[Moderated] What's wrong with this definition of God: maker of heaven and earth and everything? - Page 2

Sunstealer · 11th February 2009, 03:09 PM

Originally Posted by joobz

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

Slartibartfast?

arthwollipot · 11th February 2009, 03:24 PM

Originally Posted by yrreg

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

as maker of heaven and earth and everything.

The exact, specifi problem with this definition of God is that it accurately describes any one of a host of mutally exclusive God concepts.

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

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

Ginarley · 11th February 2009, 03:26 PM

Originally Posted by Mojo

Can we have that as a spreadsheet formula?

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

godless dave · 11th February 2009, 03:29 PM

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

Dumb All Over · 11th February 2009, 03:45 PM

Originally Posted by Ginarley

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

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

Lord Emsworth · 11th February 2009, 04:01 PM

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

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

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

Earth: That one is fairly clear cut.

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

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

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

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

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

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

arthwollipot · 11th February 2009, 04:04 PM

Originally Posted by godless dave

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

That's very true. But immaterial to the discussion at hand. The definition Maker of heaven and earth and everything tells us virtually nothing about said deity.

Sven · 11th February 2009, 04:19 PM

Originally Posted by godless dave

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

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

Gord_in_Toronto · 11th February 2009, 05:51 PM

Originally Posted by godless dave

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

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

H3LL · 11th February 2009, 06:04 PM

I think the answer Yrreg wants is HERE.

It might need a little rearranging.

Tricky · 11th February 2009, 06:25 PM

Originally Posted by yrreg

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

as maker of heaven and earth and everything.

Yrreg

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

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

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

ParrotPirate · 11th February 2009, 06:50 PM

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

bruto · 11th February 2009, 07:10 PM

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

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

God is the creator of everything.

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

Sun Countess · 11th February 2009, 07:11 PM

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

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

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

alfaniner · 11th February 2009, 07:13 PM

Its tupid.

joobz · 11th February 2009, 07:20 PM

Originally Posted by Sunstealer

Slartibartfast?

I thought he just did the fjords.

MIKILLINI · 11th February 2009, 07:26 PM

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

learner · 11th February 2009, 08:15 PM

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

Phase Inverter · 11th February 2009, 08:36 PM

Originally Posted by learner

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

Nope. its calumniate

learner · 11th February 2009, 08:44 PM

Originally Posted by Phase Inverter

Nope. its calumniate

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

roger · 11th February 2009, 09:01 PM

The hippopotomonstrosesquipedalian posts of gerry annoys me.

MIKILLINI · 11th February 2009, 09:13 PM

Originally Posted by Phase Inverter

Nope. its calumniate

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

tsig · 11th February 2009, 11:10 PM

Originally Posted by yrreg

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

as maker of heaven and earth and everything.

Yrreg

If god made everything he must have made himself.

"Q. 163. What is God?

A. God is a spirit infinitely perfect.

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

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

six7s · 11th February 2009, 11:10 PM

Originally Posted by Dumb All Over

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

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

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

tsig · 11th February 2009, 11:33 PM

Originally Posted by Foster Zygote

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

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

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

yrreg · 12th February 2009, 02:20 AM

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

The title of the thread is:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yrreg

Mashuna · 12th February 2009, 02:27 AM

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

Quote:

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

Soapy Sam · 12th February 2009, 03:10 AM

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

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

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

Twiler · 12th February 2009, 04:25 AM

Okay, how about this definition of God:

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

Everyone would recognise that, right?

JFrankA · 12th February 2009, 04:32 AM

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

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

zooterkin · 12th February 2009, 04:47 AM

Originally Posted by Soapy Sam

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

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

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

joobz · 12th February 2009, 05:01 AM

Originally Posted by yrreg

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

If we discuss anything (From economics to star trek trivia) this is true.

Originally Posted by yrreg

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

For conversation purposes, yes.

Originally Posted by yrreg

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

certainly.

Originally Posted by yrreg

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

In this conversation, yes. But note, it isn't the sole definition for god.

Originally Posted by yrreg

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

certainly.

Originally Posted by yrreg

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

This is false. Finding something wrong with that definition simply means that that person has a different Idea for god. There is nothing in your definition that makes it more accurate than other definitions. Simply put, your definition is popular with christians and diests but probably less popular than with pagans.

Originally Posted by yrreg

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

Nope.

Originally Posted by yrreg

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

nope.

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

GeeMack · 12th February 2009, 05:17 AM

Originally Posted by yrreg

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

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

ETA...

Originally Posted by joobz

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

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

CriticalSock · 12th February 2009, 05:24 AM

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

gambling_cruiser · 12th February 2009, 05:26 AM

Originally Posted by joobz

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

I think the bolded part describes the basic assumption of yrreg exactly.

Aitch · 12th February 2009, 05:27 AM

Originally Posted by zooterkin

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

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

Stout · 12th February 2009, 06:33 AM

Originally Posted by learner

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

What he/she said.

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

Ryokan · 12th February 2009, 06:49 AM

Originally Posted by yrreg

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

as maker of heaven and earth and everything.

Sounds more like the definition of Odin and Ymir to me. Neither were gods.

Dumb All Over · 12th February 2009, 07:03 AM

Originally Posted by six7s

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

Yes, and everything else, too.

The qualifying word is "all".

MRC_Hans · 12th February 2009, 07:17 AM

Originally Posted by yrreg

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

as maker of heaven and earth and everything.

Yrreg

Nothing is wrong with it, if it works for you.

Hans

11th February 2009, 03:24 PM	#42
arthwollipot Observer of Phenomena Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: The other side of your screen Posts: 43,011	Originally Posted by yrreg What's exactly, specifically wrong with my definition of God? as maker of heaven and earth and everything. The exact, specifi problem with this definition of God is that it accurately describes any one of a host of mutally exclusive God concepts. It describes Yahweh of the Bible. It describes Brahmin It describes Ymir It describes Ptah It describes the Flying Spaghetti Monster It describes the Great Green Arkleseizure. If you want to define the God of the Bible, you will have to be a lot more specific.
	__________________ Jadey (in RvB game thread): I just want to take a moment to commend Arth on his role as Parasitic Alien Tumor. I think he really connected with the character and there were times when I forgot that he was just acting. That's the kind of talent that you can't teach.

11th February 2009, 03:26 PM	#43
Ginarley Post-normalist Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Palmy, NZ Posts: 1,334	Originally Posted by Mojo Can we have that as a spreadsheet formula? I tried =SUM(1:65536) but it just gives a circular reference error...
	__________________ "What we need is less gasping and more thinking" - Richard Dawkins, Unweaving the Rainbow pp147 http://authorofconfusion.wordpress.com/

11th February 2009, 03:29 PM	#44
godless dave Great Dalmuti Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: St. Paul, Minnesota Posts: 6,130	To be fair, he didn't say he was defining the God of the Bible.
	__________________ "If it's real, then it gets more interesting the closer you examine it. If it's not real, just the opposite is true." - aggle-rithm

11th February 2009, 03:45 PM	#45
Dumb All Over A Little Ugly on the Side Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: They call it the Earth (which is a dumb kinda name) Posts: 3,692	Originally Posted by Ginarley I tried =SUM(1:65536) but it just gives a circular reference error... That's it! God is a circular reference error! Eureka!
	__________________ The Three Word Story Pledge of Allegiance-- "I Hereby swear upon Engelbert's grave that I will gallop, not stride run, not walk posting three words on Shemp's honor, honoring: bananas, dwarfs, clarinets, [the 7th naughty word], haggis, Batman, nuns, wombats until such time as I'm sober. Or dead." "Some people have a way with words, other people...Um...Oh...Uh, not have way." --Steve Martin

11th February 2009, 04:04 PM	#47
arthwollipot Observer of Phenomena Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: The other side of your screen Posts: 43,011	Originally Posted by godless dave To be fair, he didn't say he was defining the God of the Bible. That's very true. But immaterial to the discussion at hand. The definition Maker of heaven and earth and everything tells us virtually nothing about said deity.
	__________________ Jadey (in RvB game thread): I just want to take a moment to commend Arth on his role as Parasitic Alien Tumor. I think he really connected with the character and there were times when I forgot that he was just acting. That's the kind of talent that you can't teach.

11th February 2009, 03:09 PM	#41
Sunstealer Master Poster Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 2,604	Originally Posted by joobz You'll also need to prove there's a heaven, but I'll be happy if you can prove that the earth has a maker. Slartibartfast?

11th February 2009, 04:01 PM	#46
Lord Emsworth Je ne suis pas une de vos élèves Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Through the Cables and the Underground ... Posts: 2,827	Maker: Means what? Normally if I am faced with the word maker I will assume that if refers to a human being. But I doubt that this is the case here. So, if what I would perceive as the literal meaning does not apply, I would have to opt for understanding it as a metaphor. There is nothing wrong with that per se, it is only that there are software packages, like File Maker, which use the word "maker" as well. So, without further specification I have no clue how to imagine that "maker" in question, let alone imagining how what the making is like. Heaven: Not sure what this refers to. Might be a reference to the various magical, mystical places of various believers. Might also be a reference to the sky, or to the rest of the universe as seen from earth. Earth: That one is fairly clear cut. Everything: This is used to refer to all that exists, or further specified to all that exhibits certain characteristics. The biggest problem is that "maker" does not compel a specific meaning, and could refer to anything ranging from human beings to software packages. "Maker of everything" is even contradictory, because "everything" by definition asserts that the maker is part of everything, while the meaning of "maker" asserts that the maker is not part of everything. Saying "maker of everything apart from the maker" would solve the problem, and is probably what is intended, though. If the latter here is intended this would amount to the assertion that there are certain things which exist just so, while other things are contigent up upon them for their existence. This may even be true, and we may even refer to the necessary things as "God." However, it might mean that your "maker" is something that exhibits an exceptional naturalistic uglyness and is utterly boring. IOW, you take a label with "God" written on it, and then have to slap it onto ANYTHING that fulfills a certain criterion. Even is that something is called, say, quantum chaos, or brane, or whatever, by other people. Me, I reject this kind of God. It makes me feel betrayed. Nowhere in there is something that talks, that listens, that has family, that sits around on thrones, that lives ^^^^^ up there, that has emotions, that is subject to some sort of time etc pp. Nowhere in there is any of the childish crap that people utter when they don't watch their words carefully enough. Nowhere in there is anything that justifies the hidden borderline anthropocentric premise of the fine tuning argument ("Look, isn't this set of universal constants special, it allows (human)life!"). Nowhere in there is there is the assertion of intentionality. And so on and so forth. The only exception is maybe "maker of ... heaven...". What is your version of "heaven?" Some magic, mystical place, or just the boring rest of the universe as seen from earth?

11th February 2009, 04:19 PM	#48
Sven Student Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: the Netherlands Posts: 30	Originally Posted by godless dave To be fair, he didn't say he was defining the God of the Bible. The problem is, he didn't define anything, he just made claims about his god.

11th February 2009, 05:51 PM	#49
Gord_in_Toronto Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 13,417	Originally Posted by godless dave To be fair, he didn't say he was defining the God of the Bible. And there is no way that this definition does describe the GoB because it leaves out His constant interfering in our reality and the affairs of man. Together with the lack of responsiveness (unless it's by not responding in any useful way) to whining prayers sent His way by his billions of accolades.
	__________________ "Reality is what's left when you cease to believe." Philip K. Dick

11th February 2009, 06:04 PM	#50
H3LL Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: (ləʊˈkeɪʃən) - n. 1. a site or position; situation. Posts: 4,976	I think the answer Yrreg wants is HERE. It might need a little rearranging.
	__________________ "I'll be more enthusiastic about encouraging thinking outside the box when there's evidence of any thinking going on inside it". - PTerry Top 10 Reasons Why I Procrastinate: 1.

11th February 2009, 06:25 PM	#51
Tricky Briefly immortal Moderator Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: The Group W bench Posts: 42,363	Originally Posted by yrreg What's exactly, specifically wrong with my definition of God? as maker of heaven and earth and everything. Yrreg There is absolutely nothing wrong with your definition of God, Yrreg. Heck, I've used it myself. It is the favorite definition that was used by Kurt Vonnegut Jr. It is simple and clear. In the same way, the definition of a unicorn as "A horse with a single horn growing out of it's forehead" is a wonderful definition of a mythological creature. It is simple and clear. Anyone can picture it. So I am fine with your definition, Yrreg, totally happy. If you ever reach the part where you show that this definition is anything other than the description of a mythological creature, then I'll be even more pleased.

11th February 2009, 06:50 PM	#52
ParrotPirate Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Here,now Posts: 1,540	Having a word for something means the word exists. It doesn't mean that the thing supposedly defined or described by the word exists.

11th February 2009, 07:10 PM	#53
bruto Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy Posts: 11,188	Yrreg, the biggest problem with your definition is that it is gratuitously redundant, and by being so it introduces possibilities for nitpicking disputes that deflect the discussion from what I presume you intend, since there is potential disagreement about the meaning of the word "heaven," and a question about why some parts of creation are made specific while others are not. If all of the criteria of your definition are correct, then it can be simplified to this: God is the creator of everything. Of course that's still open to argument, but perhaps at least the argument would be about the existence or nature of God, rather than the language of Yrreg.
	__________________ "Sir, I have found you an argument; but I am not obliged to find you an understanding.(Samuel Johnson) The gods are less for their love of praise....(Wendell Berry)

11th February 2009, 07:11 PM	#54
Sun Countess Appearance of intelligence Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Vancouver Posts: 3,176	yrreg, would you be happy with an equivalent definition of god as "maker of hell, Jupiter, and everything?" It's got your requisite fictional place, your requisite planet from our solar system, and the ever-vague "everything" so that your list could be exactly three items long. What does "everything" include anyway? The two items it follows are completely different, what with one being fictional and the other based in reality. I get that they're both places. Is your god the maker of all places, fictional and non? Did he create Hogwarts, for instance? I don't know what this "everything" is supposed to include, but if god created my car, maybe you can ask him why it's breaking down every two months. Thanks.

11th February 2009, 07:13 PM	#55
alfaniner Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Sorth Dakonsin Posts: 11,387	Its tupid.
	__________________ Science doesn't lie.

11th February 2009, 07:20 PM	#56
joobz Tergiversator Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: That's how you get ants Posts: 17,496	Originally Posted by Sunstealer Slartibartfast? I thought he just did the fjords.
	__________________ What's the best argument for UHC? This argument against UHC. "Perhaps one reason per capita GDP is lower in UHC countries is because they've tried to prevent this important function [bankrupting the sick] and thus carry forward considerable economic dead wood?"-BeAChooser

11th February 2009, 07:26 PM	#57
MIKILLINI Incromulent Logic Join Date: May 2007 Location: The Illini State Posts: 2,885	How about this Yrreg? Since you asked what's wrong with your definition of God, why don't you enlighten us on how the definition would be correct.
	__________________ Attempting to build a case without evidence is just another day spent with no use of common sense. The conspiracist is not merely illogical: he assaults logic.~ Pomeroo Sylvia Browne is not a medium, she's a mediocre. Last edited by MIKILLINI; 11th February 2009 at 07:49 PM.

11th February 2009, 08:15 PM	#58
learner Graduate Poster Join Date: May 2008 Location: dorset england Posts: 1,589	I see nothing wrong with yreggs definition. I just wish we could move on to the evidence of existence part of the course... I'm all ears here. The prevaricating is intense. ( Is prevaricating still the latest word of the moment? Im keeping notes)
	__________________ "I would give my right arm to be ambidextrous" - My Mate Dave " How do you expect me to use my initiative if you wont tell me what to do?" - Dave again Last edited by learner; 11th February 2009 at 08:19 PM.

11th February 2009, 08:36 PM	#59
Phase Inverter Thinker Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Detroit, MI USA Posts: 149	Originally Posted by learner The prevaricating is intense. ( Is prevaricating still the latest word of the moment? I'm keeping notes) Nope. its calumniate
	__________________ .

11th February 2009, 08:44 PM	#60
learner Graduate Poster Join Date: May 2008 Location: dorset england Posts: 1,589	Originally Posted by Phase Inverter Nope. its calumniate Thanks for that. Gonna have to start a new page now. C-a-l-u-m-n-i-a-t-e I like it, Rolls off the tongue.
	__________________ "I would give my right arm to be ambidextrous" - My Mate Dave " How do you expect me to use my initiative if you wont tell me what to do?" - Dave again

11th February 2009, 09:01 PM	#61
roger Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2002 Location: Mountain View, CA Posts: 11,021	The hippopotomonstrosesquipedalian posts of gerry annoys me.
	__________________ May your trails be crooked, winding, lonesome, dangerous, leading to the most amazing view. May your mountains rise into and above the clouds. - Edward Abbey Climb the mountains and get their good tidings. Nature's peace will flow into you as sunshine flows into trees. The winds will blow their own freshness into you, and the storms their energy, while cares will drop off like autumn leaves. - John Muir

11th February 2009, 09:13 PM	#62
MIKILLINI Incromulent Logic Join Date: May 2007 Location: The Illini State Posts: 2,885	Originally Posted by Phase Inverter Nope. its calumniate And a phrase: Omnis definitio periculosa est.{Definition of the term Embryo}
	__________________ Attempting to build a case without evidence is just another day spent with no use of common sense. The conspiracist is not merely illogical: he assaults logic.~ Pomeroo Sylvia Browne is not a medium, she's a mediocre. Last edited by MIKILLINI; 11th February 2009 at 09:30 PM.

11th February 2009, 11:10 PM	#63
tsig a carbon based life-form Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 26,769	Originally Posted by yrreg What's exactly, specifically wrong with my definition of God? as maker of heaven and earth and everything. Yrreg If god made everything he must have made himself. "Q. 163. What is God? A. God is a spirit infinitely perfect. Q. 206. What is the difference between making and creating? A. Making" means bringing forth or forming out of some material already existing, as workmen do. "Creating" means bringing forth out of nothing, as God alone can do."(Baltimore catechism)

11th February 2009, 11:10 PM	#64
six7s veretic Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Aotearoa Posts: 8,710	Originally Posted by Dumb All Over I like to define God as "The Sum of All Things". What's wrong with this definition? If the sum is merely a count, it's meaningless without specifying what qualifies as a 'thing' The sum of all electrons, protons and neutrons? The sum of all atoms? The sum of all molecules?
	__________________ Evolution and the rest of reality fascinates the be-jeebus out of me!

11th February 2009, 11:33 PM	#65
tsig a carbon based life-form Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 26,769	Originally Posted by Foster Zygote A tergiversator named Gerry Who's grammatic usage was hairy Offered a proof of God Quite logically flawed Was evidence lacking? Yes, very Next contestant must write a Haiku. If Dr. A or Mercutio join this thread perhaps one will treat us to a sonnet. I think it odd Of god To have a bod That is of sod

12th February 2009, 02:20 AM	#66
yrreg Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 2,329	First, we have to agree on what is a definition of a word good for. Thanks for your reactions, in particular I find the following posts: 11, 20, 23, 39, 42, 53, 57 to be conducive to the learning of people who read this thread in the hope of getting something useful into their brain: The title of the thread is: What's wrong with this definition of God: maker of heaven and earth and everything? First, we have to agree on what is a definition of a word good for. It is good or useful for people to know what actual or at least possible entity outside your brain or even inside your brain the word you use refers to. Does my definition of God serve that purpose for people to know what entity outside their brain and/or inside their brain the word God refers to? Does it tell people what atheists and what theists are talking about with the word God? If they know what is a maker, what is heaven, what is earth, and what is everything, then they should find nothing wrong with the word God defined as the maker of heaven and hearth and everything. If you find something wrong with that definition of God, then it is because for you: you can't know what people are talking about with the word God, whereas they know what they are talking about, even kids in nursery school have no trouble with the word God and its meaning. The cause could be some kind of peculiar brain configuration on your part, not found in people who do know what is being talked about with the word God. Or perhaps you have some kind of dread with the word itself of God, what is that dread all about? Yrreg
yrreg Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 2,329

12th February 2009, 02:27 AM	#67
Mashuna Ovis ex Machina Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Welsh Wales Posts: 6,581	Oops, I see there's an entirely new thread on this question. As I'd posted in the original thread, I'll repost my objections over here (even though I see the question has been covered by others). Quote: Your definition of God would cover anything from The Laws of Physics, to Zeus, to the IPU or FSM, the Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu Gods or anything else you could think of. It tells us nothing about your God, just what you claim he has done.
	__________________ GENERATION 10: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and put in a random number. Anti-social experiment.

12th February 2009, 03:10 AM	#68
Soapy Sam NLH Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 25,885	yyreg- Human language is an evolved extension of human minds. It deals adequately with concepts understandable by such minds and for which a vocabulary of description, analogy and metaphor exists. It tends to become unreliable in dealing with concepts outwith our daily experience, such as quantum or relativistic effects, which are , nonetheless, aspects of our universe. The creator of the universe you postulate must exist outwith that universe. Define the specific and precise meanings, if you can, of the words in red, as used in that sentence. I respectfully suggest to you that this is what people mean by "too vague". Your description conveys no useful information. It is hard to see how any desription of such a creature or process actually could.
Soapy Sam NLH Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 25,885	Last edited by Soapy Sam; 12th February 2009 at 03:11 AM.

12th February 2009, 04:25 AM	#69
Twiler Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 2,494	Okay, how about this definition of God: 'Being you can't see who is supposedly responsible for everything that happens.' Everyone would recognise that, right?
Twiler Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 2,494

12th February 2009, 04:32 AM	#70
JFrankA Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Hartford, CT Posts: 4,054	I believe in 42. It's a fact. 42 is the answer to life, the universe and everything. So if Yrreg can make his statement and say it's a fact. I know that in fact, god isn't a fact. 42 is.
	__________________ "How perverted you are.", "I will bite you like a serpent. The poison will slowly kill your sophism..." - SnakeTongue "More truth is in a single issue of Mad than a year of Time." - Gord in Toronto "Oh, and one more thing: For those who fight for it, life has a flavor the sheltered will never know." - Wise man in Sucker Punch

12th February 2009, 04:47 AM	#71
zooterkin Nitpicking dilettante Moderator Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Berkshire, mostly Posts: 24,585	Originally Posted by Soapy Sam The creator of the universe you postulate must exist outwith that universe. Define the specific and precise meanings, if you can, of the words in red, as used in that sentence. I think that's a little unfair. Yrreg is having enough trouble with English, now you're asking him to deal with Scottish too. (Have we stopped the poetry, or should we have next one in the style of Rabbie Burns?)
	__________________ The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.Bertrand Russell Zooterkin is correct Darat Nerd! Hokulele Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232

12th February 2009, 05:01 AM	#72
joobz Tergiversator Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: That's how you get ants Posts: 17,496	Originally Posted by yrreg First, we have to agree on what is a definition of a word good for. If we discuss anything (From economics to star trek trivia) this is true. Originally Posted by yrreg It is good or useful for people to know what actual or at least possible entity outside your brain or even inside your brain the word you use refers to. For conversation purposes, yes. Originally Posted by yrreg Does my definition of God serve that purpose for people to know what entity outside their brain and/or inside their brain the word God refers to? certainly. Originally Posted by yrreg Does it tell people what atheists and what theists are talking about with the word God? In this conversation, yes. But note, it isn't the sole definition for god. Originally Posted by yrreg If they know what is a maker, what is heaven, what is earth, and what is everything, then they should find nothing wrong with the word God defined as the maker of heaven and hearth and everything. certainly. Originally Posted by yrreg If you find something wrong with that definition of God, then it is because for you: you can't know what people are talking about with the word God, whereas they know what they are talking about, even kids in nursery school have no trouble with the word God and its meaning. This is false. Finding something wrong with that definition simply means that that person has a different Idea for god. There is nothing in your definition that makes it more accurate than other definitions. Simply put, your definition is popular with christians and diests but probably less popular than with pagans. Originally Posted by yrreg The cause could be some kind of peculiar brain configuration on your part, not found in people who do know what is being talked about with the word God. Nope. Originally Posted by yrreg Or perhaps you have some kind of dread with the word itself of God, what is that dread all about? nope. ETA: Yrreg, you do realize that in your last two sentences, you basically said, "IF you don't agree with me, you're either afraid of god or mentally ill."
	__________________ What's the best argument for UHC? This argument against UHC. "Perhaps one reason per capita GDP is lower in UHC countries is because they've tried to prevent this important function [bankrupting the sick] and thus carry forward considerable economic dead wood?"-BeAChooser Last edited by joobz; 12th February 2009 at 05:03 AM.

12th February 2009, 05:17 AM	#73
GeeMack Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Not Bandiagara Posts: 7,178	Originally Posted by yrreg Does it tell people what atheists and what theists are talking about with the word God? No. You've failed. Again. But at least you're consistent. ETA... Originally Posted by joobz Yrreg, you do realize that in your last two sentences, you basically said, "IF you don't agree with me, you're either afraid of god or mentally ill." And an interesting accusation his is, because yrreg has provided much evidence that he is afraid of non-belief and/or non-believers, and that he is mentally ill. Perhaps we're seeing a little projection going on there?
	Last edited by GeeMack; 12th February 2009 at 05:21 AM. Reason: Added a comment.

12th February 2009, 05:24 AM	#74
CriticalSock Graduate Poster Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: In a little costwold stone cottage. Posts: 1,993	I created a range value of Universe and then did the formula to see if god equalled that range. I'm sorry but Excel says no.

12th February 2009, 05:26 AM	#75
gambling_cruiser Muse Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Vienna, Austria Posts: 690	Originally Posted by joobz Snip Yrreg, you do realize that in your last two sentences, you basically said, "IF you don't agree with me, you're either afraid of god or mentally ill." I think the bolded part describes the basic assumption of yrreg exactly.