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

[AvalonXQ]

Originally Posted by AdMan

Why was the Biblical God so threatened by false gods that he had to make laws that forbade their worship?

Read the Biblical account of Ahab and Jezebel in connection with Baal-worship. A god doesn't have to be real for worship to interfere with worship of Yahweh.

[X]

Once again I ask:

Why do you stop at one regression, yrreg?
You say that "god" is the thing which created the universe but was not created itself.

How do you know?
How do you know that the universe-creator was not itself a creation.
How do you know that the creator of the universe-creator was not itself a creation?

Why do you arbitrarily stop at one regression, and not 3 or 5 or a million or none?

[Mojo]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Read the Biblical account of Ahab and Jezebel in connection with Baal-worship. A god doesn't have to be real for worship to interfere with worship of Yahweh.

Father Ted: [praying] You, who are the most forgiving of all Gods...
Bishop Brennan: Of all Gods? What other Gods are there, Crilly?
Father Ted: Er... False Gods.

[Foster Zygote]

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.

Start with what you understand to be an explanation of anything at all.




Yrreg

Gerry, the fact is that nobody can yet state, with any supporting evidence, a complete and ultimate explanation for the existence of the universe. You seem to think this means that any asserted explanation, no matter how fantastic, is intrinsically superior to an honest admission of ignorance. You've indicated in the past your misinterpretation of honest admissions of ignorance as statements of disinterest, but you couldn't be further from the truth. And you are just as wrong regarding this belief.

If someone asks who committed a robbery and the police investigators state that they don't presently know because they don't have enough evidence to name a suspect, it doesn't mean that the question is open for you to assert that the robbery was committed by an invisible leprechaun. Noting that the investigators can't currently provide an answer does not legitimize your explanation simply because you make a positive claim of knowledge. In short, saying, "My magical explanation must be correct because you haven't offered a naturalistic answer of your own" couldn't be more wrong. It is better to admit our ignorance and hope for further evidence than to simply make stuff up.

[pakeha]

Originally Posted by Agatha

...
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. ...

Thanks for the link!

And Avalon, thanks for themention of Jezebel and Ahab. I've been reading about them and came across this site:
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/...1_0_10058.html

where I found [quote]...Jehu was anointed king at Ramoth-Gilead by an emissary of the prophet Elisha (II Kings 9:1–10), who...strove ..to stop the Baal worship in Israel. ... Jehu...executed all the Baal prophets in the temple of Baal, destroyed the temple itself with all its pillars, and according to II Kings 10:28, "Thus Jehu exterminated Baal [worship] from Israel."... Though he put an end to the cult of the Tyrian Baal that had been introduced by Ahab, Jehu did not abolish the golden calves which had been set up ...by Jeroboam son of Nebat at Dan and Beth-El, and for which there is no reason to suppose that it had been disapproved of by Elijah or Elisha. Indeed, the calves.... were not a foreign import. Besides, like Jeroboam son of Nebat, Jehu may have thought it politic to maintain the places of worship in Dan and Beth-El, since they served to deter the people from going up to Jerusalem (cf. I Kings 12:26), and frustrated the ambition of the kings of Judah, descendants of David's line in Jerusalem, to unite the two kingdoms once again under the throne of David.[quote]

I'd had no idea the worship involving golden calves became acceptable.
I must read more about this.

[Foster Zygote]

Originally Posted by Johnny Brant

Which is the more ridiculous, to say that the universe was created, or to say that it just decided to create itself?

While I certainly wouldn't attribute any conscious agency to the universe in "deciding" to create itself, I fail to see why the idea of the universe generating itself should be intrinsically more ridiculous than the idea of a conscious entity creating it. There have been many discoveries about the nature of the universe that have stood intuition on its ear. The Earth revolving around the sun; the expanding universe; the curvature of space and the variability of the flow of time depending on the frame of reference... These were all once in the realm of the "ridiculous". And now research into virtual particles suggests that matter can come into existence from seemingly nothing. Once again, the universe may be confounding our assumptions about the way it should work.

And let's not forget that we can't even assert that the universe had any creation ex nihilo. Modern cosmology does not include the concept of "before" the Big Bang. There is no concept of space/time beyond that point. The universe may be finite and unbounded in space/time, like the surface of a sphere, with no moment of creation or period of preexistence. The idea of "before the Big Bang" may be every bit as nonsensical as "north of the North Pole".

[bruto]

Yrreg, I am going to join with Dancing David here, and suggest that perhaps it's time to take a break, as some of your posts are beginning to unravel. I enjoy sparring here with you as a recreational argument, but would not ever wish to contribute to a suspension or worse if things get out of hand.

I would, however, put to you a couple of general questions to ponder, which I really think you should consider. These questions are not directly related to your continued contention that there must be a creator, and the associated contention that such a creator must be the God you believe in.

First, note that in all these merged threads, and all these thousands of posts, and all these hundreds of repetitions, repostings, self-quotations, etc., your argument has not been accepted by anyone who did not already believe as you do long before joining here. Is this because (a) nobody recognizes a superior argument, or (b) because your argument is not convincing?

Second, you are arguing here with a great many people of different ages and levels of education, many of whom have been brought up and educated as Christians, and a fair number of whom have studied physics, metaphysics, philosophy and theology at the college or post-graduate level, Some of us (hint hint) have, though long ago, studied with prominent philosophers and theologians, in some detail, have read and studied the work of the great scholastics such as Aquinas and Duns Scotus, whose arguments are far far better, far far finer, and far far more intelligent than anything you can even imagine. And yet we still do not accept them. Is this because (a) we're all stupid and don't think, or (b) because we have thought, and rejected the arguments?

Note, please, that the above questions do not address your basic contention about the creator. They address your apparent continued inability to provide a convincing argument without insulting the intelligence of all who disagree with you. Until you overcome these problems, you face a long and frustrating time, because your worst opponent is yourself.

I am now going to sit back a while and do something else. Good luck.

[Agatha]

Originally Posted by yrreg

<snip>
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.
<snip a bizarre tirade on mathematics>

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

Firstly, the oposite of regress in the way you are using it is progress, not your neologism of fore-gress.

Secondly, that is entirely the point of an infinite regress; you are postulating that everything that is in existence has a cause, and that cause is God. However, if you postulate that God exists, then by your own argument, God must have had a cause. And if that was so, then again by your own argument the cause of God must have had a cause, and so on and so on ad infinitum. If you then try to state that God is somehow an exception to your premise that "everything that exists has a cause", then your premise is flawed, as if God is part of everything, he must comply with the premise. If God is not part of everything, then he does not exist. This is your argument, Yrreg, all we are doing is demonstrating that it fails. You cannot present us with a premise in order to argue God's existence, and then ignore the fact that your premise undermines your argument.

Thirdly, your last sentence is coming very close to something for which you have been suspended before; attempting to pass it off as a joke will not save you, just as it did not save you previously.

You still owe me an apology for misrepresenting me and putting words into my mouth, but bruto and Dancing David are correct in that your reading comprehension is worsening and your posts are becoming more incoherent and abusive. I join with them in suggesting that you take a break until you are able to read and respond without going off into bizarre tangents and without being insulting. When you return, please try to read what people are saying and consider it, so that this thread can become a dialogue rather than a monologue of you posting and ignoring everything which is said.

[Minarvia]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Read the Biblical account of Ahab and Jezebel in connection with Baal-worship. A god doesn't have to be real for worship to interfere with worship of Yahweh.

Just from a generic dictionary site -
1.
not true or correct; erroneous: a false statement.
2.
uttering or declaring what is untrue: a false witness.
3.
not faithful or loyal; treacherous: a false friend.
4.
tending to deceive or mislead; deceptive: a false impression.
5.
not genuine; counterfeit.

So, false does not necessarily mean "not real." The word can also be akin to def. #3.

Does the bible (assuming it has credibility) ever specifically and without a doubt state that ALL other gods are imaginary? I mean 'imaginary' in that they never did and never will exist in any meaningful way.

[Lowpro]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Read the Biblical account of Ahab and Jezebel in connection with Baal-worship. A god doesn't have to be real for worship to interfere with worship of Yahweh.

Same goes for YHWH too ya know...

[jsfisher]

Originally Posted by yrreg

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



Yrreg

There were two questions. The first observed that your concept of God in the Christian faith as creator of the heavens and Earth is necessary but not sufficient. You have failed to distinguish your god from many, many others. What other characteristics can you cite for your god?

The second question was how many gods are there. As AvalonXQ has argued, many of the so-called gods recognized in the Bible can be discounted as false, but I would counter with not all. There are several blanket admissions of multiple gods in the Bible. So, how many are there?


For completeness, hear are the questions in their original posts.

Originally Posted by jsfisher

You have repeated that the concept of God in the Christian faith as creator of the heavens and Earth. However, that concept is far from complete. Sure, characterizing something by its deeds and accomplishments is reasonable, but you have limited yourself to just two (creator of heavens, creator of Earth), so your personal concept of God in the Christian faith has little to distinguish it from the concept of God in many, many other faiths.

Is not your God distinguishable from all the rest? Your insistence that God as maker of the heavens and Earth is sufficient for the Christian concept is obviously an irrational attitude.

Originally Posted by jsfisher

I have another question, Yrreg: How many gods are there in the Christian faith?

No, I don't mean whether it is one or three or three-in-one. Besides the creator of heavens and Earth, how many others are there? One of the commands, "Thou shalt have no other gods before me," clear admits to the existence of other deities. I'm just curious as to how many there are.

[aleCcowaN]

Originally Posted by yrreg

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

... penis.



Yrreg

Welcome back, Yrreg. You were missed. Please, never change (not that you could ever). You're truly convinced the devil created the universe (you call it god, but that is just a matter of names), but you can't convince others. Why do you think that happens?

[yrreg]

Originally Posted by 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.

I really don't get your point about my not coming to anything new.

Are you expecting me to come to anything new?


I am still in the old old old question about how the ancients came to the concept of God as creator of the universe: and it is from their observation or from looking at and thinking about the universe.

Now, I propose that you do the same thing, look at the universe and think about it this way:

Universe has always been around?
Universe created itself?
God created the universe?

[ If you atheist people start your post with a flippancy, I will not continue reading you in that post. You are not doing any credit to this forum of which you act as though you own it. ]

Yrreg

[yrreg]

Originally Posted by Dinwar

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.

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

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?

Yes, but it has nothing to do with gods.

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.

"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.

Noted and already answered.





However, just think about these three questions:

Universe has always been around?
Universe created itself?
God created the universe?

And tell me the fruit of your thinking.



Yrreg

[slingblade]

Originally Posted by yrreg

And tell me the fruit of thinking.

http://discovermagazine.com/2008/apr...p-the-big-bang

Read that Gerry, and tell us the fruit of your thinking on it.

[yrreg]

Originally Posted by 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.

Don't send a post telling people to look up a later post coming next.

Just write the post when you have your thought already made up, and send it.



Yrreg

[yrreg]

Originally Posted by Mojo

Yrreg, you posted:


I replied:


You responded:


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"?

You say the concept of God in the Christian faith is not valid, prove it.

But to be rational you have to first examine it, in order to prove it not valid.





Yrreg

[yrreg]

Originally Posted by 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"?

Take two, you say concept of God in Christian faith not valid, prove it.

But keep in mind that you must examine it in order to prove it not valid.



Yrreg

[yrreg]

Dear Mojo, just let us talk about evidence for the existence of God, by firstly that we two come to concurrence on what is evidence, what is the target of evidence, and how evidence operates.


You have a lot in your mind as to risk being scattered-brain, but to be systematic first let us talk about evidence, that is very important to you and all atheists who think that they have discovered evidence to be the death of God.



Yrreg

[Loss Leader]

Originally Posted by yrreg

Dear Mojo, just let us talk about evidence for the existence of God, by firstly that we two come to concurrence on what is evidence, what is the target of evidence, and how evidence operates.

Why don't you tell us how you think evidence operates?

[yrreg]

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.



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.



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



No.

Okay, let that pass about Buddhism, and about my being a liberal Christian...


We are or I am interested to know what is your concept of God in the Christian faith in His fundamental relation to the universe.

Please don't tell me that because don't accept the existence of God then you don't have to entertain any information about God.

Now, are you going to ask me why you must have information about God in order to not accept God's existence?

[ I give up. ]




Yrreg

[GeeMack]

Originally Posted by yrreg

You say the concept of God in the Christian faith is not valid, prove it.

You say the concept of god in the Christian faith is valid, prove it.

[yrreg]

Originally Posted by Foster Zygote

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.

Start with what you understand to be an explanation of anything at all.




Yrreg

Gerry, the fact is that nobody can yet state, with any supporting evidence, a complete and ultimate explanation for the existence of the universe. You seem to think this means that any asserted explanation, no matter how fantastic, is intrinsically superior to an honest admission of ignorance. You've indicated in the past your misinterpretation of honest admissions of ignorance as statements of disinterest, but you couldn't be further from the truth. And you are just as wrong regarding this belief.

If someone asks who committed a robbery and the police investigators state that they don't presently know because they don't have enough evidence to name a suspect, it doesn't mean that the question is open for you to assert that the robbery was committed by an invisible leprechaun. Noting that the investigators can't currently provide an answer does not legitimize your explanation simply because you make a positive claim of knowledge. In short, saying, "My magical explanation must be correct because you haven't offered a naturalistic answer of your own" couldn't be more wrong. It is better to admit our ignorance and hope for further evidence than to simply make stuff up.

Irrelevant post, into ignorance again, so I will not bother with you.


Just the same, irrelevant analogy, the existence of the universe is not somebody having stolen something.


Try again, do another analogy.


At the same time, give serious attention to figure out what it is to explain something.




Yrreg

[yrreg]

Originally Posted by jsfisher

There were two questions. The first observed that your concept of God in the Christian faith as creator of the heavens and Earth is necessary but not sufficient. You have failed to distinguish your god from many, many others. What other characteristics can you cite for your god?

The second question was how many gods are there. As AvalonXQ has argued, many of the so-called gods recognized in the Bible can be discounted as false, but I would counter with not all. There are several blanket admissions of multiple gods in the Bible. So, how many are there?


For completeness, hear are the questions in their original posts.

Any God that is the creator of the universe is The GOD.

Now you want to add more things to God creator of the universe, you are welcome, but just make sure that they are not incompatible with God creator of the universe, because that is what He is fundamentally in relation to the universe.

So, you will say that God is supposed to be good, merciful, intelligent, etc., but He is not according to your evaluation: however, first get an authorization from someone with power to authorize you to evaluate, judge God in regard to goodness, mercy, intelligence, etc.



Yrreg

[GeeMack]

Originally Posted by yrreg

We are or I am interested to know what is your concept of God in the Christian faith in His fundamental relation to the universe.

I don't accept the existence of gods so I don't have to entertain any information about gods.

Quote:

Please don't tell me that because don't accept the existence of God then you don't have to entertain any information about God.

You don't understand the concept of atheism. In all the time you've been posting here at the JREF forum you never have. And it seems likely you never will. Think about it instead of dishonestly misrepresenting the position of atheists.

Quote:

Now, are you going to ask me why you must have information about God in order to not accept God's existence?

Nope. I will tell you that without objective evidence to support the existence of something, it's folly to consider the existence of that thing. The evidence we do have supports the notion that gods, all of them, are imaginary beings which were created by humans. Read that again: Gods were created by humans. Humans were not created by gods.

Quote:

[ I give up. ]

Promise?

[yrreg]

Originally Posted by Loss Leader

Originally Posted by Yrreg

Dear Mojo, just let us talk about evidence for the existence of God, by firstly that we two come to concurrence on what is evidence, what is the target of evidence, and how evidence operates.

Why don't you tell us how you think evidence operates?

We, you and I, were going in that direction but you took back your words on facts.


Here is again my concept of what is evidence:

Evidence is any fact man knows leading him to know another fact.

And if I remember you define evidence as directed toward the proof of a proposition.


Anyway, you agreed with me about facts then later you took back your words.

I will stop here because I don't want to resume our discussion owing to... I will just stop here.


Now, you want me to talk to readers and posters here about how evidence operates, on this task I will deal with Mojo when he does take the interest to dialog with me, and we will first draw up common rules: one of which is that a party must not take back his words, unless he admits that he was mistaken but not in order to prevent the realization of points of concurrence, in particular when already a concurrence has already been reached on a particular point.



Yrreg

[yrreg]

Originally Posted by GeeMack

Originally Posted by Yrreg

You say the concept of God in the Christian faith is not valid, prove it.

You say the concept of god in the Christian faith is valid, prove it.

I will prove it if you join me in the expedition to prove it.


Here is the expedition, let us two go look at the universe and ask ourselves the questions:

Universe has always existed?
Universe created itself?
God created the universe?



My experience with atheists is that they will always run away from any expedition.




Yrreg

[yrreg]

Now, you will say that history proves I have left this forum time and again.

I have not run away but left it in order to be busy with more productive undertakings.

Then I come back again and also now when I have the inspiration to put aside some time to see whether they are atheists here who are like Antony Flew, but so far it is the same people who are always into irrelevancies.


Okay, let us take the expedition to search for God in the universe, by us you atheists and I a theist working on the answers to these questions:

Universe has always existed?
Universe created itself?
God created the universe?




Yrreg

[yrreg]

Okay, GM, you guys are always griping that people don't understand you.

Tell me what you want me to understand you about.



Yrreg

[GeeMack]

Originally Posted by yrreg

I will prove it if you join me in the expedition to prove it.

Here is the expedition, let us two go look at the universe and ask ourselves the questions:

Universe has always existed?
Universe created itself?
God created the universe?

Those are stupid questions to ask if the purpose of the inquiry is to objectively determine whether gods exist.

Quote:

My experience with atheists is that they will always run away from any expedition.

And my experience with Christians is that it requires dishonesty and ignorance in varying proportions in order for them to maintain their belief in invisible magical beings.

You have no objective evidence to support the notion that your god exists, so your claim that it does exist can be dismissed as nonsense.

[Rougarou]

Originally Posted by yrreg

Now, you will say that history proves I have left this forum time and again.

I have not run away but left it in order to be busy with more productive undertakings.

Then I come back again and also now when I have the inspiration to put aside some time to see whether they are atheists here who are like Antony Flew, but so far it is the same people who are always into irrelevancies.


Okay, let us take the expedition to search for God in the universe, by us you atheists and I a theist working on the answers to these questions:

Universe has always existed?
Universe created itself?
God created the universe?




Yrreg

Hi, Yrreg. Since you and I have never had a discussion here, I'm not the "same people," and I will not "run away."

To answer your questions:

I don't know if the universe has always existed, and I think the question depends upon what you mean by "always existed." If the universe explodes in a Big Bang, expands, contracts, and explodes again over and over forever, does that count as always existing? Or is each explosion a separate universe?

Does the universe create itself? Since I don't know if it always existed, this question is irrelevant, I think. Still, what do you mean by "create"? Does the Big Bang count as the universe creating itself?

God created the universe? Are these questions meant to be sequential or independent? If I don't know whether the universe always existed or not, how could I speculate on who or what may have created it? That aside, I think you would need to define God and demonstrate God's existence before you could logically present Him/Her/It as an explanation for the creation of the universe. Agreed?

Disclaimer: I've not read the rest of the thread, so if you've already answered these questions, please point me to the post. Thanks.

[Mashuna]

Originally Posted by yrreg

We, you and I, were going in that direction but you took back your words on facts.


Here is again my concept of what is evidence:

Evidence is any fact man knows leading him to know another fact.

And if I remember you define evidence as directed toward the proof of a proposition.


Anyway, you agreed with me about facts then later you took back your words.

I will stop here because I don't want to resume our discussion owing to... I will just stop here.


Now, you want me to talk to readers and posters here about how evidence operates, on this task I will deal with Mojo when he does take the interest to dialog with me, and we will first draw up common rules: one of which is that a party must not take back his words, unless he admits that he was mistaken but not in order to prevent the realization of points of concurrence, in particular when already a concurrence has already been reached on a particular point.



Yrreg

Yrreg, you realise people can still see the exchange you had with Loss Leader earlier in this thread, don't you? I mean, it's obvious that you're not telling the truth here (either deliberately or because you really didn't understand the whole exchange). Either way, it's pretty clear you're not making any progress in understanding what evidence is - maybe you should revisit the clear explanations Loss gave, and see if you can comprehend the logic better this time.

[slingblade]

My Filipino daughter-in-law, a Christian, has read a few of your last posts, Gerry.

She says: Ako nahihiya sa inyo. Ikaw ay sira ang bait.

[pakeha]

Originally Posted by yrreg

You (Mojo) say the concept of God in the Christian faith is not valid, prove it.
But to be rational you have to first examine it, in order to prove it not valid. ...

Mojo actually wrote:
"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"? "
Your answer misrepresents Mojo's statement.
Was that a deliberate 'strawman' on your part?

Originally Posted by yrreg

... first let us talk about evidence, that is very important to you and all atheists who think that they have discovered evidence to be the death of God. ...

Could you explain what you mean by the death of God?

Originally Posted by yrreg

Any God that is the creator of the universe is The GOD. ...

Does this mean you accept the possiblity the judean-christian god is NOT the creator of the universe?

Originally Posted by yrreg

... I will deal with Mojo when he does take the interest to dialog with me, and we will first draw up common rules: one of which is that a party must not take back his words, unless he admits that he was mistaken but not in order to prevent the realization of points of concurrence, in particular when already a concurrence has already been reached on a particular point. ...

This is an open discussion thread, yrreG. You don't get to set the rules.

[Mojo]

Originally Posted by yrreg

Any God that is the creator of the universe is The GOD.

The Flying Spaghetti Monster is defined as "creator of the universe". You have therefore agreed that he is The GOD.

At last we're making progress.

[Mojo]

Originally Posted by yrreg

You say the concept of God in the Christian faith is not valid, prove it.

But to be rational you have to first examine it, in order to prove it not valid.





Yrreg

Originally Posted by yrreg

Take two, you say concept of God in Christian faith not valid, prove it.

But keep in mind that you must examine it in order to prove it not valid.



Yrreg

Originally Posted by yrreg

Dear Mojo, just let us talk about evidence for the existence of God, by firstly that we two come to concurrence on what is evidence, what is the target of evidence, and how evidence operates.


You have a lot in your mind as to risk being scattered-brain, but to be systematic first let us talk about evidence, that is very important to you and all atheists who think that they have discovered evidence to be the death of God.



Yrreg

I did not claim that your concept is not valid: I asked how you know that it is valid, and why it should be considered any more valid than any of the concepts that you dismiss.

You have completely failed to address either of the questions I asked. At least this time you quoted them rather than simply omitting them from your response, but you distorted their meaning in an attempt to justify evading them.

Here they are again:

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"?

[zooterkin]

Originally Posted by yrreg

Universe has always existed?

As we know it now, no.

Quote:

Universe created itself?

We don't know.

Quote:

God created the universe?

There is as much evidence for this as there is for fairies at the bottom of my garden.

nikretooz

[Mojo]

Originally Posted by zooterkin

As we know it now, no.

Well, it depends on how you define "always". If time started at the big bang, then there wasn't any time at which the universe didn't exist.

[zooterkin]

Originally Posted by Mojo

Well, it depends on how you define "always". If time started at the big bang, then there wasn't any time at which the universe didn't exist.

Would you say that the universe immediately after the big bang was the same as we know it now?

[Rougarou]

Originally Posted by zooterkin

Would you say that the universe immediately after the big bang was the same as we know it now?

If you don't mind me butting in, do you mean the laws of the universe or its state at the time?