FREE TAPATALK APP

Lord Emsworth · 13th February 2009, 08:53 AM

As an additional comment to my earlier post ...

Yrreg, there is nothing wrong as such with your defintion of God, as long as you realize that there are people with different conceptions (like me) who will simply not see your definition as sufficient. In a similar vein there is nothing wrong as such with Deism; it is only that I, as an atheist, will not necessarily feel contradicted by it.

Z · 13th February 2009, 09:13 AM

Can I volunteer for part-time devil in the Church of Slingblade? Say... on every other Saturday?

babbits · 13th February 2009, 09:16 AM

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

Now you see, Yrreg, here is your problem. Atheists and theists aren't talking about the same thing when they use the word "god".

Some theists may be satisfied with a definition such as "the maker of everything and the reason why my son was born with a cleft palate".

But atheists define god as "the name superstitious people use for whatever they can't understand."

Macoy · 13th February 2009, 11:49 AM

Originally Posted by yrreg

And also don't nitpick on redundancy, what to you is redundant is to others, greater connoisseurs of definitions, more explicit.
Yrreg

As I'm a bit of a connoisseur of definitions myself, perhaps we could pop upstairs later, and you might view my collections in a more salubrious and studious atmosphere?

Potential mutual definitional studies might be certainly more explicit, but are nonetheless guaranteed guilt-free.

Aitch · 13th February 2009, 12:24 PM

How about a (not very good) Triolet^WP?

Yrreg has tried to define God,
but it turned out rather wooly
and his language went a bit odd.
Yrreg has tried to define God;
but, challenged. he acts like a clod,
becoming a frothing bully.
Yrreg has tried to define God
but it turned out rather wooly.

Anyone fancy trying a Villanelle^WP?

yrreg · 13th February 2009, 05:39 PM

Read this post again, giving utmost attention and concentration and thus compliance to the lines in bold.

Originally Posted by yrreg

Title of Post: 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:

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

So, judge the definition whether at least it gives the possible object in your brain or brains of people except in yours of the concept of God as the maker of heaven and earth and everything.

Yrreg

Hokulele · 13th February 2009, 05:41 PM

No.

Piero · 13th February 2009, 06:36 PM

Sorry to butt in so late, but as Russell proved a century ago, "everything" does not exist. because it would have to contain "everything" within it, so it would be a member of itself ad infinitum. Therefore, since "everything" does not exist, the creator of "everything" does not exist either. QED.

GeeMack · 13th February 2009, 07:01 PM

Originally Posted by yrreg

Read this post again, giving utmost attention and concentration and thus compliance to the lines in bold.

[LOAD_OF_BS][...][/LOAD_OF_BS]

So, judge the definition whether at least it gives the possible object in your brain or brains of people except in yours of the concept of God as the maker of heaven and earth and everything.

No.

Lord Emsworth · 13th February 2009, 08:04 PM

Originally Posted by yrreg

So, judge the definition whether at least it gives the possible object in your brain or brains of people except in yours of the concept of God as the maker of heaven and earth and everything.

I have no clue whether it gives me or other people that "possible object". Really, how should I?

bruto · 13th February 2009, 08:14 PM

Originally Posted by yrreg

Read this post again, giving utmost attention and concentration and thus compliance to the lines in bold.

Yrreg, you really ought to break that spamming habit of yours.

Quote:

So, judge the definition whether at least it gives the possible object in your brain or brains of people except in yours of the concept of God as the maker of heaven and earth and everything.

That is a convoluted and confusing sentence. I challenge you to parse it into clear English, but since one can more or less guess what is meant, I will answer it anyway:

In a word,NO.

It conveys no concept of God beyond an action imputed to something with no other named attributes. The definition you provide is applicable to all gods and all creative processes, real or imaginary, without either distinguishing or excluding any.

We know what sort of God you refer to only because we guess from your other writings, and from the cultural context of Christianity, what sort of God you likely mean. If we did not, your definition would be like meeting an explorer from another planet, providing the definition "a guy who kicks a ball" and expecting him to know you're speaking of David Beckham.

It's a poor definition, Yrreg. If you don't like the answer, don't ask the question.

bruto · 13th February 2009, 08:42 PM

Originally Posted by Piero

Sorry to butt in so late, but as Russell proved a century ago, "everything" does not exist. because it would have to contain "everything" within it, so it would be a member of itself ad infinitum. Therefore, since "everything" does not exist, the creator of "everything" does not exist either. QED.

I must confess I have not read enough Russell to have found this, but wonder about the statement. Is this an ontological paradox, or are we dealing with Russell's and others' thoughts on sets? Granted that a set of specific objects cannot be a member of itself, if it is not the object in the set, and the set of all sets not members of themselves provides an amusing paradox, but not all sets are so compromised. The set of all sets does include itself. What prevents the set of everything from being a member of itself?

Piero · 13th February 2009, 09:08 PM

Originally Posted by bruto

I must confess I have not read enough Russell to have found this, but wonder about the statement. Is this an ontological paradox, or are we dealing with Russell's and others' thoughts on sets? Granted that a set of specific objects cannot be a member of itself, if it is not the object in the set, and the set of all sets not members of themselves provides an amusing paradox, but not all sets are so compromised. The set of all sets does include itself. What prevents the set of everything from being a member of itself?

Oh, it was just a joke. But anyway, the set of everything seems to me an ill-defined idea. What would its cardinality be, for instance?

Aitch · 14th February 2009, 01:20 AM

Originally Posted by bruto

I must confess I have not read enough Russell to have found this, but wonder about the statement. Is this an ontological paradox, or are we dealing with Russell's and others' thoughts on sets? Granted that a set of specific objects cannot be a member of itself, if it is not the object in the set, and the set of all sets not members of themselves provides an amusing paradox, but not all sets are so compromised. The set of all sets does include itself. What prevents the set of everything from being a member of itself?

cf the ending of The Farnsworth Parabox^WP - in which the universe contains the box that contains the universe...

catbasket · 14th February 2009, 04:47 AM

Just wanted to say that I'm up for joining the Church of Slingblade ... and Fiona - you are so nominated

arthwollipot · 14th February 2009, 06:11 AM

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.

Surely I'm the best judge of what the word I use refers to? I am, after all, the one using the word. Presumably I chose that particular word for a reason, hmm?

bruto · 14th February 2009, 07:29 AM

Originally Posted by Aitch

cf the ending of The Farnsworth Parabox^WP - in which the universe contains the box that contains the universe...

I suppose, but does that really say anything more than that the box is not a possible construct in a universe that is defined to exclude nothing? I don't see why we need to abandon the idea of "everything" if we simply acknowledge that the a box which "contains" everything is a paradox and thus impossible. If we found the box, we'd be in trouble, of course, but have we?

babbits · 14th February 2009, 09:23 AM

So does that mean we have arrived at:

"If god made everything then he made himself" which, as the Scholastics would have said, is absurd?

Elizabeth I · 14th February 2009, 09:44 AM

Quote:

so, judge the definition whether at least it gives the possible object in your brain or brains of people except in yours of the concept of god as the maker of heaven and earth and everything.

What?

Frozenwolf150 · 14th February 2009, 11:20 AM

Originally Posted by yrreg

So, judge the definition whether at least it gives the possible object in your brain or brains of people except in yours of the concept of God as the maker of heaven and earth and everything.

At the risk of my coming off crass
I must now head you off at the pass
The ontology's bunk
So your argument's sunk
Then again, it was pulled from your-- butt

(I'd have spent more than 10 seconds on this, but I still have to finish a much longer piece for an assignment this weekend.)

X · 14th February 2009, 02:52 PM

Originally Posted by yrreg

Read this post again, giving utmost attention and concentration and thus compliance to the lines in bold.

Originally Posted by yrreg

<snipped by X>

(1) 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.

(2) 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?

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

(4) 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.

(5) 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.

(6) 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.

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

(8) So, judge the definition whether at least it gives the possible object in your brain or brains of people except in yours of the concept of God as the maker of heaven and earth and everything.

Responses to points in numbered order:

(1)
The trouble is that your "definition" does not let other people know what entity you are referring to. Is it Vāhigurū? Allah? Brahmā? Chaos? The Flying Spaghetti Monster? The Great Green Arkelseizure? You complain every time someone mentions these concepts, accusing the person bringing them up of being idiots. Yet your own definition does not rule them out.
So, as far as trying to inform others of what entity you are referring to, you "definition" is insufficient.

(2)
See previous answer. Your "definition" does not tell me what your use of the term "God" refers to. There are many god concepts, and many of them fit your definition. Your "definition" does not let me know which "God" you are talking about.

(3)
No, it does not. See (1) and (2).

(4)
I am familiar with the concepts of Heaven, Earth and everything. THey are well defined. Heaven is a paradise afterlife, Earth is the planet on which we live, and everything is well, everything (which includes Heaven and Earth, by the way).
However, since your definition of God is merely as the maker of those objects and no more specific than that, you should find nothing wrong with me using the Flying Spaghetti Monster as the concept of god for this discussion. It fits your definition, after all. If you don't like it, come up with a more explicit definition.

(5)
You're right. I can not know what people are talking about when they use the word God. There are many different religions, each with their own god or gods. Further, in my experience, each individual has their own interpretation of god. It's very much a personal concept. I can claim that you are talking about the genocidal, vindictive, maniacal and petty god of the Torah. But I have no way of knowing for sure. There are simply too many god concepts for the word "god" to have any specific and clear meaning.

(6)
You really do need to stop insulting everyone who doesn't ascribe to your belief system. Or else we might start flinging insults at you for not following our beliefs or lack thereof.

(7)
I have no more fear of the word "god" (or even it's general implications) than I do of the word "leprechaun".

(8)
Very well. I judge it to fail. It does not provide a concept of "the possible object [...] of the concept of God as the maker of heaven and earth and everything". Why not? Because you ask if it provides a singular concept. It doesn't. It encompasses many many god concepts.

Again, please read my earlier post, quoted below:

Originally Posted by X

Yrreg; Read The Following.

You asked us what we felt was wrong with your definition of god (maker of heaven and earth and everything).

This has been provided, although you dismiss the posts as signs of naivete. Which is insulting, frankly. But then, so is most of what you write.

Here is the issue:

You routinely and reliably get angry whenever somebody brings up the Flying Spaghetti Monster or the Invisible Pink Unicorn or other deity concepts to prove a point.

The trouble is, these deity concepts are perfectly compatible with your definition of god.

Yet you refuse to acknowledge the analogies made, instead insulting the posters by saying people who bring up such concepts are "non-thinkers".

If these concepts are not your god, the fault lies with you.
Your definition, as presented, gives no way of differentiating between many hundreds of deity concepts (many of which are mutually incompatible).

Since you obviously have a specific god-concept in mind (or else you wouldn't reject the others as "non-thinking"), and since your definition fails completely to describe the specific concept you have in mind (or any other specific concept, for that matter), it is not a very good definition. By definition.

That is what is wrong with it. As a definition of a concept, it works, but doesn't really clarify anything. As a definition of a specific deity-concept, as you are using it for, it fails utterly. It is too vague, and it eschews actual description in favour of giving a resume.

MIKILLINI · 14th February 2009, 08:59 PM

Originally Posted by yrreg

So, judge the definition whether at least it gives the possible object in your brain or brains of people except in yours of the concept of God as the maker of heaven and earth and everything.

In order to find a consensus for the definition of God as maker of everything, perhaps you could specify which God you have in mind so we could narrow it down to one?

yrreg · 14th February 2009, 10:44 PM

Man is the measure of everything even God, wherefore man defines God.

Of course, now that we are so concerned about whether He does exist or not, then we start with the concept itself of God in our brain.

Here is my concept of God in my brain:

And here is my idea of what a definition is good or useful for to man, as understood by man, who is himself the measuring entity of everything that is of concern to man.

Originally Posted by yrreg

[...]

It [ a definition ] 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.

[...]

At this point of the thread I like to invite people to concentrate on the word God as at least referring to a possible entity inside the brain of humans at least some, which word God refers to the concept again in the brain of at least some people connoting:

If you have trouble with everything, it means everything that man knows now and can know in the future and also they thought they knew in the past but now know better.

So if you are a man or a woman or anything in between provided still human with a genetically human brain,* everything means everything you know now or in the future.

Some people know more things than others of course, but everyone knows everything he does know.

If you are again and still having trouble with knowing everything, then just pretend that you don't know something of the everything that you know, then that should still be all right in regard to the everything that you now know, whereas you actually know one more than everything you now know with the pretended ignorance of one thing of the everything you know without pretending to not know the one thing you do know without the said pretension*.

Please, for the love of viable communication, don't be more smart and thus all entangled in useless knots because you want to imagine that you are a super intelligence all knowing entity, and not just a human knowing entity, knowing the limited number of things you do know which to you is everything you know, and include in that also all the things you don't know but can know, and even cannot know because your brain no matter how much it exposes itself to and for how long, will still not know everything in objective reality that can be known by what I postulate to be the concept of God:

And please don't bring in names of gods and goddesses of earlier folks or more technologically backward peoples, unless and until you update and upgrade them to the level and quality of our current cognitive sophistication.

Rule 12 violation removed.

Posted By:Tricky

Okay? So, for the present let us all if I may include all of you to consider just the intrinsic possibility of the concept of God as:

Then we will work on His existence outside the concept in our brain, but of course corresponding to the concept.

Yrreg

Hokulele · 14th February 2009, 10:49 PM

Originally Posted by yrreg

If you have trouble with everything, it means everything that man knows now and can know in the future and also they thought they knew in the past but now know better.

So if man doesn't know it now, won't know it in the future, and didn't know it, or even think they knew it, in the past, god didn't make it.

Got it.

What about if a woman knew it? Something like, say, the location of the car keys?

blobru · 14th February 2009, 11:37 PM

Standing on the bridge over the koi pond, Gozu asked master Boshi: "What is God?"

The master leaned over the handrail and shook the collected moths out of the lamp basin. They floated on the water like cherry blossoms. The koi came to the surface to feed. One slapped its tail on the water as it circled, briefly disturbing the reflection of the two men.

"You're welcome," laughed Boshi.

"What is God?" asked Gozu, unsure if he had been heard.

"You hang the lantern tonight," said Boshi; "here," and walked away.

That night the light illuminated the rice hut's porch, the gathering moths, as the two men slept. Gozu had worried as he lit the lamp that the wind would blow it out.

commentary: the lamp, the flame, the wind, the moths, the koi, the light, the cherry blossom... Who will you thank?

MIKILLINI · 15th February 2009, 12:26 AM

Originally Posted by yrreg

Man is the measure of everything even God, wherefore man defines God.

Which God? Are you unable to reveal this God? Can't you define him with a name? If you can't, then your argument goes nowhere.

Quote:

Of course, now that we are so concerned about whether He does exist or not, then we start with the concept itself of God in our brain.

Here is my concept of God in my brain:

I believe you have mentioned this before.

Quote:

At this point of the thread I like to invite people to concentrate on the word God as at least referring to a possible entity inside the brain of humans at least some, which word God refers to the concept again in the brain of at least some people connoting:

You really like wasting time and forum bandwidth, don't you?

Quote:

If you have trouble with everything, it means everything that man knows now and can know in the future and also they thought they knew in the past but now know better.

So if you are a man or a woman or anything in between provided still human with a genetically human brain,* everything means everything you know now or in the future.

Some people know more things than others of course, but everyone knows everything he does know.

If you are again and still having trouble with knowing everything, then just pretend that you don't know something of the everything that you know, then that should still be all right in regard to the everything that you now know, whereas you actually know one more than everything you now know with the pretended ignorance of one thing of the everything you know without pretending to not know the one thing you do know without the said pretension*.

Seriously, did you have Don Rumsfeld write this?

Quote:

Please, for the love of viable communication, don't be more smart and thus all entangled in useless knots because you want to imagine that you are a super intelligence all knowing entity, and not just a human knowing entity, knowing the limited number of things you do know which to you is everything you know, and include in that also all the things you don't know but can know, and even cannot know because your brain no matter how much it exposes itself to and for how long, will still not know everything in objective reality that can be known by what I postulate to be the concept of God:

Quote:

And please don't bring in names of gods and goddesses of earlier folks or more technologically backward peoples, unless and until you update and upgrade them to the level and quality of our current cognitive sophistication.

Your God is...Allah? Jehovah? Did Protestants and Catholics fight over the same God? Why are Americans considered infidels in some countries?

Quote:

I wished you guys would not keep playing naive, or you are really born naive; if you keep playing naive, then suppose you just proclaim yourselves born-again naive -- then I will not invest time and trouble to read your posts here.*

Perhaps you could stop being so evasive and be more specific?

Quote:

Then we will work on His existence outside the concept in our brain, but of course corresponding to the concept.

Why don't you get started right now?

Ron_Tomkins · 15th February 2009, 12:55 AM

Originally Posted by yrreg

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

Yrreg

Well

What's exactly, specifically wrong with my definition of the tooth fairy?

A lovely little fairy, pink dress, magic wand, capable of magically transforming old teeth into golden coins

I'll let you think on that one

Ron

Mojo · 15th February 2009, 01:27 AM

Originally Posted by yrreg

And please don't bring in names of gods and goddesses of earlier folks or more technologically backward peoples, unless and until you update and upgrade them to the level and quality of our current cognitive sophistication.

Assuming that you are talking about the God mentioned in the Bible, does this mean that we can still talk about post-Bronze Age gods such as the FSM (a God of the internet age)?

yrreg · 15th February 2009, 02:10 AM

This is my concept of God as a theist:

That's a concept of God expressed in eight words.

Now, atheists, you tell me in less than ten words what is your concept of God.

Yrreg

Mashuna · 15th February 2009, 02:34 AM

Imaginary friend to help people who can't deal with reality.

Aitch · 15th February 2009, 02:48 AM

Imaginary being used to threaten anyone who disagrees with you.

Twiler · 15th February 2009, 02:52 AM

Component of an obsolete social control mechanism.

wollery · 15th February 2009, 03:07 AM

A human construct used to explain misunderstood natural phenomena.

zooterkin · 15th February 2009, 03:09 AM

Originally Posted by yrreg

Now, atheists, you tell me in less than ten words what is your concept of God.

..

AndyD · 15th February 2009, 03:10 AM

Quote:

This is my concept of God as a theist:

The maker of heaven and earth and everything.

That's a concept of God expressed in eight words.

Now, atheists, you tell me in less than ten words what is your concept of God.

I'm not certain your earlier demand for exactness and specificity meets with your new demand for brevity but here you go anyway...

An apparently imaginary being that some believe made everything.

Whoo! Nine words! What do I win?!?!

EDIT: Damn! zooterkin has succinctness down to a fine art.

joobz · 15th February 2009, 06:13 AM

The metaphysical synergy between the quantum conscious and unconscious shakras.

slingblade · 15th February 2009, 06:18 AM

Fungible.

zooterkin · 15th February 2009, 06:28 AM

Originally Posted by Mashuna

Imaginary friend to help people who can't deal with reality.

Originally Posted by Aitch

Imaginary being used to threaten anyone who disagrees with you.

Originally Posted by joobz

The metaphysical synergy between the quantum conscious and unconscious shakras.

Where did you guys learn to count? He said "less than ten words".

(Of course, he should have said "fewer than ten words".)

AWPrime · 15th February 2009, 07:04 AM

Originally Posted by yrreg

Man is the measure of everything even God, wherefore man defines God.

Therefore god comes from man. However how can a human produce a maker of everything?
In short, mankind can't, therefore its a mere Delusion, with a pint of supreme arrogance.

Quote:

And please don't bring in names of gods and goddesses of earlier folks or more technologically backward peoples

You mean like your god? Don't you know that the faith in your god is stronger in more backward areas.

bruto · 15th February 2009, 07:15 AM

Originally Posted by yrreg

Okay? So, for the present let us all if I may include all of you to consider just the intrinsic possibility of the concept of God as:

Then we will work on His existence outside the concept in our brain, but of course corresponding to the concept.

Yrreg

If the concept of god in your brain is actually nothing but what it says in your definition, then you have no concept of any particular god at all. If that definition is truly all you are working from, then you have not gone beyond the stage of imagining that the universe is created, to consider what might have created it. Yrreg, no matter how much verbiage you pile on, your definition is not the definition of any particular god with any particular attributes. It is only the shell of a definition, or a label for a more complete concept of God defined elsewhere. Whether you like it or not, or take offense at the suggestion or not, the definition you provide is applicable to any creation myth, real or imagined, and contains no specifications that could distinguish the God you (presumably) believe in from pantheistic deities, myths and parodies. If we did not infer it from your peevish responses, and from the context in which you operate here in this forum, your definition would give us no reason at all to presume that you are speaking of a monotheistic deity of the sort christians and muslims worship, rather than some Coyote myth or the Spaghetti Monster.

Since this is so, I wonder that you are taking so much trouble with the question. It is true that the definition you have put forth, despite its flaws, can be reasonably understood for the purposes of discourse about God and his existence, but it would be both simpler and more accurate simply to refer to some better definition in a dictionary,or in the doctrine of whatever religious persuasion you prefer, and say you are speaking of that concept. It would save you much trouble, and spare you the embarrassment of many many pages of incoherent writing and misdirected insults.

Your apparent inability to distinguish between the content of your definition and the content of your brain continues to trip you up. If what we are seeing here is the content of your brain, you would do well to be more circumspect in revealing it. It's not a pretty sight.

13th February 2009, 09:13 AM	#122
Z D.D.D. Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: In a den in my lair, on the edge of your mind. Posts: 9,166	Can I volunteer for part-time devil in the Church of Slingblade? Say... on every other Saturday?
	__________________ Merry Yarglemas!

13th February 2009, 09:16 AM	#123
babbits Critical Thinker Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 370	"Does it tell people what atheists and what theists are talking about with the word God?" Now you see, Yrreg, here is your problem. Atheists and theists aren't talking about the same thing when they use the word "god". Some theists may be satisfied with a definition such as "the maker of everything and the reason why my son was born with a cleft palate". But atheists define god as "the name superstitious people use for whatever they can't understand."
babbits Critical Thinker Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 370	Last edited by babbits; 13th February 2009 at 09:19 AM.

13th February 2009, 11:49 AM	#124
Macoy Writing on water Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 1,363	More about this Originally Posted by yrreg And also don't nitpick on redundancy, what to you is redundant is to others, greater connoisseurs of definitions, more explicit. Yrreg As I'm a bit of a connoisseur of definitions myself, perhaps we could pop upstairs later, and you might view my collections in a more salubrious and studious atmosphere? Potential mutual definitional studies might be certainly more explicit, but are nonetheless guaranteed guilt-free.
Macoy Writing on water Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 1,363	__________________ Realists live in a world of their own

13th February 2009, 05:39 PM	#126
yrreg Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 2,329	Please, let us keep to definition at this point in time, not bringing in existence. Read this post again, giving utmost attention and concentration and thus compliance to the lines in bold. Originally Posted by yrreg Title of Post: 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 So, judge the definition whether at least it gives the possible object in your brain or brains of people except in yours of the concept of God as the maker of heaven and earth and everything. Yrreg
yrreg Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 2,329

13th February 2009, 05:41 PM	#127
Hokulele Official Nemesis Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Trying to decide whether to set defenses against an army, or against mole rats. Posts: 27,349	No.
	__________________ Yvette: "Blasty! Blasty! Blasty!" Some person: "Why did you shoot that?" Yvette: "Blasty! Blasty! Blasty!" - Tragic Monkey

13th February 2009, 08:53 AM	#121
Lord Emsworth Je ne suis pas une de vos élèves Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Through the Cables and the Underground ... Posts: 2,831	As an additional comment to my earlier post ... Yrreg, there is nothing wrong as such with your defintion of God, as long as you realize that there are people with different conceptions (like me) who will simply not see your definition as sufficient. In a similar vein there is nothing wrong as such with Deism; it is only that I, as an atheist, will not necessarily feel contradicted by it.

13th February 2009, 12:24 PM	#125
Aitch Guest Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: StAines Posts: 2,731	How about a (not very good) Triolet^WP? Yrreg has tried to define God, but it turned out rather wooly and his language went a bit odd. Yrreg has tried to define God; but, challenged. he acts like a clod, becoming a frothing bully. Yrreg has tried to define God but it turned out rather wooly. Anyone fancy trying a Villanelle^WP?

13th February 2009, 06:36 PM	#128
Piero Thinker Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Viña del Mar, Chile Posts: 153	Sorry to butt in so late, but as Russell proved a century ago, "everything" does not exist. because it would have to contain "everything" within it, so it would be a member of itself ad infinitum. Therefore, since "everything" does not exist, the creator of "everything" does not exist either. QED.

13th February 2009, 07:01 PM	#129
GeeMack Banned Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Not Bandiagara Posts: 7,241	Originally Posted by yrreg Read this post again, giving utmost attention and concentration and thus compliance to the lines in bold. [LOAD_OF_BS][...][/LOAD_OF_BS] So, judge the definition whether at least it gives the possible object in your brain or brains of people except in yours of the concept of God as the maker of heaven and earth and everything. No.

13th February 2009, 08:04 PM	#130
Lord Emsworth Je ne suis pas une de vos élèves Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Through the Cables and the Underground ... Posts: 2,831	Originally Posted by yrreg So, judge the definition whether at least it gives the possible object in your brain or brains of people except in yours of the concept of God as the maker of heaven and earth and everything. I have no clue whether it gives me or other people that "possible object". Really, how should I?
	Last edited by Lord Emsworth; 13th February 2009 at 08:05 PM.

13th February 2009, 08:14 PM	#131
bruto Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy Posts: 11,261	Originally Posted by yrreg Read this post again, giving utmost attention and concentration and thus compliance to the lines in bold. Yrreg, you really ought to break that spamming habit of yours. Quote: So, judge the definition whether at least it gives the possible object in your brain or brains of people except in yours of the concept of God as the maker of heaven and earth and everything. That is a convoluted and confusing sentence. I challenge you to parse it into clear English, but since one can more or less guess what is meant, I will answer it anyway: In a word,NO. It conveys no concept of God beyond an action imputed to something with no other named attributes. The definition you provide is applicable to all gods and all creative processes, real or imaginary, without either distinguishing or excluding any. We know what sort of God you refer to only because we guess from your other writings, and from the cultural context of Christianity, what sort of God you likely mean. If we did not, your definition would be like meeting an explorer from another planet, providing the definition "a guy who kicks a ball" and expecting him to know you're speaking of David Beckham. It's a poor definition, Yrreg. If you don't like the answer, don't ask the question.
	__________________ "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)

13th February 2009, 08:42 PM	#132
bruto Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy Posts: 11,261	Originally Posted by Piero Sorry to butt in so late, but as Russell proved a century ago, "everything" does not exist. because it would have to contain "everything" within it, so it would be a member of itself ad infinitum. Therefore, since "everything" does not exist, the creator of "everything" does not exist either. QED. I must confess I have not read enough Russell to have found this, but wonder about the statement. Is this an ontological paradox, or are we dealing with Russell's and others' thoughts on sets? Granted that a set of specific objects cannot be a member of itself, if it is not the object in the set, and the set of all sets not members of themselves provides an amusing paradox, but not all sets are so compromised. The set of all sets does include itself. What prevents the set of everything from being a member of itself?
	__________________ "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)

13th February 2009, 09:08 PM	#133
Piero Thinker Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Viña del Mar, Chile Posts: 153	Originally Posted by bruto I must confess I have not read enough Russell to have found this, but wonder about the statement. Is this an ontological paradox, or are we dealing with Russell's and others' thoughts on sets? Granted that a set of specific objects cannot be a member of itself, if it is not the object in the set, and the set of all sets not members of themselves provides an amusing paradox, but not all sets are so compromised. The set of all sets does include itself. What prevents the set of everything from being a member of itself? Oh, it was just a joke. But anyway, the set of everything seems to me an ill-defined idea. What would its cardinality be, for instance?

14th February 2009, 01:20 AM	#134
Aitch Guest Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: StAines Posts: 2,731	Originally Posted by bruto I must confess I have not read enough Russell to have found this, but wonder about the statement. Is this an ontological paradox, or are we dealing with Russell's and others' thoughts on sets? Granted that a set of specific objects cannot be a member of itself, if it is not the object in the set, and the set of all sets not members of themselves provides an amusing paradox, but not all sets are so compromised. The set of all sets does include itself. What prevents the set of everything from being a member of itself? cf the ending of The Farnsworth Parabox^WP - in which the universe contains the box that contains the universe...

14th February 2009, 04:47 AM	#135
catbasket atheist godfather Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: The naughty step Posts: 1,486	Just wanted to say that I'm up for joining the Church of Slingblade ... and Fiona - you are so nominated
	__________________ Mathew 13:13 Therefore I speak to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.

14th February 2009, 06:11 AM	#136
arthwollipot Observer of Phenomena Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: The other side of your screen Posts: 43,253	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. Surely I'm the best judge of what the word I use refers to? I am, after all, the one using the word. Presumably I chose that particular word for a reason, hmm?
	__________________ 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.

14th February 2009, 07:29 AM	#137
bruto Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy Posts: 11,261	Originally Posted by Aitch cf the ending of The Farnsworth Parabox^WP - in which the universe contains the box that contains the universe... I suppose, but does that really say anything more than that the box is not a possible construct in a universe that is defined to exclude nothing? I don't see why we need to abandon the idea of "everything" if we simply acknowledge that the a box which "contains" everything is a paradox and thus impossible. If we found the box, we'd be in trouble, of course, but have we?
	__________________ "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)

14th February 2009, 09:23 AM	#138
babbits Critical Thinker Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 370	So does that mean we have arrived at: "If god made everything then he made himself" which, as the Scholastics would have said, is absurd?
babbits Critical Thinker Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 370

14th February 2009, 09:44 AM	#139
Elizabeth I Olympic Equestrian Wannabe Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Defending the Alamo Posts: 9,358	Quote: so, judge the definition whether at least it gives the possible object in your brain or brains of people except in yours of the concept of god as the maker of heaven and earth and everything. *What?*
	__________________ • There is something about the outside of a horse that is good for the inside of a man. - Winston Churchill • Never wrestle with a pig - you just get dirty and the pig enjoys it. • My blog: Pardon me, may I ask...

14th February 2009, 11:20 AM	#140
Frozenwolf150 Formerly SilentKnight Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Under cold, moonlit skies Posts: 1,819	Originally Posted by yrreg So, judge the definition whether at least it gives the possible object in your brain or brains of people except in yours of the concept of God as the maker of heaven and earth and everything. At the risk of my coming off crass I must now head you off at the pass The ontology's bunk So your argument's sunk Then again, it was pulled from your-- butt (I'd have spent more than 10 seconds on this, but I still have to finish a much longer piece for an assignment this weekend.)
	__________________ A clogged toilet a day keeps the Daleks at bay.

14th February 2009, 02:52 PM	#141
X Slide Rulez 4 Life Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Launching the army, waiting for Hok to commit her forces (then the moles strike...) Posts: 4,087	Originally Posted by yrreg Read this post again, giving utmost attention and concentration and thus compliance to the lines in bold. Originally Posted by yrreg <snipped by X> (1) 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. (2) 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? (3) Does it tell people what atheists and what theists are talking about with the word God? (4) 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. (5) 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. (6) 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. (7) Or perhaps you have some kind of dread with the word itself of God, what is that dread all about? (8) So, judge the definition whether at least it gives the possible object in your brain or brains of people except in yours of the concept of God as the maker of heaven and earth and everything. Responses to points in numbered order: (1) The trouble is that your "definition" does not let other people know what entity you are referring to. Is it Vāhigurū? Allah? Brahmā? Chaos? The Flying Spaghetti Monster? The Great Green Arkelseizure? You complain every time someone mentions these concepts, accusing the person bringing them up of being idiots. Yet your own definition does not rule them out. So, as far as trying to inform others of what entity you are referring to, you "definition" is insufficient. (2) See previous answer. Your "definition" does not tell me what your use of the term "God" refers to. There are many god concepts, and many of them fit your definition. Your "definition" does not let me know which "God" you are talking about. (3) No, it does not. See (1) and (2). (4) I am familiar with the concepts of Heaven, Earth and everything. THey are well defined. Heaven is a paradise afterlife, Earth is the planet on which we live, and everything is well, everything (which includes Heaven and Earth, by the way). However, since your definition of God is merely as the maker of those objects and no more specific than that, you should find nothing wrong with me using the Flying Spaghetti Monster as the concept of god for this discussion. It fits your definition, after all. If you don't like it, come up with a more explicit definition. (5) You're right. I can not know what people are talking about when they use the word God. There are many different religions, each with their own god or gods. Further, in my experience, each individual has their own interpretation of god. It's very much a personal concept. I can claim that you are talking about the genocidal, vindictive, maniacal and petty god of the Torah. But I have no way of knowing for sure. There are simply too many god concepts for the word "god" to have any specific and clear meaning. (6) You really do need to stop insulting everyone who doesn't ascribe to your belief system. Or else we might start flinging insults at you for not following our beliefs or lack thereof. (7) I have no more fear of the word "god" (or even it's general implications) than I do of the word "leprechaun". (8) Very well. I judge it to fail. It does not provide a concept of "the possible* object [...] of the concept of God as the maker of heaven and earth and everything". Why not? Because you ask if it provides a singular* concept. It doesn't. It encompasses many many god concepts. Again, please read my earlier post, quoted below: Originally Posted by X Yrreg; Read The Following. You asked us what we felt was wrong with your definition of god (maker of heaven and earth and everything). This has been provided, although you dismiss the posts as signs of naivete. Which is insulting, frankly. But then, so is most of what you write. Here is the issue: You routinely and reliably get angry whenever somebody brings up the Flying Spaghetti Monster or the Invisible Pink Unicorn or other deity concepts to prove a point. The trouble is, these deity concepts are perfectly compatible with your definition of god. Yet you refuse to acknowledge the analogies made, instead insulting the posters by saying people who bring up such concepts are "non-thinkers". If these concepts are not your god, the fault lies with you. Your definition, as presented, gives no way of differentiating between many hundreds of deity concepts (many of which are mutually incompatible). Since you obviously have a specific god-concept in mind (or else you wouldn't reject the others as "non-thinking"), and since your definition fails completely to describe the specific concept you have in mind (or any other specific concept, for that matter), it is not a very good definition. By definition. That is what is wrong with it. As a definition of a concept, it works, but doesn't really clarify anything. As a definition of a specific deity-concept, as you are using it for, it fails utterly. It is too vague, and it eschews actual description in favour of giving a resume.
	__________________ It is sad that this is necessary: Argumentum Ad Hominem: "You are wrong because you are ugly." Not Ad-Hom: "You are wrong and you are ugly." [X's posts are] ...as good as having 24 hours of Justin Bieber piped into your ears! - kmortis Last edited by X; 14th February 2009 at 02:53 PM.

14th February 2009, 08:59 PM	#142
MIKILLINI Incromulent Logic Join Date: May 2007 Location: The Illini State Posts: 2,883	Which God are you refering to? Originally Posted by yrreg So, judge the definition whether at least it gives the possible object in your brain or brains of people except in yours of the concept of God as the maker of heaven and earth and everything. In order to find a consensus for the definition of God as maker of everything, perhaps you could specify which God you have in mind so we could narrow it down to one?
	__________________ 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; 14th February 2009 at 10:15 PM. Reason: To insert a header (Yrreg notices them).

14th February 2009, 10:49 PM	#144
Hokulele Official Nemesis Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Trying to decide whether to set defenses against an army, or against mole rats. Posts: 27,349	Originally Posted by yrreg If you have trouble with everything, it means everything that man knows now and can know in the future and also they thought they knew in the past but now know better. So if man doesn't know it now, won't know it in the future, and didn't know it, or even think they knew it, in the past, god didn't make it. Got it. What about if a woman knew it? Something like, say, the location of the car keys?
	__________________ Yvette: "Blasty! Blasty! Blasty!" Some person: "Why did you shoot that?" Yvette: "Blasty! Blasty! Blasty!" - Tragic Monkey

14th February 2009, 11:37 PM	#145
blobru Philosopher Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 6,612	Standing on the bridge over the koi pond, Gozu asked master Boshi: "What is God?" The master leaned over the handrail and shook the collected moths out of the lamp basin. They floated on the water like cherry blossoms. The koi came to the surface to feed. One slapped its tail on the water as it circled, briefly disturbing the reflection of the two men. "You're welcome," laughed Boshi. "What is God?" asked Gozu, unsure if he had been heard. "You hang the lantern tonight," said Boshi; "here," and walked away. That night the light illuminated the rice hut's porch, the gathering moths, as the two men slept. Gozu had worried as he lit the lamp that the wind would blow it out. commentary: the lamp, the flame, the wind, the moths, the koi, the light, the cherry blossom... Who will you thank?
blobru Philosopher Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 6,612	__________________ "Say to them, 'I am Nobody!'" -- Ulysses to the Cyclops "Never mind. I can't read." -- Hokulele to the Easter Bunny

15th February 2009, 12:26 AM	#146
MIKILLINI Incromulent Logic Join Date: May 2007 Location: The Illini State Posts: 2,883	Originally Posted by yrreg Man is the measure of everything even God, wherefore man defines God. Which God? Are you unable to reveal this God? Can't you define him with a name? If you can't, then your argument goes nowhere. Quote: Of course, now that we are so concerned about whether He does exist or not, then we start with the concept itself of God in our brain. Here is my concept of God in my brain: The maker of heaven and and earth and everything. I believe you have mentioned this before. Quote: At this point of the thread I like to invite people to concentrate on the word God as at least referring to a possible entity inside the brain of humans at least some, which word God refers to the concept again in the brain of at least some people connoting: The maker of heaven and earth and everything. You really like wasting time and forum bandwidth, don't you? Quote: If you have trouble with everything, it means everything that man knows now and can know in the future and also they thought they knew in the past but now know better. So if you are a man or a woman or anything in between provided still human with a genetically human brain,* everything means everything you know now or in the future. Some people know more things than others of course, but everyone knows everything he does know. If you are again and still having trouble with knowing everything, then just pretend that you don't know something of the everything that you know, then that should still be all right in regard to the everything that you now know, whereas you actually know one more than everything you now know with the pretended ignorance of one thing of the everything you know without pretending to not know the one thing you do know without the said pretension. Seriously, did you have Don Rumsfeld write this? Quote: Please, for the love of viable communication, don't be more smart and thus all entangled in useless knots because you want to imagine that you are a super intelligence all knowing entity, and not just a human knowing entity, knowing the limited number of things you do know which to you is everything you know, and include in that also all the things you don't know but can know, and even cannot know because your brain no matter how much it exposes itself to and for how long, will still not know everything in objective reality that can be known by what I postulate to be the concept of God: The maker of heaven and earth and everything. Quote: And please don't bring in names of gods and goddesses of earlier folks or more technologically backward peoples, unless and until you update and upgrade them to the level and quality of our current cognitive sophistication. Your God is...Allah? Jehovah? Did Protestants and Catholics fight over the same God? Why are Americans considered infidels in some countries? Quote: I wished you guys would not keep playing naive, or you are really born naive; if you keep playing naive, then suppose you just proclaim yourselves born-again naive -- then I will not invest time and trouble to read your posts here. Perhaps you could stop being so evasive and be more specific? Quote: Then we will work on His existence outside the concept in our brain, but of course corresponding to the concept. Why don't you get started right now?
	__________________ 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.

15th February 2009, 12:55 AM	#147
Ron_Tomkins Satan's Helper Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: NYC Posts: 32,200	Originally Posted by yrreg What's exactly, specifically wrong with my definition of God? as maker of heaven and earth and everything. Yrreg Well What's exactly, specifically wrong with my definition of the tooth fairy? A lovely little fairy, pink dress, magic wand, capable of magically transforming old teeth into golden coins I'll let you think on that one Ron

15th February 2009, 01:27 AM	#148
Mojo Mostly harmless Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Nor Flanden Posts: 22,495	Originally Posted by yrreg And please don't bring in names of gods and goddesses of earlier folks or more technologically backward peoples, unless and until you update and upgrade them to the level and quality of our current cognitive sophistication. Assuming that you are talking about the God mentioned in the Bible, does this mean that we can still talk about post-Bronze Age gods such as the FSM (a God of the internet age)?
	__________________ "You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield "The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky

15th February 2009, 02:10 AM	#149
yrreg Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 2,329	Now, atheists you tell me in less than ten words what is your concept of God. This is my concept of God as a theist: The maker of heaven and earth and everything. That's a concept of God expressed in eight words. Now, atheists, you tell me in less than ten words what is your concept of God. Yrreg
yrreg Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 2,329

15th February 2009, 02:34 AM	#150
Mashuna Ovis ex Machina Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Welsh Wales Posts: 6,590	Imaginary friend to help people who can't deal with reality.
	__________________ 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.

15th February 2009, 02:48 AM	#151
Aitch Guest Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: StAines Posts: 2,731	Imaginary being used to threaten anyone who disagrees with you.

15th February 2009, 02:52 AM	#152
Twiler Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 2,494	Component of an obsolete social control mechanism.
Twiler Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 2,494

15th February 2009, 03:07 AM	#153
wollery Protected by Samurai Hedgehogs! Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Land of Eternal Hope Posts: 10,335	A human construct used to explain misunderstood natural phenomena.
	__________________ "You're a sick SOB. You know that, Wollery?" - Roadtoad "Just think how stupid the average person is, and then realize that half of them are even stupider!" --George Carlin

15th February 2009, 03:09 AM	#154
zooterkin Nitpicking dilettante Moderator Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Berkshire, mostly Posts: 25,052	Originally Posted by yrreg Now, atheists, you tell me in less than ten words what is your concept of God. ..
	__________________ 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

15th February 2009, 03:10 AM	#155
AndyD Muse Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 527	Quote: This is my concept of God as a theist: The maker of heaven and earth and everything. That's a concept of God expressed in eight words. Now, atheists, you tell me in less than ten words what is your concept of God. I'm not certain your earlier demand for exactness and specificity meets with your new demand for brevity but here you go anyway... An apparently imaginary being that some believe made everything. Whoo! Nine words! What do I win?!?! EDIT: Damn! zooterkin has succinctness down to a fine art.
AndyD Muse Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 527	__________________ Australian Vaccination Network (AVN) Perth homeopaths Last edited by AndyD; 15th February 2009 at 03:12 AM. Reason: I was beaten!

15th February 2009, 06:13 AM	#156
joobz Tergiversator Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: That's how you get ants Posts: 17,588	The metaphysical synergy between the quantum conscious and unconscious shakras.
	__________________ 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