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

[Dancing David]

Yrreg,
I again have to express concern about your well being. In the past your posts were well crafted and written well, I again hope that you are well. They now seem to lack many of the qualities you displayed in the past.

[Minarvia]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Nope.
Again, the Bible acknowledged that other gods were worshipped - but named them as man-made; as false.

I need help with this, AvalonXO -

Astroloth - Judges 2:13, Samuel 7:3-4

Baal - 2 Samuel 2:8; 1 Kings 17:1, 18:17-19; 2 Kings 1:2-5; Jeremiah 9:13-16; Hoseah2:2-13, 14-22

Baal-zebul - 2 Kings 1:2-5

Bel - Isaiah 46:1-4 (also in apochraphal chapters removed from Daniel)

Beelzebul - Mark 3:22

Chemosh - Numbers 21:29, Judges 11:24

"Day Star" and Dawn - Isaiah 14:12-15

Hadad-rimmon - Zechariah 12:11

Ishtar - Jeremiah 44:15-28

Marduk - Jeremiah 50:2-3

Milkom - 2 Samuel 12:30

Nabu - Isaiah 46:1-4

Sakkuth and Kaiwan - Amos 5:26

Tammuz - Isaiah 17:9-11; Ezekiel 8:14-18; Daniel 11:36-39


are all in the bible. Where are they named specifically as false? I'm not being sarcastic, I just want my research to be correct. I'm sure that of course the new religion trying to take over would indeed claim that every other god is false - that is not surprising. I just don't know WHERE they are claimed as false.

[RoboTimbo]

Originally Posted by yrreg

Just give a brief but pithy account of your link, if you are serious.



Yrreg

Give a brief but logical explanation for where your god(s) came from. If your post contains logic, you may title it, "This post contains logic." Otherwise, you may not.

[yrreg]

Originally Posted by Agatha

[...]

Originally Posted by Yrreg

However, I suggest you read the atheist scientists socalled who have a nice explanation, namely, nothing is the origin of everything, but read more insight-fully, and see how they understand nothing.

Scientists, atheist or otherwise, do not contend that the Universe came from nothing. They contend that immediately after the big bang there was a massive expansion from a singularity (at least, that is my understanding, and I welcome scientific correction on this). Please do not misrepresent science, do some research and find out what is the current understanding of the origins of the universe.

[...]

You are amenanble that the nothing scientists are charlatans.

Here, read the words from established newspapers, just two only, but the general thought about scientists being charlatans is obvious, and that is my point, they use the word nothing but it is in fact something.

The Grand Design [Hawking], an extract of which appears in the Times today, sets out to contest Sir Isaac Newton's belief that the universe must have been designed by God as it could not have been created out of chaos.
"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing," he writes. "Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/20...g-bang-creator

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

The point of the book [A Universe From Nothing], Dr. Krauss, a self-described nonbeliever, writes at the outset, is not to try to make people lose their faith, but to illuminate how modern science has changed the meaning of nothingness from a vague philosophical concept to something we can almost put under a lab microscope. […] Dr. Krauss delineates three different kinds of nothingness.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/21/sc...m-nothing.html

Okay, guys, choose your kinds of nothing, courtesy of the nothing scientists.


Agatha, I like to exchange thoughts with you on what the nothing scientists understand by nothing, and that they are charlatans, for why use the word nothing and all the time they understand it to mean not nothing but something? Except that they are into word sleight of hand.



So, they the nothing scientists make atheists very happy in their atheists' psychology, but when I point out to them that it is not really nothing but something, atheists will call back, penis.



Yrreg

[jsfisher]

Originally Posted by Minarvia

I need help with this, AvalonXO -

Astroloth - Judges 2:13, Samuel 7:3-4

Baal - 2 Samuel 2:8; 1 Kings 17:1, 18:17-19; 2 Kings 1:2-5; Jeremiah 9:13-16; Hoseah2:2-13, 14-22

Baal-zebul - 2 Kings 1:2-5

Bel - Isaiah 46:1-4 (also in apochraphal chapters removed from Daniel)

Beelzebul - Mark 3:22

Chemosh - Numbers 21:29, Judges 11:24

"Day Star" and Dawn - Isaiah 14:12-15

Hadad-rimmon - Zechariah 12:11

Ishtar - Jeremiah 44:15-28

Marduk - Jeremiah 50:2-3

Milkom - 2 Samuel 12:30

Nabu - Isaiah 46:1-4

Sakkuth and Kaiwan - Amos 5:26

Tammuz - Isaiah 17:9-11; Ezekiel 8:14-18; Daniel 11:36-39


are all in the bible. Where are they named specifically as false? I'm not being sarcastic, I just want my research to be correct. I'm sure that of course the new religion trying to take over would indeed claim that every other god is false - that is not surprising. I just don't know WHERE they are claimed as false.

Don't forget Psalm 82:1, "God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods."

[jsfisher]

Originally Posted by yrreg

You are amenanble that the nothing scientists are charlatans.

No.

Quote:

...
Okay, guys, choose your kinds of nothing, courtesy of the nothing scientists.

Why? The strawman you have erected does nothing to promote your concept of god.

[bruto]

Originally Posted by yrreg

You have got it wrong again, the universe did not come from nothing.

It came from God's will.

How did God create the universe out of nothing pre-existing except God's will.

This is one instance that you have to be God to know how.


Now, let us talk about what it is to explain something completely and ultimately.

If you think about it, truly think and not engage in maneuvering out of the issue, there is a necessary being origin of everything and He did not have to depend on another being or use pre-existing things not already coming from Himself.

That is the complete and ultimate explanation for the universe that is not God Himself.

Okay, you don't want to accept the existence of God the necessary being origin of everything that is not God Himself.


As per routine you will seek to cover yourself under the cloak of false humility, I don't know.

Well, if you don't know, then you can excuse yourself and just engage in denying or not admitting that people who know the existence of a necessary being origin of everything that is not Himself, they know.

But why engage in denying, just go away and have a life without ever knowing the origin of everything that has a beginning in the necessary being.

And say to yourself again and again just in case the question does bug you, I don't know; better join other things in the universe who don't have that question sneaking into their minds because they can't have that question emerging in their brain for it is not designed to have such a question arise in it.

Now, if you insist that there are other beings who agree with you, though not human like you and me, let them come forward and join this discussion.


But some people have come to the idea that they can participate here by reciting their mantra, I don accept God, I don't accept God, I don't accept, on and on and on, by which they think that they are being so smart about such a tack.




Yrreg

No, it is not an explanation. It's an assertion. It is a confession that you know nothing about how it was done, and it remains a mystery. The only difference here between you and an atheist is that you can say "you have to be God to know how" and thereby sanction your ignorance as divinely ordained, rather than facing it as a challenge to further thought.

[Minarvia]

Thanks, jsfisher, Psalm 82:1!

[Minarvia]

From Yyreg - And say to yourself again and again just in case the question does bug you, I don't know; better join other things in the universe who don't have that question sneaking into their minds because they can't have that question emerging in their brain for it is not designed to have such a question arise in it.


What???

[yrreg]

Originally Posted by Minarvia

Just wondering, shouldn't it be "closed-minded" beliefs, instead of "close-minded?" No offense!

[Don't know really whose post you are referring to above.]

But Gerry saying you are but a "humble brain..." made me choke on my Diet Coke. Damn you Gerry, or Yergg...or whoever you are!

Now, as for -

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

How about asking, "What's wrong with heaven and earth and everything?"
That could likely go on forever, and as long as this thread already is, I'd bet THAT one would go on even longer.

I am not talking about myself in regard to humble brain, but to atheists like Agatha who claim to not know the complete and ultimate explanation for the universe, because they do not know, and science has not yet come to the assistance to explain how the universe came about.

Read my post again.

Originally Posted by Yrreg

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=8258264&postcount=1265


[Title of post] You are into the fallacy of ignorance, claiming ignorance is not thinking.

Originally Posted by Agatha

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

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

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

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

[Agatha] You are into the fallacy of ignorance, claiming ignorance is not thinking.

However, I suggest you read the atheist scientists socalled who have a nice explanation, namely, nothing is the origin of everything, but read more insight-fully, and see how they understand nothing.

You see, your insistence that you don't know the complete and ultimate explanation of existence, is just that, stubbornness to not think; but you forget to mention that you must be humble and not be so presumptuous [mocking exhortation to humility] as to employ your brain to think on for a sensible answer to the question of the complete and ultimate explanation for existence.

You have gone into the fallacy of ignorance, but you have forgotten to accompany it with the fallacy of appeal to your humility [mocking exhortation to humility], that should win you the atheists' Nobel Prize for ignorance and humility.


I am having or attempting to engage in a thinking-ful dialog with people here, but if they don't want to think instead of shouting penis, etc., then claim that I am into a monologue, what can I do but continue to explain my ideas and hope to engage someone who will really genuinely relevantly think on my ideas, and engage me with their thoughts.

By the way, how do you get out of the maze that I put slingblade in.

You say, I don't know.

[ You mean, I don't think. ]


Shame, you are again into the plea of ignorance but you should say also that you are just a very humble brain [mocking exhortation to humility].

About my own brain, I prescind from humility or arrogance, but I seek to delve into the complete and ultimate explanation for the universe.


Please read correctly, Minarvia.


You people don't get the correct information of the concept of God in the Christian faith in His fundamental relation to the universe.

Again, shame: if you also don't have the habit of reading correctly.




Yrreg

[jsfisher]

Originally Posted by Minarvia

Thanks, jsfisher, Psalm 82:1!

As with many things in the Bible, there are contradictions both as to the number of gods and to whether some or all but one are false. I'd suggest that even "false" gets confused, since in context it can mean either man-made or not-supreme.

[AdMan]

Originally Posted by yrreg

About my own brain, I prescind from humility or arrogance, but I seek to delve into the complete and ultimate explanation for the universe.

No, you don't. You don't delve or question at all. All you do is just say, "God did it."

That is useless and an utter evasion.

[Loss Leader]

Originally Posted by yrreg

I will not go into that exchange anymore, because Loss is not around and that is unfair to him.

I am around. I am always around.

[yrreg]

Originally Posted by Agatha

Originally Posted by yrreg
You are into the fallacy of ignorance, claiming ignorance is not thinking.
No, I would claim that ignorance is not learning.

Originally Posted by yrreg
However, I suggest you read the atheist scientists socalled who have a nice explanation, namely, nothing is the origin of everything, but read more insight-fully, and see how they understand nothing.
Scientists, atheist or otherwise, do not contend that the Universe came from nothing. They contend that immediately after the big bang there was a massive expansion from a singularity (at least, that is my understanding, and I welcome scientific correction on this). Please do not misrepresent science, do some research and find out what is the current understanding of the origins of the universe.

Originally Posted by yrreg
You see, your insistence that you don't know the complete and ultimate explanation of existence, is just that, stubbornness to not think; but you forget to mention that you must be humble and not be so presumptuous as to employ your brain to think on for a sensible answer to the question of the complete and ultimate explanation for existence.
On the contrary, admitting that one doesn't know the answer is humility. Arrogance is pretending that you know answers where no true, evidenced answer is yet possible. Stubbornness is persisting in beliefs without evidence. Which one of us has the humilty to understand that the human race does not have all the answers, Yrreg, you or me? Which one of us is being arrogant and stubborn and insisting that he knows things without evidence?

Originally Posted by yrreg
You have gone into the fallacy of ignorance, but you have forgotten to accompany it with the fallacy of appeal to your humility, that should win you the atheists' Nobel Prize for ignorance and humility.
You are wrong, and unnecessarily insulting. Kindly refrain from insulting people here, it's against the rules and damages your argument.

Originally Posted by yrreg
I am having or attempting to engage in a thinking-ful dialog with people here, but if they don't want to think instead of shouting penis, etc., then claim that I am into a monologue, what can I do but continue to explain my ideas and hope to engage someone who will really genuinely relevantly think on my ideas, and engage me with their thoughts.
One thing you are not doing is dialogue here. There are more atheists than theists, but you choose to come here to post your ideas, nobody forces you to do so. The problem is, as it has been on countless forums and discussion boards over the last few years, that you do not do your part in reading and responding to what people are actually saying. Your idea of a dialogue is where you post your ideas and everyone else thinks about them, but that is a monologue. To be a dialogue you have to also listen to the responses you get and think about them. Until you do that, which will entail a good deal less repetition and a great deal more honesty, your threads will be a monologue from you.

Other people try honestly and sincerely to engage you, they try to explain what they mean by using analogies which you seem to wilfully misunderstand, and after a while they give up trying to engage you in dialogue and make jokes instead. If you improved your posting style, this would not happen. If you listened and really thought about what people are saying, you would understand why people bring up the Flying Spaghetti Monster. You would not dismiss them as just shouting "spaghetti", because that is not what it's about. It's an analogy, intended to show people that just as there is no evidence for the existence of the FSM, so there is equally no evidence for your God.

If you started to use the brain that you claim God gave you, you should be able to understand the workings of an analogy. If your English comprehension isn't up to understanding analogies/metaphors/similes, just explain that your English isn't sufficient and people will simplify the language of their arguments accordingly.

Originally Posted by yrreg
By the way, how do you get out of the maze that I put slingblade in.

You say, I don't know.

[ You mean, I don't think. ]
How dare you put words into my mouth, and judge me based on what you think or hope I would say. How dare you be so rude and arrogant that you think you can speak for me or anyone else here. I've put up with your insults (and only reported the most egregious ones) on this board for a long time, I have tried to engage you honestly and sincerely despite the fundamental difference in our beliefs, and in return you think you can put words in my mouth and judge me on that? I request an apology for that, Yrreg; you have crossed an important line and it does not reflect well on you at all.

Originally Posted by yrreg
Shame, you are again into the plea of ignorance but you should say also that you are just a very humble brain.
Humility is a good thing; it drives us to find out more. You should try a little Christian humility sometime, instead of arrogantly crowing about your unsupported, unevidenced close-minded beliefs.

And notice the close-minded term used by her [Agatha -- last line above], I thought I was the one Minarvia was referring to.

But I think close-minded is accepted for narrow-minded, although close-minded is more than narrow-minded, err, worse.


About 2,730,000 results (0.30 seconds) hits from google for close-minded, used by Agatha.

About 2,380,000 results (0.31 seconds) hits from google for closed-minded, preferred by Minarvia.




Yrreg

[yrreg]

Originally Posted by jsfisher

Yrreg,

You are far too selective in your posts. You have ignored mine, and I sincerely wish to see your responses to them. Would you please reconsider?

Hope you will forgive me, but please refer me to your posts at least one.



Yrreg

[Minarvia]

About my own brain, I prescind from humility or arrogance, but I seek to delve into the complete and ultimate explanation for the universe.


Please read correctly, Minarvia.


You people don't get the correct information of the concept of God in the Christian faith in His fundamental relation to the universe.

Again, shame: if you also don't have the habit of reading correctly.




Yrreg

I read correctly and I wasn't talking about you. You do write strangely, tho, and are difficult to understand.

What the heck does Google hits have to do with anything? Just because tons of people say, "I could care less" when they mean, "I couldn't care less" doesn't make them correct. Is that what you mean? Like so many who do not correctly use "you're" "your" properly makes them correct if lots of people do that?

*shakes head*

I don't understand you. Numbers of mis-use does not prove that it is correct.

If that's even what you mean?

[blobru]

Originally Posted by jsfisher

As with many things in the Bible, there are contradictions both as to the number of gods and to whether some or all but one are false. I'd suggest that even "false" gets confused, since in context it can mean either man-made or not-supreme.

There are definitional questions, too. Are angels gods? In their role as messengers, they're equivalent to Hermes and Iris from the Greek pantheon, whom the Greeks call "gods"; Christians, "angels". If I were a bible apologist, I'd be tempted to fob off any excess gods as uppity angels.

[yrreg]

Originally Posted by pakeha

^
Yes and no.
I've had a good time researching infinite regress, actually.
But I'm puzzled as to why yrreG thinks that concept bolsters his case for the judio-christian creator god.

You don't see it? Infinite regress is no explanation because it is still regressing.

When it stops regressing then you have a situation of the buck stops here.


But of course you don't see that, because you are not running all the way in your mind to the end of the socalled infinite regress.

Tell you what, your mind is really very versatile, but if you don't use it correctly you will be enslaved in infinite regress and infinite fore-gress: that if you were an engineer who have to get down to reality and start building, your client will throw you out and get another one whose feet are planted on planet earth or the actual objective reality of existing things, where there is no such thing as an infinite regress and no infinite fore-gress.


So, do this mental exercise, just lie down in bed so that you are comfortably positioned, and regress with the question who created God and repeat who created God, and see how long you can go on and on and on with that regress, or fore-gress, namely, then God made another God, and then God made another God, and then God made another God.

How long can you reach before you die?

That is the mental trick you can play on yourself, but you are not going to do that trick on and on and on, unless you want to be slave to your perverted logic.

The same with mathematics, it can be perverted so that you will never come to anything useful except a lot of useless thinking that will make you question the existence of God, but remember you can also use mathematics to build things in the actual objective reality of existing things, that's where mathematics is genuinely useful to mankind -- instead of abusing it to build up all kinds of bizarre mental constructs.


Okay, now you go ahead and start the mental exercise of repeating who created God, who created God, or who will have created God, and on and on either backward or forward.

Then when you pass out and die, I will say good riddance, joke only, you are out of here.



Yrreg

[yrreg]

Originally Posted by bruto

The basic question, I presume, is, why does not RoboTimbo's theory work for you? It is, of course, nonsensical, yet it resembles your own theory (at least as far as you've been able to articulate it) in all details except nomenclature. Actually, it answers somewhat better, since the simultaneous creation of the universe and destruction of the creator solve many other vexing issues of how a god might interact with his creation. If you cannot do any better than RoboTimbo's jocular post, you have a big problem.

"...since the simultaneous creation of the universe and destruction of the creator..."


Is that a question or a declarative sentence, destruction of God?


Let us go back to three questions, in regard to the complete and ultimate explanation of the universe:

God creator?
Universe created itself?
Universe has always existed?



Yrreg

[slingblade]

God doesn't exist.

[yrreg]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

I can see that yrreg noticed the occurrence of the word "Dawkins" in my last post, and took it as an excuse to ignore all the other words in it. So here's that post again, but reworked so that the offending word doesn't appear. Hopefully yrreg can comment on some of my other words:

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

Science has made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist, by explaining what had previously only been explained through god. Every testable statement religion has made about the universe has, on scientific examination, found to be more or less inaccurate.

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

Okay, no more mention of Dawkins, what is your complete and ultimate explanation for the universe from science?

God creator: out, not allowed.
Universe created itself?
Univrese has always existed?



Yrreg

[Mashuna]

Originally Posted by yrreg

That is why I keep telling atheists that please take note that evidence is whatever you know leading you to know something else, or more concretely, evidence is any fact you know leading you to know another fact.

It's still wrong, however many times you say it.

[yrreg]

Originally Posted by Johnny Brant

We can never define God because we don't know who he is. Jesus said "nobody knows God except me".

Of course we cannot know God completely unless we are God, but some things, yes.

On a lesser matter, I submit we can never know the universe unless we are its creator, but we do know enough to be certain that the nose will not fall off our face when we sneeze.



Yrreg

[RoboTimbo]

Originally Posted by yrreg

"...since the simultaneous creation of the universe and destruction of the creator..."


Is that a question or a declarative sentence, destruction of God?



Yrreg

Neither. It's an assertion that The Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe and was destroyed in its making. The Flying Spaghetti Monster wasn't a god, he just created the universe. Ask yourself why your penis doesn't fall off. If you are into thinking you will see that it is the only answer.

Do you have the correct concept in your mind of The Flying Spaghetti Monster? They Flying Spaghetti Monster always was and nothing created it but it created the universe and was destroyed.

Do you see now why your concept of a fictional Christian god is silly?

[RoboTimbo]

Originally Posted by yrreg

Of course we cannot know God completely unless we are God, but some things, yes.

On a lesser matter, I submit we can never know the universe unless we are its creator, but we do know enough to be certain that the nose will not fall off our face when we sneeze.



Yrreg

Tell that to Michael Jackson.

[bruto]

Originally Posted by yrreg

"...since the simultaneous creation of the universe and destruction of the creator..."


Is that a question or a declarative sentence, destruction of God?


Let us go back to three questions, in regard to the complete and ultimate explanation of the universe:

God creator?
Universe created itself?
Universe has always existed?



Yrreg

It is neither. It is a portion of a declarative sentence. I don't think you're taking care with language here.

But in case you did not comprehend what I meant, I meant that the notion of a self-immolating creator gets rid of a lot of the problems religions have, such as the illogic of a transcendent being interacting with the physical universe, and the moral dilemma of God's tolerance for evil. I don't think it's true, but it's more attractive than many religious doctrines.

But we digress a bit. You still haven't come up with anything new. It's not helping.

[slingblade]

Originally Posted by yrreg

Okay, no more mention of Dawkins,

Dawkins.

[Dinwar]

Originally Posted by yrreg

Okay, no more mention of Dawkins,

Dawkins.

This isn't a refutation, it's a petulant demand that you be allowed to control the conversation, by ignoring concepts you don't like from an author you can't refute.

Quote:

Of course we cannot know God completely unless we are God, but some things, yes.

What would those be? How can we know them? How can we prove them?

Quote:

On a lesser matter, I submit we can never know the universe unless we are its creator

I can know every aspect of a rock despite not being its creator. On the other hand, anyone who's written code can tell you that the mere fact that you made something does not mean that you know it all--the concept of emergent properties renders such simplistic views of knowledge invalid. So, why can't we know the universe without being its creator?

Quote:

but we do know enough to be certain that the nose will not fall off our face when we sneeze.

Yes, but it has nothing to do with gods.

Quote:

what is your complete and ultimate explanation for the universe from science?

We don't have one yet. And any honest scientist is more than willing to admit it--after all, if science knew everything, it'd stop. That said, the fact that science doesn't know everything in no way permits you to make up fairy tales to explain the unexplained.

Quote:

You don't see it? Infinite regress is no explanation because it is still regressing.

When it stops regressing then you have a situation of the buck stops here.

"Infinite" doesn't work that way. "Infinite" means that there's no "stop"--it merely goes on INFINITELY. Let's say I accept that, because the universe exists, it needs a creator. Well, that creator needs a creator. And that one needs a creator. And THAT one needs a creator. And so on, INFINITELY. There's no place for the buck to stop--infinity plus one equals infinity.

[Minarvia]

Please, for the love of your chosen god/s, sit back, think, rest, and maybe get to a doctor. I am also becoming worried about your mental state and deterioration in your writing. It is becoming increasingly more difficult to evn decipher what you are trying to say.

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by yrreg

Okay, no more mention of Dawkins, what is your complete and ultimate explanation for the universe from science?

God creator: out, not allowed.
Universe created itself?
Univrese has always existed?



Yrreg

See my later post.

[EventHorizon]

Originally Posted by bruto

I don't think you're taking care with language here.

You don't THINK? I know he's not taking care with language. J.R.R. Tolkien could come to a point in fewer words than Gerry and that's saying something considering he wrote over 1100 pages about a bunch of midgets walking. The only difference is Tolkien would understand the definition of the words he used. And there would be wizards. Though I think Gerry's god might be a wizard so that might be another similarity.

[pakeha]

Originally Posted by yrreg

You don't see it? Infinite regress is no explanation because it is still regressing.

When it stops regressing then you have a situation of the buck stops here.

...So, do this mental exercise, just lie down in bed so that you are comfortably positioned, and regress with the question who created God and repeat who created God, and see how long you can go on and on and on with that regress, or fore-gress, namely, then God made another God, and then God made another God, and then God made another God.

How long can you reach before you die?

That is the mental trick you can play on yourself, but you are not going to do that trick on and on and on, unless you want to be slave to your perverted logic. ...
Okay, now you go ahead and start the mental exercise of repeating who created God, who created God, or who will have created God, and on and on either backward or forward.

Then when you pass out and die, I will say good riddance, joke only, you are out of here. ..

Originally Posted by yrreg

...I have never engaged in hate speech except in the jaundiced eyes of people who cannot see clearly owing to jaundice. ...

So, it's turtles all the way down, then?
Until the 'buck stops here' at the judeo-christian god?
And you know this because?

Originally Posted by EventHorizon

... The only difference is Tolkien would understand the definition of the words he used. And there would be wizards. Though I think Gerry's god might be a wizard so that might be another similarity.

YrreG believes the universe was created by an incantation, so that's not a bad argument. Gandalf's origin's ARE cloaked in mystery, after all.

[Dunstan]

yrreg: In order to understand God, you must have a concept of God.
yrreg's straw atheist: Well, I have no concept of God, in that I don't believe in him.
yrreg: Imagine the creator of heaven and earth and everything.
YSA: Well, ok, for argument's sake, I can imagine such a being
yrreg: HAHA! GOTCHA! If you can imagine God, then he exists!!!!!!!!!!111elventyone
YSA: Oh, praise Jesus! Finally I know why I have a nose, and a penis, and I can end all this guiltless masturbation I've been doing!
[YSA exits, but gets run over by a unicorn herd]

[Mojo]

Yrreg, you posted:

Originally Posted by yrreg

Easy to say I have not answered questions, tell me which ones.

I replied:

Originally Posted by Mojo

All of them.

But here are a couple in particular:

Originally Posted by Mojo

Originally Posted by yrreg

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

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

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

You have provided no evidence that the concept of God in the Christian faith is any more valid than the concepts of any other "gods, goddesses, deities, divinities, whatever spaghettis, invisible pink unicorns, celestial teapots, tooth fairies, Santas, [or] sky daddies". That is the whole point.

How do you know that the Christian concept of God is "the correct concept of God"?

Why should all these other supernatural entities be rejected in favour of your own personal concept of "God"?

You responded:

Originally Posted by yrreg

Originally Posted by Mojo

All of them.

But here are a couple in particular:

[...]


You have provided no evidence that the concept of God in the Christian faith is any more valid than the concepts of any other "gods, goddesses, deities, divinities, whatever spaghettis, invisible pink unicorns, celestial teapots, tooth fairies, Santas, [or] sky daddies". That is the whole point.

Just keep to the concept of God creator of the universe.


The problem is not no evidence but which is needed and how much.

Now, to be thinking folks, atheists whould get together to agree among themselves what is evidence, which kind is required in connection with God creator of the universe, and how much.

Otherwise you can continue to harp on no evidence but remember you can be blind to evidence unless someone more sight-ful and open-minded than you point it out to you.


But my point is that the universe is the evidence of God the creator, its existence points to the creator: you can only deny this fact by stubborn refusal to admit it.



So, as I said already, which is it going to be:

God creator of the universe?
Universe created itself?
Univese has always been around?


And no need to bring in many gods, etc., that is certainly if you can and do think, an irrelevancy.



Yrreg

When you quoted my post, you copied and pasted the quotation from it, but you missed something out. Can you see what it is?

It is the two sentences at the end with question marks at the end of them. You wouldn't be trying to avoid answering them, would you? In case the omission was a result of some sort of confusion on your part, here they are again in bold to make it easier for you to spot them:

How do you know that the Christian concept of God is "the correct concept of God"?

Why should all these other supernatural entities be rejected in favour of your own personal concept of "God"?

[Mojo]

Originally Posted by yrreg

And notice the close-minded term used by her [Agatha -- last line above], I thought I was the one Minarvia was referring to.

But I think close-minded is accepted for narrow-minded, although close-minded is more than narrow-minded, err, worse.


About 2,730,000 results (0.30 seconds) hits from google for close-minded, used by Agatha.

About 2,380,000 results (0.31 seconds) hits from google for closed-minded, preferred by Minarvia.




Yrreg

Yreeg, do you realise that his post of yours entirely fails to address anything in the post it was replying to?

[Mojo]

Originally Posted by Agatha

Originally Posted by yrreg

By the way, how do you get out of the maze that I put slingblade in.

You say, I don't know.

[ You mean, I don't think. ]

How dare you put words into my mouth, and judge me based on what you think or hope I would say. How dare you be so rude and arrogant that you think you can speak for me or anyone else here. I've put up with your insults (and only reported the most egregious ones) on this board for a long time, I have tried to engage you honestly and sincerely despite the fundamental difference in our beliefs, and in return you think you can put words in my mouth and judge me on that? I request an apology for that, Yrreg; you have crossed an important line and it does not reflect well on you at all.

Putting words into other people's mouths is nothing new for yrreg: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...29#post1454229

[Ryokan]

Originally Posted by yrreg

Ryokan, you are giving me too much discredit, shame on you.

I have never engaged in hate speech except in the jaundiced eyes of people who cannot see clearly owing to jaundice.

But the rest you had no problems with? Surely you must agree that someone who doesn't believe in evolution, which the Catholic Church and the Pope himself accepts, can't be a liberal Christian.

Originally Posted by yrreg

Now, I am glad that you are neither God nor a fool, because you have changed, for example, you don't anymore style yourself as Resident Buddhist.

I didn't then, and I still don't understand why you put so much weight on custom titles. It's been many years, Yrreg, and I've had many custom titles since then. Some as an attempt to be funny, and some more self describing.

Originally Posted by yrreg

And then you no longer sign yourself at the bottom of your message box, the signature that Yrreg has converted you away from Buddhism.

Maybe I should put it back, along with other select quotes from your past... Like when you claimed to be an atheist. Remember that?

Originally Posted by yrreg

Pray, tell me, did you have a fall out with Buddhism?

No.

[catsmate1]

Originally Posted by yrreg

The question I am referring which is time and again brought up by atheists, is namely:

Who created God?

Why is that a non-question?

It is a non-question because the one asking that question does not know about the concept of God as the creator of the universe, for if you are possessed of the correct concept of God as creator of the universe, and you understand universe as the totality of existence aside from God, then there is no need to ask the question of who or what created God, because then it is obvious from a conceptual framework, God is self-existing.
<snippage of much repetitive babble>

This all of nonsense does not even remote answer the question; you are, as usual, attempting to wallpaper over your inability to answer difficult questions with irrelevancies.

[catsmate1]

Originally Posted by jsfisher

Since yrreg hides from the question, I'll ask you: A god among how many others? The bible clearly admits to more than one.

Dozens of times in fact.

Originally Posted by yrreg

You have got it wrong again, the universe did not come from nothing.

It came from God's will.

Evidence?

Originally Posted by yrreg

How did God create the universe out of nothing pre-existing except God's will.

Evidence?

Originally Posted by yrreg

If you think about it, truly think and not engage in maneuvering out of the issue, there is a necessary being origin of everything and He did not have to depend on another being or use pre-existing things not already coming from Himself.

Evidence?

Originally Posted by yrreg

That is the complete and ultimate explanation for the universe that is not God Himself.

Evidence?

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

No it doesn't. The Bible clearly admits that people worshipped more than one god; it never verifies that those gods are real, and in fact says that they are manufactured by human hands in contrast to "the living God".

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Nope.
Again, the Bible acknowledged that other gods were worshipped - but named them as man-made; as false.

Nope.
"And against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment."
"For the LORD your God is God of gods, and Lord of lords."
"Wilt not thou possess that which Chemosh thy god giveth thee to possess?"
"The gods that have not made the heavens and the earth, even they shall perish from the earth, and from under these heavens. "

Originally Posted by yrreg

I will commend you for your post, but it is all you say but no explanation.

Now, tell me what is your complete and ultimate explanation for the existence of the universe.

Several other explanations for the existence of the universe were propose, by me among others, in your previous threads. You refused to address them.

Originally Posted by Loss Leader

I am around. I am always around.

Good to see you've got the omniscience working.

Originally Posted by yrreg

Okay, no more mention of Dawkins, what is your complete and ultimate explanation for the universe from science?

God creator: out, not allowed.
Universe created itself?
Univrese has always existed?

Again, several other explanations for the existence of the universe were propose, by me among others, in your previous threads. You refused to address them.

Originally Posted by Ryokan

But the rest you had no problems with? Surely you must agree that someone who doesn't believe in evolution, which the Catholic Church and the Pope himself accepts, can't be a liberal Christian.

Like most god botherers he accepts the bits that suit him.

[Agatha]

Originally Posted by yrreg

And notice the close-minded term used by her [Agatha -- last line above], I thought I was the one Minarvia was referring to.

But I think close-minded is accepted for narrow-minded, although close-minded is more than narrow-minded, err, worse.


About 2,730,000 results (0.30 seconds) hits from google for close-minded, used by Agatha.

About 2,380,000 results (0.31 seconds) hits from google for closed-minded, preferred by Minarvia.

Closed-minded is what I meant; it was a typo which I did not catch at the time of submitting the post.

Google is not a metric of the correct usage of a phrase, merely an estimation of how many web pages contain that phrase. In itself, a google search tells you nothing of the author's intent nor of the preferred style in English writing.

Having said that, despite quoting portions of my post twice and the whole thing once, you have failed to address or respond in a substantive way to any of my points, nor have you had the courtesy or good manners to apologise for misrepresenting my views and putting words into my mouth.

This thread is now on its 35th page and since it started in early 2009 you have failed to move past your insistence that everyone should accept your concept of God. Several people have agreed, for the sake of argument and to move the discussion forward, that they will agree with your concept of God (while continuing to deny God's existence) and we are now waiting for you to move to whatever the next stage of your argument entails.

You appear to be trying, without success, to persuade atheists with the Kalām cosmological argument^WP, and it really is time you moved to a more persuasive argument, should you have one. This is a sceptics' site, what will be persuasive here is evidence. If you have any, now is the time to present it.