Atheists, what is your definition of God?

[yrreg]

... God can be known for certain by human reason


Cool - please explain the reasoning that allows this. For me, the major problem with the idea of god has been that it isn't a rational concept. I'd be interested (and challenged) by a plausible reasoned argument for it.


You say:
For me, the major problem with the idea of god has been that it isn't a rational concept.
Edited for rule 12.

You have polluted, infected, contaminated, perverted, annihilated your reason with random disorder via an unabated diet of evolution theory, by which you come forth through random mutation, but the proponents of evolution theory sneak in just the same to make you survive the order of the survival of the fittest.
While we allow some insults that follow from the discussion and we allow suppostion (however unsupported) about the reason a person takes a position, these must have some reference to the topic under discussion. Otherwise, it is a rule 12 violation.

So please don't make personal attacks unrelated to the discussion.



Yrreg

[Dunstan]

I am now into DIY* Christianity.



I'm not surprised. You've been into DIY Reality for quite some time.

[Foster Zygote]

Removed response to modded-post.

[paximperium]

You say:
For me, the major problem with the idea of god has been that it isn't a rational concept.
Removed response to modded-post.

You have polluted, infected, contaminated, perverted, annihilated your reason with random disorder via an unabated diet of evolution theory, by which you come forth through random mutation, but the proponents of evolution theory sneak in just the same to make you survive the order of the survival of the fittest.
Thanks for showing that you have no idea what you are talking about and all you have left are insult.

[ladyattis]

Here's my personal definition of "God."

God: an assumed being that resides outside of space-time, which for all intents and purposes equally can influence space-time without concern for consequence or causality.

[kerikiwi]

Thanks for showing that you have no idea what you are talking about and all you have left are insult.

That implies he had something more than insult to begin with.

[yrreg]

Because Yrreg seems so fond of dictionary definitions, I was going to quote the Oxford English Dictionary (the dictionary all other English dictionaries aspire to be when they grow up), but then I realized that the OED used far more than 10 words and would therefore be dismissed as foolish. Precision, comprehensiveness, accuracy, history=idiocy, apparently. Stupid enormous repository of research and knowledge of English vocabulary! Bad dictionary!

Nonetheless, it seemed worth mentioning that the first definition of "god" in the OED in no way resembles Yrreg's because the OED begins with the original meaning, and that, of course, is the pagan meaning. The English word "god" antedates the Anglo-Saxon conversion to Christianity. So maybe we should start with that definition: "A supernatural person who is worshipped as having power over nature and the fortunes of men" (slightly shortened version of OED's def. I.1 of "god" with lengthy discussion omitted because discussion is foolish).

Is that definition acceptable to theists?



Did you read this post from me?




That definition is already biased.

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


God is the maker of everything. He does not exist.



That definition is already biased.


It is not acceptable as a definition of God unless you remove the line "He does not exist."




Take these definitions from Oxford and Merriam Webster:



God
• noun 1 (in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and supreme ruler of the universe.
http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/god?view=uk

god
1 capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality: as a: the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/god




I am really very disappointed that you guys do not even know that a decent definition should adopt a neutral point of view.


Okay, think about what is the purpose of the definition of a thing or a word.

Have you ever noticed that in documents of laws and contracts, there is always a preliminary section on definitions of terms?


It is impossible to engage in any constructive discourse with people if you refuse to define your terms, instead you bring in frivolities or declaration of invincible ignorance or proclaim that you don't believe, etc., etc., etc.


Please just get to your definition of God first, before anything else you want to say about God, to maintain that you don't or cannot know for certain anything about Him (but you must know what theists claim to know for certain about Him), or that you deny He exists.


If you don't even know the definition of God from theists -- and I for one as a theist define God as the maker of everything, then don't talk with theists about God because you are talking to no purpose with them.


[ There is a flash just now on my screen of a pm for me, let's hope this pm can be the beginning of a good discussion on the atheists' definition of God. ]




Yrreg




See also:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4889952&highlight=merriam+webster#post4889952


That is the trouble with Johnny_come_lately's.


You also did not represent correctly the Oxford online dictionary the one I looked up.




Yrreg

[Agatha]

The apostrophe in "lately's" is incorrect. You are using the word as a plural, not a possessive.

[RoboTimbo]

Removed response to modded-post.

[Lucian]

Did you read this post from me?




See also:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4889952&highlight=merriam+webster#post4889952


That is the trouble with Johnny_come_lately's.


You also did not represent correctly the Oxford online dictionary the one I looked up.




Yrreg

Yes, I saw the post where you said a definition was biased because it included the words "he does not exist." My definition did not include such a phrase.

I didn't "correctly" represent the dictionary you quoted because I was quoting a different, more comprehensive dictionary. Here:

I. In the original pre-Christian sense, and uses thence derived.

1. A superhuman person (regarded as masculine: see GODDESS) who is worshipped as having power over nature and the fortunes of mankind; a deity.

And here is the etymology:
[Com. Teut.: OE. god (masc. in sing.; pl. godu, godo neut., godas masc.) corresponds to OFris., OS., Du. god masc., OHG. got, cot (MHG. got, mod.Ger. gott) masc., ON. go{edh}, gu{edh} neut. and masc., pl. go{edh}, gu{edh} neut. (later Icel. pl. gu{edh}ir masc.; Sw., Da. gud), Goth. gu{th} (masc. in sing.; pl. gu{th}a, guda neut.). The Goth. and ON. words always follow the neuter declension, though when used in the Christian sense they are syntactically masc. The OTeut. type is therefore *gu{dbar}om neut., the adoption of the masculine concord being presumably due to the Christian use of the word. The neuter n., in its original heathen use, would answer rather to L. numen than to L. deus. Another approximate equivalent of deus in OTeut. was *ansu-z (Goth. in latinized pl. form anses, ON. {ohookacu}ss, OE. Ós- in personal names, ésa genit. pl.); but this seems to have been applied only to the higher deities of the native pantheon, never to foreign gods; and it never came into Christian use.
The ulterior etymology is disputed. Apart from the unlikely hypothesis of adoption from some foreign tongue, the OTeut. *gu{edh}om implies as its pre-Teut. type either *ghudho-m or *ghutó-m. The former does not appear to admit of explanation; but the latter would represent the neut. of the passive pple. of a root *gheu-. There are two Aryan roots of the required form (both *g{smm}heu, with palatal aspirate): one meaning ‘to invoke’ (Skr. h{umac}), the other ‘to pour, to offer sacrifice’ (Skr. hu, Gr. {chi}{geacu}{epsilon}{iota}{nu}, OE. {asg}éotan YETE v.). Hence *g{smm}hutó-m has been variously interpreted as ‘what is invoked’ (cf. Skr. puru-h{umac}ta ‘much-invoked’, an epithet of Indra) and as ‘what is worshipped by sacrifice’ (cf. Skr. hutá, which occurs in the sense ‘sacrificed to’ as well as in that of ‘offered in sacrifice’). Either of these conjectures is fairly plausible, as they both yield a sense practically coincident with the most obvious definition deducible from the actual use of the word, ‘an object of worship’. Some scholars, accepting the derivation from the root *g{smm}heu- to pour, have supposed the etymological sense to be ‘molten image’ (= Gr. {chi}{upsilon}{tau}{goacu}{nu}), but the assumed development of meaning seems very unlikely.
From a desire to utter the name of God more deliberately than the short vowel naturally allows, the pronunciation is often (g{rfa}{lm}d) or even (g{revc}{lm}d), and an affected form (g{revv}d) is not uncommon: see GUD. (For the variations in oaths see 10 and 11.) In Sc. the usual pron. is (god), but Gude (gød), i.e. GOOD a., is frequently substituted in such expressions as Gudesake, Gude keep's, etc.]
Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd ed. 1989
Sorry the special characters got screwed up.

[Foster Zygote]

The apostrophe in "lately's" is incorrect. You are using the word as a plural, not a possessive.
It should be easy to see
The crux of the biscuit is the apostrophe

[yrreg]

Did I ever say that there is a conspiracy of Buddhists in the West to take over the internet?


Looking back, it's more like a cabal or coven of Western weekend or country club Buddhists who happen to be in a forum and take their Buddhism so fanatically as to forget their critical thinking.

Because the grass is greener on the other side of the fence.


Christianity is superior in all aspects of spirituality and social activism and humanitarian as also humanistic endeavors and philosophy and arts and sciences and everything that Buddhism appears to go into if at all.

Into emptiness that is what Buddhism is into, that is why it is destined by self-emptiness to become irrelevant in every civilization where it happens to have a brief blossom from empty minds.

Hahahahaha! [Sardonic humor]

Where is Buddhism now in India and in China and in Japan and in Korea?

It is a museum interest among peoples who have not been introduced to Christianity and thus cannot see the superior worth in everything in Christianity compared to Buddhism.

How many Buddhist missionaries are working to convert peoples to Buddhism compared to Christian missionaries?

Buddhism does not have the vigor of Christianity as to inspire men and women in the flower of youth to go into missionary zeal for the conversion of fellow human beings in need of a superior worldview and orientation to existence and life.




Yrreg

[dlorde]

oops...

[dlorde]

You say:[quote]
For me, the major problem with the idea of god has been that it isn't a rational concept.
Removed response to modded-post.

[quote]You have polluted, infected, contaminated, perverted, annihilated your reason with random disorder via an unabated diet of evolution theoryNot entirely unabated, I broke off to pleasure myself now and again... :blush:

by which you come forth through random mutation, but the proponents of evolution theory sneak in just the same to make you survive the order of the survival of the fittest.If you really don't understand quite how evolution by natural selection works, just ask - fundamentally it's really simple and logical - inevitable even. If there are logical flaws in my explanation, you can highlight them.

[Foster Zygote]

Did I ever say that there is a conspiracy of Buddhists in the West to take over the internet?


Looking back, it's more like a cabal or coven of Western weekend or country club Buddhists who happen to be in a forum and take their Buddhism so fanatically as to forget their critical thinking.

Because the grass is greener on the other side of the fence.


Christianity is superior in all aspects of spirituality and social activism and humanitarian as also humanistic endeavors and philosophy and arts and sciences and everything that Buddhism appears to go into if at all.

Into emptiness that is what Buddhism is into, that is why it is destined by self-emptiness to become irrelevant in every civilization where it happens to have a brief blossom from empty minds.

Hahahahaha! [Sardonic humor]

Where is Buddhism now in India and in China and in Japan and in Korea?

It is a museum interest among peoples who have not been introduced to Christianity and thus cannot see the superior worth in everything in Christianity compared to Buddhism.

How many Buddhist missionaries are working to convert peoples to Buddhism compared to Christian missionaries?

Buddhism does not have the vigor of Christianity as to inspire men and women in the flower of youth to go into missionary zeal for the conversion of fellow human beings in need of a superior worldview and orientation to existence and life.




Yrreg

So, what you're saying is that Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses are superior to Catholics because of their greater zeal for missionary work.

[Foster Zygote]

So help me to understand by using your pure, clean, shiny inborn reason to explain it to me.

Basically it boils down to "The Universe is way huge, therefor, GOD!". I'm afraid it really isn't any more sophisticated than that.

[Sun Countess]

The average five-year old could understand Yrreg's "logical" understanding of God:

Look at that satellite in the sky. Do you know who made that? Men did. They have penises so they know how to make cool stuff.

Do you see the moon next to the satellite? Who do you think made that? A big giant magic man with an even bigger penis who knows how to make even cooler stuff than regular men. He made the entire universe!



I sometimes wonder what came next when Yrreg was getting educated about his god beliefs.

[realpaladin]

Where is Buddhism now in India and in China and in Japan and in Korea?

I pass Buddhist temples all the time...


It is a museum interest among peoples who have not been introduced to Christianity and thus cannot see the superior worth in everything in Christianity compared to Buddhism.


Now, my ferocious discussion with Dancing David, Tsukasa Buddha, Rain etc. do testify that I am, to say the least, not a big fan of Buddhism, but to say that Christianity is 'superior'?

No, in no single way. At least Buddhism 'tries' a lot of things to be part of the current world.

Christianity is just madcap madness that goes one step forward, one step back.



How many Buddhist missionaries are working to convert peoples to Buddhism compared to Christian missionaries?

Buddhism does not need missionaries. People that feel the need to 'believe in something', but who feel quite strongly about critical thinking are drawn to Buddhism as a last resort.

So I dare say, the missionaries of Christianity get mostly the unstable of mind, whilst Buddhism gets the more educated minds. Automatically.


Buddhism does not have the vigor of Christianity as to inspire men and women in the flower of youth to go into missionary zeal for the conversion of fellow human beings in need of a superior worldview and orientation to existence and life.


All I need now is an evil laugh and a mentioning of "frickin' laserbeams!"

EDIT: I missed the laugh, but it is provided for already: Hahahahaha! [Sardonic humor]

[Ron_Tomkins]

Wow, Gerry actually replies to some of the posts here?

Having the privilege of being replied to by Gerry must be like being selected for American Idol

Of course... he doesn't seem to do a good job at making any sense

[zooterkin]

Yeah, too bad you seem to have edited so much of the exchange before re-posting it here. Why are we supposed to PM you our post and then wait for you to respond to them here? Is it so that you can leave out the posts and bits of posts that you have difficulty addressing?

And so he can completely ignore the ones he doesn't want to answer.

[ynot]

God = Santa for grown-ups (that haven't grown up)

[Elizabeth I]

You say:
For me, the major problem with the idea of god has been that it isn't a rational concept.

Not a rational concept because you have no longer the use of your inborn reason.

You have polluted, infected, contaminated, perverted, annihilated your reason with random disorder via an unabated diet of evolution theory, by which you come forth through random mutation, but the proponents of evolution theory sneak in just the same to make you survive the order of the survival of the fittest.

More rudeness and insults. And still no content.

[Dancing David]

Did I ever say that there is a conspiracy of Buddhists in the West to take over the internet?


Looking back, it's more like a cabal or coven of Western weekend or country club Buddhists who happen to be in a forum and take their Buddhism so fanatically as to forget their critical thinking.

Because the grass is greener on the other side of the fence.


Christianity is superior in all aspects of spirituality and social activism and humanitarian as also humanistic endeavors and philosophy and arts and sciences and everything that Buddhism appears to go into if at all.

Into emptiness that is what Buddhism is into, that is why it is destined by self-emptiness to become irrelevant in every civilization where it happens to have a brief blossom from empty minds.

Hahahahaha! [Sardonic humor]

Where is Buddhism now in India and in China and in Japan and in Korea?

It is a museum interest among peoples who have not been introduced to Christianity and thus cannot see the superior worth in everything in Christianity compared to Buddhism.

How many Buddhist missionaries are working to convert peoples to Buddhism compared to Christian missionaries?

Buddhism does not have the vigor of Christianity as to inspire men and women in the flower of youth to go into missionary zeal for the conversion of fellow human beings in need of a superior worldview and orientation to existence and life.




Yrreg

Derail your own thread, in more than ten words.

[Z]

Thanks for the pm, Ocelot, much flattered.




My definition of God as maker of everything, that definition is like money with God.

You see, as in life you have got to have money before anything else, so also with God, He has got to have made everything before we can even proceed to talk about the paradoxes [sic] of God.

First, give God His definition of maker of everything, then work out the paradoxes.

If you can't reconcile paradoxes in your insights into God, change your insights, but don't take away from God His being maker of everything in regard to man and the universe known to man.

Or you can just accept and get along as well as you can manage and consider the paradoxes of God in your human understanding, emphasis on human, as mysteries of God.

Now. if you belong to the same group of God-knowers, including knowing the paradoxes, you can try the democratic way of resolving paradoxes when you have to come to a common decision on a course of action, put it to a vote.


Hahahaha! [Sardonic humor]




Yrreg

This post is off-topic. You requested atheists to provide you with their definition of God. Your definition of God on this thread is irrelevant.

Please stay on-topic.

[Z]

I am now into DIY* Christianity.

DIY Christianity consists in knowing God according to reason as is propounded by the Roman Catholic Church, namely, that God can be known for certain by human reason, and then choosing what Christianity teaches in specific beliefs and observances to be of revelation from God in Jesus Christ, etc. etc. etc.

That for me is my Christianity of the free thinking man.


I think that should be a good thread for Christians who are plagued by all kinds of paradoxes with God and with institutional teachings from the Christian group they happened to have been born and grown up in, for example, the Roman Catholic Church of the Vatican loyalty.



Hahahahaha! [Sardonic humor]


To live your DIY Christianity, you have got to have intellectual and volitional guts.



Okay?




*DIY = Do It Yourself.

This post is off-topic. Your version of Christianity is irrelevant to the O.P. Please stay on-topic, or some of us may be forced to report your irrelevant posts.

[ynot]

Maker of everything.

Yrreg


If God = "Maker of everything" then God made God.

[Z]

You say:
For me, the major problem with the idea of god has been that it isn't a rational concept.

Not a rational concept because you have no longer the use of your inborn reason.

You have polluted, infected, contaminated, perverted, annihilated your reason with random disorder via an unabated diet of evolution theory, by which you come forth through random mutation, but the proponents of evolution theory sneak in just the same to make you survive the order of the survival of the fittest.




Yrreg

I'm tempted to say that this is also off-topic, but it is clearly an attack on a poster's response that is without merit or evidence. People who have never heard of evolution can come to the rational conclusion that there is no God, Yrreg.

Please try harder.

The simple fact is, your 'inborn reason' concludes there is no God. You are brainwashed by parents, churches, and communities into believing there is a God. This is a fact. The 'pollution, perversion, etc.' that ruins reason leads to the belief in a Christian-like deity, and does not come from evolution, which is merely an observed fact about life.

[Z]

Did I ever say that there is a conspiracy of Buddhists in the West to take over the internet?


Looking back, it's more like a cabal or coven of Western weekend or country club Buddhists who happen to be in a forum and take their Buddhism so fanatically as to forget their critical thinking.

Because the grass is greener on the other side of the fence.


Christianity is superior in all aspects of spirituality and social activism and humanitarian as also humanistic endeavors and philosophy and arts and sciences and everything that Buddhism appears to go into if at all.

Into emptiness that is what Buddhism is into, that is why it is destined by self-emptiness to become irrelevant in every civilization where it happens to have a brief blossom from empty minds.

Hahahahaha! [Sardonic humor]

Where is Buddhism now in India and in China and in Japan and in Korea?

It is a museum interest among peoples who have not been introduced to Christianity and thus cannot see the superior worth in everything in Christianity compared to Buddhism.

How many Buddhist missionaries are working to convert peoples to Buddhism compared to Christian missionaries?

Buddhism does not have the vigor of Christianity as to inspire men and women in the flower of youth to go into missionary zeal for the conversion of fellow human beings in need of a superior worldview and orientation to existence and life.




Yrreg

This post is off-topic. We're discussing the atheist definition of God, not Buddhism. Please try to remain on-topic.

[Z]

If God = "Maker of everything" then God made God.

Actually, I see it this way:

If we assume God to be 'Maker of Everything' there are three choices:

1) God is Nothing (hence no one made God). This leads to a paradox of a non-existent being creating existence. Plus, that would neutralize God anyway.

2) God created God. The problem here is that God is still a creationless being itself - this paradox means nothing and has no means of clarification.

3) God made everything but Godself. This leads us to one of two subpaths: God was itself created by something else (however, since God created everything else, we basically wind up in an extended version of number 2); or God itself always existed (which, if we allow for that, we must also allow for the idea that other things might have also always existed, like spacetime and such... thereby nullifying the idea that God had to have created everything).

The problem with a creator God is that you always have either one of two problems (and sometimes both): either it's turtles all the way up/down (who created the creator?), or you have to allow for the possibility that things have always existed (if it's possible for God, it's possible for spacetime). If the former, keep in mind that infinite recursion (is that the right term) is a non-answer; if the latter, then there's no reason to assume reality needs a creator, since the creator needed no creator.

[kalen]

GOD = yrreg = maker of everything = my lord and saviour

I'm saved!

[Z]

Did you read this post from me?




See also:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4889952&highlight=merriam+webster#post4889952


That is the trouble with Johnny_come_lately's.


You also did not represent correctly the Oxford online dictionary the one I looked up.




Yrreg

The Oxford online dictionary definition is irrelevant; you asked for the atheist's definition. You also may not conclude that an atheist's definition is incorrect or irrelevant, since you asked for it.

Please remain on-topic.

[dlorde]

Basically it boils down to "The Universe is way huge, therefor, GOD!".Perhaps...
I'm afraid it really isn't any more sophisticated than that.No need to be afraid, god is watching over you - no wait, be very afraid :eek:

[catbasket]

Q. Atheists, what is your definition of God?

A. Whatever the hell the answer is that gets this discussion moved forward, though I realise this is a logical impossibilty as Yrreg is not here to discuss but to preach.

[MIKILLINI]

To Gerry,

When did you become curious about God?
What caused you to become curious of a supernatural being?
What was it that convinced you that your God exists?
What empirical evidence do you have that proves the existence of your God?

I give you permission to respond in a concise and coherent manner to these questions.

[Distracted1]

My definition of god as an atheist is simple:
That which Yregg refers to as the maker of everything

[Ryokan]

To Gerry,

When did you become curious about God?
What caused you to become curious of a supernatural being?
What was it that convinced you that your God exists?
What empirical evidence do you have that proves the existence of your God?

In his own words:


Yours truly was brought up a Catholic from the cradle to college. But I am now a postgraduate Catholic, meaning more in a cultural sense, actually an ultra liberal Christian, and practically an academic atheist or secularist or infidel or an ecumenist, that can live with all kinds of peoples with a religion or without a religion, provided they are not violent in their religious enthusiasm or ir-religious fervor or when engaged in anti-theist objections or recriminations.

My enthusiam is not any particular faith, but curiosity, even that of how and why people pass from one to another religion or to no religion, or from a theistic milieu to a nontheistic or atheistic one.

I attend church service at present in the neighborhood free Evangelical church, to exercise my sense of religion.

http://www.freeratio.org//showthread.php?p=1961716#post1961716

[EventHorizon]

In his own words:



http://www.freeratio.org//showthread.php?p=1961716#post1961716

Wait, Gerry graduated!? Officially graduated?! With a diploma and everything?! There are some teachers somewhere who have some explaining to do.

[MIKILLINI]

In his own words:



http://www.freeratio.org//showthread.php?p=1961716#post1961716

So Gerry was indoctrinated in the beginning of his life. After all the tergiversating worthless drivel he wrote mixed in with an arrogant attitude, he could have saved much bandwidth and not wasted readers time if he answered this in the beginning of his first thread months ago.

[Mojo]

Did you read this post from me?



...snip...

Take these definitions from Oxford and Merriam Webster:

God
• noun 1 (in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and supreme ruler of the universe.
http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/god?view=uk

god
1 capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality: as a: the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/god

...snip...


I notice that in that post you cherry-picked the definitions given so as to only include those that more or less agreed with yours. For example the OED definition continues: 2 (god) a superhuman being or spirit worshipped as having power over nature and human fortunes. 3 (god) a greatly admired or influential person. 4 (the gods) informal the gallery in a theatre.


The last two are not relevant here, but the second is entirely relevant to the question you asked in the OP.

The Merriam-Webster definitions include, along with a definition specific to Christian Science and another couple of non-religious uses of the term: 2: a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship ; specifically : one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality


Again, this definition is entirely relevant to your question about atheists' definition of "god" (and is pretty close to mine).


You also did not represent correctly the Oxford online dictionary the one I looked up.




Yrreg


I notice that, as I have demonstrated above, you did not "represent correctly the Oxford online dictionary the one [you] looked up".

[Hokulele]

My definition of god:

Useless.

[Ron_Tomkins]

Wait..... that was too short. I know Gerry said it had to be less than 10 words, but don't you think you may have gone a bit too far, missy?

[Phase Inverter]

I see we are making progress.


Yrreg's original definition of God from: Atheists, are you ready to talk God and no God? (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4299713#post4299713) was:

"An existent entity independent of man's mind, the creator of heaven and earth and everything."



Then in What's wrong with this definition of God: maker of heaven and earth and everything? (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=135293) it became:

"Maker of heaven and earth and everything."



And then in Atheists, what is your definition of God? (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=147728) it became:

"Maker of everything."



What's next? Will it just be:

"Everything."

[yrreg]

Rule 12 breaches of your Membership Agreement removed.

[Powa]

You are asking who made God.

Try to understand what is a maker of everything.
I have a simple question. Does everything include God?

If so, then God made himself.

If not, God did not create everything.

Do you see the problem?

[Twiler]

You are asking who made God.


Try to understand what is a maker of everything.




I have at present a new domestic helper who is a very simpleminded girl.

She is supposed to cook for us and has been recommended to us as a good worker in the kitchen in local cuisine.

She asked me yesterday morning whether we eat a kind of fish sauce made by fermenting some kind of very small fish in high salt solution.

I told her yes, then she asked whether we eat some other local preparations of food.

I told her very clearly that we eat everything that they local folks eat.


She then asked whether we eat duck embryos cooked by boiling inside their egg shell?

I was a bit exasperated by this time, so I told her with a very slow voice but clearly and emphatically:

"Didn't I tell you already that we eat everything that you people eat, that means everything; so if you can think of something you people eat, then we eat that also."


When I said God is the maker of everything, then it is everything; so don't ask anymore who made God, because there is no need for God to make God because that is not a thrifty thought on your part -- but I can understand the way your underdeveloped mind works.

[snip]

So, did YHVH make YHVH or not?

[yrreg]

I have a simple question. Does everything include God?

If so, then God made himself.

If not, God did not create everything.

Do you see the problem?


It is really hopeless on your part for me to explain to you why there is no need for intelligent people to ask who made God when God makes everything.



I would only have to postulate another God, if the present one is not defined by me as maker of everything.


But you can't understand that because you do not have any inkling about economy in thinking.




The one who introduced you to that question is someone with no idea of economy in thinking.


That is why as I said already several times, people use so many words in the hope that they will stir up in intelligent minds the impression that they are saying something profound, but intelligent folks like yours truly know that they don't have any definite idea of what they are talking about, because if they do, they can say it in a few words and the idea will come forth clearly and convincingly to people whose intelligence includes the property of economic thinking.


To people who will again ask who made God, please just go away, you belong to the category of people who can't think in economic terms.





Yrreg

[Twiler]

It is really hopeless on your part for me to explain to you why there is no need for intelligent people to ask who made God when God makes everything.



I would only have to postulate another God, if the present one is not defined by me as maker of everything.


But you can't understand that because you do not have any inkling about economy in thinking.




The one who introduced you to that question is someone with no idea of economy in thinking.


That is why as I said already several times, people use so many words in the hope that they will stir up in intelligent minds the impression that they are saying something profound, but intelligent folks like yours truly know that they don't have any definite idea of what they are talking about, because if they do, they can say it in a few words and the idea will come forth clearly and convincingly to people whose intelligence includes the property of economic thinking.


To people who will again ask who made God, please just go away, you belong to the category of people who can't think in economic terms.





Yrreg

Given that it's a yes or no question, wouldn't any person capable of communicating in few words have simply SAID yes or no?

[Ryokan]

That is why as I said already several times, people use so many words in the hope that they will stir up in intelligent minds the impression that they are saying something profound, but intelligent folks like yours truly know that they don't have any definite idea of what they are talking about, because if they do, they can say it in a few words and the idea will come forth clearly and convincingly to people whose intelligence includes the property of economic thinking.

This sentence is so ironic it boggles the mind :D

Anyway, your definition, Yrreg, says God made himself, since he obviously has to be part of 'everything'. Maybe there's not anything wrong with our minds and intelligence, but something wrong with your definition?

Just a thought.

[Z]

Post edited for rule breaches removed.

Part of your post is offensive "whatever you people eat".

Part of your post is insanely illogical "god making god making god is irrelevant".

NONE of your post is on-topic.

[Z]

It is really hopeless on your part for me to explain to you why there is no need for intelligent people to ask who made God when God makes everything.



I would only have to postulate another God, if the present one is not defined by me as maker of everything.


But you can't understand that because you do not have any inkling about economy in thinking.




The one who introduced you to that question is someone with no idea of economy in thinking.


That is why as I said already several times, people use so many words in the hope that they will stir up in intelligent minds the impression that they are saying something profound, but intelligent folks like yours truly know that they don't have any definite idea of what they are talking about, because if they do, they can say it in a few words and the idea will come forth clearly and convincingly to people whose intelligence includes the property of economic thinking.


To people who will again ask who made God, please just go away, you belong to the category of people who can't think in economic terms.





Yrreg

Illogical.

If you had half a brain - which you clearly have less than - you would simply consider that God being maker of everything means God had to have made himself... which is illogical.

Clearly, you lack the intelligence and logic, the economy of thought, and the inborn sense to recognize a paradox when you encounter one.

And by your own admission, those who cannot post short, simple replies is unintelligent.

Look in the mirror, Gerry.

[dlorde]

I have a simple question. Does everything include God?

If so, then God made himself.

If not, God did not create everything.

Do you see the problem?Simple set theory - God is a member of the set of all makers of everything that did not make themselves...

[Powa]

I have a simple question. Does everything include God?

If so, then God made himself.

If not, God did not create everything.
Gerry, if you don't know the answer to this simple yes-or-no question just say so. No need to drown us in meaningless text. :rolleyes:

[Phase Inverter]

It is really hopeless on your part for me to explain to you why there is no need for intelligent people to ask who made God when God makes everything.

I would only have to postulate another God, if the present one is not defined by me as maker of everything.

But you can't understand that because you do not have any inkling about economy in thinking.

The one who introduced you to that question is someone with no idea of economy in thinking.

To people who will again ask who made God, please just go away, you belong to the category of people who can't think in economic terms.

(emphasis mine)



The question of "did God make God or not" has been pondered by many people throughout history. Take this guy for example:

"In the world of sensible things we find there is an order of efficient causes. There is no case known (neither is it, indeed, possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible. Now in efficient causes it is not possible to go on to infinity, because in all efficient causes following in order, the first is the cause of the intermediate cause, and the intermediate is the cause of the ultimate cause, whether the intermediate cause be several, or one only. Now to take away the cause is to take away the effect. Therefore, if there be no first cause among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, nor any intermediate, cause. But if in efficient causes it is possible to go on to infinity, there will be no first efficient cause, neither will there be an ultimate effect, nor any intermediate efficient causes; all of which is plainly false. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God."

This guy claims that something being the cause of itself is impossible. He even states this twice (along with several other assertions accompanied by no evidence).

In the end it comes down to postulating a cause that itself needed no cause, a "first cause." This is precisely what you did when you said "defined by me as the maker of everything." Due to your economy of writing you had to leave the rest as implied, demonstrating that clarity is not all about word count.

This "God" as defined above is nothing but a placeholder to fill a gap in the unknown, or unknowable. This definition also tells us nothing about the nature of this "causer" or "maker." There is a gaping chasm between this posited solution to the infinite cause paradox and the God of Christian tradition.

In short, your definition has been weighed on the scales and has been found wanting.

I think Dawkins' definition of the God hypothesis is a better definition than yours and he's not even a theist. :eusa_doh:

[ynot]

Post edited for rule breaches removed.[
If you think you're capable of insulting me you greatly overestimate my estimation of your intelligence.

You misinterpret your deluded beliefs as intelligence and your simpleminded thinking as economic thinking.

Your ridiculous, meaningless believer-babble is an insult to whatever level of intelligence you actually have.

Atheists don't DENY the completely unsubstantiated claims of others that a God actually exists.

Atheists don't ACCEPT the completely unsubstantiated claims of others that a God actually exists.

Asking people to define something that they don't accept has actual existence is ridiculous and your claimed "purpose" is disingenuous at best.

Defining your unsubstantiated belief in a God as being "Maker of everything" is economic drivel that has nothing do to with intelligence.

I suspect you won't be able to understand most of this, I suspect however that your "simpleminded girl" could easily understand.

[Sun Countess]

Yrreg, your last post made absolutely no sense. Did God make himself as part of everything? Or did he not make everything? You seem to see the paradox but you don't actually address it. We should just sweep it under the rug, an action which would probably get your "simple-minded" servant girl fired.

At least that post answered the question about whether or not you're as rude to people in real life as you are to people who post in this forum.

[RoboTimbo]

I have at present a new domestic helper who is a very simpleminded girl.

Yrreg

Considering how you call people on here stupid who are orders of magnitude more intelligent than you, she has to be a genius. Is that how you make yourself feel superior to your betters?

[joobz]

Joobz translates Yrreg.

It is really hopeless on your part for me to explain to you why there is no need for intelligent people to ask who made God when God makes everything.
I can't explain things intelligently.


I would only have to postulate another God, if the present one is not defined by me as maker of everything.
I sense turtles...but I'll pretend they aren't there.

But you can't understand that because you do not have any inkling about economy in thinking.
I can't explain first cause. PLease stop asking. It makes me look stupid.




The one who introduced you to that question is someone with no idea of economy in thinking.
It makes me look really really really stupid.

That is why as I said already several times, people use so many words in the hope that they will stir up in intelligent minds the impression that they are saying something profound, but intelligent folks like yours truly know that they don't have any definite idea of what they are talking about, because if they do, they can say it in a few words and the idea will come forth clearly and convincingly to people whose intelligence includes the property of economic thinking.
Stop asking hard questions. I'm really smrt. S-M-R-T!

To people who will again ask who made God, please just go away, you belong to the category of people who can't think in economic terms.
I'm going to simply ignore questions that make me look stupid!







Yrreg
Yrreg



BTW:

Yrreg, if you really wish to speak of economy, it is much more economical to say that the universe is the first cause that to invent a god.

[X]

It is really hopeless on your part for me to explain to you why there is no need for intelligent people to ask who made God when God makes everything.



I would only have to postulate another God, if the present one is not defined by me as maker of everything.


But you can't understand that because you do not have any inkling about economy in thinking.




The one who introduced you to that question is someone with no idea of economy in thinking.


That is why as I said already several times, people use so many words in the hope that they will stir up in intelligent minds the impression that they are saying something profound, but intelligent folks like yours truly know that they don't have any definite idea of what they are talking about, because if they do, they can say it in a few words and the idea will come forth clearly and convincingly to people whose intelligence includes the property of economic thinking.


To people who will again ask who made God, please just go away, you belong to the category of people who can't think in economic terms.





Yrreg



I don't see why you have such a hard time answering the question.

Is "god", which you have defined is the "maker of everything", part of everything?

If god is not part of everything, then god is nothing. If god is nothing, then it can safely be said that god doesn't exist.

If god is part of everything, then god must have made itself. Which is illogical. And thus is can safely be said that god doesn't exist.

Perhaps you should amend your definition to read "the maker of everything, excepting itself".


There is a reason, yrreg, why people use words.
Words convey meaning.

You seem to encourage the excising of words from definitions.
But those words are there for a reason.

You may have noticed that, unlike you, the people replying to you don't generally repeat themselves.

This means that the words they write are not superfluous, but necessary.

I could define a car as "transportation", but that tells you nothing about what a car actually is.
On the other hand, I can use a few more words (and thus be less intelligent, in your estimation), and define a car as "a ground vehicle, typically with 4 wheels and two or more seats, usually propelled by an internal combustion engine, which is used as transport by people".

Now, my second definition has a lot more word than the first.

But it also has the advantage of actually defining what a car is.



Likewise, your definition of "god" is useless. It explains nothing. And as Powa's question illustrates, is internally inconsistent.

However, as stated earlier, we are willing to accept your definition of your god for the sake of furthering this discussion.

However, you might want to either consider the implications of what Powa asked instead of rudely dismissing them, or else amend your definition to make it internally consistent.

[JFrankA]

It is really hopeless on your part for me to explain to you why there is no need for intelligent people to ask who made God when God makes everything.



I would only have to postulate another God, if the present one is not defined by me as maker of everything.


But you can't understand that because you do not have any inkling about economy in thinking.




The one who introduced you to that question is someone with no idea of economy in thinking.


That is why as I said already several times, people use so many words in the hope that they will stir up in intelligent minds the impression that they are saying something profound, but intelligent folks like yours truly know that they don't have any definite idea of what they are talking about, because if they do, they can say it in a few words and the idea will come forth clearly and convincingly to people whose intelligence includes the property of economic thinking.


To people who will again ask who made God, please just go away, you belong to the category of people who can't think in economic terms.





Yrreg

And this, herein, is the problem.

The statement

I would only have to postulate another God, if the present one is not defined by me as maker of everything.


Is not of economic thinking.

Your definition of god, "maker of everything" is also not of economic thinking.

Again, my definition of god is one word

Nonexistant.

That is why as I said already several times, yrreg uses so many words in the hope that he will stir up in intelligent minds the impression that he is saying something profound, but intelligent folks like us atheists know that he doesn't have any definite idea of what he is talking about, because if he did, he can say it in a few words and the idea will come forth clearly and convincingly to people whose intelligence includes the property of economic thinking.

So I put it to you yrreg,

did god make himself?

Please answer more than zero and less than two words.



ETA: Of course, you can say "I don't know", but then, if you did, you'd be thinking like an atheist.

[Mashuna]

But you can't understand that because you do not have any inkling about economy in thinking.



I confess Yrreg, you are the greatest exponent of economy of thinking I have ever come across.

[Ducky]

My definition of God? Sure. Here it is (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/myth?jss=0), you can find it in the Dictionary under "Myth":

myth [mith]

–noun
1. a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, esp. one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature.
2. stories or matter of this kind: realm of myth.
3. any invented story, idea, or concept: His account of the event is pure myth.
4. an imaginary or fictitious thing or person.
5. an unproved or false collective belief that is used to justify a social institution.

The fifth definition fits best, usually.

[laca]

My definition of God? Sure. Here it is (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/myth?jss=0), you can find it in the Dictionary under "Myth":



The fifth definition fits best, usually.

Yeah, but that's more than 10 words, so tough luck, nice try, better luck next time!

[Darat]

To all participants - stop the personal attack and if you can't post without breaching your Membership Agreement then simply don;t post. I am also setting this thread to [Moderated Thread] (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=81399) status.

yrreg - do not start another thread on this subject to try and get around the moderated status of this thread.

[Mojo]

Did I ever say that there is a conspiracy of Buddhists in the West to take over the internet?


http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2006890#post2006890

[RoboTimbo]

I just want to know what is the definition of God from atheists.

Redundant. It adds an unnecessary layer of complexity. It doesn't inspire economy of thought.

God(s) are constructs of human imagination, they exist only in the mind of people who believe in them.

What will we be doing with all of these atheistic definitions of god(s)?

[jimmygun]

My definition of God? Same as my definition of Superman, Santa, Paul Bunyon, Gandalf the Grey, Oliver Twist, Forest Gump, et al. Why isn't this obvious to everyone?

[joobz]

My definition of god?

A debugging mode added to most 3D games used to inspect the quality of the map design.

[dafydd]

My definition of God? Same as my definition of Superman, Santa, Paul Bunyon, Gandalf the Grey, Oliver Twist, Forest Gump, et al. Why isn't this obvious to everyone?

I second that.

[Robert Oz]

On the supposition that Dawkins really came to his definition of God from his faculty of reasoning and his knowledge of logic, then I must congratulate him for coming to the same concept of God as mine.

One criticism though, why does he not just say as I say for a very pithy and most complete definition of God, namely:


Maker of everything.


'Maker of everything' cannot be your 'most complete definition of God', yrreg. If it were, it would need to imply that the other traits you assign to God follow necessarily from the definition.

'Maker of everything' does not imply omniscience, omnipotence, omnibenevolence, intelligence, consciousness, etc., etc. And yet you believe your god to have all of these traits. Therefore, your 'most complete definition of God' must include them.

Is your God supernatural? Is he all-powerful? Is he all-knowing and all-good? If so, you need to expand your definition.


Okay, Dawkins, congratulations for having come to the definition of God from using your reason and applying logic, unshackling yourself from your otherwise dungeoned mind in which you could not otherwise than never come to the correct idea of God as He really is in essence and in existence, namely, in relation to man and to the universe, maker of everything.


Unicorns, fairies and dragons can be defined as well, yrreg. To conclude that existence is proven by the ability to define would indicate the thinker has not reached the age of reason.


It is really hopeless on your part for me to explain to you why there is no need for intelligent people to ask who made God when God makes everything.



I would only have to postulate another God, if the present one is not defined by me as maker of everything.


But you can't understand that because you do not have any inkling about economy in thinking.


If you can see the silliness of invoking a god to have created your god, then you should also see the silliness in invoking a god to have created everything.

You see, if everything exists, it is not economical thinking to add a god to have created everything, since everything is already everything. Your Occam's razor has one last entity to slash.

[Dancing David]

I kind of thing there is an economy of "god the maker of everything" and "that includes themself".

Sort of poetic, a recursive god that creates themself. Could be an infinite regression or ex nihilio.

PS: I feel sorry for the mods reading these posts.

[Marcus]

Yes, "maker of everything" is a useless definition that has little to do with Christianity. It makes you look ashamed of your beleifs, Gerry, when you are afraid to define the god you believe in

[RoboTimbo]

PS: I feel sorry for the mods reading these posts.

Ditto. Elsewhere, it may even have been this very thread, yrreG said that he didn't care what it was called. It could be The Flying Spaghetti Monster, the Invisible Pink Unicorn, didn't matter to him.

If yrreG will agree to refer to it as the Invisible Pink Unicorn from now on, then I will agree that it created everything.

However, he may not give it any properties or attributes other than first cause.
Yes, "maker of everything" is a useless definition that has little to do with Christianity. It makes you look ashamed of your beleifs, Gerry, when you are afraid to define the god you believe in

Yeah, it's clear that a few steps down the path, after he has gotten atheists to agree to HIS definition, then he can sneakily start adding attributes later and "HA HA GOTCHA!" This should cut that attempt off at the pass.

[laca]

Yes, "maker of everything" is a useless definition that has little to do with Christianity. It makes you look ashamed of your beleifs, Gerry, when you are afraid to define the god you believe in

If he defines it properly, he knows what is going to come... Ruthless debunking. So, instead he makes vague and meaningless definitions and goes around repeating them ad nauseam in hope that it catches.

[Marcus]

If he defines it properly, he knows what is going to come... Ruthless debunking. So, instead he makes vague and meaningless definitions and goes around repeating them ad nauseam in hope that it catches.
The sad part is that he thinks he is being clever by refusing to provide a proper definition.

[yrreg]

God is the maker of everything, author of order and intelligence in the whole totality of existence.


That is the definition of God from yours truly, and I am a rational theist, what is a rational theist?

I define a rational theist as a person who knows God with human certainty by his reason and intelligence.


What do you atheists say about my definition of God?





Yrreg

[Mashuna]

God is the maker of everything, author of order and intelligence in the whole totality of existence.


That is the definition of God from yours truly, and I am a rational theist, what is a rational theist?

I define a rational theist as a person who knows God with human certainty by his reason and intelligence.


What do you atheists say about my definition of God?



Yrreg



Is your God intelligent? I ask this, because you've said in the past that the Big Bang could be called God.

[RoboTimbo]

God is the maker of everything, author of order and intelligence in the whole totality of existence.


That is the definition of God from yours truly, and I am a rational theist, what is a rational theist?

I define a rational theist as a person who knows God with human certainty by his reason and intelligence.


What do you atheists say about my definition of God?





Yrreg

If yrreG will agree to refer to it as the Invisible Pink Unicorn from now on, then I will agree that it created everything.

However, he may not give it any properties or attributes other than first cause.

Do you agree?

[Robert Oz]

God is the maker of everything, author of order and intelligence in the whole totality of existence.


Your definition is almost acceptable. I think it can be implied by the use of the term 'author' that you mean an intelligent, conscious maker of everything. However, I think you need to insert the term 'supernatural' somewhere in there. Otherwise, it could logically follow that a time-travelling chimpanzee (or human being or alien) from the future travels back in time to create the universe. Since I doubt you would accept a chimpanzee, human or alien as God, you must adjust your definition.


That is the definition of God from yours truly, and I am a rational theist, what is a rational theist?

I define a rational theist as a person who knows God with human certainty by his reason and intelligence.


It is impossible to know God with any certainty by reason and intelligence alone. Therefore, I would amend your definition of a rational theist to a person who believes in God by reason and intelligence.

Of course, the reason and logic displayed by theists to date has been consistently shown to be faulty.

[yrreg]

If you say that I said something in past posts, please give the link.


Because I want to see in what context I said what you say I said.





Yrreg

[RoboTimbo]

If you call the God maker of everything a flying spaghetti, then I can accept that name for God which for me is the maker of everything.

Yrreg

If yrreG will agree to refer to it as the Invisible Pink Unicorn from now on, then I will agree that it created everything.

However, he may not give it any properties or attributes other than first cause.

My mistake, it was Flying Spaghetti Monster, not Invisible Pink Unicorn.

So do you agree to call god The Flying Spaghetti Monster and not give it any other properties than first cause?

[Foster Zygote]

God is the maker of everything, author of order and intelligence in the whole totality of existence.

That is the definition of God from yours truly, and I am a rational theist, what is a rational theist?

I define a rational theist as a person who knows God with human certainty by his reason and intelligence.

What do you atheists say about my definition of God?

I say that your definition is flawed because you have not established with any cogent argument that the universe had a beginning or that there is any intelligence behind its arrangement.

[Lord Emsworth]

God is the maker of everything, author of order and intelligence in the whole totality of existence.


That is the definition of God from yours truly [snip]


What do you atheists say about my definition of God?


In some other thread* you had God as a conscious intelligence itself and had it have free will as well.

Now a conscious intelligence that has real free will and is also "the maker of everything, author of order and intelligence in the whole totality of existence" is much more like it. G = {NB, CI, FW}

* Link:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4862025#post4862025

[X]

I say that your definition is flawed because you have not established with any cogent argument that the universe had a beginning or that there is any intelligence behind its arrangement.


That doesn't mean his definition is flawed.

It just means he has no way to prove his god exists.

[Robin]

God is the maker of everything, author of order and intelligence in the whole totality of existence.


That is the definition of God from yours truly, and I am a rational theist, what is a rational theist?

I define a rational theist as a person who knows God with human certainty by his reason and intelligence.


What do you atheists say about my definition of God?

Same as ever,

If God did not create himself and exists, then at least one thing exists that God did not make, therefore God cannot be maker of everything, he can only be maker of everything except himself.

God cannot be the author of order in the totality of existence since God would, himself, represent order in the totality of existence of which God is not the author.

And you are still shy of stipulating that God is intelligent. As ever, if you do not consider intelligence as a necessary criterion for defining God then you are an atheist in denial.

[RoboTimbo]

If you say that I said something in past posts, please give the link.If you call the God maker of everything a flying spaghetti, then I can accept that name for God
So do you agree to call god The Flying Spaghetti Monster and not give it any other properties than first cause?

Are you withdrawing your offer now?