yrreg

[yrreg]

Posted by yrreg
You see, everyone, atheists bring in so many concepts of God, but theists like yours truly tell you that in many of their concepts of God, they are missing out on what theists like myself harbor in our brain as the concept of God.





What about theists other than yourself? You are missing out on the concepts of god of all those theists whose concept of god differs from yours.



I speak for myself, other theists can speak for themselves.




Yrreg

[Hokulele]

So early versions of Odin were wrong, but early versions of God were right.



Suuuuuuure.

[yrreg]

You should not have rewritten it. "The father almighty" is an essential element. Even so, I doubt very very much whether any one of the church fathers responsible for standardizing the apostles' creed would have considered that a full definition, rather than a shorthand definition for a concept much more fully fleshed out elsewhere.

In any case, though, you have at least provided us with a background for your definition. We now know that your definition is, indeed, based on a larger context, and whether you acknowledge it or not, the idea in your brain which that definition calls up is based, not only on the definition, but on the unspoken ideas that that context provides. This is no problem. Most of our ideas of complex concepts owe much to context. Your problem is not that this is so, but that you seem unwilling to acknowledge it.

You could as easily, and more productively, simply say "when I mean God I mean the God of the Apostles' Creed." You could even be justified in appending to that a slightly snarky, but entirely permissible comment, such as "if you don't know what that is, look it up." Since there is abundant information and scholarship regarding the creed and its object, anyone needing further clarification could then go to that creed, read it, and if needing even further clarification, study its origins, and from that point on you could, in all good conscience, accuse any opponent of nitpicking and derailment for pretending not to understand what you meant. Anyone can dispute the validity of the creed and its object, but nobody of good sense arguing in good faith could pretend that you are being vague, obscure, disingenuous or misleading for citing the god identified by that creed as what you mean when you use the word. It would be rampant optimism to suggest that this would free your threads of all bickering, but at least we'd be bickering about something more substantial than your arguable understanding of what a definition is.

It requires a certain kind of obstinate hubris to believe that something as elegantly pared down as the Apostles' Creed needs editing. I'm reminded of the verse in John 11:35. Alexander Woollcott once noted that there was only one English sentence that he knew that could not be improved upon: that from the KJ Bible, "Jesus wept." The Jehovah's Witness version reads "Jesus gave way to tears."


As a matter of fact, God for me as maker of heaven and earth and everything, that is essential to God.


As for the God of the Bible or the God of the Koran, that is for me a script by men of what they want God maker of heaven and earth and everything to be for them in particular.



So, as far as I am concerned here in this thread, let us just keep to the concept of God, the maker of heaven and earth and everything.


By the way didn't I mention about scripts by men for God to play in some earlier threads, posts?







Yrreg

[joobz]

As a matter of fact, God for me as maker of heaven and earth and everything, that is essential to God.
Sounds Fine.

Ok.
To me, God is a dog seen in a mirror.
Perhaps we should provide evidence for our differing definitions? You start.

[Macoy]

That is why it is almost impossible to have any productive exchange of thoughts with atheists.

Yrreg

I am curious as to your definition here, of "almost".

Are you productively filling your atheistic boots?

[bruto]

As a matter of fact, God for me as maker of heaven and earth and everything, that is essential to God.


As for the God of the Bible or the God of the Koran, that is for me a script by men of what they want God maker of heaven and earth and everything to be for them in particular.



So, as far as I am concerned here in this thread, let us just keep to the concept of God, the maker of heaven and earth and everything.


By the way didn't I mention about scripts by men for God to play in some earlier threads, posts?







YrregIf what you are ultimately saying is that all you believe or know of god is that whatever god might be, it created the universe, and all else remains to be determined, then fair enough.

I do wonder why, if you rely on the Apostles' Creed for your script, you are so reluctant to include the other half of its definition of God.

Just curious, do you have an issue with the "father almighty" part of it? I know I do, but I'm surprised to see you so reticent to acknowledge that part of the creed.

You're beginning to sound like more of a deist than a theist.

[slingblade]

I got that concept of God from The Apostles' Creed which I have memorized from childhood:

I believe in God,
The Father Almighty,
Creator of heaven and earth


Where is the word "everything?"

[MIKILLINI]

As a matter of fact, God for me as maker of heaven and earth and everything, that is essential to God.


As for the God of the Bible or the God of the Koran, that is for me a script by men of what they want God maker of heaven and earth and everything to be for them in particular.



So, as far as I am concerned here in this thread, let us just keep to the concept of God, the maker of heaven and earth and everything.


By the way didn't I mention about scripts by men for God to play in some earlier threads, posts?




Ok, a concept derived from the Apostle's Creed. Now we know which God you have chosen.
Now, what I find interesting is that you mention in this post about the Bible and the Koran as being scripts of men and how the interpretation is for them in particular.
So the reason for not using the Bible or Koran for your interpretation is because the Apostle's Creed expresses it more to your particular liking? Even though the Creed is also a script of man?

[arthwollipot]

You see, everyone, atheists bring in so many concepts of God, but theists like yours truly tell you that in many of their concepts of God, they are missing out on what theists like myself harbor in our brain as the concept of God.So why don't you tell us what you harbour in your brain as the concept of God.

If it's "maker of heaven and earth and everything", let me assure you that we get it. We most certainly understand by now that this is what you harbour in your brain as the concept of God.

That has absolutely nothing to do with our brains.

[six7s]

I got that concept of God from The Apostles' Creed which I have memorized from childhood:

I believe in God,
The Father Almighty,
Creator of heaven and earth,

Etc. etc. etc.Fairy nuff

One question:

Why the Apostles Creed and not In Which a Search Is Organdized, and Piglet Nearly Meets the Heffalump Again?Because I thought it is a pretty smart definition of God.OK... again... fairy nuff...

However, your answer simply prompts another line of questions:

Is, in your book, having "a pretty smart definition of God" a pretty smart thing? If so, I sincerely ask why?

And I can see that the people who produced that very early statement of belief for Christians were very pretty smart and sharp and very versatile and prolific in language of the plain kind.Are you suggesting that AA Milne was not "very pretty smart and sharp and very versatile and prolific in language of the plain kind"? :confused:

[NobbyNobbs]

Because I thought it is a pretty smart definition of God.




If the Apostles' Creed is a pretty smart definition of God, why did you feel obligated to change to something that is....shall we politely say....not quite so smart?


It's like when someone asks you to define Shakespeare's writings and you hand them the Cliff Notes.

[yrreg]

Posted by yrreg
As a matter of fact, God for me as maker of heaven and earth and everything, that is essential to God.


As for the God of the Bible or the God of the Koran, that is for me a script by men of what they want God maker of heaven and earth and everything to be for them in particular.



So, as far as I am concerned here in this thread, let us just keep to the concept of God, the maker of heaven and earth and everything.


By the way didn't I mention about scripts by men for God to play in some earlier threads, posts?


Yrreg




If what you are ultimately saying is that all you believe or know of god is that whatever god might be, it created the universe, and all else remains to be determined, then fair enough.

I do wonder why, if you rely on the Apostles' Creed for your script, you are so reluctant to include the other half of its definition of God.

Just curious, do you have an issue with the "father almighty" part of it? I know I do, but I'm surprised to see you so reticent to acknowledge that part of the creed.

You're beginning to sound like more of a deist than a theist.


No, I am not hiding anything of The Apostles' Creed, not even that part about father almighty.


What I am doing is to bring your attention to the quintessence of God as far as we humans can know of Him with our reason and intelligence.


The rest is a matter of faith, on the script of men claiming to be commissioned by God to teach about God.




You see, first I want to see if you can at least see the possibility of the concept of God as maker of heaven and earth and everything.


Then for people here although atheists who can still with their brain harbor the possibility of the concept of God as maker of heaven and earth and everything, I will invite them to join me in the search of anything which can satisfy that description of God.


What's in it for me?


It is fun, and I hope will be fun for you also.


And of course intellectually rewarding.


About God being psychologically comforting for people who take Him for a father, I confess I do that myself; but remember that is a script I take the presumption to make up for God, on the ground that I know Him from reason and intelligence to be maker of heaven and earth and everything.


Do you feel that for yourself it demeans you? That is your privilege founded upon your free thought and free choice.





Yrreg

[yrreg]

Just pm me if you really want me to react to your thoughts, okay?


Otherwise, don't waste the time of readers and the forum's bandwidth.


No offense intended, just speaking out my brain's honest and direct thoughts.





Yrreg

[RoboTimbo]

What I am doing is to bring your attention to the quintessence of God as far as we humans can know of Him with our reason and intelligence.

Ok, so we get that you have a definition of god. You've also been given definitions of the Tooth Fairy and the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Do they exist because we have a definition?

The rest is a matter of faith, on the script of men claiming to be commissioned by God to teach about God.

Finally, you've admitted it. You have a definition of god and faith.

PM me if you want to show me some evidence.

[joobz]

Just pm me if you really want me to react to your thoughts, okay?

Otherwise, don't waste the time of readers and the forum's bandwidth.

No offense intended, just speaking out my brain's honest and direct thoughts.

Yrreg
Um, no. It's not ok.

The point of the forum is public discourse. You've stated your position and we've stated ours. If you choose to not continue the discussion and merely repeat your position, that is your prerogative. It only serves to undermine your argument as it gives all appearances of an inability to respond.

You do not, however, get any say in who or how often people post in this thread, nor do you get a say in what they post. If you are embarrassed by the comments, that's your problem. Either defend your position or become an intellectual punching bag.



I'll help you along. You can start by answering the following question: Why is your definition of god any better/worse than my definition of god? For a reminder, my current definition of god is a dog seen in a mirror.

[slingblade]

No, I am not hiding anything of The Apostles' Creed, not even that part about father almighty.

It's not important, really.

What I am doing is to bring your attention to the quintessence of God as far as we humans can know of Him with our reason and intelligence.

Oh, yes, you brought this to our attention, because no one in the R&P forum had yet thought to discuss the idea of people worshiping imaginary beings. Wow, thanks so much.


The rest is a matter of faith, on the script of men claiming to be commissioned by God to teach about God.

The rest of what? You've wasted many, many threads with all this crap, and so far, nothing has come of it, aside from a few really good jokes made at your expense. Oh, do continue.


You see, first I want to see if you can at least see the possibility of the concept of God as maker of heaven and earth and everything.

You've already been told several times that a maker of everything must also be the maker of itself, and so is part of the everything it supposedly creates, and you don't really understand that, do you?


Then for people here although atheists who can still with their brain harbor the possibility of the concept of God as maker of heaven and earth and everything, I will invite them to join me in the search of anything which can satisfy that description of God.

Yes, and tomorrow, we're going to teach you to use the big boy's potty.


What's in it for me?

We care?


It is fun, and I hope will be fun for you also.

Oh, you can't imagine. :p


And of course intellectually rewarding.

One keeps hoping you'll actually learn something. One is beginning to despair.

About God being psychologically comforting for people who take Him for a father, I confess I do that myself; but remember that is a script I take the presumption to make up for God, on the ground that I know Him from reason and intelligence to be maker of heaven and earth and everything.

Late at night, in the dark, you comfort yourself with thoughts of an imaginary daddy who loves you.


Do you feel that for yourself it demeans you? That is your privilege founded upon your free thought and free choice.

Next up: water is still wet.

[bruto]

No, I am not hiding anything of The Apostles' Creed, not even that part about father almighty.


What I am doing is to bring your attention to the quintessence of God as far as we humans can know of Him with our reason and intelligence.


The rest is a matter of faith, on the script of men claiming to be commissioned by God to teach about God.




You see, first I want to see if you can at least see the possibility of the concept of God as maker of heaven and earth and everything.


Then for people here although atheists who can still with their brain harbor the possibility of the concept of God as maker of heaven and earth and everything, I will invite them to join me in the search of anything which can satisfy that description of God.


What's in it for me?


It is fun, and I hope will be fun for you also.


And of course intellectually rewarding.


About God being psychologically comforting for people who take Him for a father, I confess I do that myself; but remember that is a script I take the presumption to make up for God, on the ground that I know Him from reason and intelligence to be maker of heaven and earth and everything.


Do you feel that for yourself it demeans you? That is your privilege founded upon your free thought and free choice.





Yrreg

Bold = the part I still have a problem with. This is not an issue of ability to hold a concept, or of understanding.

In my case, this comes back, as it has all along, to a fundamental disagreement with regard to what you consider to be "knowing" as opposed to faith.

I doubt we will ever agree on this, but as far as I am concerned, all the properties of God, whether or not they are included in your definition, are matters of faith and reason, not of experience, and separating out that one part of the definition as a special exception to this starts you down the wrong path once again.

By the way, I will add that the last couple of responses I have had from you have been much more to the point, as well as polite, and however much we may never meet on opinion, I appreciate the effort.

[joobz]

Yes, and tomorrow, we're going to teach you to use the big boy's potty.
Not to derail, but last night my 2 year old son attempted to use the potty for the first time. It was so cute that it was hard not laughing, but I didn't want to give him some sort of complex. He wanted to use the urinal thing we got him, but he had already peed in his diaper. So he ended up basically humping the contraption.

[Macoy]

First time I had to use it, my dad sat next to me reading me my favourite comic.

I reckon the experience screwed us both up for decades.

[MIKILLINI]

No, I am not hiding anything of The Apostles' Creed, not even that part about father almighty.


What I am doing is to bring your attention to the quintessence of God as far as we humans can know of Him with our reason and intelligence.




What preponderance of evidence are you going to present that persuades your belief in God?

[Mister Agenda]

Yrreg, looks like you're stepping up your game when it comes to communication. Good show!

[Myriad]

From the point of view of most adherents of the religions professing the Apostle's Creed, applying "maker of heaven and earth" as the definition of God (as opposed to just one line item on His resume) is inadequate to the point of sacrilege.

Most protestant religious practices, for example, are primarily concerned with achieving salvation through God's grace. As far as the doctrines of salvation are concerned, who created heaven and earth is hardly relevant at all. Had God not created the world but instead acquired dominion over it by defeating the great Uullm, the true creator of heaven and earth, in a Baby Back Ribs Battle in Kitchen Stadium, the practical import would be negligible. Two chapters out of 1,189 in the King James Bible would be different, and the phrase "the defeater of Uullm" would be swapped for "the maker of heaven and earth" in the Apostle's Creed. The parts of Christianity regarding how God wants people to behave would not be affected at all.

By focusing on God's role as creator of heaven and earth, are you rejecting those other doctrines (saints, the virgin birth, judgment, salvation, Christ, etc.) or are you just disregarding them? If you're rejecting them, then you are indeed getting into the realm of deism. On the other hand if you believe in them, why define God in such a way as to disregard them?

Respectfully,
Myriad

[Silentknight]

Sounds Fine.

Ok.
To me, God is a dog seen in a mirror.
Perhaps we should provide evidence for our differing definitions? You start.

It's important to remember that the modern domesticated God as we know it was descended from its wild ancestor Flow.

[Piscivore]

It's important to remember that the modern domesticated God as we know it was descended from its wild ancestor Flow.

Pfft, "god". Tac is smarter.

[yrreg]

Posted by yrreg
No, I am not hiding anything of The Apostles' Creed, not even that part about father almighty.


What I am doing is to bring your attention to the quintessence of God as far as we humans can know of Him with our reason and intelligence.


The rest is a matter of faith, on the script of men claiming to be commissioned by God to teach about God.




You see, first I want to see if you can at least see the possibility of the concept of God as maker of heaven and earth and everything.


Then for people here although atheists who can still with their brain harbor the possibility of the concept of God as maker of heaven and earth and everything, I will invite them to join me in the search of anything which can satisfy that description of God.


What's in it for me?


It is fun, and I hope will be fun for you also.


And of course intellectually rewarding.


About God being psychologically comforting for people who take Him for a father, I confess I do that myself; but remember that is a script I take the presumption to make up for God, on the ground that I know Him from reason and intelligence to be maker of heaven and earth and everything.


Do you feel that for yourself it demeans you? That is your privilege founded upon your free thought and free choice.



Bold = the part I still have a problem with. This is not an issue of ability to hold a concept, or of understanding.

In my case, this comes back, as it has all along, to a fundamental disagreement with regard to what you consider to be "knowing" as opposed to faith.

I doubt we will ever agree on this, but as far as I am concerned, all the properties of God, whether or not they are included in your definition, are matters of faith and reason, not of experience, and separating out that one part of the definition as a special exception to this starts you down the wrong path once again.

By the way, I will add that the last couple of responses I have had from you have been much more to the point, as well as polite, and however much we may never meet on opinion, I appreciate the effort.


Before anything else, bruto, you do agree with me that the concept of God as the maker of heaven and earth and everything is a possible concept in the brain of man.


This possibility of the concept is a matter of knowing.

Do you also accept that statement immediately preceding above?



So that our exchange will be neat and tidy, suppose you just tell me what you see to be from my post referred to by you, one thing that is from me a matter of knowing and one thing just one thing that is from me a matter of believing.


Just one thing each, then we can exchange thoughts further on what is knowing and what is believing, and hope to not be bogged down into definitions.





Yrreg

[Sun Countess]

It's important to remember that the modern domesticated God as we know it was descended from its wild ancestor Flow.
Is the wild Flow a relative of the modern-day Flew? I hear that this God fellow was last spotted somewhere in the vicinity of his brain.


Just one thing each, then we can exchange thoughts further on what is knowing and what is believing, and hope to not be bogged down into definitions.
Yrreg
But...but...getting bogged down in definitions is the hallmark of every yrreg thread! I thought this one was actually beginning to get somewhere. Oh well.

[Ron_Tomkins]

Sorry, yrreg but you're replying selectively and actively ignoring important questions addressed to you

Here's my definition of yrreg:

A troll


*End of transmission*

[bruto]

Before anything else, bruto, you do agree with me that the concept of God as the maker of heaven and earth and everything is a possible concept in the brain of man. That seems reasonable even if we can carp about the way it is phrased. We can have a concept of a creator. The concept may or may not be clear, coherent, correct or rational, but we can have it. As it stands now, since there is nothing other than the act of creation itself as an attribute, the concept is pretty basic, and could even be considered second-hand, in that the meat of the concept is really that the universe is created, and from it we derive the concept that something did it. Nonetheless, it's a concept, and yes, you can have it in your brain. It's all yours!


This possibility of the concept is a matter of knowing.If you mean we can know that the concept is possible, yes. If you mean that we can know that we have the concept ourselves, yes. Beyond that, if the referenced sentence has any other meaning, I do not see what it could be. What is not a matter of knowing is the subject of the concept. I can have a concept of something that is not true. I can even have a concept of something that is practically or logically impossible. To experience the thought is not to experience the thing thought of.

Do you also accept that statement immediately preceding above? as qualified above....



So that our exchange will be neat and tidy, suppose you just tell me what you see to be from my post referred to by you, one thing that is from me a matter of knowing and one thing just one thing that is from me a matter of believing. If I am getting this right (your sentence structure is a bit odd), I would say it this way. We both know you have a concept of a creator, which you call "God," and that this concept is in general agreement with what other people mean when they use the term "God." You believe that such a god exists, and you believe that you know it, but you have yet to convince anyone that you know it, or to provide a convincing argument for how you come to believe that you know it.

I hope that is clear enough, and addresses what you mean.

Just one thing each, then we can exchange thoughts further on what is knowing and what is believing, and hope to not be bogged down into definitions.
YrregIndeed, I think this, and not the issue of definitions, is where we will find a disagreement that may prove unbridgeable, but let's see what happens.

[Elizabeth I]

Just pm me if you really want me to react to your thoughts, okay?

Otherwise, don't waste the time of readers and the forum's bandwidth.

No offense intended, just speaking out my brain's honest and direct thoughts.


So why are you bothering with this thread if you just want to exchange private emails?

[MIKILLINI]

I can agree with your concept of God Yrreg, except the maker of everything. I haven't seen that claim made by anyone except those like you who believe in this God.

The existence of God can't really be tested, but the belief in God can be. So Yrreg, can you provide evidence that persuades you to believe in your God?

[thegrave]

That's not being exact and specific; please be exact and specific.



That is why I am very exasperated in exchange of ideas with you guys, you tend to tergiversate and/or prevaricate and even calumniate, instead of being exact and specific in reacting to the issue.





Yrreg


"everything" is simply wrong.

For a start, my thoughts exist - IT didn't make them.

Also, IT can't actually make anything. If IT is already 'the' everything [which faithers seem to believe] then how can IT make 'anything' else! That would be more than the 'everything' IT was! WHICH means IT wasn't everything to begin with.

So your use of the term 'everything' is wrong!:jaw-dropp

[slingblade]

So your use of the term 'everything' is wrong!:jaw-dropp

Good try, bravo, and all that, but we've been telling and telling him that for pages now.

He's ignoring us. It's easier for him.

Anyway, well done, nice effort. :)

[wollery]

Playing devil's advocate here for a minute, I think the "everything" that Yrreg is referring to is the Universe. That's a pretty useful definition, since we cannot measure anything outside the Universe, and indeed, it defines the limits of our knowledge.

Of course, the maker of the Universe is the Big Bang, which I suspect isn't what Yrreg means, but there you go, vive la difference and all that.

[NobbyNobbs]

Man is the measure of everything even God, wherefore man defines God.

Of course, now that we are so concerned about whether He does exist or not, then we start with the concept itself of God in our brain.

Here is my concept of God in my brain:
The maker of heaven and and earth and everything.
And here is my idea of what a definition is good or useful for to man, as understood by man, who is himself the measuring entity of everything that is of concern to man.

I was ok with this so far.


This bit...

At this point of the thread I like to invite people to concentrate on the word God as at least referring to a possible entity inside the brain of humans at least some, which word God refers to the concept again in the brain of at least some people connoting:
The maker of heaven and earth and everything.


..started me scratching my head.

This part...

If you have trouble with everything, it means everything that man knows now and can know in the future and also they thought they knew in the past but now know better.

...I kind of understood, but didn't know where he was going with it.

Then this...

So if you are a man or a woman or anything in between provided still human with a genetically human brain,* everything means everything you know now or in the future.

..made me smile.

This...

Some people know more things than others of course, but everyone knows everything he does know.

made me laugh.

However, this...

If you are again and still having trouble with knowing everything, then just pretend that you don't know something of the everything that you know, then that should still be all right in regard to the everything that you now know, whereas you actually know one more than everything you now know with the pretended ignorance of one thing of the everything you know without pretending to not know the one thing you do know without the said pretension*.

...made me get up and walk away from the computer because I couldn't breathe I was laughing too hard and oh god it hurts what the hell is he talking about I can't stop laughing...must...breathe...ok..better...calming down...calming down...back to the computer...breathe...calm....

Please, for the love of viable communication,



Nope. Lost it again.

[MIKILLINI]

If you are again and still having trouble with knowing everything, then just pretend that you don't know something of the everything that you know, then that should still be all right in regard to the everything that you now know, whereas you actually know one more than everything you now know with the pretended ignorance of one thing of the everything you know without pretending to not know the one thing you do know without the said pretension.

...made me get up and walk away from the computer because I couldn't breathe I was laughing too hard and oh god it hurts what the hell is he talking about I can't stop laughing...must...breathe...ok..better...calming down...calming down...back to the computer...breathe...calm....





Yrreg must have channeled into Donald Rumsfeld's brain to come up with that word salad.

Here is Rumfeld's; The Unknown

As we know,There are known knowns. There are things we know we know. We also know
There are known unknowns.
That is to say We know there are some things We do not know.
But there are also unknown unknowns, The ones we don't know We don't know.

:rolleyes:

[yrreg]

If you want me to react to you, just pm me, I am dealing now with bruto.


Now, bruto, you agree with me that the concept of God as the maker of heaven and earth and everything is possible in your brain.


Suppose we now go forth and search for this God.



Is that a sensible adventure.



And please don't bring in creator, not now, just keep to my concept of God as worded, scil., the maker of heaven and earth and everything.



That is the trouble with atheists, they keep bringing in things which they need not, but should keep to the terms of the thesis or proposition or the concept as stated:


God as the maker of heaven and earth and everything.





Yrreg

[Elizabeth I]

Now, don't everybody go clogging up his PM mailbox demanding your response.

Where do people get these egos? Especially the ones with so much to be modest about?

[Hokulele]

Where do people get these egos?


God made them.

[Elizabeth I]

Where do people get these egos?

God made them.

:D:D

[bruto]

If you want me to react to you, just pm me, I am dealing now with bruto.


Now, bruto, you agree with me that the concept of God as the maker of heaven and earth and everything is possible in your brain.


Suppose we now go forth and search for this God.



Is that a sensible adventure.



And please don't bring in creator, not now, just keep to my concept of God as worded, scil., the maker of heaven and earth and everything.



That is the trouble with atheists, they keep bringing in things which they need not, but should keep to the terms of the thesis or proposition or the concept as stated:


God as the maker of heaven and earth and everything.





Yrreg

I am not sure why you should balk at the word "creator" as a substitute for "maker," but have it your way if it makes you comfortable.

Is searching for such a god a sensible adventure? Yes, I think it is, but with a couple of qualifications.

First of all, if the search is going to be based only on the properties in your definition - that is, on the presumption that what we are looking for is the maker of heaven and earth and everything, then it would see we must start at searching for the answer to the question of whether there is any evidence that "heaven, earth and everything," what most of us are wont to call the universe, can properly be considered to have been "made" by some agency that can be identified.

Second, whether or not the adventure is sensible at this moment depends rather a lot on whether it has already been undertaken.

As it happens, I spend spent a good bit of time and energy in my youth trying to connect with that concept of yours, and the adventure ended with no such connection. I'm older now, and other adventures interest me far more.

Therefore, I suggest that if you are in a mood to undertake the adventure, go right ahead. Report your success if you have any, present your evidence, and make your case. But I am no longer in the mood to chase after God.

[NobbyNobbs]

If you want me to react to you, just pm me, I am dealing now with bruto.


Now, bruto, you agree with me that the concept of God as the maker of heaven and earth and everything is possible in your brain.


Suppose we now go forth and search for this God.



Is that a sensible adventure.



And please don't bring in creator, not now, just keep to my concept of God as worded, scil., the maker of heaven and earth and everything.



That is the trouble with atheists, they keep bringing in things which they need not, but should keep to the terms of the thesis or proposition or the concept as stated:


God as the maker of heaven and earth and everything.





Yrreg


First of all, if you wish only to converse privately with people, you shouldn't have started a public thread.

Second, before talking about the concept of a maker of earth, heaven and everything, I think you should first clarify one of your terms. "Earth", I think we can all agree on, refers to the planet on which we live. "Everything" is what many other people call "the universe". I don't see, though, where you have mentioned what you mean by "heaven". Do you mean the sky? Outer space? A cloudy place full of angels? it's hard to come up with the concept of the maker of something if we don't know what the something is in the first place.

Finally, just because we can hold a concept in our brain does not make the concept worth searching for in reality. I can hold the concept of a "leprechaun" in my brain. I do not spend my days peeking under toadstools.

[Mojo]

And please don't bring in creator, not now, just keep to my concept of God as worded, scil., the maker of heaven and earth and everything.

...snip...

And please don't bring in creator, not now, just keep to my concept of God as worded, scil., the maker of heaven and earth and everything.

...snip...I am not sure why you should balk at the word "creator" as a substitute for "maker," but have it your way if it makes you comfortable.


It's an interesting point. The only distinction I've seen people make between the two terms, in this context, seems to be that a "maker" makes stuff out of already existing materials, but a "creator" creates stuff from nothing. Perhaps yrreg tends more towards ID than creationism. His definition leaves the question of the origin of the universe moot though.

[six7s]

Perhaps yrreg tends more towards ID than creationism. His definition leaves the question of the origin of the universe moot though.A cTergiversator Proponentsist?

[yrreg]

Posted by yrreg
If you want me to react to you, just pm me, I am dealing now with bruto.

Now, bruto, you agree with me that the concept of God as the maker of heaven and earth and everything is possible in your brain.


Suppose we now go forth and search for this God.



Is that a sensible adventure.



And please don't bring in creator, not now, just keep to my concept of God as worded, scil., the maker of heaven and earth and everything.



That is the trouble with atheists, they keep bringing in things which they need not, but should keep to the terms of the thesis or proposition or the concept as stated:


God as the maker of heaven and earth and everything.





I am not sure why you should balk at the word "creator" as a substitute for "maker," but have it your way if it makes you comfortable.

Is searching for such a god a sensible adventure? Yes, I think it is, but with a couple of qualifications.

First of all, if the search is going to be based only on the properties in your definition - that is, on the presumption that what we are looking for is the maker of heaven and earth and everything, then it would see we must start at searching for the answer to the question of whether there is any evidence that "heaven, earth and everything," what most of us are wont to call the universe, can properly be considered to have been "made" by some agency that can be identified.

Second, whether or not the adventure is sensible at this moment depends rather a lot on whether it has already been undertaken.

As it happens, I spend spent a good bit of time and energy in my youth trying to connect with that concept of yours, and the adventure ended with no such connection. I'm older now, and other adventures interest me far more.

Therefore, I suggest that if you are in a mood to undertake the adventure, go right ahead. Report your success if you have any, present your evidence, and make your case. But I am no longer in the mood to chase after God.


You say:

As it happens, I spend spent a good bit of time and energy in my youth trying to connect with that concept of yours, and the adventure ended with no such connection. I'm older now, and other adventures interest me far more.



First we have a concept of something, then we go forth and look for it.

You spent a good bit of time and energy in your youth trying to connect with that concept of God, and the adventure ended with no such connection.

You did not find something that corresponds to the concept of maker of heaven and earth and everything.

That is really most disappointing on your part.



In my case I will first render the concept even more simple, telling myself that I am looking for a maker of everything.


A maker of something is easy to locate, for example maker of shoes, maker of cheese, maker of car batteries, one can find all such kinds of makers easily.

A maker of babies also, you are I would like to assume are one with your spouse, I am certainly one with my wife.


A brief reflection should tell you that of all makers of things that we know to have been made, humans are the ones doing all the making which we call artifacts: from spaceships which go into distant space and return to earth, to great gigantic dams to produce energy from water, control water flow, and also irrigate dry plains for agricultural pursuits.

Should I mention other artifacts of humans in all fields of human endeavors which make life more safe, last longer, and more comfortable, and enable humans themselves to come to greater and greater knowledge of the universe?

As regards knowledge you are aware that with man's brain and the instrumentation he has contrived man has multiplied with greater and greater acceleration the quantity and quality and certainty of his knowledge of the universe outside man and also within man himself.



At this point, I ask you, do you know where I am leading to?






Yrreg

[joobz]

That is really most disappointing on your part.
Please clarify what you mean by this?
Are you saying that it's Bruto's fault for not finding "a maker" of the universe? Or are you saying that you regret the waste of time Bruto placed into a search which yielded nothing?

If the former, how arrogant.
If the later, Bruto did find something. Something closer to the truth as far as we can tell.




A brief reflection should tell you that of all makers of things that we know to have been made, humans are the ones doing all the making which we call artifacts: from spaceships which go into distant space and return to earth, to great gigantic dams to produce energy from water, control water flow, and also irrigate dry plains for agricultural pursuits.
This isn't true.
We see the animal and insect kingdoms make things all the time.
1.) Beaver Dams, Spider webs, Anthills, Bird's nests, Coral Reefs....

We also see random physical processes make things as well
2.) Mountain ranges, Volcanos, Snow Flakes, Tornados, Hurricanes, waterfalls, geods...

So, using your simplification a maker is anything and everything.

[Mashuna]

At this point, I ask you, do you know where I am leading to?




Up the garden path?