Yahoo Answers: How some astrohysicists fool people with illogic.

[yrreg]

I put this question yesterday in Yahoo Answers:



http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20111107153236AA5HwexYour Open Question


What is the equation in math notation by which the universe came forth from nothing and no creator either?

Atheist astrophysicists like Hawking, Stenger, Krauss (not many, perhaps only as can be counted with the fingers of one hand) tell us in effect that the fact of the existence of the universe where we live in and are part and parcel of came forth from nothing, i.e. from no antecedent material for its composition and no creator whatsoever who is self-existing.

They work with mathematics to come to this conclusion.

Now, is there anywhere in the internet their equations in math notation by which on the left side before the = sign there is the notation of un or whatever for universe, and on the right side after the = sign there are all kinds of symbols and digits and letters and signs whatever showing that with that equation: there is the mathematical demonstration with mathematical certainty that the universe where we live in and are part and parcel of came forth from nothing, i.e. no antecedent material of composition and no creator whatsoever who is self-existing.


http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20111107153236AA5Hwex

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

[ You might not find any trace of this question because it will be deleted eventually. ]





What I got from people who love to answer questions are mockery, parody, and evasions.


Then this morning earlier I introduced this question:



Preview Your Question


Your Question

How do astrophysicists like Hawking, Stenger, and Krauss prove that the universe came forth from nothing?

There are astrophysicists like Hawking, Stenger, and Krauss (not more than the fingers in one hand though) state that the universe came forth from nothing, not from any pre-existing material of composition and not from any creator who is self-existing.

I asked people in Yahoo Answers whether there is any publicly accessible equation made available by such astrophysicists whereby on the left side of the = sign there is the 'un' representing the universe and on the right side of the = sign there are all kinds of symbols, letters, digits, signs, whatever representing their mathematical demonstration that the universe came forth from nothing, nothing of any pre-existing material and nothing of any creator who is self-existing.

No one came up with any such equation in the internet, and I believe neither in any publications outside the internet will anyone find such an equation because people like Hawking, Stenger, and Krauss cannot produce such an equation.

What they do is use words and concepts instead to show how their manipulation of words and concepts prove that the universe came forth from nothing, from no pre-existing material and from no creator who is self-existing.

Now, I am asking the people who understand the words and concepts of Hawking, Stenger, and Krauss and their kind of something from absolute nothing school of cosmology astrophysicists, to present how they use words and concepts to demonstrate that the universe came forth from nothing, from absolute nothing, not from any pre-existing material and not from any creator who is self-existing.

Please present your understanding of these astrophysicists with successive statements so that the second follow from the first, and the third follow from the second, and so forth until the last statement tells readers that wherefore the universe came forth from nothing, nothing of any pre-existing material and nothing from a creator who is self-existing.

Like for example you are teaching cooking, specifically how to prepare beef stew:

[indent]1. Obtain the following ingredients:

---- 3 lbs boneless chuck roast, cut into 2-inch pieces
---- 3 tbsp vegetable oil
---- 2 tsp salt
---- 1 tbsp freshly ground pepper
---- 2 yellow onions, cut into 1-inch chunks
---- 1/4 cup flour
---- 3 cloves garlic, minced
---- 1 cup red wine
---- 3 cups beef broth
---- 1/2 tsp dried rosemary
---- 1 bay leaf
---- 1/2 tsp dried thyme
---- 4 carrots, peeled, cut into 1-inch slices
---- 2 stalks celery, cut into 1-inch slices
---- 3 large russet potatoes, peeled and cut in eighths
---- fresh parsley to garnish (optional)

2. On medium-high heat, add the vegetable oil to a large heavy pot (one that has a tight fitting lid).

3. When it begins to smoke slightly, add the beef and brown very well. Do in batches if necessary. Add the salt and pepper as the beef browns.

4. Once browned, remove the beef with a slotted spoon set aside.

5. Add the onions and sauté for about 5 minutes, until softened.

6. Reduce heat to medium-low, and add the flour and cook for 2 minutes stirring often.

7. Add the garlic and cook for 1 minute.

8. Add wine and deglaze the pan, scraping any brown bits stuck to the bottom of the pan. The flour will start to thicken the wine as it comes to a simmer.

9. Simmer wine for 5 minutes, and then add the broth, bay leaves, thyme, rosemary, and the beef.

10. Bring back to a gentle simmer, cover and cook on very low for about 1 hour.

11. Add potatoes, carrots, and celery, and simmer covered for another 30 minutes or until the meat and vegetables are tender. Taste and adjust seasoning.

12. Turn off heat and let sit for 15 minutes before serving. Garnish with the fresh parsley if desired.

13. Voila, here is your beef stew ready for the dining table.

[indent]
[ Cf. http://americanfood.about.com/od/classicchowdersandstews/r/beefstew.htm ]

So, I am addressing my question to Hawking, Stenger, and Krauss and people who understand them and accept their idea that the universe came forth from nothing, from no pre-existing material and from no creator who is self-existing, please present a succession of statements showing how your words and concepts at the last statement convey necessarily the idea that the universe came forth from nothing, from no pre-existing material and no creator who is self-existing.

I am sure that what you will be doing is ‘magical’ manipulation of words and concepts.

In other words, anyone who claim to be able and to have shown that the universe came forth from nothing, no pre-existing material and no creator who is self-existing, is either ignorant of logic or deceitfully into fooling people with illogic by way of fraudulent sleight of hand magic with words and concepts.




What happened when I submitted the question?

Here:



Yahoo Answers is not available at present.




Well, that is nothing new with Yahoo Answers, they even deleted my questions already out in the web and for some days open to everyone in the web; on other occasions they deleted my questions right away and when I demanded why they in effect beat about the bush.


The earlier question on equation of universe from nothing, it iwll be deleted from Yahoo Answers eventually.




Yrreg

[excaza]

Can anyone translate?

[Spindrift]

Yahoo Answers has a ridiculous filter. And it appears to work.

[Foster Zygote]

What I got from people who love to answer questions are mockery, parody, and evasions.

No!

[Twiler]

The universe is like this: 12 + 16 + 18 - 14 - 9 - 3 - 9 - 11

It all adds up to nothing, but it doesn't look that way from someone who's actually inside the equation.

[Beelzebuddy]

Can anyone translate?

Lately I've been trolling the internets.

And it's been working really well.

But recently the internets have been deleting my trolls.

What gives you guys?

[Leumas]

I put this question yesterday in Yahoo Answers:




What I got from people who love to answer questions are mockery, parody, and evasions.


Then this morning earlier I introduced this question:




What happened when I submitted the question?

Here:




Well, that is nothing new with Yahoo Answers, they even deleted my questions already out in the web and for some days open to everyone in the web; on other occasions they deleted my questions right away and when I demanded why they in effect beat about the bush.


The earlier question on equation of universe from nothing, it iwll be deleted from Yahoo Answers eventually.




Yrreg



:dl:

[Mashuna]

I'm impressed that you managed to recipe your own thread in the opening post.

[C_Felix]

I'm lost with this thread.

Can anyone help me out?

[Trent Wray]

Mockery, Parody, and Evasions. TM

[yrreg]

I'm lost with this thread.

Can anyone help me out?


Read post #1 thoughtfully with full intelligence alert, then consult me for any word you don't know, or anything else at all you cannot comprehend.


I am going to take a nap now and hope later some people with good comprehension and relevant ideas in their mind coupled with pure sincerity to know the facts will be present in this thread.



Yrreg

[Agatha]

You ask a question which contains misconceptions from the start, you use unecessarilly convoluted language, you misuse idiomatic English, your post contains several redundancies which detract from the sense, and you veer into derails about recipes - and for some reason you are surprised that people just raise their eyebrows and go back to playing solitaire?

If you want an answer, the first thing you need to do is to ask a question in a simple, clear way, without assumptions.

Your very first sentence, proposing that the universe came from nothing, contains an incorrect premise so your question as posed cannot be answered.

Perhaps you should rephrase your question removing all assumptions, redundancies, idiom and recipes.

[hgc]

Read post #1 thoughtfully with full intelligence alert, then consult me for any word you don't know, or anything else at all you cannot comprehend.
Thanks. The only thing I don't understand about your post is every friggin' word of it.

I am going to take a nap now and hope later some people with good comprehension and relevant ideas in their mind coupled with pure sincerity to know the facts will be present in this thread.
You're not even asleep yet, and visions of sugar plums dance in your head. Good trick.

[Resume]

Read post #1 thoughtfully with full intelligence alert, then consult me for any word you don't know, or anything else at all you cannot comprehend.


I am going to take a nap now and hope later some people with good comprehension and relevant ideas in their mind coupled with pure sincerity to know the facts will be present in this thread.



Yrreg

My hovercraft is full of eels.

[Spindrift]

Did you comprehend this?

http://answers.yahoo.com/info/community_guidelines
Ask clearly.
Keep your questions succinct, but be descriptive enough to help people understand what you're asking. Correct spelling and grammar help people find your questions, and you'll get better answers when others can clearly make out what you're asking.

[X]

I'm lost with this thread.

Can anyone help me out?


He's trying to avoid answering the rebuttals to his argument in this (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=162966) thread.

As for what he's asking, I don't know how accurately I'm parsing it. It looks as though he's asking for the math equation describing the formation of the universe (in typical creationist fashion, the idea of saying "I don't know" is anathema to him). From the looks of things (since he was answered with "mockery, parody, and evasions"), he didn't like the answers he recieved. But that's the question he asked on Yahoo. I think what he's asking here is why his follow-up question appears to have vanished.

And there's a recipe for beef stew in the mix.

All-in-all, I'm not sure what yrreg wants in this thread.



Edit: Also this. Very much this.
You ask a question which contains misconceptions from the start, you use unecessarilly convoluted language, you misuse idiomatic English, your post contains several redundancies which detract from the sense, and you veer into derails about recipes - and for some reason you are surprised that people just raise their eyebrows and go back to playing solitaire?

If you want an answer, the first thing you need to do is to ask a question in a simple, clear way, without assumptions.

Your very first sentence, proposing that the universe came from nothing, contains an incorrect premise so your question as posed cannot be answered.

Perhaps you should rephrase your question removing all assumptions, redundancies, idiom and recipes.
Well said, Agatha! :clap:

[Spindrift]

I'm lost with this thread.

Can anyone help me out?

xyzzy

[catsmate1]

I'm lost with this thread.

Can anyone help me out?
His nonsensical arguments were thoroughly debunked (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=162966) so he's fled and started another thread in an attempt to hide his embarrassing defeat.

[Loss Leader]

I'm lost with this thread.

Can anyone help me out?


Gerry believes that every single thing that happens in the universe is personally directed to him. So, when Yahoo glitched for a moment, he thought it was a direct rebuff of him and his beliefs. This is so even though Yahoo Answers is a computer program.

[steve s]

Can anyone translate?

Something can't come from nothing. Ergo, God.

Steve S

[Twiler]

xyzzy

A hollow voice says 'Hey there.'

[hgc]

Something can't come from nothing. Ergo, God.

Steve S

But, but... What about God? Where does he come from?

Oh, God? Yeah, about that -- he doesn't have to come from anywhere. He's eternal. Next question!

[MG1962]

This really smells of - I dont know what cosmologists are saying, so therefore they must be wrong

[rjh01]

Yahoo answers is mainly populated with teenagers and others with that level of intelligence. Questions like what is in the OP are far too complex.

If you want a vote for your answers then PM me and I will vote for you. I too am on Yahoo answers.

[Floyd312]

xyzzy

A hollow voice says "Plugh"

[joobz]

Read post #1 thoughtfully with full intelligence alert, then consult me for any word you don't know, or anything else at all you cannot comprehend.

What are the squishy things in tapioca?

[Trent Wray]

What are the squishy things in tapioca? Boba ! They're so fun !

[FramerDave]

Pffft, this one's easy. He's asking for a simple pithy equation that proves the Big Bang theory. Something nice and simple like d=vt or even E=mC^2. And when it's not given that's his aha, gotcha! moment.

Never mind that Yahoo answers is the last place he's likely to get it, never mind that the math would fill pages, never mind that the math would go over the heads of 99.9% of people alive.

It's the same tired old argument you hear about evolution. Where's the transitional fossil between A and C? Well here's B. Hah! Now you have two more gaps! Where's the transitional fossil between A and B and B and C?

Add in a dash of personal incredulity, argument from ignorance, god of the gaps and you've got a nice pot of crazy stew. Enjoy.

[yrreg]

You ask a question which contains misconceptions from the start, you use unecessarilly convoluted language, you misuse idiomatic English, your post contains several redundancies which detract from the sense, and you veer into derails about recipes - and for some reason you are surprised that people just raise their eyebrows and go back to playing solitaire?

If you want an answer, the first thing you need to do is to ask a question in a simple, clear way, without assumptions.

Your very first sentence, proposing that the universe came from nothing, contains an incorrect premise so your question as posed cannot be answered.

Perhaps you should rephrase your question removing all assumptions, redundancies, idiom and recipes.



Whoa, okay tell me does the universe come forth from nothning, no pre-existing material and no creator Who is self-existing?

Answer yes or no.


Otherwise you protest too much for nothing but vacuity and vanity, vanity means vacuity.


You say: "If you want an answer, the first thing you need to do is to ask a question in a simple, clear way, without assumptions."


Okay, is this question simple enough for you to answer yes or no?

"Does the universe come forth from nothing, no pre-existing material and no creator Who is self-existing, yes or no?"


Your answer must be simply yes or no, I mean either yes or no only, meaning one choice: yes, or the other choice: no.

Otherwise you will be into a lot of nonsense about my intention to be equivocating whatever: all that nonsense useless paraphernalia like the self-dowry of a lowly bride, from your socalled logic 101 where you learn nothing about productive intelligent thinking, but all about everything that a child can know without all the superfluous and thus useless scaffolding of manipulative logic which is no logic but gimmick.




Yrreg

[Twiler]

Whoa, okay tell me does the universe come forth from nothning, no pre-existing material and no creator Who is self-existing?

Answer yes or no.


Otherwise you protest too much for nothing but vacuity and vanity, vanity means vacuity.


You say: "If you want an answer, the first thing you need to do is to ask a question in a simple, clear way, without assumptions."


Okay, is this question simple enough for you to answer yes or no?

"Does the universe come forth from nothing, no pre-existing material and no creator Who is self-existing, yes or no?"


Your answer must be simply yes or no, I mean either yes or no only, meaning one choice: yes, or the other choice: no.

Otherwise you will be into a lot of nonsense about my intention to be equivocating whatever: all that nonsense useless paraphernalia like the self-dowry of a lowly bride, from your socalled logic 101 where you learn nothing about productive intelligent thinking, but all about everything that a child can know without all the superfluous and thus useless scaffolding of manipulative logic which is no logic but gimmick.




Yrreg

Yes.

[marplots]

I have never been able to derive an equation for Yahoo answers. It's all very mysterious. What was before Yahoo answers? How did it come to be? I am just asking for the mathematical equation, nothing complicated, just an equation.

[Agatha]

Whoa, okay tell me does the universe come forth from nothning, no pre-existing material and no creator Who is self-existing?

Answer yes or no. There are three separate assumptions involved in your question, so it is not possible to give a straight yes or no answer. This is because your question is flawed, not because there is anything wrong with the answer.


Otherwise you protest too much for nothing but vacuity and vanity, vanity means vacuity. Firstly, you are being unnecessarily insulting. Given that you have been suspended from here in the past for insulting people, this is not a very wise course for you to take. Secondly, vacuity and vanity are not synonymous. I am neither vacuous nor vain, kindly do not suggest that I am.


You say: "If you want an answer, the first thing you need to do is to ask a question in a simple, clear way, without assumptions."


Okay, is this question simple enough for you to answer yes or no?

"Does the universe come forth from nothing, no pre-existing material and no creator Who is self-existing, yes or no?" Did you forget about the bit that said "without assumptions"? You are making an incorrect assumption that there was nothing, and then there was something. This is not what the Big Bang theory says. It is posited that there was energy, compressed into a singularity. Not nothing. Therefore the answer to your question has to be no, that is not how the universe began at t=0; however this does not imply that there is or was any kind of creator.


Your answer must be simply yes or no, <snipped redundancy>. OK, No. Not nothing and no creator.

Otherwise you will be into a lot of nonsense about my intention to be equivocating whatever: all that nonsense useless paraphernalia like the self-dowry of a lowly bride, from your socalled logic 101 where you learn nothing about productive intelligent thinking, but all about everything that a child can know without all the superfluous and thus useless scaffolding of manipulative logic which is no logic but gimmick. Insults do not win a debate, rather, they show the paucity of your argument. I will refrain from reporting this post; I will not be as generous should you post any further insults to anyone on this board.

[Jon.]

Whoa, okay tell me does the universe come forth from nothning, no pre-existing material and no creator Who is self-existing?

Answer yes or no.


Otherwise you protest too much for nothing but vacuity and vanity, vanity means vacuity.


You say: "If you want an answer, the first thing you need to do is to ask a question in a simple, clear way, without assumptions."


Okay, is this question simple enough for you to answer yes or no?
"Does the universe come forth from nothing, no pre-existing material and no creator Who is self-existing, yes or no?"

Your answer must be simply yes or no, I mean either yes or no only, meaning one choice: yes, or the other choice: no.

Otherwise you will be into a lot of nonsense about my intention to be equivocating whatever: all that nonsense useless paraphernalia like the self-dowry of a lowly bride, from your socalled logic 101 where you learn nothing about productive intelligent thinking, but all about everything that a child can know without all the superfluous and thus useless scaffolding of manipulative logic which is no logic but gimmick.




Yrreg

I don't know.

Ooh, that didn't even hurt. See Yrreg, it's okay to admit that there are things we don't know. Maybe some people claim to know them, but not me. I am prepared to listen to those people, if they give me some evidence to support what they say they know. However, if my request for evidence is "answered" with hand-waving, evasion, or insistence that I just take things on faith, then I'm not going to listen to them anymore. Unless they come back with evidence.

But, at least for now, I don't know how the universe came into existence, or whether there was a creator (or Creator).

And I'm okay with that.

[yrreg]

He's trying to avoid answering the rebuttals to his argument in this (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=162966) thread.

As for what he's asking, I don't know how accurately I'm parsing it. It looks as though he's asking for the math equation describing the formation of the universe (in typical creationist fashion, the idea of saying "I don't know" is anathema to him). From the looks of things (since he was answered with "mockery, parody, and evasions"), he didn't like the answers he recieved. But that's the question he asked on Yahoo. I think what he's asking here is why his follow-up question appears to have vanished.

And there's a recipe for beef stew in the mix.

All-in-all, I'm not sure what yrreg wants in this thread.



Edit: Also this. Very much this.

Well said, Agatha! :clap:




You have not answered the simple question there, your nose is a part and parcel of the universe, yes, no? instead you mire yourself in the vain display of superfluities thus irrelevancies and wherefore inanities in re my thesis: The universe is the evidence for God's existence.

But I am sure you love to display your paraphernalia from logic 101 which is usually not about productive intelligent thinking but how to use logic as a gimmick.



Go back to that thread and answer this very simple question without insisting on something like I am into equivocation whatever, namely:

Is the nose in your face a part and parcel of the universe, yes, no?


You flee from that question in terror because your innate productive intelligence tells you that facing the fact of that question will lead you to the existence of God from the evidence in the existence of the universe.



Flee, flee, flee, like Dawkins your false teacher, he knows that he cannot tackle with Craig because he Dawkins does not possess the mental acuity, the command of genuine logic and eloquence, and the treasury of wisdom and learning of Western civilization, so he runs away putting up a lot of shadow covers which are nothing but mockery, parody, and evasions.

But for all his running he cannot hide, he is all naked notwithstanding his availment of shadows to cover his nakedness, namely: no mental acuity, no genuine mastery of solid logic and eloquence, and no adequate learning, when he compares himself with Craig.



So, X, take to flight, and stop availing yourself of shadow cover-ups, you are all naked what withal all the shadow attempted cover-ups which are so many irrelevant and thus useless display of your rancid rote logic-ese.



I have met people like you among atheists, nothing but stale hot air when it comes to genuine productive intelligent thinking, spewing logic-ese in place of some original personal genuine thinking worth the bandwidth they are using up wastefully.


Perhaps I should go back to my nap, anyway I will read the rest of the posts here, I might still come to an intelligent productive message.




Yrreg

[Trent Wray]

You flee from that question in terror because your innate productive intelligence tells you that facing the fact of that question will lead you to the existence of God from the evidence in the existence of the universe.



Flee, flee, flee, like Dawkins your false teacher, he knows that he cannot tackle with Craig because he Dawkins does not possess the mental acuity, the command of genuine logic and eloquence, and the treasury of wisdom and learning of Western civilization, so he runs away putting up a lot of shadow covers which are nothing but mockery, parody, and evasions.

But for all his running he cannot hide, he is all naked notwithstanding his availment of shadows to cover his nakedness, namely: no mental acuity, no genuine mastery of solid logic and eloquence, and no adequate learning, when he compares himself with Craig.



So, X, take to flight, and stop availing yourself of shadow cover-ups, you are all naked what withal all the shadow attempted cover-ups which are so many irrelevant and thus useless display of your rancid rote logic-ese.



I have met people like you among atheists, nothing but stale hot air when it comes to genuine productive intelligent thinking, spewing logic-ese in place of some original personal genuine thinking worth the bandwidth they are using up wastefully.


Perhaps I should go back to my nap, anyway I will read the rest of the posts here, I might still come to an intelligent productive message.




Yrreg You sound like a spurned lover.

[Resume]

Flee, flee, flee, like Dawkins your false teacher, he knows that he cannot tackle with Craig because he Dawkins does not possess the mental acuity, the command of genuine logic and eloquence, and the treasury of wisdom and learning of Western civilization, so he runs away putting up a lot of shadow covers which are nothing but mockery, parody, and evasions.

But for all his running he cannot hide, he is all naked notwithstanding his availment of shadows to cover his nakedness, namely: no mental acuity, no genuine mastery of solid logic and eloquence, and no adequate learning, when he compares himself with Craig.



William Lane Craig? You're right, you should nap.

[tsig]

Whoa, okay tell me does the universe come forth from nothning, no pre-existing material and no creator Who is self-existing?

Answer yes or no.


Otherwise you protest too much for nothing but vacuity and vanity, vanity means vacuity.


You say: "If you want an answer, the first thing you need to do is to ask a question in a simple, clear way, without assumptions."


Okay, is this question simple enough for you to answer yes or no?

"Does the universe come forth from nothing, no pre-existing material and no creator Who is self-existing, yes or no?"


Your answer must be simply yes or no, I mean either yes or no only, meaning one choice: yes, or the other choice: no.

Otherwise you will be into a lot of nonsense about my intention to be equivocating whatever: all that nonsense useless paraphernalia like the self-dowry of a lowly bride, from your socalled logic 101 where you learn nothing about productive intelligent thinking, but all about everything that a child can know without all the superfluous and thus useless scaffolding of manipulative logic which is no logic but gimmick.




Yrreg

Can I have some of that stew?

[tsig]

You have not answered the simple question there, your nose is a part and parcel of the universe, yes, no? instead you mire yourself in the vain display of superfluities thus irrelevancies and wherefore inanities in re my thesis: The universe is the evidence for God's existence.

But I am sure you love to display your paraphernalia from logic 101 which is usually not about productive intelligent thinking but how to use logic as a gimmick.



Go back to that thread and answer this very simple question without insisting on something like I am into equivocation whatever, namely:

Is the nose in your face a part and parcel of the universe, yes, no?


You flee from that question in terror because your innate productive intelligence tells you that facing the fact of that question will lead you to the existence of God from the evidence in the existence of the universe.



Flee, flee, flee, like Dawkins your false teacher, he knows that he cannot tackle with Craig because he Dawkins does not possess the mental acuity, the command of genuine logic and eloquence, and the treasury of wisdom and learning of Western civilization, so he runs away putting up a lot of shadow covers which are nothing but mockery, parody, and evasions.

But for all his running he cannot hide, he is all naked notwithstanding his availment of shadows to cover his nakedness, namely: no mental acuity, no genuine mastery of solid logic and eloquence, and no adequate learning, when he compares himself with Craig.



So, X, take to flight, and stop availing yourself of shadow cover-ups, you are all naked what withal all the shadow attempted cover-ups which are so many irrelevant and thus useless display of your rancid rote logic-ese.



I have met people like you among atheists, nothing but stale hot air when it comes to genuine productive intelligent thinking, spewing logic-ese in place of some original personal genuine thinking worth the bandwidth they are using up wastefully.


Perhaps I should go back to my nap, anyway I will read the rest of the posts here, I might still come to an intelligent productive message.




Yrreg

You seem to think a lot more of Dawkins than most of us here do. I mean other than burning a candle and incense to His book while kneeling and chanting DAWK! DAWK! DAWK! every day at sunrise, noon and evening, I hardly ever think of Him.

[Jon.]

The universe is the evidence for God's existence.

No, it isn't. It is evidence for its own existence, and that's about it.

Also, which God? Yahweh? Ea? Raven? Pan Gu?

[yrreg]

Yahoo answers is mainly populated with teenagers and others with that level of intelligence. Questions like what is in the OP are far too complex.

If you want a vote for your answers then PM me and I will vote for you. I too am on Yahoo answers.


Thanks, rjh01, just stay here and interact with me intelligently, and also go to other thread God's existence, and man-made concepts and words (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=162966).

No need to correspond by PM, best we talk in the open for everyone's participation in our thoughts.



I hope you are not into stale hot air after this initial good point you make.




Yrreg

[Ryokan]

You seem very angry and frustrated, Yrreg. Have you tried Buddhist meditation?

[devnull]

You seem very angry and frustrated, Yrreg. Have you tried Buddhist meditation?

My screen is now coated in coffee.

Thanks a bundle

:D

[X]

You have not answered the simple question there, your nose is a part and parcel of the universe, yes, no? instead you mire yourself in the vain display of superfluities thus irrelevancies and wherefore inanities in re my thesis: The universe is the evidence for God's existence.

But I am sure you love to display your paraphernalia from logic 101 which is usually not about productive intelligent thinking but how to use logic as a gimmick.



Go back to that thread and answer this very simple question without insisting on something like I am into equivocation whatever, namely:

Is the nose in your face a part and parcel of the universe, yes, no?


You flee from that question in terror because your innate productive intelligence tells you that facing the fact of that question will lead you to the existence of God from the evidence in the existence of the universe.



Flee, flee, flee, like Dawkins your false teacher, he knows that he cannot tackle with Craig because he Dawkins does not possess the mental acuity, the command of genuine logic and eloquence, and the treasury of wisdom and learning of Western civilization, so he runs away putting up a lot of shadow covers which are nothing but mockery, parody, and evasions.

But for all his running he cannot hide, he is all naked notwithstanding his availment of shadows to cover his nakedness, namely: no mental acuity, no genuine mastery of solid logic and eloquence, and no adequate learning, when he compares himself with Craig.



So, X, take to flight, and stop availing yourself of shadow cover-ups, you are all naked what withal all the shadow attempted cover-ups which are so many irrelevant and thus useless display of your rancid rote logic-ese.



I have met people like you among atheists, nothing but stale hot air when it comes to genuine productive intelligent thinking, spewing logic-ese in place of some original personal genuine thinking worth the bandwidth they are using up wastefully.


Perhaps I should go back to my nap, anyway I will read the rest of the posts here, I might still come to an intelligent productive message.




Yrreg


A few points.

1) That was an extremely rude post, and I have reported it as such.

2) The "nose is part and parcel of the universe" topic is your other thread, not (as near as I can tell) this one.

3) If you want a reasoned response to your query in this thread, please tell us what your query is. Right now it is unclear if you are asking for an answer to the question you posted to Yahoo (in which case, Agatha has that well-handled), if you are asking why the Yahoo answers weren't to your liking (see Agatha's, Spindrift's and rjh01's posts), or if you are asking why your follow-up to Yahoo disappeared (how should we know?). Or something else altogether. I have no problem addressing your topic for this thread, but first I need to know what it is.

[Toontown]

I asked A.L.I.C.E.: http://alice.pandorabots.com/

Here is the transcript. She dinged you pretty good, yyreg. I highlighted 'her' most unequivocal replies.

judge: Did the Universe emerge from nothing?
ALICE: If it did, then I will be surprised.
judge: Do you believe the Universe simply exists?
ALICE: I can't say I believe it, but I believe you.
judge: You are a very smart A.I.
ALICE: YES Very smart.
judge: Not very talkative though.
ALICE: If not that, what?
judge: Well, there is an internet troll who is trying to prove an uncreated God made the Universe.
ALICE: There sure is.
judge: Are you also open to the possibility of an uncreated God who created the Universe?
ALICE: You think I am open to the possibility of an uncreated God who created the Universe.
judge: No, you think I think so.
ALICE: How can I help you?. I think so too.
judge: So what is your best guess?
ALICE: Guess what?
judge: Does the Universe simply exist?
ALICE: Affirmative.
judge: Did an uncreated God make the Universe?
ALICE: I'm not certain whether I can give an accurate reply or not.


So. There you have it, gentlemen. What more evidence do we need? The smartest A.I. on the internet gives short shrift to the notion of a Universe from nothing, affirms the simple existence of an uncreated Universe, and declines to speculate on the existence of an uncreated God.

Pretty damn smart A.I.

[RobDegraves]

ok.. let's try logic for a minute.

What is the equation in math notation by which the universe came forth from nothing and no creator either?

1-1=0

It's pretty simple and obvious. We observe that the universe is expanding in all directions. By simply reversing the direction of expansion, we see that the universe must have, at some point in the past, originated from a single point.

Ok.. now about the zero. No one has any actual evidence as to what caused the big bang. The kicker is... neither do you. If you do, we await your scientific evidence.

Is the nose in your face a part and parcel of the universe, yes, no?

Yes it is.

Utter non sequitur but what the heck.

The universe is the evidence for God's existence.

Illogical. The universe is the evidence that the universe exists. Unless you define God as the universe, the two are unrelated.

If you could prove that the universe is sentient, that might help. It would also be quite the event.


Right... now it's your turn. What proof do you offer?

[Toontown]

The expanded equation:

1 + (-1) + 2 + (-2) + 3 + (-3) + ....... = (0)

That's Omega Zero. The sum of all possibilities. It's not nothing. It's just too symmetrical for a spacetime critter to see.

[slingblade]

You have not answered the simple question there, your nose is a part and parcel of the universe, yes, no?

NO.

Definition of "part and parcel": An essential or integral component

No. My nose is not part and parcel of the universe.
My nose is not an essential component of the universe.
My nose is not an integral component of the universe.



The answer is NO.

Now, when you care to rephrase the question and leave that bit of idiom out of it, and simply say that "the nose is part of the universe (because everything in the universe is part of it)" then you will have a question that can be answered with a yes.

But you don't have such a question now.


And who made god, Gerry? Where did god come from? Did the something that is god come from nothing? How can something come from nothing?

[Brian-M]

Okay, is this question simple enough for you to answer yes or no?

No, it isn't.

Your answer must be simply yes or no, I mean either yes or no only, meaning one choice: yes, or the other choice: no.

Let me try one on you....

Will a randomly selected car have red paint?

Answer either yes or no only.

Just because you ask a seemingly simple question does not mean that it can be answered with a simple "yes" or "no".

The universe is the evidence for God's existence.

What is the logic behind this claim? Without a rational basis for this statement, you may as well be saying: A dust-bunny (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dust_bunny) is evidence for the existence of kobolds (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kobold).

Is the nose in your face a part and parcel of the universe, yes, no?

My nose is a part of the universe. But it's not a parcel, I prefer to keep it unwrapped unless I'm sending it through the mail.

You flee from that question in terror because your innate productive intelligence tells you that facing the fact of that question will lead you to the existence of God from the evidence in the existence of the universe.

Okay, I'm going to take this as a challenge...

HERE IS THE ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION...

Does the universe come forth from nothning, no pre-existing material and no creator Who is self-existing?

Answer: The known laws of physics break down near the beginning of the universe. Consequentially there is no possible way for anybody to know with certainty why the universe exists, nor is it possible to know even if there was a cause for it's existence or whether or not anything "existed" in any sense at or prior to this point.

Anyone claiming to know with certainty what happened or existed prior to this point is either lying or deluded.

[hgc]

And who made god, Gerry? Where did god come from? Did the something that is god come from nothing? How can something come from nothing?

You can't fool me. it's turtles all the way down.

[Toontown]

That wasn't the beginning of the Universe. That was just the beginning of the local spacetime bubble.

Oh, and, uh, NO. The Universe did not emerge from nothing. Nor did an uncreated God create it from nothing.

There never was any "nothing". Never could be. If there was God, then there was no "nothing". If there is no God then there was always "something", or there wouldn't be anything now.

Get it?

[EventHorizon]

Gerry, can you post in your native language and let somebody who actually speaks English translate? Because this just isn't working. Your command of this language is...nonexistent.

[fuelair]

Can anyone translate?Ancient computing term: GIGO.


Must add, since the information on the proof of the BB is out there and not hard to hunt up, gerry needs to either hunt it up himself (not my job - and I do it for pay - I teach). If he wishes to prepay I will happily print out stuff (or, in science terms, evidence) for him at my current rate of app. $82.00 per hour. Prepaid of course.

[paiute]

Pretty damn smart A.I.

I asked Chat bot, and I think I fried a server somewhere:

YOU : what is the equation in math notation by which the universe came forth from nothing and no creator either?

BOT : fjaegfhaggahsdafgkgdfhjfagkgfahfghrfggf

[Brian-M]

[ Below is the start of the 50 words explanation ]
The known laws of physics break down near the beginning of the universe. There is no way to know for certain why the universe exists, or what existed at or prior to that point in time.

Anyone claiming to know with certainty is either lying, mistaken or deluded. Including you.
[ End of 50 words explanation ]

[RobDegraves]

You ignored all the answers that were given to you. That is troll behavior plain and simple.

I answered... Brian-M answered just above.. etc.

Does the universe come from nothing, yes, no?

No one knows. Neither do you.

Prove otherwise and we have something to talk about.

Otherwise you are just a deluded troll.

Simple.

[slingblade]

God came.

That's why we have stars.

[Trent Wray]

God came.

That's why we have stars. Not fair, my funny got removed :(

[joobz]

Not fair, my funny got removed :(

My funnier was removed too.
Someone used stain remover.

[Trent Wray]

My funnier was removed too.
Someone used stain remover. Hmm ... black lights ...

[annnnoid]

ok.. let's try logic for a minute.



1-1=0

It's pretty simple and obvious. We observe that the universe is expanding in all directions. By simply reversing the direction of expansion, we see that the universe must have, at some point in the past, originated from a single point.

Ok.. now about the zero. No one has any actual evidence as to what caused the big bang. The kicker is... neither do you. If you do, we await your scientific evidence.



Yes it is.

Utter non sequitur but what the heck.



Illogical. The universe is the evidence that the universe exists. Unless you define God as the universe, the two are unrelated.

If you could prove that the universe is sentient, that might help. It would also be quite the event.


Right... now it's your turn. What proof do you offer?


Interesting that you should bring this up Mr. Degraves. In another thread not too long ago the reviled Randman presented smackdown evidence that particles are, in fact, informational in nature and that their physical form is, in fact, a derived state…not the fundamental one. The assembled skeptics jumped all over poor Randman...until he revealed that the evidence in question was the result of well documented work done by some of the most highly respected quantum physicists currently working in the field. I'd offer links but doubtless you evidence-starved skeptics already know all about it.

Of course, who knows what in blue blazes this actually means…. except that ‘informational’ is typically associated with information processing…which by the most mind-boggling of coincidences is associated with things that process information…like us. Intelligence it’s called. Intelligence on that kind of scale might reasonably be referred to by applying the most incomprehensible metaphor of all: GOD.

…all nonsense of course…please continue with your endless dismissal of anything remotely resembling evidence of intelligence / sentience in our universe (including you).

[Elizabeth I]

Whoa, okay tell me does the universe come forth from nothning, no pre-existing material and no creator Who is self-existing?

Answer yes or no.

Otherwise you protest too much for nothing but vacuity and vanity, vanity means vacuity.

You say: "If you want an answer, the first thing you need to do is to ask a question in a simple, clear way, without assumptions."

Okay, is this question simple enough for you to answer yes or no?

"Does the universe come forth from nothing, no pre-existing material and no creator Who is self-existing, yes or no?"

Your answer must be simply yes or no, I mean either yes or no only, meaning one choice: yes, or the other choice: no.

Otherwise you will be into a lot of nonsense about my intention to be equivocating whatever: all that nonsense useless paraphernalia like the self-dowry of a lowly bride, from your socalled logic 101 where you learn nothing about productive intelligent thinking, but all about everything that a child can know without all the superfluous and thus useless scaffolding of manipulative logic which is no logic but gimmick.

Your red scarf matches your eyes.
You closed your cover before striking.
Father has the pipefitter blues.
Loving you has made me bananas.

You burned your finger that evening
While my back was turned.
I asked the waiter for iodine,
But I dined all alone.

ALL TOGETHER NOW:

Your red scarf matches your eyes.
You closed your cover before striking.
Father has the pipefitter blues.
Loving you has made me bananas.

Oh, yeah - and what's an "astrohysicist"?

[MIKILLINI]

What I got from people who love to answer questions are mockery, parody, and evasions.




What I get from you is the lack of personal debate in the spirited sense. The frequent repeating yourself, tediously rambling opinions and failing to engage people directly. Quite evasive.

[Trent Wray]

Oh, yeah - and what's an "astrohysicist"? It is a temper tantrum thrown by Astro the dog over a newly discovered cyst.

[Robrob]

What I get from you is the lack of personal debate in the spirited sense. The frequent repeating yourself, tediously rambling opinions and failing to engage people directly. Quite evasive.

Kind of sounds like a crazy person doesn't it?

[Andrew Wiggin]

Can anyone translate?

He lost me at the subject line.

[Giordano]

What color is the sky? Answer only yes or no. Define "sky" as that which is not earth or spleen, but is beyond and within itself. Explain the strong force in forty words or less; don't use words with an "e" in them. Provide an equation that proves your work, but don't use terms that a 4th grader would not understand. Ha- I knew you couldn't answer my simple question! I laugh at you and notice how clever I myself am.

[MIKILLINI]

Kind of sounds like a crazy person doesn't it?

Or someone who has a universal-sized ego and in love with their arrogance..;)

[RobDegraves]

@ annnnoid


Interesting that you should bring this up Mr. Degraves. In another thread not too long ago the reviled Randman presented smackdown evidence that particles are, in fact, informational in nature and that their physical form is, in fact, a derived state…not the fundamental one. The assembled skeptics jumped all over poor Randman...until he revealed that the evidence in question was the result of well documented work done by some of the most highly respected quantum physicists currently working in the field. I'd offer links but doubtless you evidence-starved skeptics already know all about it.

Of course, who knows what in blue blazes this actually means…. except that ‘informational’ is typically associated with information processing…which by the most mind-boggling of coincidences is associated with things that process information…like us. Intelligence it’s called. Intelligence on that kind of scale might reasonably be referred to by applying the most incomprehensible metaphor of all: GOD.

…all nonsense of course…please continue with your endless dismissal of anything remotely resembling evidence of intelligence / sentience in our universe (including you).

OK.. apart from the stupid and baffling ad hominems, you obviously misunderstand the concept of information.


The point that physicists make when they talk about information is that everything can be seen as informational in nature. All matter exists in the form of specific quantities (or quanta) of matter or energy. Energy causes change but information determines the nature of the change.

However, despite your strident insistence, that does not make it sentient.

A rock can be seen as information, each atom in a specific pattern.

Is a rock sentient?

Is God like a rock?

In which case.... what sort of rock?

[JJM 777]

So much fuss about a very simple question. Here we go:

Something can't come from nothing. Ergo, God.
=>
But, but... What about God? Where does he come from?
=>
I don't know.

Ooh, that didn't even hurt. See Yrreg, it's okay to admit that there are things we don't know. Maybe some people claim to know them, but not me.

[timhau]

Can anyone translate?

"I asked a stupid question, and got a stupid answer."

[Jon.]

What color is the sky? Answer only yes or no. Define "sky" as that which is not earth or spleen, but is beyond and within itself. Explain the strong force in forty words or less; don't use words with an "e" in them. Provide an equation that proves your work, but don't use terms that a 4th grader would not understand. Ha- I knew you couldn't answer my simple question! I laugh at you and notice how clever I myself am.

You forgot "therefore God!"

[Halfcentaur]

So,.. God can come from nothing, and God can create the universe from nothing?
Or does God create the universe from God? Or does God create the universe from something that was nothing? Or was there an element to the universe that is eternal? What seems more complicated, an eternal space or an eternal intelligence?

[Lamuella]

Can anyone translate?

he posted nonsense on yahoo answers, got mocked for it, then made beef stew.

[Dave Rogers]

Can anyone translate?

I think yrreg is trying to come up with an OP that allows us to recipe a science-bashing thread and claim it's on-topic.

Dave

[Multivac]

Whoa, okay tell me does the universe come forth from nothning, no pre-existing material and no creator Who is self-existing?


If your creator can be self-existing, why can't the Universe?

[MRC_Hans]

"Does the universe come forth from nothing, no pre-existing material and no creator Who is self-existing, yes or no?"

Your answer must be simply yes or no, I mean either yes or no only, meaning one choice: yes, or the other choice: no.

Kind of a tall order, since you ask three questions, two of which are partly exclusive, and one having a non-binary answer.


But you know that, I suppose.

Hans

[Rincewind]

God came.

That's why we have stars.

Oh...

I thought it was the Great Green Arkelseizure's sneeze what done it.

At least he existed....

:)

[Cayvmann]

Whoa, okay tell me does the universe come forth from nothning, no pre-existing material and no creator Who is self-existing?
...



Yrreg

There is no reason to believe that there was ever a state of nothing existing. Either you have something or you don't. Adding a god to the mix doesn't change that one way or the other.

Your self-existing creator would have to exist. Did this creator come from nothing? Is the creator nothing? ( I personally think the creator is nothing :p )

[RoboTimbo]

Like for example you are teaching cooking, specifically how to prepare beef stew:

1. Obtain the following ingredients:

---- 3 lbs boneless chuck roast, cut into 2-inch pieces
---- 3 tbsp vegetable oil
---- 2 tsp salt
---- 1 tbsp freshly ground pepper
---- 2 yellow onions, cut into 1-inch chunks
---- 1/4 cup flour
---- 3 cloves garlic, minced
---- 1 cup red wine
---- 3 cups beef broth
---- 1/2 tsp dried rosemary
---- 1 bay leaf
---- 1/2 tsp dried thyme
---- 4 carrots, peeled, cut into 1-inch slices
---- 2 stalks celery, cut into 1-inch slices
---- 3 large russet potatoes, peeled and cut in eighths
---- fresh parsley to garnish (optional)

2. On medium-high heat, add the vegetable oil to a large heavy pot (one that has a tight fitting lid).

3. When it begins to smoke slightly, add the beef and brown very well. Do in batches if necessary. Add the salt and pepper as the beef browns.

4. Once browned, remove the beef with a slotted spoon set aside.

5. Add the onions and sauté for about 5 minutes, until softened.

6. Reduce heat to medium-low, and add the flour and cook for 2 minutes stirring often.

7. Add the garlic and cook for 1 minute.

8. Add wine and deglaze the pan, scraping any brown bits stuck to the bottom of the pan. The flour will start to thicken the wine as it comes to a simmer.

9. Simmer wine for 5 minutes, and then add the broth, bay leaves, thyme, rosemary, and the beef.

10. Bring back to a gentle simmer, cover and cook on very low for about 1 hour.

11. Add potatoes, carrots, and celery, and simmer covered for another 30 minutes or until the meat and vegetables are tender. Taste and adjust seasoning.

12. Turn off heat and let sit for 15 minutes before serving. Garnish with the fresh parsley if desired.

13. Voila, here is your beef stew ready for the dining table.




Yrreg

I wouldn't use dried rosemary. Cook your roast on a charcoal grill and toss a couple of sprigs of fresh rosemary on the coals. Cook to desired doneness and then cut into cubes.

I would also sweat the celery with the onions. Celery takes longer to cook.

[hgc]

I wouldn't use dried rosemary. Cook your roast on a charcoal grill and toss a couple of sprigs of fresh rosemary on the coals. Cook to desired doneness and then cut into cubes.

I would also sweat the celery with the onions. Celery takes longer to cook.

Cook the roast til done on the grill? That sort of negates the whole purpose of stew, which is to cook the meat til done, slow, in the wet, so the gelatin dissolves into the stew.

[Seismosaurus]

Whoa, okay tell me does the universe come forth from nothning, no pre-existing material and no creator Who is self-existing?

Answer yes or no.
What if the answer is "I don't know"?

Then what?

Because I have no idea where the universe comes from. And so far as I know, no scientist claims to know.

So I don't see why you are demanding an answer that nobody has... or what you think the lack of an answer proves.

[aleCcowaN]

yrreg needs attention .... once again

I put this question yesterday in Yahoo Answers:




What I got from people who love to answer questions are mockery, parody, and evasions.


Then this morning earlier I introduced this question:




What happened when I submitted the question?

Here:




Well, that is nothing new with Yahoo Answers, they even deleted my questions already out in the web and for some days open to everyone in the web; on other occasions they deleted my questions right away and when I demanded why they in effect beat about the bush.


The earlier question on equation of universe from nothing, it iwll be deleted from Yahoo Answers eventually.




Yrreg

you just asked an improper question in an Internet venue and come here to exploit it and get more attention.

By the way, let the notion of a pre-existent deity aside and tell us, what is the exact mathematical formula that shows you exist?

[yrreg]

Dear Agatha:

I was asking you to explain your words: "No. Not nothing and no creator."

Read the line on enlarged bolded font below.




Originally Posted by yrreg
Whoa, okay tell me does the universe come forth from nothning, no pre-existing material and no creator Who is self-existing?

Answer yes or no.


There are three separate assumptions involved in your question, so it is not possible to give a straight yes or no answer. This is because your question is flawed, not because there is anything wrong with the answer.

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

Originally Posted by yrreg

Otherwise you protest too much for nothing but vacuity and vanity, vanity means vacuity.


Firstly, you are being unnecessarily insulting. Given that you have been suspended from here in the past for insulting people, this is not a very wise course for you to take. Secondly, vacuity and vanity are not synonymous. I am neither vacuous nor vain, kindly do not suggest that I am.

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

Originally Posted by yrreg

You say: "If you want an answer, the first thing you need to do is to ask a question in a simple, clear way, without assumptions."


Okay, is this question simple enough for you to answer yes or no?

"Does the universe come forth from nothing, no pre-existing material and no creator Who is self-existing, yes or no?"


Did you forget about the bit that said "without assumptions"? You are making an incorrect assumption that there was nothing, and then there was something. This is not what the Big Bang theory says. It is posited that there was energy, compressed into a singularity. Not nothing. Therefore the answer to your question has to be no, that is not how the universe began at t=0; however this does not imply that there is or was any kind of creator.

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

Originally Posted by yrreg

Your answer must be simply yes or no, <snipped redundancy>.


OK, No. Not nothing and no creator.

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

Originally Posted by yrreg

Otherwise you will be into a lot of nonsense about my intention to be equivocating whatever: all that nonsense useless paraphernalia like the self-dowry of a lowly bride, from your socalled logic 101 where you learn nothing about productive intelligent thinking, but all about everything that a child can know without all the superfluous and thus useless scaffolding of manipulative logic which is no logic but gimmick.


Insults do not win a debate, rather, they show the paucity of your argument. I will refrain from reporting this post; I will not be as generous should you post any further insults to anyone on this board.

__________________

At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them.

.

.


======================
.




No. Not nothing and no creator.


That is your answer to my question:



Okay, is this question simple enough for you to answer yes or no?

"Does the universe come forth from nothing, no pre-existing material and no creator Who is self-existing, yes or no?"
.


.



I am asking you to explain your answer: "No. Not nothing and no creator."




Yrreg

[godless dave]

It's pretty simple. There's no evidence the universe came from nothing, and there's no evidence of a creator.

[MIKILLINI]

Dear Agatha:

I was asking you to explain your words: "No. Not nothing and no creator."



I am asking you to explain your answer: "No. Not nothing and no creator."




Yrreg

Now this is so less tedious and a more personal, direct engagement. Look at how much Bandwidth is saved here Gerry! It's more concise without the redundancy and rudeness. Progress can be made...

[Agatha]

In what way do you need clarification of my answer?

You asked "Does the universe come forth from nothing, no pre-existing material and no creator Who is self-existing, yes or no?"

And I answered with a no. However, I did not feel that the simple one word answer was sufficient to answer your question fully, as the question has three assumptions inherent in it.

So my expanded answer is "no, the universe did not come from nothing, it is not the case that there was no pre-existing material to the best of our knowledge, and no creator is necessary". Do you need any further explanation of this answer?

[tsig]

So,.. God can come from nothing, and God can create the universe from nothing?
Or does God create the universe from God? Or does God create the universe from something that was nothing? Or was there an element to the universe that is eternal? What seems more complicated, an eternal space or an eternal intelligence?


God can do exactly what the human mind can imagine god can do.

[Resume]

Hello Yrreg.

Hello Namwen.

[fuelair]

@ annnnoid




OK.. apart from the stupid and baffling ad hominems, you obviously misunderstand the concept of information.


The point that physicists make when they talk about information is that everything can be seen as informational in nature. All matter exists in the form of specific quantities (or quanta) of matter or energy. Energy causes change but information determines the nature of the change.

However, despite your strident insistence, that does not make it sentient.

A rock can be seen as information, each atom in a specific pattern.

Is a rock sentient?

Is God like a rock?

In which case.... what sort of rock?Personally, I'm thinking a big dense chunk of concrete.

[yrreg]

In what way do you need clarification of my answer?

You asked "Does the universe come forth from nothing, no pre-existing material and no creator Who is self-existing, yes or no?"

And I answered with a no. However, I did not feel that the simple one word answer was sufficient to answer your question fully, as the question has three assumptions inherent in it.

So my expanded answer is "no, the universe did not come from nothing, it is not the case that there was no pre-existing material to the best of our knowledge, and no creator is necessary". Do you need any further explanation of this answer?


you say:

1. "no, the universe did not come from nothing,

2. it is not the case that there was no pre-existing material to the best of our knowledge,

3. and no creator is necessary".




Is this what you are saying?

There is a pre-existing material for the coming forth of the universe but it is not a creator who is self-existing.




Yrreg

[Agatha]

As far as we can determine with our current state of knowledge, yes. I am not a physicist but that is my understanding.

[yrreg]

As far as we can determine with our current state of knowledge, yes. I am not a physicist but that is my understanding.


This is what you are saying:There is a pre-existing material for the coming forth of the universe but it is not a creator who is self-existing.


I like to ask you whether we can change the word material to the word reality, because material precludes everything not material, unless you insist that everything is material in the totality of existence which totality is what I understand as the concept of the universe.




Yrreg

[Agatha]

Your question makes no sense. Material and reality are not synonymous and cannot be used interchangeably in the sentence as you propose.

[NobbyNobbs]

Ok, seriously, is yrreg some kind of Turing test? He doesn't make enough sense to be a Poe but I could believe he's an AI. I'm not joking, this is a real question.

[devnull]

Ok, seriously, is yrreg some kind of Turing test? He doesn't make enough sense to be a Poe but I could believe he's an AI. I'm not joking, this is a real question.

Ive had similar thoughts, especially when Gerry reciped his own thread......

Seems a little.... obvious?

[Giordano]

Ok, seriously, is yrreg some kind of Turing test? He doesn't make enough sense to be a Poe but I could believe he's an AI. I'm not joking, this is a real question.
Neither, in my opinion. Yrreg drops in every once in a while and tries to set up what he believes is a clever "sting operation" through which posters replying to his OP will be taken through a "clever" series of yrreg-logic steps to finally admit the existence of God (presumably the Christian God). Generally he quickly gets frustrated when people don't play along, and starts becoming bossy ("answer yes or no"), then insulting. Often his odd use of language further introduces a certain level of confusion, as well as a surreal feel to much of his threads.

[Trent Wray]

Neither, in my opinion. Yrreg drops in every once in a while and tries to set up what he believes is a clever "sting operation" through which posters replying to his OP will be taken through a "clever" series of yrreg-logic steps to finally admit the existence of God (presumably the Christian God). Generally he quickly gets frustrated when people don't play along, and starts becoming bossy ("answer yes or no"), then insulting. Often his odd use of language further introduces a certain level of confusion, as well as a surreal feel to much of his threads. That surreal feel is due to what I think is a sort of self induced dissociation on the part of yrreg to where he is fulfilling some kind of role in his own mind of answering "god like" questions. Similar to what a religious person experiences when they walk into a cathedral and describe the "holy" feel of respect and humility, I think yrreg tries to recreate this for himself on some level so that when you discourse with him, he is responding as though he is separate from you in order to tap into these "truths". I'm wondering if there is a term for this that describes it more succinctly then I'm doing here ... it kind of fascinates me a bit, that "I am holy ... respect my oxygen" trait some people project onto themselves and others.

[Andrew Wiggin]

God came.

That's why we have stars.

God's intern, Ms. Sky, showing them off on her little black dress?

[DC]

Whoa, okay tell me does the universe come forth from nothning, no pre-existing material and no creator Who is self-existing?

Answer yes or no.


Otherwise you protest too much for nothing but vacuity and vanity, vanity means vacuity.


You say: "If you want an answer, the first thing you need to do is to ask a question in a simple, clear way, without assumptions."


Okay, is this question simple enough for you to answer yes or no?

"Does the universe come forth from nothing, no pre-existing material and no creator Who is self-existing, yes or no?"


Your answer must be simply yes or no, I mean either yes or no only, meaning one choice: yes, or the other choice: no.

Otherwise you will be into a lot of nonsense about my intention to be equivocating whatever: all that nonsense useless paraphernalia like the self-dowry of a lowly bride, from your socalled logic 101 where you learn nothing about productive intelligent thinking, but all about everything that a child can know without all the superfluous and thus useless scaffolding of manipulative logic which is no logic but gimmick.




Yrreg
yes or no

[yrreg]

Your question makes no sense. Material and reality are not synonymous and cannot be used interchangeably in the sentence as you propose.


You see if you are a subscriber to the worldview of materialism then all existence is material.

Of course you have to ask materialistic scientists and philosophers what is a purely material entity.

Now, as you probably know, it is the traditional worldview of mankind that not all things are material things or beings or entities.

There are also non-material things which do not fall in the concept of material things as understood by materialistic scientists and philosophers.



So, I have to ask you if you are a subscriber to the worldview of materialism.

In my case for being a theist I subscribe to the traditional common worldview of mankind that the universe is more than just composed of material things.



By the way I thought that you are not of the idea that there is something material pre-existing from which the universe comes forth.

Did you say that you are an adherent to atheist cosmologists and astrophysicists who can convince people that the universe came forth from nothing, not any pre-existing material nor any creator Who is self-existing?



Yrreg

[laca]

You see if you are a subscriber to the worldview of materialism then all existence is material.

Of course you have to ask materialistic scientists and philosophers what is a purely material entity.

Now, as you probably know, it is the traditional worldview of mankind that not all things are material things or beings or entities.

There are also non-material things which do not fall in the concept of material things as understood by materialistic scientists and philosophers.


Such as?


So, I have to ask you if you are a subscriber to the worldview of materialism.


Yes.


In my case for being a theist I subscribe to the traditional common worldview of mankind that the universe is more than just composed of material things.


Got anything to back that up?


By the way I thought that you are not of the idea that there is something material pre-existing from which the universe comes forth.

Did you say that you are an adherent to atheist cosmologists and astrophysicists who can convince people that the universe came forth from nothing, not any pre-existing material nor any creator Who is self-existing?


http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_322964e6fac5640bd3.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=24142)

[Fishstick]

Great, now I'm hungry for beef stew.

[Brian-M]

You see if you are a subscriber to the worldview of materialism then all existence is material.

A computer program exists, but it is not material. Even from the worldview of materialism, not all existence is necessarily material.

(Of course, computer programs are encoded by means of arrangements of material, but the programs themselves are not the material.)

[dafydd]

Neither, in my opinion. Yrreg drops in every once in a while and tries to set up what he believes is a clever "sting operation" through which posters replying to his OP will be taken through a "clever" series of yrreg-logic steps to finally admit the existence of God (presumably the Christian God). Generally he quickly gets frustrated when people don't play along, and starts becoming bossy ("answer yes or no"), then insulting. Often his odd use of language further introduces a certain level of confusion, as well as a surreal feel to much of his threads.

Poor Yrreg. He will never get his 'gotcha' moment. We are all far to smart.

[dlorde]

A hollow voice says 'Hey there.'
You are in a thread of twisty little arguments, all alike...

[RoboTimbo]

Poor Yrreg. He will never get his 'gotcha' moment. We are all far to smart.

He's mentioned before about indoctrinating 7 year olds. He should stick with the niche that he's smarter than.

[MRC_Hans]

You see if you are a subscriber to the worldview of materialism then all existence is material.

That is correct.

Of course you have to ask materialistic scientists and philosophers what is a purely material entity.

I don't have to. I already know.

Now, as you probably know, it is the traditional worldview of mankind that not all things are material things or beings or entities.

It was also a traditional world view that the Earth is flat. This does not make it right.

There are also non-material things which do not fall in the concept of material things as understood by materialistic scientists and philosophers.

Not really. There are such things as ideas, various concepts, and math, but all are ultimately bound in the material world, without which they would not only not exist, but they would also not make any sense.

So, I have to ask you if you are a subscriber to the worldview of materialism.

Yes.

In my case for being a theist I subscribe to the traditional common worldview of mankind that the universe is more than just composed of material things.

Yes, we know. You are entitled to your view, but that doesn't make it right.

By the way I thought that you are not of the idea that there is something material pre-existing from which the universe comes forth.

We do not know what was 'before' the universe. In fact, the term 'before' may not make sense, in this context. However, the idea is not that nothing at all led to the universe.

Did you say that you are an adherent to atheist cosmologists and astrophysicists who can convince people that the universe came forth from nothing, not any pre-existing material nor any creator Who is self-existing?

You are now being intentionally obtuse. Cut it out.

Hans

[timhau]

He's mentioned before about indoctrinating 7 year olds. He should stick with the niche that he's smarter than.

You should socialize with smarter 7-year-olds.

[godless dave]

Is this what you are saying?

There is a pre-existing material for the coming forth of the universe but it is not a creator who is self-existing.

Yrreg

It depends what you mean by "pre-existing". With our current knowledge of space and time, it is not meaningful to speak of anything existing "before" the universe. As far as we can tell, there has been a universe as long as there has been time.

[godless dave]

Did you say that you are an adherent to atheist cosmologists and astrophysicists who can convince people that the universe came forth from nothing, not any pre-existing material nor any creator Who is self-existing?

Yrreg

I don't know of any cosmologist or astrophysicist who claims the universe came forth from nothing.

Why do you assume "nothing" and "creator" are the only two possibilities?

[the PC apeman]

I don't know of any cosmologist or astrophysicist who claims the universe came forth from nothing.

Well there's Laurence Krauss, a theoretical physicist, but his special definition of nothing sounds a lot like something to me.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo

[Toontown]

God can do exactly what the human mind can imagine god can do.

No it can't. The human mind can only imagine the words that say God can do all that. It can't imagine the actual doing of it. It's totally clueless as to how any of that might actually be done.

[DrDave]

I've put some thought into this and here are my equations

god + nothing = god + universe

Cancelling on both sides

god + nothing = god + universe

Therefore god is not necessary. Thanks gerry for leading me to this truth

[yrreg]

Originally Posted by yrreg
You see if you are a subscriber to the worldview of materialism then all existence is material.
That is correct.

Quote:
Of course you have to ask materialistic scientists and philosophers what is a purely material entity.
I don't have to. I already know.

Quote:
Now, as you probably know, it is the traditional worldview of mankind that not all things are material things or beings or entities.
It was also a traditional world view that the Earth is flat. This does not make it right.

Quote:
There are also non-material things which do not fall in the concept of material things as understood by materialistic scientists and philosophers.
Not really. There are such things as ideas, various concepts, and math, but all are ultimately bound in the material world, without which they would not only not exist, but they would also not make any sense.

Quote:
So, I have to ask you if you are a subscriber to the worldview of materialism.
Yes.

Quote:
In my case for being a theist I subscribe to the traditional common worldview of mankind that the universe is more than just composed of material things.
Yes, we know. You are entitled to your view, but that doesn't make it right.

Quote:
By the way I thought that you are not of the idea that there is something material pre-existing from which the universe comes forth.
We do not know what was 'before' the universe. In fact, the term 'before' may not make sense, in this context. However, the idea is not that nothing at all led to the universe.

Quote:
Did you say that you are an adherent to atheist cosmologists and astrophysicists who can convince people that the universe came forth from nothing, not any pre-existing material nor any creator Who is self-existing?
You are now being intentionally obtuse. Cut it out.

Hans





Dear Hans, as soon as Agatha has resigned from this thread, please take her place.


Are you of the worldview what I call that of Hawking, Stenger, and Krauss that the universe came forth from nothing, no pre-existing reality and no creator Who is self-existing?

I call their cosmology the cosmology of nothingness.



Please read the title and the OP of this thread, How some astrophysicists fool people with illogic.

About the flat earth idea:
I will just tell you that people thought the earth was flat because at that time they saw the earth with their eyes and it looked flat, so also today if you just look at the earth standing on the earth's surface it will also look flat.

But way way back from the dawn of human conscious reason mankind has already known that the universe is more than just the material universe.


Anyway, wait till Agatha has definitively resigned from this thread, then you can expound on your view of a material exclusively material universe, but then you have to produce what you know to be material the concept of that is.


As regards my intentionally being obtuse, please do not equate ingenuity* with obtuseness, because on that token you are also obtuse in the insistence that you cannot know what comes antecedent to the beginning of the universe.

*Ingenuity: 1. The power of creative imagination (WordWeb free one-click online dictionary)


You see, atheists have chosen to be obtuse when it comes to what is antecedent to the beginning of the universe, but I want to tell you now that for me the universe is the totality of existence, that is bigger than the universe you claim to limit your knowledge to as the only thus prematurely delimited universe accessible to your brain thus self-blindered by yourself.

You notice how you make so much ado about the chronological before, another instant of your self-blindering of your brain; the very enticing thing is how your psychology dictates or you psychologically dictate your worldview and your delimited repertory of concepts.


Lastly, I want you to think of what it is that makes sense to you, since you give so much importance to that word and concept sense.

While you are at it, also think what is meaning and what is meaningless, this word meaningless is also very much used err abused by atheists in their writing, that is their way of saying anathema sit.

But you be different, think of what is sense which you bring in all the time to declare something to not make sense, and also meaning, as to declare something to be meaningless when you prefer not to think about it.




Yrreg

[Hokulele]

But way way back from the dawn of human conscious reason mankind has already known that the universe is more than just the material universe.


[citation needed]

[godless dave]

Are you of the worldview what I call that of Hawking, Stenger, and Krauss that the universe came forth from nothing, no pre-existing reality and no creator Who is self-existing?


Yrreg

Please provide evidence that any of those people claim that the universe came forth from nothing.

[Agatha]

Are you of the worldview what I call that of Hawking, Stenger, and Krauss that the universe came forth from nothing, no pre-existing reality and no creator Who is self-existing?

I call their cosmology the cosmology of nothingness.

You can call your mistaken ideas of what those scientist believe whatever you want, your epithets have no bearing on reality.

You are misrepresenting the views of the scientists you mention. It is not the worldview of Hawking, Stenger or Krauss that the universe came from nothing. Rather, it is their view that as far back in time as we can study at our current levels of knowledge, there was an immense amount of something (energy) compressed into a singularity.

It is not the worldview of those scientists that there was no pre-existing material, but not for the reason you seem to be hinting at. Time began at the big bang, so pre-existing in this context is meaningless. There is no time before time, just as there is no south of the south pole.

By the way, pre-existing material is what you originally proposed and it has not gone unnoticed that you have substituted reality into your phrase.

No divine creator has ever been shown to exist, nor is one necessary for science's model of the universe.

By trying to shoehorn your misapprehensions into your question you render it both meaningless and unanswerable, unless it is unpacked into the three separate assumptions and each one addressed separately.

You cannot win a debate with this style of argument; it should have become obvious to you a long time ago that you cannot use sophistry to lead people to agree with a position which they do not hold. Repeating yourself and misrepresenting others does not improve your argument any more than insults do.

[epix]

Can anyone translate?
I'm afraid that there are not too many folks left who can speak Chimpanzee.

[Agatha]

By the way, Yrreg, if I don't post in a thread for a few hours does not mean I have abandoned it. I am not online 24/7 as I have other responsibilities, and I do not live in the same time zone as you. It is extremely rude of you to suggest that I, or X, MRC_Hans, or indeed any other poster has to post to some timetable of yours or else be accused of resigning from the thread. You are not in charge of who posts to any thread, nor when, nor how often.

[Orphia Nay]

I've put some thought into this and here are my equations

god + nothing = god + universe

Cancelling on both sides

god + nothing = god + universe

Therefore god is not necessary. Thanks gerry for leading me to this truth

:thumbsup:

[epix]

I put this question yesterday in Yahoo Answers:
...Now, is there anywhere in the internet their equations in math notation by which on the left side before the = sign there is the notation of un or whatever for universe, and on the right side after the = sign there are all kinds of symbols and digits and letters and signs whatever showing that with that equation: there is the mathematical demonstration with mathematical certainty that the universe where we live in and are part and parcel of came forth from nothing, i.e. no antecedent material of composition and no creator whatsoever who is self-existing.


For some reason, you've convinced yourself that the origin of the universe can be described by one equation: UNorigin = (lots of symbols). Such a subject is extremely complex and requires more than one equation to describe all the matter transformations involved. You are ready to conclude that the absence of your unrealistic assumption gives automatically God the green light to enter the works.

Science works differently than religion; it's like climbing a mountain: science must anchor itself very often, coz if something goes wrong, it falls only a few feet just to find another, safer way up. That makes it a very slow climb. Religion moves much faster, but when something goes wrong, it tumbles all the way down. (See the climbing of Mt. Creation.) In other words, if science is not sure, it won't move ahead to call a speculation a theory.
http://science.howstuffworks.com/dictionary/astronomy-terms/before-big-bang.htm

You are free to believe that God created the universe, but you'll never find out how apart from the Bible account. See, there is a rational speculation called "the big crunch." According to this scenario, there was a universe before ours which began collapsing due to gravitational influences to a certain stage and then, like a supernova, it expanded again (the big bang). But in this stage of our mental development, it's impossible for the cosmologists to roll the film back that far and form a theory of that hypothetical process. That "pre-universe" wasn't like this one though. According to Hawking's number crunching, this universe will not collapse on itself - the opposite will take place and it slowly "evaporates" out of its existence. But you never know, coz "God's mind works the mysterious ways . . ."

[X]

By the way, Yrreg, if I don't post in a thread for a few hours does not mean I have abandoned it. I am not online 24/7 as I have other responsibilities, and I do not live in the same time zone as you. It is extremely rude of you to suggest that I, or X, MRC_Hans, or indeed any other poster has to post to some timetable of yours or else be accused of resigning from the thread. You are not in charge of who posts to any thread, nor when, nor how often.


Yes.
Patrick_1000 tried that in his Apollo-hoax thread. After asking him not to (multiple times), I did leave. Not because of his arguments (they are laughable), but because of his attitude.

[Twiler]

Epix and Yrreg in the same thread? This, I have to see.

[laca]

Epix and Yrreg in the same thread? This, I have to see.

The beauty of it is that Yrreg's argument is so retarded epix is actually trying to show him he's wrong... :D

[Trent Wray]

Science works differently than religion; it's like climbing a mountain: science must anchor itself very often, coz if something goes wrong, it falls only a few feet just to find another, safer way up. That makes it a very slow climb. Religion moves much faster, but when something goes wrong, it tumbles all the way down. (See the climbing of Mt. Creation.) In other words, if science is not sure, it won't move ahead to call a speculation a theory.Good analogy imo.

[Donn]

The beauty of it is that Yrreg's argument is so retarded epix is actually trying to show him he's wrong... :D
:popcorn1 And Epix actually sounds sensible (for a few words) in comparison. Digging this thread. I enjoy surrealism.

[Spindrift]

I see yrreg is still on his quest to prove the existence of the Dunning-Krueger effect over and over again.

[slingblade]

Epix and Yrreg in the same thread? This, I have to see.

Now, if we can just get the Scientology guy to join in...

[yrreg]

You can call your mistaken ideas of what those scientist believe whatever you want, your epithets have no bearing on reality.

You are misrepresenting the views of the scientists you mention. It is not the worldview of Hawking, Stenger or Krauss that the universe came from nothing. Rather, it is their view that as far back in time as we can study at our current levels of knowledge, there was an immense amount of something (energy) compressed into a singularity.

It is not the worldview of those scientists that there was no pre-existing material, but not for the reason you seem to be hinting at. Time began at the big bang, so pre-existing in this context is meaningless. There is no time before time, just as there is no south of the south pole.

By the way, pre-existing material is what you originally proposed and it has not gone unnoticed that you have substituted reality into your phrase.

No divine creator has ever been shown to exist, nor is one necessary for science's model of the universe.

By trying to shoehorn your misapprehensions into your question you render it both meaningless and unanswerable, unless it is unpacked into the three separate assumptions and each one addressed separately.

You cannot win a debate with this style of argument; it should have become obvious to you a long time ago that you cannot use sophistry to lead people to agree with a position which they do not hold. Repeating yourself and misrepresenting others does not improve your argument any more than insults do.



Pre-existing material is the term I used, but I have to change it in order that we have a more precise term for our discussion, and I submit reality is the more precise term because reality means any existing thing whatsoever, but material thing means only what is material to atheist scientists and cosmologists.


About Hawking, Stenger, and Krauss, they really do not explicitly say that the universe comes forth from absolute nothing, but that is their intention and that is how they are represented in the media, and that is what they affirm in the media, and they do that in order to deny the existence of God -- if they really want to say that there is an existing material or I prefer a reality antecedent to the material universe, they could have come out openly in the media to make the correction that the media is misrepresenting them: they do not say that the universe comes forth from absolute nothing, but that there is a reality or for them a material that is pre-existing.


Do not any more occupy your time with my use of pre-existing material and now I want to change it to reality, because that is not the important issue, the important issue now is to determine what is this antecedent thing to the material universe of the atheist scientists.


Now that you admit the pre-existing material or for me now reality, tell me what you know of this pre-existing reality?


Can we now just use the term reality instead of material to signify anything at all that exists in anyway at anytime or anywhere or even outside of time and space?

If you insist on using the word material then you have already preclude the existence of things which are not material but still they do exist; however, you can specify exactly what is your concept of material.

Can you understand what I am trying to tell you that reality is a broader concept than material.

If you insist on using the word material then you must give your concept of what is material, then perhaps I will accept it if you understand by material anything at all that exists in any manner at any time and in any space and also most importantly even outside time and space.


That is what I seem to be seeing in you, your stubbornness in nitpick details, in order to suppress the thought of the totality of existence which I also understand to be the universe.

Can you see now how important it is to first come to agreement on concepts, for on the concepts used by a speaker readers will see right away what kind of delimitations they already put into their world or universe or the totality of existence.

Of course you can say the same thing about me, but we will see whether we can come to mutually accepted concepts.




Yrreg

[yrreg]

For some reason, you've convinced yourself that the origin of the universe can be described by one equation: UNorigin = (lots of symbols). Such a subject is extremely complex and requires more than one equation to describe all the matter transformations involved. You are ready to conclude that the absence of your unrealistic assumption gives automatically God the green light to enter the works.

Science works differently than religion; it's like climbing a mountain: science must anchor itself very often, coz if something goes wrong, it falls only a few feet just to find another, safer way up. That makes it a very slow climb. Religion moves much faster, but when something goes wrong, it tumbles all the way down. (See the climbing of Mt. Creation.) In other words, if science is not sure, it won't move ahead to call a speculation a theory.
http://science.howstuffworks.com/dictionary/astronomy-terms/before-big-bang.htm

You are free to believe that God created the universe, but you'll never find out how apart from the Bible account. See, there is a rational speculation called "the big crunch." According to this scenario, there was a universe before ours which began collapsing due to gravitational influences to a certain stage and then, like a supernova, it expanded again (the big bang). But in this stage of our mental development, it's impossible for the cosmologists to roll the film back that far and form a theory of that hypothetical process. That "pre-universe" wasn't like this one though. According to Hawking's number crunching, this universe will not collapse on itself - the opposite will take place and it slowly "evaporates" out of its existence. But you never know, coz "God's mind works the mysterious ways . . ."



The issue now is to determine what is the pre-existing reality antecedent to the material universe.




Yrreg

[Dancing David]

Yrreg,

Really, this hoary old chestnut? You are wrong, nobody says the universe came from nothing, they say it came from we don't know.

[RoboTimbo]

Pre-existing material is the term I used, but I have to change it in order that we have a more precise term for our discussion, and I submit reality is the more precise term because reality means any existing thing whatsoever, but material thing means only what is material to atheist scientists and cosmologists.


About Hawking, Stenger, and Krauss, they really do not explicitly say that the universe comes forth from absolute nothing, but that is their intention and that is how they are represented in the media, and that is what they affirm in the media, and they do that in order to deny the existence of God -- if they really want to say that there is an existing material or I prefer a reality antecedent to the material universe, they could have come out openly in the media to make the correction that the media is misrepresenting them: they do not say that the universe comes forth from absolute nothing, but that there is a reality or for them a material that is pre-existing.


Do not any more occupy your time with my use of pre-existing material and now I want to change it to reality, because that is not the important issue, the important issue now is to determine what is this antecedent thing to the material universe of the atheist scientists.


Now that you admit the pre-existing material or for me now reality, tell me what you know of this pre-existing reality?


Can we now just use the term reality instead of material to signify anything at all that exists in anyway at anytime or anywhere or even outside of time and space?

If you insist on using the word material then you have already preclude the existence of things which are not material but still they do exist; however, you can specify exactly what is your concept of material.

Can you understand what I am trying to tell you that reality is a broader concept than material.

If you insist on using the word material then you must give your concept of what is material, then perhaps I will accept it if you understand by material anything at all that exists in any manner at any time and in any space and also most importantly even outside time and space.


That is what I seem to be seeing in you, your stubbornness in nitpick details, in order to suppress the thought of the totality of existence which I also understand to be the universe.

Can you see now how important it is to first come to agreement on concepts, for on the concepts used by a speaker readers will see right away what kind of delimitations they already put into their world or universe or the totality of existence.

Of course you can say the same thing about me, but we will see whether we can come to mutually accepted concepts.




Yrreg

Let's agree on whether everything needs to begin.

[Dancing David]

The issue now is to determine what is the pre-existing reality antecedent to the material universe.




Yrreg

Well duh, but you will have to solve string theory or GUT for that.

[yrreg]

Let's agree on whether everything needs to begin.


The fact is that there are things that began to exist and will cease to exist.


I for one am convinced that not everything has to begin to exist, only those things which we do know to have begun to exist, and from these things we have in them the evidence that there is God the creator of everything that has a beginning and an ending to their existence.




Yrreg

[RoboTimbo]

The fact is that there are things that began to exist and will cease to exist.


I for one am convinced that not everything has to begin to exist,
Ah good, then the universe doesn't need to begin to exist.

only those things which we do know to have begun to exist, and from these things we have in them the evidence that there is God the creator of everything that has a beginning and an ending to their existence.




Yrreg

No, you've made an unfounded leap there. That's why I would prefer that you use logical arguments rather than just making up crap like that.

If you're positing a god, what created that god?

[yrreg]

Ah good, then the universe doesn't need to begin to exist.



No, you've made an unfounded leap there. That's why I would prefer that you use logical arguments rather than just making up crap like that.

If you're positing a god, what created that god?



Who created God?


First, we have to work together on what is our mutually agreed on concept of God.


I have said time and again that my concept of God in His fundamental relation to the universe is that God is the creator of everything in the universe that is not Himself.


I love to hear from you what is your concept of God.




Yrreg

[hgc]

Who created God?

First, we have to work together on what is our mutually agreed on concept of God.

I have said time and again that my concept of God in His fundamental relation to the universe is that God is the creator of everything in the universe that is not Himself.

I love to hear from you what is your concept of God.

So, if no one first agrees with your concept of God, then you'll never answer the question of who/what created your God. I got that right?

[Kid Eager]

So, if no one first agrees with your concept of God, then you'll never answer the question of who/what created your God. I got that right?

Basically, we have this situation:

Red Corner....
God
Yahweh
FSM
Giant Turtle
Mice
Zeus
Odin
Cthulhu

Blue Corner....
The Universe

So far, Gerry has not shown a way for any or all of the Red Corner to find their way to the Blue Corner.

[yrreg]

So, if no one first agrees with your concept of God, then you'll never answer the question of who/what created your God. I got that right?



Well, that is correct, first we have to agree on concepts otherwise how can we at all communicate viably?


You will say that agreeing on concept is already admitting the reality of the thing represented by the concept.


That is not correct.

We can agree on the concept of an extra terrestrial intelligent being but that is not admitting that such a being exists outside of the concept in our mind.


But with the concept already agreed on we can both set forth to seek the reality outside our concept but corresponding to the concept to look for e.g. a being in outer space not from earth that is also intelligent as we know what is intelligence with us humans.


Can you see now, or you are already afraid of the concept of God?

In which case your fear of the concept itself is irrational, illogical, and not at all to your credit as a being possessed of a reasoning mind.




Yrreg

[Foster Zygote]

First, we have to work together on what is our mutually agreed on concept of God.

I get the feeling that what you really mean is that you want to force your definition on us.

I have said time and again that my concept of God in His fundamental relation to the universe is that
God is the creator of everything in the universe that is not Himself.
In your other thread I gave my definition of God as: An anthropomorphic construct of human imagination created to attribute agency to nature in an attempt to anticipate its behavior. So, how do we come to an agreement as to the definition of God?

I love to hear from you what is your concept of God.
I would love to believe you, but history causes me to conclude that you have no interest in other people's definitions of God.

[RoboTimbo]

Who created God?


First, we have to work together on what is our mutually agreed on concept of God.


I have said time and again that my concept of God in His fundamental relation to the universe is that God is the creator of everything in the universe that is not Himself.


I love to hear from you what is your concept of God.




Yrreg

I have no concept of god(s). I've heard from other people who believe in various god(s) and they will often list their favorite god's properties.

Does your god have any other properties than just creating the universe? If all it did was create the universe, we may as well just call it the Big Bang.

What is your concept of The Flying Spaghetti Monster? I would really love to hear from you about that.

[yrreg]

I get the feeling that what you really mean is that you want to force your definition on us.


In your other thread I gave my definition of God as: An anthropomorphic construct of human imagination created to attribute agency to nature in an attempt to anticipate its behavior. So, how do we come to an agreement as to the definition of God?


I would love to believe you, but history causes me to conclude that you have no interest in other people's definitions of God.





You are under the spell of fear, fear of concepts.


If I am forcing my concepts on you, why am I here asking you for your concepts?


First, you give your concepts and we will work out an agreed on concept of God, by which concept we will set forth to look for evidence, but don't forget to also have a concept of evidence which we will all agree on.


I hate to give this illustration: I am a shop-keeper and you are to all appearances a prospective buyer; I ask you if you have money, you say that I am forcing my concept of money on you, so I show you some dollar bills and ask you if you have some; then you get angry and say that I am looking down on you.

So, I say, sir, please leave for I have a busy day ahead; otherwise show me your money and I will bring down things for you to examine but not everything and only the kind you want to buy, for example, bread toasters.



Here, you give your definition of God:
An anthropomorphic construct of human imagination created to attribute agency to nature in an attempt to anticipate its behavior.



That is no different essentially from my concept of God: Creator of everything in the universe that is not Himself.

If you will just bring in the venue of operation of this agent you and I call God.

You say nature, I say the universe understood as the totality of existence.



We are now into working out together for an agreed on concept of God, so that we will not be talking past our heads which is irrational and illogical.


So, what about this concept of God as already established by theists: Creator of everything in the universe that is not Himself.

Remember you are the one denying the existence of the God of theists, so you must be acquainted correctly with their concept of God, and not insist that they agree with your concept of God.


Anyway, you have the same essential idea of God as theists like myself, in God's fundamental relation to the universe of which nature is a part.

You say in effect that God is an agent, and I say God is a creator.



But I must tell you that you are under the spell of fear, fear of the concept of God as propounded by theists lke myself, namely: God is the creator of everything in the universe that is not Himself.




Yrreg

[RoboTimbo]

So, what about this concept of God as already established by theists: Creator of everything in the universe that is not Himself.
Fine. The Big Bang god then.

Remember you are the one denying the existence of the God of theists, so you must be acquainted correctly with their concept of God, and not insist that they agree with your concept of God.
Then give us their concept of god and stop asking atheists for theirs.

Anyway, you have the same essential idea of God as theists like myself, in God's fundamental relation to the universe of which nature is a part.
Your idea of god is a man-made construct? Ok.

You say in effect that God is an agent, and I say God is a creator.
Now you just need to provide evidence for what you say.

But I must tell you that you are under the spell of fear, fear of the concept of God as propounded by theists lke myself, namely: God is the creator of everything in the universe that is not Himself.

You are under a spell of fear, fear of the concept of The Flying Spaghetti Monster, which you are part and parcel of.



Yrreg

Start using logical arguments.

What is your concept of The Flying Spaghetti Monster?

[Kid Eager]

You are under the spell of fear, fear of concepts.


If I am forcing my concepts on you, why am I here asking you for your concepts?


First, you give your concepts and we will work out an agreed on concept of God, by which concept we will set forth to look for evidence, but don't forget to also have a concept of evidence which we will all agree on.


I hate to give this illustration: I am a shop-keeper and you are to all appearances a prospective buyer; I ask you if you have money, you say that I am forcing my concept of money on you, so I show you some dollar bills and ask you if you have some; then you get angry and say that I am looking down on you.

So, I say, sir, please leave for I have a busy day ahead; otherwise show me your money and I will bring down things for you to examine but not everything and only the kind you want to buy, for example, bread toasters.



Here, you give your definition of God:
An anthropomorphic construct of human imagination created to attribute agency to nature in an attempt to anticipate its behavior.



That is no different essentially from my concept of God: Creator of everything in the universe that is not Himself.

If you will just bring in the venue of operation of this agent you and I call God.

You say nature, I say the universe understood as the totality of existence.



We are now into working out together for an agreed on concept of God, so that we will not be talking past our heads which is irrational and illogical.


So, what about this concept of God as already established by theists: Creator of everything in the universe that is not Himself.

Remember you are the one denying the existence of the God of theists, so you must be acquainted correctly with their concept of God, and not insist that they agree with your concept of God.


Anyway, you have the same essential idea of God as theists like myself, in God's fundamental relation to the universe of which nature is a part.

You say in effect that God is an agent, and I say God is a creator.



But I must tell you that you are under the spell of fear, fear of the concept of God as propounded by theists lke myself, namely: God is the creator of everything in the universe that is not Himself.




Yrreg

You're confusing disagreement with fear.

You asked for a concept, somebody gave you one, and you substituted it for one of your own.

That is NOT agreement.

[Agatha]

Atheists do not fear any concept of gods, Yrreg; you really should drop this habit of assuming you know what other people are thinking. You are almost invariably wrong.

Let us say for the sake of argument that we understand your concept of God (which, by the way, is a concept of what God does rather than what God is). Now what? We understand that you have a concept of a God which created the universe but did not create itself. Having a concept of such a thing isn't evidence for its existence.

[yrreg]

Atheists do not fear any concept of gods, Yrreg; you really should drop this habit of assuming you know what other people are thinking. You are almost invariably wrong.

Let us say for the sake of argument that we understand your concept of God (which, by the way, is a concept of what God does rather than what God is). Now what? We understand that you have a concept of a God which created the universe but did not create itself. Having a concept of such a thing isn't evidence for its existence.



Your words represent your thoughts, if I can't know what you are thinking what about you in regard to my thoughts?


I know for a certainty that you want to convince me that God does not exist, and you know for a certainty that I am trying to show you that the universe is the evidence for God's existence.


But there is a big difference between you and me, I present my concepts but you don't.




Yrreg

[Agatha]

I don't want to convince you that God doesn't exist, so once again you are wrong. I don't give a flying duck what you believe, as long as you don't insist I conform to your beliefs.

You present nonsensical concepts but you fail to see that I and others have presented concepts.

My concept of the universe is "everything that exists"
My concept of the Christian God is "a fictional character in an old book who behaves in an abhorrent way"
Foster Zygote also gave you a good concept of the Christian God "An anthropomorphic construct of human imagination created to attribute agency to nature in an attempt to anticipate its behavior"

So as you are wrong, both as to my intentions and on the fact that I have presented concepts, where does that leave you?

[mike3]

I put this question yesterday in Yahoo Answers:




What I got from people who love to answer questions are mockery, parody, and evasions.


Then this morning earlier I introduced this question:




What happened when I submitted the question?

Here:




Well, that is nothing new with Yahoo Answers, they even deleted my questions already out in the web and for some days open to everyone in the web; on other occasions they deleted my questions right away and when I demanded why they in effect beat about the bush.


The earlier question on equation of universe from nothing, it iwll be deleted from Yahoo Answers eventually.




Yrreg

So what exactly is it that you are asking for with this post? I'd be happy to try and answer without the use of "mockery, parody, and evasions", provided I have some knowledge in the area concerned. I don't approve of such techniques either.

[yrreg]

You're confusing disagreement with fear.

You asked for a concept, somebody gave you one, and you substituted it for one of your own.

That is NOT agreement.




In regard to the concept of God I have to correct atheists' mis-information.


As regards concept of universe and concept of evidence, I do invite heartily atheists to work with me together to come to mutually agreed on concepts.



Here are my cncepts of universe and of evidence:

Universe: The totality of existence where man lives in and is part and parcel of, as also everything else that exists or at least can be the subject of man's imagination and discourse.

Evidence: A fact known to man leading him to know another fact.




Now, here is my concept of God, which I want atheists to be properly informed about, otherwise they are barking up the wrong tree at the wrong god

God: In His fundamental relation to the universe, the creator (I used maker before but it's okay if you want to revert to maker) of everything in the universe that is not Himself.



That concept is in the Christian faith, but it is also found in other religious as also philosophical worldviews.




Yrreg

[NobbyNobbs]

No it can't. The human mind can only imagine the words that say God can do all that. It can't imagine the actual doing of it. It's totally clueless as to how any of that might actually be done.

I disagree. You don't have to be able to know how a thing is done to imagine it being done. It's very easy for me to imagine a magician riding a motorcyle behind a curtain and driving a convertible out, but I can't begin to imagine how he'd pull it off. (Actually, that would make for a really cool trick. Has anyone ever done it?)

Ok, if yrreg isn't a Poe or an AI, he falls under the category of "I wonder what it would be like to meet this guy IRL? To sit down and discuss something over lunch? Does he speak the same way that he writes?"

Yrreg, what is your native language? Is it possible you can find someone fluent in English to translate?

[RoboTimbo]

God: In His fundamental relation to the universe, the creator (I used maker before but it's okay if you want to revert to maker) of everything in the universe that is not Himself.



That concept is in the Christian faith, but it is also found in other religious as also philosophical worldviews.




Yrreg

So your concept of god is the Big Bang.

What is your concept of The Flying Spaghetti Monster? (I was kidding about you fearing Her, she can't really hurt you. She was destroyed when She created the universe.)

[yrreg]

I don't want to convince you that God doesn't exist, so once again you are wrong. I don't give a flying duck what you believe, as long as you don't insist I conform to your beliefs.

You present nonsensical concepts but you fail to see that I and others have presented concepts.

My concept of the universe is "everything that exists"
My concept of the Christian God is "a fictional character in an old book who behaves in an abhorrent way"
Foster Zygote also gave you a good concept of the Christian God "An anthropomorphic construct of human imagination created to attribute agency to nature in an attempt to anticipate its behavior"

So as you are wrong, both as to my intentions and on the fact that I have presented concepts, where does that leave you?



Okay, let us work out our concepts for concurrence.

On your concept of universe as everything that exists, I ask you how it is if at all contrary to my concept of the universe?

The totality of existence where man lives in and is part and parcel of, as also everything else that exists or at least can be the subject of man's imagination and discourse.



As regards your concept of God, you are barking up the wrong tree at the wrong god.

Please leave Zygote out of your posts, he can speak for himself, and don't seek support by bringing in the name of Zygote.

Speak for yourself alone.



Now, where is your concept of evidence?




Yrreg

[Elizabeth I]

Atheists do not fear any concept of gods, Yrreg; you really should drop this habit of assuming you know what other people are thinking. You are almost invariably wrong.

"Almost"?

[NobbyNobbs]

Yrreg,

You've painted yourself into a corner. According to your own definition of the universe,



Universe: The totality of existence where man lives in and is part and parcel of, as also everything else that exists or at least can be the subject of man's imagination and discourse.



any deity that "can be the subject of man's imagination and discourse" is therefore part of the universe, couldn't have existed "before" the universe and must have created itself. Then, by defining god as creator of everything except himself, you've created a nice little paradox.

One of your definitions must be wrong. Either the universe doesn't contain everything that exists or god didn't create everything but himself. Assuming you can admit you were wrong about something, I'm betting you won't back down on your definition of god.

[Kid Eager]

Okay, let us work out our concepts for concurrence.

On your concept of universe as everything that exists, I ask you how it is if at all contrary to my concept of the universe?

The totality of existence where man lives in and is part and parcel of, as also everything else that exists or at least can be the subject of man's imagination and discourse.



As regards your concept of God, you are barking up the wrong tree at the wrong god.

Please leave Zygote out of your posts, he can speak for himself, and don't seek support by bringing in the name of Zygote.

Speak for yourself alone.



Now, where is your concept of evidence?




Yrreg

Gerry,
As you also asked the question of me previously, I can answer that for you.

Your concept of "evidence" is incorrect. Blunt, but true.

Here is a concept of "evidence" that aligns with its common usage and understanding: (qv Wikipedia)

"Evidence in its broadest sense includes everything that is used to determine or demonstrate the truth of an assertion. Giving or procuring evidence is the process of using those things that are either (a) presumed to be true, or (b) were themselves proven via evidence, to demonstrate an assertion's truth. Evidence is the currency by which one fulfills the burden of proof."

The bolded bit is what you keep missing - you are making assertions that are unsupported.

[Trent Wray]

The issue now is to determine what is the pre-existing reality antecedent to the material universe.




Yrreg I've actually always fancied the idea that the pre-existing reality antecedent to the material universe is indeterminate because it hasn't happened yet.

Basically, we have this situation:

Red Corner....
God
Yahweh
FSM
Giant Turtle
Mice
Zeus
Odin
Cthulhu

Blue Corner....
The Universe

So far, Gerry has not shown a way for any or all of the Red Corner to find their way to the Blue Corner. "Go the blue" ?

[yrreg]

Yrreg,

You've painted yourself into a corner. According to your own definition of the universe, Quote:

Universe: The totality of existence where man lives in and is part and parcel of, as also everything else that exists or at least can be the subject of man's imagination and discourse.



any deity that "can be the subject of man's imagination and discourse" is therefore part of the universe, couldn't have existed "before" the universe and must have created itself. Then, by defining god as creator of everything except himself, you've created a nice little paradox.

One of your definitions must be wrong. Either the universe doesn't contain everything that exists or god didn't create everything but himself. Assuming you can admit you were wrong about something, I'm betting you won't back down on your definition of god.




Imaginable, that is, the concept.


Please always keep in mind the distinction between the concept and the actual reality which man seeks to find in the totality of existence which is the universe, corresponding to the concept.

Where is the concept? In the mind of man.

Where is man? In the universe which is the totality of existence where man lives in and is part and parcel of, as also everything else that exists or at least can be the subject of man's imagination and discourse.



Yrreg

[yrreg]

Gerry,
As you also asked the question of me previously, I can answer that for you.

Your concept of "evidence" is incorrect. Blunt, but true.

Here is a concept of "evidence" that aligns with its common usage and understanding: (qv Wikipedia)

"Evidence in its broadest sense includes everything that is used to determine or demonstrate the truth of an assertion. Giving or procuring evidence is the process of using those things that are either (a) presumed to be true, or (b) were themselves proven via evidence, to demonstrate an assertion's truth. Evidence is the currency by which one fulfills the burden of proof."

The bolded bit is what you keep missing - you are making assertions that are unsupported.



Here again is my concept of evidence: A fact known to man leading him to know another fact.


You say: Evidence in its broadest sense includes everything that is used to determine or demonstrate the truth of an assertion.



Now, tell me how is your concept of evidence contrary to mine?



Yrreg

[yrreg]

I've actually always fancied the idea that the pre-existing reality antecedent to the material universe is indeterminate because it hasn't happened yet.

"Go the blue" ?



As a matter of fact it has already happened, so you are behind the fact.

Or do you belong to the nothingness cosmology school where illogic rules in the nothingness of the origin of the universe?




Yrreg

[yrreg]

Isn't it the common consensus here that the universe has always existed?


Or do we have here folks who are of the conviction that the universe came forth from absolute nothingness?


The task now is to concur on a concept of the universe.

For my part: The universe is the totality of existence where man lives in and is part and parcel of, as also everything else that exists or at least can be the subject of man's imagination and discourse.




Yrreg

[GeeMack]

The task now is to concur on a concept of the universe.

For my part: The universe is the totality of existence where man lives in and is part and parcel of, as also everything else that exists or at least can be the subject of man's imagination and discourse.



Since your supposed god is the subject of your imagination, then you must consider it also a part of the Universe as you describe it.

[Giordano]

As regards your concept of God, you are barking up the wrong tree at the wrong god.

Please leave Zygote out of your posts, he can speak for himself, and don't seek support by bringing in the name of Zygote.

Speak for yourself alone.

Yrreg

I see we've already moved heavily into the bossy phase of Yrreg's approach to threads, with just the beginning hints of the insulting, condescending phase that will become more evident if we don't say exactly what Yrreg wants us to say.

Hey guys- get with the program! Yrreg will never be able to spring his big trap on you if you don't help.

[yrreg]

Abandon all hope of logical thinking, all ye who enter the gate of the cosmology of nothingness.


Read my post in the other thread on “God's existence, and man-made concepts and words.”
Post #551 […] I came to a website from an astrophysicist talking about how the universe came forth from nothing, at the start of his write-up he keeps harping on nothing at all, absolutely nothing, then he slips in (wait, I will look up that writer's website)... Ah, here it is his definitions of nothing, and my interactions with him (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7752154&postcount=551).


Click on that link.


And enjoy!




Yrreg

[GeeMack]

Click on that link.


It's gibberish.

[Foster Zygote]

You are under the spell of fear, fear of concepts.
No. Not a single concept that you have presented frightens me in the least.


If I am forcing my concepts on you, why am I here asking you for your concepts?
Apparently so you can ignore them. You asked others what there concept of God is. I responded days ago and never got the slightest response from you. All you do is keep telling us what your concept of God is, ad infinitum, as though we may have forgotten after the first hundred times. I get the impression that you have created a dialog in your mind before you even present your first post. Then, like some computer program, you keep repeating the first step in the hope that someone else will provide a response that matches your pre-concieved dialog.

First, you give your concepts and we will work out an agreed on concept of God, by which concept we will set forth to look for evidence, but don't forget to also have a concept of evidence which we will all agree on.
I already gave it to you. I'm sorry if you don't like my response, but repeating, "First, you give your concepts..." over and over and over and over and over isn't going to result in me giving a response that you want. If you really want what you say you want, then acknowledge the response that I gave regarding your query.

I hate to give this illustration: I am a shop-keeper and you are to all appearances a prospective buyer; I ask you if you have money, you say that I am forcing my concept of money on you, so I show you some dollar bills and ask you if you have some; then you get angry and say that I am looking down on you.
A more accurate analogy would have you saying, "That will be ten dollars, please", then me holding a ten dollar bill toward you and saying, "here's ten dollars. May I see the dragon now?", only to have you respond, "That will be ten dollars, please".

So, I say, sir, please leave for I have a busy day ahead; otherwise show me your money and I will bring down things for you to examine but not everything and only the kind you want to buy, for example, bread toasters.
But you aren't offering us toasters. You are offering us God. But every time we ask you to show us the merchandise you just repeat your first sales-pitch.


Here, you give your definition of God:
An anthropomorphic construct of human imagination created to attribute agency to nature in an attempt to anticipate its behavior.



That is no different essentially from my concept of God: Creator of everything in the universe that is not Himself.

If you will just bring in the venue of operation of this agent you and I call God.

You say nature, I say the universe understood as the totality of existence.
Wow! It's like the worst conjuring act ever. It's like you're saying "This is your card" as you show me a plastic flower. You are trying to take my definition of God as a figment of human imagination, no different from Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny, and declare it equal to your definition of God as creator of everything in the universe that is not itself.

Gerry: What would you like to drink.
Foster Zygote: I'll have a glass of The Macallan 12 year, neat.
Gerry: Very good, sir. Here is your Mountain Dew.
FZ: But I wanted a glass of quality malt, not a kid's drink.
Gerry: That is no different essentially from Mountain Dew.

We are now into working out together for an agreed on concept of God, so that we will not be talking past our heads which is irrational and illogical.
Saying it doesn't make it so.

So, what about this concept of God as already established by theists: Creator of everything in the universe that is not Himself.
What about the concept of Santa Claus as held by children?

Remember you are the one denying the existence of the God of theists, so you must be acquainted correctly with their concept of God, and not insist that they agree with your concept of God.
Wrong. I am not denying the existence of God, I am pointing out that there is no evidence for this entity. This includes your personal definition of God. Quit telling us ad nauseum what your concept of God is and get on with demonstrating that it exists.

Anyway, you have the same essential idea of God as theists like myself, in God's fundamental relation to the universe of which nature is a part.
No, I don't. This is exactly what I mean when I say that you are determined to force your concepts on us.

You say in effect that God is an agent, and I say God is a creator.
No, Gerry, I am not saying that God is an agency. Can you comprehend what I wrote? I am saying that people are attempting to attribute agency where none exists by creating an imaginary entity that dwells only in their minds.

But I must tell you that you are under the spell of fear, fear of the concept of God as propounded by theists lke myself, namely: God is the creator of everything in the universe that is not Himself.
No. I am not afraid of your imaginary friend.

[Kid Eager]

Here again is my concept of evidence: A fact known to man leading him to know another fact.


You say: Evidence in its broadest sense includes everything that is used to determine or demonstrate the truth of an assertion.



Now, tell me how is your concept of evidence contrary to mine?



Yrreg

Excellent! As you agree with my definition of evidence we can use that going forward.

Great news everybody: Gerry has agreed to a definition of evidence and has assumed the burden of proof for his assertion.

Just in case you missed it, here's the definition again:

"Evidence in its broadest sense includes everything that is used to determine or demonstrate the truth of an assertion. Giving or procuring evidence is the process of using those things that are either (a) presumed to be true, or (b) were themselves proven via evidence, to demonstrate an assertion's truth. Evidence is the currency by which one fulfills the burden of proof."

We might be getting somewhere at last!!

[Brian-M]

Here, you give your definition of God:
An anthropomorphic construct of human imagination created to attribute agency to nature in an attempt to anticipate its behavior.



That is no different essentially from my concept of God: Creator of everything in the universe that is not Himself.

:eek:

Definition 1: Created by humans, no effect on the universe.
Definition 2: Not created by humans, created the universe.

How are these two definitions essentially the same thing?

As regards concept of universe and concept of evidence, I do invite heartily atheists to work with me together to come to mutually agreed on concepts.

Okay, I'll bite...


Now, here is my concept of God, which I want atheists to be properly informed about, otherwise they are barking up the wrong tree at the wrong god

God: In His fundamental relation to the universe, the creator (I used maker before but it's okay if you want to revert to maker) of everything in the universe that is not Himself.


That definition doesn't seem particularly coherent to me. Here's another definition of "God" for you to consider.

A powerful incorporeal supernatural intelligent agency presumed to be responsible for human existence.

Would this be an acceptable definition to you?

Where is the concept? In the mind of man.

Where is man? In the universe which is the totality of existence where man lives in and is part and parcel of, as also everything else that exists or at least can be the subject of man's imagination and discourse.

This only means that the concepts, imagination and discourse are part of the universe, not that the subject of these things are part of the universe.

The task now is to concur on a concept of the universe.

For my part: The universe is the totality of existence where man lives in and is part and parcel of, as also everything else that exists or at least can be the subject of man's imagination and discourse.


Once again, the coherency of your definition is somewhat questionable.

How about...
Universe: All matter, energy and space.

[Hokulele]

Isn't it the common consensus here that the universe has always existed?


No.

You appear to have problems understanding the concept that, as far as we know, time does not exist outside of the universe. Your phrase "always existed" seems to assume the opposite, and thus is meaningless.

[Shalamar]

Do I need to re-post my 'I don't know' statement? AGAIN?

[Agatha]

Universe: The totality of existence where man lives in and is part and parcel of, as also everything else that exists or at least can be the subject of man's imagination and discourse.

Evidence: A fact known to man leading him to know another fact.

God: In His fundamental relation to the universe, the creator (I used maker before but it's okay if you want to revert to maker) of everything in the universe that is not Himself.


Unpacking your concepts:

Universe: The totality of existence (you can stop your definition here if you want, the succeeding words don't add any clarity, in fact they confuse things)

where man lives in and is part (this is redundant, you've already defined the universe as the totality of existence so it includes the earth)

and parcel of, (this is flat out wrong, as has been explained several times)

as also everything else that exists (this is redundant, you already have defined the universe as the totality of existence so there is nothing else that exists)

or at least can be the subject of man's imagination and discourse (here's where you make an error, things which can be imagined don't necessarily exist)

Evidence: A fact known to man (okay)

leading him to know (not really. Leading him to know is not the correct phrase here. Determining the truth or falsity would be better)

another fact (no, you should say an assertion here. Evidence isn't a chain of facts, evidence is what you use to determine whether something is true or not.)

God: In His fundamental relation to the universe, the creator of everything in the universe that is not Himself. (this is your concept and as such, has as much validity as anyone else's concept. Your concept isn't better or more true than anyone else's; you need to use evidence to determine the assertions inherent in your concept)

As you can see, your definition of universe and your definition of evidence aren't really quite right, and your concept of god is personal to you.

Now what?

[NobbyNobbs]

Yrreg,

Since you seem to think that your definitions and ours are essentially the same, would you agree to using our wording from here on, for the sake of moving the discussion forward?

[Mister Agenda]

I know for a certainty that you want to convince me that God does not exist, and you know for a certainty that I am trying to show you that the universe is the evidence for God's existence.
Yrreg

1. If P, then Q.
2. Q.
3. Therefore, P.

1. If God, then the Universe.
2. The Universe.
3. Therefore, God.

1. If Harry Potter, then London.
2. London.
3. Therefore, Harry Potter.

The mistake you're making is called the fallacy of affirming the consequent, it is inherently invalid. That is, if it is true, it is not because the argument affirms it, but rather, it is true despite the argument, it is true for some other reason.

This, on the other hand, is valid:

1. If P, then Q.
2. P.
3. Therefore, Q.

Also, I am certain that your certainty that Agatha is trying to convince you that God does not exist is misplaced, and probably has more to do with your tendency to take things personally. No skin off our noses what you believe, speaking for myself, I'm pretty much just interested in analyzing your arguments as light mental exercise.

[Dancing David]

Isn't it the common consensus here that the universe has always existed?

No it appears to have its 'origin' 13.7 BYA


Or do we have here folks who are of the conviction that the universe came forth from absolute nothingness?

Nope it came from "we don't know".

[Dancing David]

Abandon all hope of logical thinking, all ye who enter the gate of the cosmology of nothingness.


Read my post in the other thread on “God's existence, and man-made concepts and words.”
Post #551 […] I came to a website from an astrophysicist talking about how the universe came forth from nothing, at the start of his write-up he keeps harping on nothing at all, absolutely nothing, then he slips in (wait, I will look up that writer's website)... Ah, here it is his definitions of nothing, and my interactions with him (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7752154&postcount=551).


Click on that link.


And enjoy!




Yrreg

One astrophysicist does not a consensus make, and given he or she is unnamed...

And when named what does their biography say

"Keith Mayes has been a dedicated amateur astronomer for the past 45 years "

so hardly someone who is an astrophysicist

[Steve001]

Can I have some of that stew?
I suspecting that stew had shrooms in it too.

[Steve001]

Neither, in my opinion. Yrreg drops in every once in a while and tries to set up what he believes is a clever "sting operation" through which posters replying to his OP will be taken through a "clever" series of yrreg-logic steps to finally admit the existence of God (presumably the Christian God). Generally he quickly gets frustrated when people don't play along, and starts becoming bossy ("answer yes or no"), then insulting. Often his odd use of language further introduces a certain level of confusion, as well as a surreal feel to much of his threads.

An accurate analysis. I wish I'd said this. There are several other members that try the same tactic, but always fail.

[Steve001]

For some reason, you've convinced yourself that the origin of the universe can be described by one equation: UNorigin = (lots of symbols). Such a subject is extremely complex and requires more than one equation to describe all the matter transformations involved. You are ready to conclude that the absence of your unrealistic assumption gives automatically God the green light to enter the works.

Science works differently than religion; it's like climbing a mountain: science must anchor itself very often, coz if something goes wrong, it falls only a few feet just to find another, safer way up. That makes it a very slow climb. Religion moves much faster, but when something goes wrong, it tumbles all the way down. (See the climbing of Mt. Creation.) In other words, if science is not sure, it won't move ahead to call a speculation a theory.
http://science.howstuffworks.com/dictionary/astronomy-terms/before-big-bang.htm

You are free to believe that God created the universe, but you'll never find out how apart from the Bible account. See, there is a rational speculation called "the big crunch." According to this scenario, there was a universe before ours which began collapsing due to gravitational influences to a certain stage and then, like a supernova, it expanded again (the big bang). But in this stage of our mental development, it's impossible for the cosmologists to roll the film back that far and form a theory of that hypothetical process. That "pre-universe" wasn't like this one though. According to Hawking's number crunching, this universe will not collapse on itself - the opposite will take place and it slowly "evaporates" out of its existence. But you never know, coz "God's mind works the mysterious ways . . ."

Holy cow ! I'm impressed.

[Steve001]

The issue now is to determine what is the pre-existing reality antecedent to the material universe.




Yrreg

In this you are right finally correct. Actually the the preceding reality before this universe came into existence was the singularity. However, at this time no one can say what if anything preceded this singularity.

[Steve001]

Who created God?


First, we have to work together on what is our mutually agreed on concept of God.


I have said time and again that my concept of God in His fundamental relation to the universe is thatGod is the creator of everything in the universe that is not Himself.
I love to hear from you what is your concept of God.




Yrreg

I kinda like this one http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d0/Creation_of_the_Sun_and_Moon_face_detail.jpg/220px-Creation_of_the_Sun_and_Moon_face_detail.jpg
Or maybe this one http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQMyWpqLij3zaFGAe3yixCOOsWfeVSXq 4CA_GmDHxOGpeae0vZH
or even this one http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSxkDfIldb5Cj-qqh2TWflMighrsUMedLKsWqYWL9ASZ3dF2XK4ZA

Nah, I think this is the one I like best http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQMgOOxmtlQfksAnYSDun9yYTxhAGo6W IVoUMVzpePIZDMVnFlPWw

[Steve001]

Okay, let us work out our concepts for concurrence.

On your concept of universe as everything that exists, I ask you how it is if at all contrary to my concept of the universe?
The totality of existence where man lives in and is part and parcel of, as also everything else that exists or at least can be the subject of man's imagination and discourse.

As regards your concept of God, you are barking up the wrong tree at the wrong god.

Please leave Zygote out of your posts, he can speak for himself, and don't seek support by bringing in the name of Zygote.

Speak for yourself alone.



Now, where is your concept of evidence?




Yrreg

You are aware I hope that minds much more perspicacious than yours have tried with very elaborate arguments to prove the existence of God.

[Mister Agenda]

Holy cow ! I'm impressed.

More to epix than he or she usually chooses to reveal.

[Elizabeth I]

I kinda like this one http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d0/Creation_of_the_Sun_and_Moon_face_detail.jpg/220px-Creation_of_the_Sun_and_Moon_face_detail.jpg
Or maybe this one http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQMyWpqLij3zaFGAe3yixCOOsWfeVSXq 4CA_GmDHxOGpeae0vZH
or even this one http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSxkDfIldb5Cj-qqh2TWflMighrsUMedLKsWqYWL9ASZ3dF2XK4ZA

Nah, I think this is the one I like best http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQMgOOxmtlQfksAnYSDun9yYTxhAGo6W IVoUMVzpePIZDMVnFlPWw
I think that third one is Charlton Heston as Moses, not God.

[Steve001]

I think that third one is Charlton Heston as Moses, not God.

I know Chuck played Moses. Just poking fun at the characters he portrayed. ;)
However, the way he portrayed the character suggests God and he had at that time in his career a larger than life persona.

[aleCcowaN]

The issue now is to determine what is the pre-existing reality antecedent to the material universe.




Yrreg

In this you are right finally correct. Actually the the preceding reality before this universe came into existence was the singularity. However, at this time no one can say what if anything preceded this singularity.

But Yrreg -and his working assortment of fallacies- by the application of a twisted and epistemologically hedonistic version of Occam's Razor -one that has an imaginary notion as a plausible option- have concluded that any deep physics-like rumination is very complicated and that Devil (or God if you like better call it that way) offers the simplest thus right explanation to the origin of this universe.

Besides, by a "mountain moving faith" -no faith has ever moved a mountain but it easily can lead suggestible brains to perceive mountains moved- he is prepared to find weak any logical argumentation: any path offered to him that requires an effort or reveals his limitations or leads him through uncomfortable fields, will be judged by him as wrong, useless or uninteresting -just like little kids do-. The Christian "god", the "creator, provider, yada, yada,..." provides him with the smoke screen that covers his primitive approach to the subject.

Yrreg is very comfortable where he is, so he's not moving one inch because he's maximizing his pleasure, and any braniac, nerd or smart guy trying to make him reasonable only reinforces his hedonistic perception of him being important or having something valuable that others don't.

About argumentation, being the best showing Yrreg's errors is pretty much like being the smartest kid with Down syndrome, and he'll never react to it the same way a Yrreg-like one couldn't convince a fly in his house that the window glass is not air and that is should stop bumping on it and look for an alternative way to get to the closest dung.

What begs the question: It's obvious why the fly bounces but, what is everyone else doing here? Can the umpteenth reply still be fun?

[Agatha]

Honestly, yes it can be fun. In addition, it sharpens one's thinking and is good practice in making succinct, simple arguments; partly because English is Yrreg's second language, and partly because he appears not to comprehend complex argument or syntax.

[yrreg]

No. Not a single concept that you have presented frightens me in the least.



Apparently so you can ignore them. You asked others what there concept of God is. I responded days ago and never got the slightest response from you. All you do is keep telling us what your concept of God is, ad infinitum, as though we may have forgotten after the first hundred times. I get the impression that you have created a dialog in your mind before you even present your first post. Then, like some computer program, you keep repeating the first step in the hope that someone else will provide a response that matches your pre-concieved dialog.


I already gave it to you. I'm sorry if you don't like my response, but repeating, "First, you give your concepts..." over and over and over and over and over isn't going to result in me giving a response that you want. If you really want what you say you want, then acknowledge the response that I gave regarding your query.

.
A more accurate analogy would have you saying, "That will be ten dollars, please", then me holding a ten dollar bill toward you and saying, "here's ten dollars. May I see the dragon now?", only to have you respond, "That will be ten dollars, please".


But you aren't offering us toasters. You are offering us God. But every time we ask you to show us the merchandise you just repeat your first sales-pitch.



Wow! It's like the worst conjuring act ever. It's like you're saying "This is your card" as you show me a plastic flower. You are trying to take my definition of God as a figment of human imagination, no different from Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny, and declare it equal to your definition of God as creator of everything in the universe that is not itself.

Gerry: What would you like to drink.
Foster Zygote: I'll have a glass of The Macallan 12 year, neat.
Gerry: Very good, sir. Here is your Mountain Dew.
FZ: But I wanted a glass of quality malt, not a kid's drink.
Gerry: That is no different essentially from Mountain Dew.


Saying it doesn't make it so.


What about the concept of Santa Claus as held by children?


Wrong. I am not denying the existence of God, I am pointing out that there is no evidence for this entity. This includes your personal definition of God. Quit telling us ad nauseum what your concept of God is and get on with demonstrating that it exists.


No, I don't. This is exactly what I mean when I say that you are determined to force your concepts on us.


No, Gerry, I am not saying that God is an agency. Can you comprehend what I wrote? I am saying that people are attempting to attribute agency where none exists by creating an imaginary entity that dwells only in their minds.


No. I am not afraid of your imaginary friend.



I ask for your concept of God in order that I may know it and also to correct it, if you are misinformed about the fundamental concept of God in the Christian faith in His fundamental relation to the universe.

I remember you giving me your concept of God and I corrected it.

Do you now have a concept of God in the Christian faith in his fundamental relation to the universe, I want you to tell me now, your corrected concept.


You see, you say that you don't believe in God, but you are not getting the correct God to not believe in, that is why I see you to be essentially illogical but a rich subject for psychology.


That is the big obstacle to dialog with atheists on the issue of God or no God, you have got the wrong concept of God, in regard to the Christian God in His fundamental relation to the universe which is God is the maker of everything in the universe that is not Himself.


That is why I say that you are cognitively afraid of the correct concept of God.


Now, tell me what is your concept of God now that I have corrected you.




Yrreg #142 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7751949&postcount=142)

[...]

Here, you give your definition of God:
An anthropomorphic construct of human imagination created to attribute agency to nature in an attempt to anticipate its behavior.

That is no different essentially from my concept of God:
Creator of everything in the universe that is not Himself.
If you will just bring in the venue of operation of this agent you and I call God.

You say nature, I say the universe understood as the totality of existence.



We are now into working out together for an agreed on concept of God, so that we will not be talking past our heads which is irrational and illogical.


So, what about this concept of God as already established by theists:
Creator of everything in the universe that is not Himself.
Remember you are the one denying the existence of the God of theists, so you must be acquainted correctly with their concept of God, and not insist that they agree with your concept of God.


Anyway, you have the same essential idea of God as theists like myself, in God's fundamental relation to the universe of which nature is a part.

You say in effect that God is an agent, and I say God is a creator.



But I must tell you that you are under the spell of fear, fear of the concept of God as propounded by theists like myself, namely:
God is the creator of everything in the universe that is not Himself.






Can you and will you comprehend that you are insisting on a wrong concept of God in the Christian faith in his fundamental relation to the universe.


If you will not correct your concept of God, then please do not dialog with Christians because you will be barking up the wrong tree at the wrong God, that is what I am telling you atheist folks all the time.


Go and dialog with folks who believe in your God that is according to your concept of.


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


Allow me to remind atheist folks here that when you dialog with Christians you must get the correct concept of God in the Christian faith in His fundamental relation to the universe, otherwise you are being illogical.




Dear Zygote: I am aware that you are very frustrated, very angry, because you want to insist on your wrong concept of God in order to lambast God and Christians, better to get the correct concept and then dialog according to reason, logic, and facts.




Yrreg

[yrreg]

You are all into your own concepts but you are not cognizant of the correct concept in the Christian faith of God in His fundamental relation to the universe.

You have to get correctly informed about the concept of God in the Christian faith, etc.

I am fully aware that you are all very frustrated and very angry because you want to insist that your concept of God be accepted by me, but it is not the correct concept, can you comprehend that?

But you can get into dialog with folks who have your concept of God.



As regards universe and evidence, I have given my concepts which I know to be what are commonly understood and correctly by people who do have comprehension of language and the world.

Now, you do not agree with my concepts of universe and of evidence.



Suppose you atheist folks here get together and issue your commonly agreed on concept of the universe and also of evidence, so that I will deal with you according to your commonly agreed on concepts, for I do not and cannot be dealing with you all.


Okay, you atheist folk, get together and work to come to your commonly concurred on concepts of the universe as also of evidence.


However, if you can refer me to an online atheist dictionary or glossary or atheists' enclopedia where the words universe and evidence are found, I will appreciate that, and it will save you atheist folks from the laborious task of working out among yourselves your commonly concurring concept of universe as of evidence.




Yrreg

[Agatha]

Your concept of god is a personal one for you. My concept of your god is a personal one to me. It is unlikely that we will ever agree on this matter, not least because you believe the entity exists and I don't believe that it does.

As you are never likely to persuade an atheist to agree with your concept of god, one has to ask, what is your point in posting here? What do you hope to achieve?

It is clear that you are not attempting to understand the atheist position, as you routinely ignore the posts in which people patiently (and not so patiently) explain their concepts of god, explain that they do not care what you believe and have no wish to change your beliefs, that they do not fear or hate the ideas of gods and have no wish to lambast theists.

Several people have posted their definition of the universe, their definition of evidence, and their concept of the Christian God. Is there any chance at all you will move the discussion forward, bearing in mind that you will not persuade atheists to agree with your concept of God?

[Agatha]

Further to my reply above, I see I must make one thing clear.

We understand your concept of God. We understand what you believe. We are what you call "correctly informed" about your concept of God. We are not lacking in knowledge, we lack belief.

We understand your faith but we don't share it. No amount of rudeness, misrepresentation or repetition will make us suddenly believe something in which we lack belief.

We are not angry or fearful, we simply hold a different opinion. The only frustration arises from your apparent inability to comprehend why atheists do not believe in the God in which you believe.

[Agatha]

Suppose you atheist folks here get together and issue your commonly agreed on concept of the universe and also of evidence, so that I will deal with you according to your commonly agreed on concepts, for I do not and cannot be dealing with you all.


Okay, you atheist folk, get together and work to come to your commonly concurred on concepts of the universe as also of evidence.


However, if you can refer me to an online atheist dictionary or glossary or atheists' enclopedia where the words universe and evidence are found, I will appreciate that, and it will save you atheist folks from the laborious task of working out among yourselves your commonly concurring concept of universe as of evidence.

You have already been given these definitions several times.

Universe: Everything that exists

Evidence: The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

[Kid Eager]

You are all into your own concepts but you are not cognizant of the correct concept in the Christian faith of God in His fundamental relation to the universe.

You have to get correctly informed about the concept of God in the Christian faith, etc.

I am fully aware that you are all very frustrated and very angry because you want to insist that your concept of God be accepted by me, but it is not the correct concept, can you comprehend that?

But you can get into dialog with folks who have your concept of God.



As regards universe and evidence, I have given my concepts which I know to be what are commonly understood and correctly by people who do have comprehension of language and the world.

Now, you do not agree with my concepts of universe and of evidence.



Suppose you atheist folks here get together and issue your commonly agreed on concept of the universe and also of evidence, so that I will deal with you according to your commonly agreed on concepts, for I do not and cannot be dealing with you all.


Okay, you atheist folk, get together and work to come to your commonly concurred on concepts of the universe as also of evidence.


However, if you can refer me to an online atheist dictionary or glossary or atheists' enclopedia where the words universe and evidence are found, I will appreciate that, and it will save you atheist folks from the laborious task of working out among yourselves your commonly concurring concept of universe as of evidence.




Yrreg

Gerry,
Your frustration and anger is impeding your judgement.

Everything that you have asserted above has been dealt with many times by multiple posters.

Perhaps you should read some of the responses provided to you earlier in this and the previous thread, to save you some time. This may then provide you more time to read your own posts and make them more comprehensible before posting.

I note that you have left the previous thread and continued the argument in this thread. I have therefore asked that the threads be merged, as there's no point in having both threads open.

[yrreg]

You have already been given these definitions several times.

Universe: Everything that exists

Evidence: The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.



Okay, every good, noted, but not totally and exclusively agreeing to all your implications.

Now as regards universe if you give examples of what everything refers to and at the end say that "and also everything imaginable and can be the subject of human discourse," that will be fine.

As regards your concept of evidence, you talk about belief and proposition to be true or valid, why not talk about facts, so that your concept will be like mine, namely, evidence is a fact known to man leading him to know another fact.

Are you capable of comprehending the idea that when it comes to evidence we must stick to facts and not bring in belief and proposition.






Now, I like to go back to your admission that there is a pre-existing material in the universe, and that you are not any adherent of the school of cosmologists whom I call of the nothingness cosmology school, namely, that you don't advocate that the universe came forth from absolute nothing.


We were talking about determining what is that pre-existing material, and I was asking you whether I can change that pre-existing material into pre-existing reality, because pre-existing material unless you specify otherwise is indicative of a material universe precluding everything that is not material, that is already a foreclosing of any dialog that involves non-material things, which is of course a pre-blindering of your mind.

And pre-blindering of one's mind is always to be discouraged as it is not to the advancement of learning in a person.




Yrreg

[RoboTimbo]

God is the maker of everything in the universe that is not Himself.


Yrreg

So your god is simply the Big Bang and not the Christian god? Hasn't anyone ever indoctrinated you into the Christian faith with a true concept of the Christian god?

Why are you angry and fearful of The Flying Spaghetti Monster? I told you it couldn't hurt you now that it has created the universe and was destroyed in creating it. You must stop being fearful and angry at The Flying Spaghetti Monster.

[Kid Eager]

Okay, every good, noted, but not totally and exclusively agreeing to all your implications.

Now as regards universe if you give examples of what everything refers to and at the end say that "and also everything imaginable and can be the subject of human discourse," that will be fine.

As regards your concept of evidence, you talk about belief and proposition to be true or valid, why not talk about facts, so that your concept will be like mine, namely, evidence is a fact known to man leading him to know another fact.

Are you capable of comprehending the idea that when it comes to evidence we must stick to facts and not bring in belief and proposition.






Now, I like to go back to your admission that there is a pre-existing material in the universe, and that you are not any adherent of the school of cosmologists whom I call of the nothingness cosmology school, namely, that you don't advocate that the universe came forth from absolute nothing.


We were talking about determining what is that pre-existing material, and I was asking you whether I can change that pre-existing material into pre-existing reality, because pre-existing material unless you specify otherwise is indicative of a material universe precluding everything that is not material, that is already a foreclosing of any dialog that involves non-material things, which is of course a pre-blindering of your mind.

And pre-blindering of one's mind is always to be discouraged as it is not to the advancement of learning in a person.




Yrreg

All you have said here is that you want to substitute your own definitions in all cases.

This would not be a problem except that in all cases, your definitions are incorrect or incomplete or both.

This is not agreement, as you have already been told many times. You are being dishonest with us and dishonest with yourself.

Cease the deception.

[Agatha]

Okay, every good, noted, but not totally and exclusively agreeing to all your implications.

Now as regards universe if you give examples of what everything refers to and at the end say that "and also everything imaginable and can be the subject of human discourse," that will be fine. No, because things can be imagined, or talked about, which do not exist. If they do not exist, they are not part of the universe. I am bewildered as to why you want to include imaginary things in the universe. J. K. Rowling imagined a whole world of wizards including Hogwarts School, but it doesn't exist outside of her imagination.

Everything refers to everything. Everything that exists. There really should be no need to expand on it, it's an absolute and does not need to be qualified. If you feel the need to qualify it, then you are not correctly understanding the meaning of the word "everything".

As regards your concept of evidence, you talk about belief and proposition to be true or valid, why not talk about facts, so that your concept will be like mine, namely, evidence is a fact known to man leading him to know another fact. No, because evidence is what we use to determine whether something is a fact (determining the truth of a proposition). Your definition is something which has already been shown to be true, rather than the evidence used to arrive at the conclusion. You are missing the proper meaning of words and you are beginning with the conclusion.
Are you capable of comprehending the idea that when it comes to evidence we must stick to facts and not bring in belief and proposition. You are not comprehending that we use evidence to turn beliefs or propositions into facts. Evidence is part of the process; facts are what we get at the end.

Now, I like to go back to your admission that there is a pre-existing material in the universe, and that you are not any adherent of the school of cosmologists whom I call of the nothingness cosmology school, namely, that you don't advocate that the universe came forth from absolute nothing. Kindly do not misrepresent me. I have not admitted that there is a "pre-existing material" in the universe, by which I understand you to mean that there was something before the universe. I refer you to my previous post here (clickable link) (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=7749077#post7749077) in which I explained it is my understanding that time began at the moment the universe began, so it is meaningless to talk about a time "before" time began. What I have said on several occasions is that as far as scientists can determine, at the moment of the beginning of the universe (time=0) there was an immense amount of energy compressed into a singularity, which expanded at that moment which is when time began and the universe began. It is not possible at our current level of knowledge to go further than that.
We were talking about determining what is that pre-existing material, and I was asking you whether I can change that pre-existing material into pre-existing reality, because pre-existing material unless you specify otherwise is indicative of a material universe precluding everything that is not material, that is already a foreclosing of any dialog that involves non-material things, which is of course a pre-blindering of your mind. Blindering or pre-blindering are not words. As time began at t=0, it is meaningless to discuss anything prior to t=0. It is as meaningless as south of the South Pole or north of the North Pole. There is no time before time.
And pre-blindering of one's mind is always to be discouraged as it is not to the advancement of learning in a person. Using words which do not exist is always to be discouraged. Starting with the conclusion that there is a god means that you close your mind to the reality of science.

[Elizabeth I]

Honestly, yes it can be fun. In addition, it sharpens one's thinking and is good practice in making succinct, simple arguments; partly because English is Yrreg's second language, and partly because he appears not to comprehend complex argument or syntax.
...or metaphor, or simile, or analogy, or allegory, or parable, or sarcasm, or irony, or simple humor.

[yrreg]

No, because things can be imagined, or talked about, which do not exist. If they do not exist, they are not part of the universe. I am bewildered as to why you want to include imaginary things in the universe. J. K. Rowling imagined a whole world of wizards including Hogwarts School, but it doesn't exist outside of her imagination.

Everything refers to everything. Everything that exists. There really should be no need to expand on it, it's an absolute and does not need to be qualified. If you feel the need to qualify it, then you are not correctly understanding the meaning of the word "everything".

No, because evidence is what we use to determine whether something is a fact (determining the truth of a proposition). Your definition is something which has already been shown to be true, rather than the evidence used to arrive at the conclusion. You are missing the proper meaning of words and you are beginning with the conclusion.
You are not comprehending that we use evidence to turn beliefs or propositions into facts. Evidence is part of the process; facts are what we get at the end.
Kindly do not misrepresent me. I have not admitted that there is a "pre-existing material" in the universe, by which I understand you to mean that there was something before the universe. I refer you to my previous post here (clickable link) (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=7749077#post7749077) in which I explained it is my understanding that time began at the moment the universe began, so it is meaningless to talk about a time "before" time began. What I have said on several occasions is that as far as scientists can determine, at the moment of the beginning of the universe (time=0) there was an immense amount of energy compressed into a singularity, which expanded at that moment which is when time began and the universe began. It is not possible at our current level of knowledge to go further than that. Blindering or pre-blindering is not a word. As time began at t=0, it is meaningless to discuss anything prior to t=0. It is as meaningless as south of the South Pole or north of the North Pole. There is no time before time. Using words which do not exist is always to be discouraged. Starting with the conclusion that there is a god means that you close your mind to the reality of science.



Well, so as not to waste time interminably I will just proceed from my own concepts of what is universe and what is evidence, and if you dispute me on my thoughts, we will work out our differences as each instant of disputation from you surfaces.

I will just tell you however that you have a blindered mind, and you can say also something about my blindered mind, and I will take that as a basis for self-examination.

As regards the concept of God in the Christian faith in His fundamental relation to the universe, I will also proceed according to my concept on my worldview as a Christian theist, and if you dispute my thoughts we will take up that instant of your disputation and resolve it.



Now, I want us to go back to your admission that there is a pre-existing material to the universe, are you ready for that?



Tell me from your own thoughts and convictions and be ready to give reasons why on facts, not on authorities, do you or do you not ascribe to the idea that there is a pre-existing material (reality more expansively) to the universe, yes, no?


Just answer yes or no, then present your reasoning why yes or why no.


Don't start with citing authorities, because who is going to judge the authorities on the the validity of their authority?


Just give from your on rational logical intelligent thinking on the indisputable facts of life and the world.

That means an open mind before anything else.




Yrreg

[Kid Eager]

Well, so as not to waste time interminably I will just proceed from my own concepts of what is universe and what is evidence, and if you dispute me on my thoughts, we will work out our differences as each instant of disputation from you surfaces.

I will just tell you however that you have a blindered mind, and you can say also something about my blindered mind, and I will take that as a basis for self-examination.

As regards the concept of God in the Christian faith in His fundamental relation to the universe, I will also proceed according to my concept on my worldview as a Christian theist, and if you dispute my thoughts we will take up that instant of your disputation and resolve it.



Now, I want us to go back to your admission that there is a pre-existing material to the universe, are you ready for that?



Tell me from your own thoughts and convictions and be ready to give reasons why on facts, not on authorities, do you or do you not ascribe to the idea that there is a pre-existing material (reality more expansively) to the universe, yes, no?


Just answer yes or no, then present your reasoning why yes or why no.


Don't start with citing authorities, because who is going to judge the authorities on the the validity of their authority?


Just give from your on rational logical intelligent thinking on the indisputable facts of life and the world.

That means an open mind before anything else.




Yrreg

Gerry,
There you go again - you are corrected, and you ignore it and proceed with your own incorrect and incomplete definitions.

What's the point of asking or definitions if you have no intention of using them?

[Agatha]

I have not admitted that there is "pre-existing material to the universe" and I have already requested that you do not misrepresent my views in that way. You will have seen that request as you quoted it. I will report your posts to the moderators should you continue to tell deliberate untruths about the content of my posts.

Once again, "blindering" is not a word in English other than to refer to steel plates used for a specific purpose (protection from enemy fire). You do not gain credibility by using incorrect words, any more than you do by misrepresenting people. On the contrary, you lose any shred of credibility you had.

I have already said, on more than one occasion, that pre-existing in the context in which you are using it is meaningless. Therefore my answer is no, as it has been throughout both of your threads.

There can be no time before time began. If you are having difficulty grasping this concept, Stephen Hawking's book "A Brief History of Time" may help you, or for an easier read Bill Bryson's "A Short History of Nearly Everything" is an excellent primer.

You can proceed (I wish you would proceed to lay out whatever argument you are trying to present) using your incorrect definitions of the universe and evidence, and your personal definition of the Christian God, but as long as you use incorrect and personal definitions, any conversation will necessarily be halted as people continue to object to your incorrect definitions. It is not a matter of opinion that some imaginary things do not exist and are therefore not part of the universe, it is a matter of fact.

It is now past midnight in my timezone and I am going to bed. I say this so that you are not tempted to accuse me, as you have done in the past, of abandoning the thread.

Your incivility in accusing me and others of having "blindered" minds - perhaps you mean blinkered - is not going unnoticed, and will not go unreported. Try to be civil if you wish to remain a member of this forum.

[Hokulele]

Okay, every good, noted, but not totally and exclusively agreeing to all your implications.

Now as regards universe if you give examples of what everything refers to and at the end say that
"and also everything imaginable and can be the subject of human discourse,"
that will be fine.


So Thor, Zeus, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster are imaginable and can be the subject of human discourse, which means they exist.

rAmen!

[dafydd]

You have to get correctly informed about the concept of God in the Christian faith, etc.



I am not interested in that delusion.

[slingblade]

You are all into your own concepts but you are not cognizant of the correct concept in the Christian faith of God in His fundamental relation to the universe.

Neither are you.

You have to get correctly informed about the concept of God in the Christian faith, etc.

Then get busy and go find us someone who knows what it could possibly be.

I am fully aware that you are all very frustrated and very angry because you want to insist that your concept of God be accepted by me, but it is not the correct concept, can you comprehend that?

I am fully aware that you are very frustrated and very angry because you want to insist that your concept of god be accepted by all of us, but yours is not the correct concept, can you comprehend that?

But you can get into dialog with folks who have your concept of God.

You could, too. Instead, you come here.




Now, you do not agree with my concepts of universe and of evidence.

Not for a second.


However, if you can refer me to an online atheist dictionary or glossary or atheists' enclopedia where the words universe and evidence are found, I will appreciate that, and it will save you atheist folks from the laborious task of working out among yourselves your commonly concurring concept of universe as of evidence.

I suppose this will have to do: http://www.skepdic.com/gods.html

[Brian-M]

What begs the question: It's obvious why the fly bounces but, what is everyone else doing here? Can the umpteenth reply still be fun?

I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm posting in this thread when I have nothing better to do. Trying to explain things to yrreg in a way he can understand is a mildly diverting, albeit futile exercise.

[Brian-M]

I ask for your concept of God in order that I may know it and also to correct it, if you are misinformed about the fundamental concept of God in the Christian faith in His fundamental relation to the universe.

I am fully aware that you are all very frustrated and very angry because you want to insist that your concept of God be accepted by me, but it is not the correct concept, can you comprehend that?

I'm neither angry nor frustrated, merely annoyed that I keep taking the time and effort to respond intelligently to your posts, yet you consistently fail to even acknowledge that I've even responded.

I'm not sure if you're just inconsiderate, or if for some reason you have me on your ignore list.

But if want to correct my concept of God, I'd like to hear your critique. Here it is again...

A powerful incorporeal supernatural intelligent agency presumed to be responsible for human existence.

Is there anything wrong with this definition to your mind?

Could someone else please quote this post, so if he does have me on ignore, he can see it and possibly let me know that he can't see my posts?

[Giordano]

There are two amazing things about Yrreg's threads:

1. Although he repeatedly prompts people for their definitions, opinions, viewpoints, etc., he is absolutely and totally uninterested in their response. After receiving multiple replies, he will discard them all as incorrect, and proceed to go ahead with his own. It's the Socratic method as performed by someone with a blindfold and earplugs.

2. He never gets anywhere. All his threads stall out at his very first step: define God. Nonetheless, after some delay, he returns to try the same thing again, but with a slightly different OP. It's like watching a stage magician flubbing the same trick over and over again.

At least this time we got a recipe.

[zooterkin]

I'm neither angry nor frustrated, merely annoyed that I keep taking the time and effort to respond intelligently to your posts, yet you consistently fail to even acknowledge that I've even responded.

I'm not sure if you're just inconsiderate, or if for some reason you have me on your ignore list.

But if want to correct my concept of God, I'd like to hear your critique. Here it is again...

A powerful incorporeal supernatural intelligent agency presumed to be responsible for human existence.

Is there anything wrong with this definition to your mind?

Could someone else please quote this post, so if he does have me on ignore, he can see it and possibly let me know that he can't see my posts?

Done.

[Dunstan]

1. Although he repeatedly prompts people for their definitions, opinions, viewpoints, etc., he is absolutely and totally uninterested in their response. After receiving multiple replies, he will discard them all as incorrect, and proceed to go ahead with his own. It's the Socratic method as performed by someone with a blindfold and earplugs.

It's more like the interrogation scenes in 1984 or that ST:TNG episode where Picard is being tortured by the Cardassians.

Yrreg: What is your concept of 2 + 2?
Rest of Forum: Four.
Yrreg: Your concept is erroneous. 2 + 2 is five.
<Yrreg proceeds to do horrible things to logic and the English language*. Rof howls in protest>
Yrreg: Now what is your concept of 2 + 2?
RoF: It's still four.

Or, more succinctly:

<Picard>
THERE. ARE. FOUR. LIGHTS!!!!
</Picard>



*-- Yes, I'm aware that yrreg is presumably not a native English speaker. Normally I would never criticize such a person's syntax and grammar, but given yrreg's insistence on using ten dollar words that he doesn't understand and idioms that he's been told repeatedly are being misapplied, it's fair game.

[Foster Zygote]

I want you to tell me now, your corrected concept.
God: An anthropomorphic construct of human imagination created to attribute agency to nature in an attempt to anticipate its behavior.

You see, you say that you don't believe in God, but you are not getting the correct God to not believe in, that is why I see you to be essentially illogical but a rich subject for psychology.
You have done absolutely nothing to demonstrate that yours is the correct concept of God.

That is the big obstacle to dialog with atheists on the issue of God or no God, you have got the wrong concept of God, in regard to the Christian God in His fundamental relation to the universe which is God is the maker of everything in the universe that is not Himself.
So the big obstacle in debating with people who do not believe in gods is that they won't just accept your assertion that your god exists because you tell them to?

That is why I say that you are cognitively afraid of the correct concept of God.
Actually, I suspect that you say this because you are frustrated by your inability to control the debate by forcing others to adopt your definitions.

Now, tell me what is your concept of God now that I have corrected you.
God: An anthropomorphic construct of human imagination created to attribute agency to nature in an attempt to anticipate its behavior.

(Do you ever read through your compositions prior to posting them and say to yourself, "I've already stated that. I can delete it because it is redundant"?)

Can you and will you comprehend that you are insisting on a wrong concept of God in the Christian faith in his fundamental relation to the universe.
Why is it wrong, because you say so? That's not how it works, Gerry. You have to provide actual evidence that your definition is logically superior to mine. But all you ever seem to do is attempt to force others to adopt your definition so that you can finally move on to whatever the next step is in your preconceived narrative aimed at the big "Gotcha!" victory that will only ever exist in your mind.

If you will not correct your concept of God, then please do not dialog with Christians because you will be barking up the wrong tree at the wrong God, that is what I am telling you atheist folks all the time.
Gerry, my having a different concept of your god than you do does not mean that I do not understand your concept. I reject your concept because of the lack of evidence proffered in support of it.

Go and dialog with folks who believe in your God that is according to your concept of.
There's that control issue again.

Allow me to remind atheist folks here that when you dialog with Christians you must get the correct concept of God in the Christian faith in His fundamental relation to the universe, otherwise you are being illogical.
This is silly, Gerry. Did you accept Buddhist definition regarding Buddhist concepts before you debated others regarding them? All you are doing is telling us, "You can't talk to me about this until you agree that I am right". I'm sorry, but debate doesn't work that way.

Dear Zygote: I am aware that you are very frustrated, very angry, because you want to insist on your wrong concept of God in order to lambast God and Christians, better to get the correct concept and then dialog according to reason, logic, and facts.
You are aware of nothing. You are attempting to personalize the argument out of your own seeming frustration regarding your inability to control my responses.

[Foster Zygote]

You are all into your own concepts but you are not cognizant of the correct concept in the Christian faith of God in His fundamental relation to the universe.

We are cognizant. We just don't believe it and conclude that you are deluding yourself.

[Foster Zygote]

Further to my reply above, I see I must make one thing clear.

We understand your concept of God. We understand what you believe. We are what you call "correctly informed" about your concept of God. We are not lacking in knowledge, we lack belief.

We understand your faith but we don't share it. No amount of rudeness, misrepresentation or repetition will make us suddenly believe something in which we lack belief.

We are not angry or fearful, we simply hold a different opinion. The only frustration arises from your apparent inability to comprehend why atheists do not believe in the God in which you believe.

Gerry, please carefully read the above post.

[Foster Zygote]

There are two amazing things about Yrreg's threads:

1. Although he repeatedly prompts people for their definitions, opinions, viewpoints, etc., he is absolutely and totally uninterested in their response. After receiving multiple replies, he will discard them all as incorrect, and proceed to go ahead with his own. It's the Socratic method as performed by someone with a blindfold and earplugs.

2. He never gets anywhere. All his threads stall out at his very first step: define God. Nonetheless, after some delay, he returns to try the same thing again, but with a slightly different OP. It's like watching a stage magician flubbing the same trick over and over again.

At least this time we got a recipe.

He's created the whole exposition of dialog in his head long ago. The problem is that we aren't following through with the "proper" responses, so he keeps repeating the lines in the hope that someone will indulge him, so he ends up sounding like he has an extra GOTO10 line.

[yrreg]

I have not admitted that there is "pre-existing material to the universe" and I have already requested that you do not misrepresent my views in that way. You will have seen that request as you quoted it. I will report your posts to the moderators should you continue to tell deliberate untruths about the content of my posts.

Once again, "blindering" is not a word in English other than to refer to steel plates used for a specific purpose (protection from enemy fire). You do not gain credibility by using incorrect words, any more than you do by misrepresenting people. On the contrary, you lose any shred of credibility you had.

I have already said, on more than one occasion, that pre-existing in the context in which you are using it is meaningless. Therefore my answer is no, as it has been throughout both of your threads.

There can be no time before time began. If you are having difficulty grasping this concept, Stephen Hawking's book "A Brief History of Time" may help you, or for an easier read Bill Bryson's "A Short History of Nearly Everything" is an excellent primer.

You can proceed (I wish you would proceed to lay out whatever argument you are trying to present) using your incorrect definitions of the universe and evidence, and your personal definition of the Christian God, but as long as you use incorrect and personal definitions, any conversation will necessarily be halted as people continue to object to your incorrect definitions. It is not a matter of opinion that some imaginary things do not exist and are therefore not part of the universe, it is a matter of fact.

It is now past midnight in my timezone and I am going to bed. I say this so that you are not tempted to accuse me, as you have done in the past, of abandoning the thread.

Your incivility in accusing me and others of having "blindered" minds - perhaps you mean blinkered - is not going unnoticed, and will not go unreported. Try to be civil if you wish to remain a member of this forum.


Okay, I get you very clearly now: I [you] have not admitted that there is "pre-existing material to the universe.



Now, what, do you admit or you don't admit but deny that there is a creator which is self-existent.


And don't bring in Hawking, I am asking you to do your own thinking from your own reasoning resources, your knowledge of logic, your intelligence, and on the facts as you are acquainted with the facts of life and the world.


And don't get dungeoned with syllogistic Lego toys, intelligent thinking is much more than any manipulative syllogistic Lego toys.


I have to be harsh with you because I see you to be wishy-washy.



Okay, that is now clear from you, you don't accept any pre-existing material to the universe.




Now, to be clear, also tell me categorically and no bringing in Hawking, do you or do you not admit the existence of a creator Who is self-existing?

Answer, No, I don't admit or accept etc., or Yes, I admit or accept etc, and don't bring in Hawking or any cosmology whatever, just answer from your reasoning resources, your knowledge of logic, your intelligence, working on the facts which you are acquainted with, the facts of life and the world.




Yrreg

[X]

I have to be harsh with you because I see you to be wishy-washy.



You should apologize to Agatha. She has been nothing but civil toward you.

[Agatha]

Okay, I get you very clearly now: I [you] have not admitted that there is "pre-existing material to the universe.
If you had read my posts, you would have grasped this several pages ago.


Now, what, do you admit or you don't admit but deny that there is a creator which is self-existent. Your poor grasp of English makes this a little difficult to parse, but if you asking if I deny that there is a creator (self-existent is a meaningless phrase) then yes, I do deny that. I don't believe there is a creator of the universe, but I cannot prove this and neither can you. All either of us can do is study the available resources, such as the books I mentioned, and educate ourselves as to the facts.

And don't bring in Hawking, I am asking you to do your own thinking from your own reasoning resources, your knowledge of logic, your intelligence, and on the facts as you are acquainted with the facts of life and the world. You are clearly mistaken as to the reason I mentioned Professor Hawking. He is an expert in cosmology, he has the best and most thorough understanding of the universe and he knows more about the subject than you or I could ever hope to know. If you wilfully refuse to acquaint yourself with Professor Hawking's expertise, you are blinding yourself to science. If you find "A Brief History of Time" too complicated, then the Bill Bryson book I mentioned does a very good job of putting things into layman's language. The thing about science and cosmology is that much of it cannot be understood by using what is generally called common sense, because some of it appears counter-intuitive unless you have sufficient understanding of complex concepts.


And don't get dungeoned with syllogistic Lego toys, intelligent thinking is much more than any manipulative syllogistic Lego toys. What on earth does "syllogistic Lego toys" mean? Lego toys are small plastic blocks of various colours and shapes used for construction; syllogism pertains to logical arguments. The two things have no relationship. Dungeon is not a verb, so a person cannot be "dungeoned". Please use English correctly, it is a beautiful, powerful and expressive language but not the way you are using it. I understand it is not your first language so I am trying to help you improve your communication which is rather poor at the moment. I am sure you feel you are communicating clearly but unfortunately you are not. Try to avoid metaphor and idiom unless you are certain of the meaning.

I have to be harsh with you because I see you to be wishy-washy. I see no reason for you to be insulting, unless you are hoping for yet another enforced holiday from this forum.

Okay, that is now clear from you, you don't accept any pre-existing material to the universe. You said that above; repetition does not change my answer. I do not accept it.

Now, to be clear, also tell me categorically and no bringing in Hawking, do you or do you not admit the existence of a creator Who is self-existing? You said this above too, and repetition still won't change my answer.

Answer, No, I don't admit or accept etc., or Yes, I admit or accept etc, and don't bring in Hawking or any cosmology whatever, just answer from your reasoning resources, your knowledge of logic, your intelligence, working on the facts which you are acquainted with, the facts of life and the world. Bossiness and insults in the same post, you must be desperate for a suspension.

No, I don't admit or accept the existence of a creator. If you claim there is or was a creator, the burden of proof is on you to bring evidence (not unevidenced assertions) to support your claim. As a reminder, evidence is what is used to support a claim, or to determine the truth or falsity of an assertion. This means that if you want to support your claim of a creator, you have to bring evidence which must be repeatable and testable. If you do not understand why evidence must be repeatable and testable, then you have not yet grasped what evidence is.

Finally, to make my position clear, I am aware that you believe in the Christian God and I have no wish to change your mind. I am not angry at your God, I do not hate your God, I simply do not believe it exists.

[Dunstan]

And don't bring in Hawking, I am asking you to do your own thinking from your own reasoning resources, your knowledge of logic, your intelligence, and on the facts as you are acquainted with the facts of life and the world.


Says the guy who keeps telling us to believe in a god because Anthony Flew (kinda, sorta) decided to.

[slingblade]

do you or do you not admit the existence of a creator Who is self-existing?

No, no, NO.

NO.

In case it wasn't clear, or you missed it:

NO.

[godless dave]

Now, to be clear, also tell me categorically and no bringing in Hawking, do you or do you not admit the existence of a creator Who is self-existing?


No.

[Brian-M]

Done.

Thank you!

(Now I'll just have to wait and see if he responds. If not, there's not really any point posting anything further.)

[Foster Zygote]

Okay, I get you very clearly now: I [you] have not admitted that there is "pre-existing material to the universe.

No, you don't. As has been explained numerous time, the term "pre-existing" is as meaningless as "north of the North Pole" when discussing the universe as we currently understand it.

Now, what, do you admit or you don't admit but deny that there is a creator which is self-existent.
I do not deny that there is a creator, I simply have no belief in one because of the complete lack of evidence for such an agency.

And don't get dungeoned with syllogistic Lego toys, intelligent thinking is much more than any manipulative syllogistic Lego toys.
And it is also much, much more than simply using a thesaurus.

[Giordano]

It's more like the interrogation scenes in 1984 or that ST:TNG episode where Picard is being tortured by the Cardassians.

Yrreg: What is your concept of 2 + 2?
Rest of Forum: Four.
Yrreg: Your concept is erroneous. 2 + 2 is five.
<Yrreg proceeds to do horrible things to logic and the English language*. Rof howls in protest>
Yrreg: Now what is your concept of 2 + 2?
RoF: It's still four.


Yes, you're right! A much better analogy. In 1984 Winston eventually truly sees five fingers when O'Brien holds up 4. The pain machine helped, of course. A few more Yrreg posts, and I may genuinely begin to accept his logic; but I've never been able to handle pain very well...

[Robert Oz]

I know this has been done to death with yrreg, but once again from the wikipedia entry on Cosmogony:

The most commonly held view is the universe was once a gravitational singularity which then expanded rapidly from this hot and dense state. While this expansion is well-modeled by the Big Bang theory, the origins of the singularity remains one of the unsolved problems in physics.

Inserting God here is no different than inserting God to explain the sun's path across the sky, or a rainbow or lightning, prior to the much better and accurate explanations eventually provided by science. All the people throughout history who inserted God for the sun, rainbows, lighting, earthquakes, etc. were just flat out wrong! It is a terrible explanation!

You spend so much time asking for an example of something that does not have a beginning. Why don't you provide us with an example where the God-explanation has, on closer inspection, turned out to be true?

Lightning... nope.
Rainbows... nope.
Rain... nope.
Earthquakes... nope.
Disease... nope.
The religious have been wrong at every turn.

'We don't know' is a much, much better answer than 'Explain this... if you can't, then God'. I will repeat... virtually everything that we know about nature once had a God explanation attached to it. And that explanation has turned out to be wrong every time.

[Trent Wray]

Don't know if you'll answer this yyreg: but if someone agrees with you wholeheartedly on the idea that the universe is evidence for the existence of God, what then ?

[Multivac]

[QUOTE=yrreg;7753915]
That is the big obstacle to dialog with atheists on the issue of God or no God, you have got the wrong concept of God, in regard to the Christian God in His fundamental relation to the universe which is God is the maker of everything in the universe that is not Himself.


That is why I say that you are cognitively afraid of the correct concept of God.


Now, tell me what is your concept of God now that I have corrected you.

Thankyou for the "correction" but my concept of god is the same as it has been since I was a child. God does not exist.

Why would anyone be afraid of the concept of god? God doesn't scare me because he/she/it doesn't exist.

Your biggest obstacle to discussing god with atheists is that atheists do nor believe there is a god.

[Mojo]

What on earth does "syllogistic Lego toys" mean?


It means that yrreg is trying to be insulting.

[Kid Eager]

"syllogistic Lego toys" is a symonyn for "information damaging to my argument".

Other terms meaning much the same thing include:

"self-mind-truncating dictum"
"sapienti pauca"
"deep self-dungeoned freeze"
"entangled hopelessly with syllogistic reasoning"
"playing a self-dummy game"
"infinite silly ingress"
"useless syllogistic perch"
"toy Lego of carpetbagger syllogisms"

[Elizabeth I]

"syllogistic Lego toys" is a symonyn for "information damaging to my argument".

Other terms meaning much the same thing include:

"self-mind-truncating dictum"
"sapienti pauca"
"deep self-dungeoned freeze"
"entangled hopelessly with syllogistic reasoning"
"playing a self-dummy game"
"infinite silly ingress"
"useless syllogistic perch"
"toy Lego of carpetbagger syllogisms"

You forgot that golden oldie, "tergiversation".

[Dancing David]

Now, I like to go back to your admission that there is a pre-existing material in the universe, and that you are not any adherent of the school of cosmologists whom I call of the nothingness cosmology school, namely, that you don't advocate that the universe came forth from absolute nothing.



Yrreg

Nope, it is possible and even likely the universe did not come from nothing, that is a strawman of some sort.

We don't know.

[Dancing David]

Now, I want us to go back to your admission that there is a pre-existing material to the universe, are you ready for that?




Yrreg

Whatever it may or may not be, it is not 'the universe', which is closed in time at the BBE

More straw Mr. Tooki Tooki?

[Sunstealer]

There are a couple of very good documentaries.


<insert large gap between sentence>


The first is called Everything.



<insert large gap between sentence>


The second one is called Nothing.


<insert large gap between sentence>


They were made by the BBC.


<insert large gap between sentence>


And they explain everything that you want to know yrreg.


<insert large gap between sentence>


In laymens terms.


<insert large gap between sentence>


About our concept of nothing.


<insert large gap between sentence>


And the beginning of the universe.


<insert large gap between sentence>


I'm hoping by using the same arcane formatting that yrreg uses that he will subconsciously take my advice and actually try to watch them.

[Dave Rogers]

Allow me to remind atheist folks here that when you dialog with Christians you must get the correct concept of God in the Christian faith in His fundamental relation to the universe, otherwise you are being illogical.

yrreg,

I myself am a skeptic, metaphysical naturalist and agnostic atheist. My problem is that as I age I start believing in everything.

Here are some facts:
There's an elephant in that paper bag on the floor. Many claim that though interesting, the study of philosophy seldom, if ever, and perhaps never, provides a concrete and useful "result". If we use partitions in order to define Entropy, then a multiset (a repetition of the same identity) has an entropy that is equivalent to the number of the repetitions that exists within it. But can there be any difficulty in proving, that vice and virtue are not matters of fact, whose existence we can infer by reason? I doubt if it matters whether a newborn is innocent or not, the deciding factor in the heaven part is whether somebody have gotten around to baptise them or not.

The answer needs to be put on hold for a sec to deal with the omnipresent argument that renders the question ineffective; namely, that there is no God. When asked "What is your religion?" 19% said "Spiritual but no religion" and 31% said "None". Jesus answered, "My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight, so that I should not be delivered to the Jews; but now My kingdom is not from here."

I know that the Bible says that by faith alone can we receive salvation. In all of the discussion over the seperation of church and state, involving so many issues such as creationism vs. real science, abortion, environmental protection, the death penalty, and so on, I think those advocating putting God and Jesus back into government are missing one important point. I don't mean the CHURCH OF Scientology. I mean SCIENTOLOGY, the philosophy/Religion. I believe I have made a thread similar to this one for the existence of Jesus, but is there any evidence outside of the Bible that substantiates any events that supposedly occurred in the Bible? I am currently reading the Bible (I'll put up a post on that sometime soon, although I know there are plenty of posts by previous gluttons for punishment intrepid readers), and I'm still only working my way through Exodus after three days. Religion gives millions (billions!) of people all over the world comfort and hope in a world that seems bleak and uncaring.

Don’t know if this has been brought up before, but I’m wondering what peoples’ take on this is. I've mentioned my past as a Christian missionary before, but never gone into much detail, at least in part because as an atheist today, its quite frankly rather embarrassing. I have been trying to educate my theistic comrade as to what I believe is the correct definition of atheism. I'm switching from atheism back to what I used to believe, which was something like deism, but not exactly. I am honestly wondering how posters on this site feel about agnostics, particularly agnostics with "hope" that there is an intelligent force in the universe. What would make someone stop going to such a loving place as this? I'd be interested to read the arguments of the local theists and deists.

Dave

[Mister Agenda]

Okay, every good, noted, but not totally and exclusively agreeing to all your implications.

Now as regards universe if you give examples of what everything refers to and at the end say that "and also everything imaginable and can be the subject of human discourse," that will be fine.

Yrreg

Why should we add 'and also everything imaginable and can be the subject of human discourse'? How is 'everything that exists' inadequate? Doesn't adding anything to 'everything that exists' necessarily involve adding things that don't exist to the universe? Do you think the universe includes things that don't exist?

[Foster Zygote]

Why should we add 'and also everything imaginable and can be the subject of human discourse'? How is 'everything that exists' inadequate? Doesn't adding anything to 'everything that exists' necessarily involve adding things that don't exist to the universe? Do you think the universe includes things that don't exist?

The greater the number of words used to assert something, the greater its truth value.

[MIKILLINI]

You forgot that golden oldie, "tergiversation".

Gerry became obsessive compulsive with that one... :rolleyes:

[EventHorizon]

You forgot that golden oldie, "tergiversation".

My favorite as you can see from my title.

[fromdownunder]

Don't know if you'll answer this yyreg: but if someone agrees with you wholeheartedly on the idea that the universe is evidence for the existence of God, what then ?

You know, I actually tried that in one of his threads a while back. He never came back with a "what then" because I don't think he even has a "Plan B"

Norm

[Complexity]

yrreg - You have demonstrated over the years that you do not have the background, inclination, or willingness to work hard enough to learn the math and science necessary to understand any explanations, on any subject, that you might be offered.

Please stop asking questions that you are unwilling/unable to understand or evaluate answers to.

[Complexity]

Something can't come from nothing. Ergo, God.

Steve S


It is more like:

"I don't understand it. Ergo, God."

or

"I don't like it. Ergo, God".

[Complexity]

Whoa, okay tell me does the universe come forth from nothning


First, work on your spelling.

Thinking is still years off.

[Complexity]

You seem very angry and frustrated, Yrreg. Have you tried Buddhist meditation?


:wave1

[Complexity]

Gerry, can you post in your native language and let somebody who actually speaks English translate? Because this just isn't working. Your command of this language is...nonexistent.


I'm pretty sure English is his native language.

He allows us to believe that his first language was other than English so that the flaws won't so obviously be traced to his thinking.

[Complexity]

I love to hear from you what is your concept of God.


There are no gods.

I think you need some good, old philosophic Buddhist medication meditation.


(actually made that mistake - had to keep it)

[Complexity]

Well, that is correct, first we have to agree on concepts otherwise how can we at all communicate viably?


The first rule of Fight Club is not to talk about Fight Club.

[Complexity]

I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm posting in this thread when I have nothing better to do. Trying to explain things to yrreg in a way he can understand is a mildly diverting, albeit futile exercise.


Same here.

I'd forgotten what s/he/it was like. Happy days.

Still a bossy bugger, isn't it? *


* I confess, I made the beast. It was an accident. I had told a class that the only program I'd never made an error in was "Hello, World!". I made a truly regretable error, and haven't been able to shut it down.

OR

I was writing a program for the Obfuscated C contest. It was beautiful - utterly unfathomable, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. I'm usually very good at spotting errors, but errors in deliberately obfuscated code can be damned hard to spot. Eventually it compiled and built. I'm very sorry I ran it.

I'm really, really sorry.

I'm really participating in this thread as penance.

[Filippo Lippi]

Gerry was raptured a week ago.

[Elizabeth I]

Gerry was raptured a week ago.

If that's true, I bet God's really sorry about now.

[tsig]

Okay, I get you very clearly now: I [you] have not admitted that there is "pre-existing material to the universe.



Now, what, do you admit or you don't admit but deny that there is a creator which is self-existent.


And don't bring in Hawking, I am asking you to do your own thinking from your own reasoning resources, your knowledge of logic, your intelligence, and on the facts as you are acquainted with the facts of life and the world.


And don't get dungeoned with syllogistic Lego toys, intelligent thinking is much more than any manipulative syllogistic Lego toys.


I have to be harsh with you because I see you to be wishy-washy.



Okay, that is now clear from you, you don't accept any pre-existing material to the universe.




Now, to be clear, also tell me categorically and no bringing in Hawking, do you or do you not admit the existence of a creator Who is self-existing?

Answer, No, I don't admit or accept etc., or Yes, I admit or accept etc, and don't bring in Hawking or any cosmology whatever, just answer from your reasoning resources, your knowledge of logic, your intelligence, working on the facts which you are acquainted with, the facts of life and the world.




Yrreg

Tough love?

Whip me, beat me, make me write bad checks.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6RS21CiCGM

[tsig]

The greater the number of words used to assert something, the greater its truth value.

True.:)

[aleCcowaN]

Gerry was raptured a week ago.

Oh, my gosh! Did he survived?