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

[Mashuna]

Originally Posted by zooterkin

Where did you guys learn to count? He said

I'm sorry, I had to stop reading after nine words.

[Mojo]

Originally Posted by yrreg

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.

Imaginary being with supernatural powers.

Five words.

[Lord Emsworth]

Originally Posted by yrreg

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.

A first cause style creator with libertarian free will.


Which is about as possible as a square circle. Anything that does not conform to this, say, something that could be seen as a first cause on one hand, that does not however have a choice to chose between different creations, does not count.

Preferably, that which is to be called 'God' exhibits clear anthropomorphic characteristics, like for example possesses speech. But I am less insistent here.

Ten words you wanted? Then run with the first line ... if you wish.

[Bob Klase]

Originally Posted by yrreg

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

concept of god

[catbasket]

Originally Posted by yrreg

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

Yrreg

My concept of god is too great or extreme to be expressed in words though there is a school of thought that it is simply too sacred to be uttered. It's also ten words long. Sorry.

[joobz]

MY concept of god is best understood through dance.

[X]

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.

Ahura Mazda fits your definition. So does Bagadjimbiri, and Nanabozho. Along with Tezcatlipoca, Kaang and Bunjil.
In fact, every god on this list (some appear more than once under different names) fits your definition.

If a god concept fits your definition (maker of heaven and earth and everything), then what grounds do you have for rejecting it?
"earlier folks" and "more technologically backward peoples" are not grounds to dismiss a claim. They are (say it with me): Ad-Hominem attacks.

If you don't like people bringing in god concepts of "earlier folks or more technologically backward peoples", then perhaps you should ensure that your definition makes clear which particular god concept you are talking about.

The definition you have given is not sufficient convey the concept of a particular god. All it can do is convey a very general concept which applies equally well to many different god concepts.
So you can either improve the definition, or stop whining every time someone mentions a god you don't believe in.


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


Further, I don't think much of your demands that we make short posts. I mean, look at your own. They are long, repetitive, and needlessly wordy.

Until you make your posts short and to the point, your demands that we do so are hypocritical. And I for one will not acquiesce to them.

You asked the question, you've had your answers.

Deal with it.

[Ron_Tomkins]

Sorry, yrreg but never told me what was wrong with my definition of the Tooth Fairy. Could you please reply to my post?

[MIKILLINI]

Originally Posted by yrreg

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.

Evasive as this thread's author.
5 words, Gerry.
Now get to the point.

[Mojo]

Originally Posted by X

The definition you have given is not sufficient convey the concept of a particular god. All it can do is convey a very general concept which applies equally well to many different god concepts.

It also excludes all non-creator gods, which have as much right to be included in the definition of "god" as creator gods, at least from the point of view of atheists, who yrreg claims to be trying to engage with here.

[Hokulele]

Originally Posted by yrreg

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

Penis.

[Elizabeth I]

Quote:

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:

The maker of heaven and and earth and everything.

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.

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.

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:

The maker of heaven and earth and everything.

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.

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:

The maker of heaven and earth and everything.

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

He writes this stuff in his native language (Lower Middle Incoherent), then does a copy-paste into Babelfish and posts the resulting "translation," doesn't he?

[blobru]

Originally Posted by Hokulele

Originally Posted by yrreg

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

Penis.

Batur asked the master: "Is God yin, or yang?"

Said master: "God can go **** himself. You figure it out."

commentary: guess apples weren't the only fruit in the garden.

[Silentknight]

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.

Right, because those Bronze Age tribal folk from 1800 bce who thought that the Earth was flat and created in six days couldn't possibly have known what they were saying about God.

[yrreg]

Before anything else, I apologize to any people for my unacceptable words.


Please, in the name of camaraderie -- addressing also Tricky as a common poster here, abstain from reporting what you think is an offensive line in my message which you believe should be reported, because it is not necessary to report it to the moderator for him to issue a warning.

Just tell me directly and ask me to rewrite the post with no more offense to you, and also demand even an apology.

That should save a lot of unnecessary time and trouble for all concerned.

Originally Posted by AndyD

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.

That is a useful description of God, it says essentially the same concept as mine: the maker of heaven and earth and everything.


I award you with the reference to an online text of The Cloud of Unknowing, a mystical work attributed to a 14th century English monk.


You see AndyD, what I am trying to find out is whether atheists here can accept that concept of God, namely: the maker of heaven and earth and everything, as one that is possible in the human brain, but prescinding from the question of God's existence at this point of the thread.





Yrreg

[Mojo]

Originally Posted by yrreg

Before anything else, I apologize to any people for my unacceptable words.


Please, in the name of camaraderie -- addressing also Tricky as a common poster here, abstain from reporting what you think is an offensive line in my message which you believe should be reported, because it is not necessary to report it to the moderator for him to issue a warning.

Just tell me directly and ask me to rewrite the post with no more offense to you, and also demand even an apology.

That should save a lot of unnecessary time and trouble for all concerned.

On the evidence of the rest of this thread (and of your last few threads) it doesn't appear that you take much notice of anything that others post here, so this would probably be a futile course of action.

[yrreg]

For the rest of you, just point out what is impossible in my concept of God as concept.

The maker of heaven and earth and everything.

You see, everyone, atheists bring in so many concepts of God, but theists like yours truly tell you that in many of their concepts of God, they are missing out on what theists like myself harbor in our brain as the concept of God.






Yrreg

[Elizabeth I]

Quote:

You see AndyD, what I am trying to find out is whether atheists here can accept that concept of God, namely: the maker of heaven and earth and everything, as one that is possible in the human brain, but prescinding from the question of God's existence at this point of the thread.

Prescind: v.tr. To separate or divide in thought; consider individually.
v.intr. To withdraw one's attention.

In this context, I'm not sure prescind is the word you wanted.

[yrreg]

Originally Posted by Elizabeth I

Quote:
You see AndyD, what I am trying to find out is whether atheists here can accept that concept of God, namely: the maker of heaven and earth and everything, as one that is possible in the human brain, but prescinding from the question of God's existence at this point of the thread.

Prescind: v.tr. To separate or divide in thought; consider individually.
v.intr. To withdraw one's attention.

In this context, I'm not sure prescind is the word you wanted.

You must remember that language is greater and deeper and higher than any dictionary can contain.


And it is a great catastrophe that people have this idea that they should be enslaved by dictionaries which are made by fellow men who need not be the most versatile and prolific in the use of language.



Anyway, Elizabeth, suppose you tell me what I want to say with that phrase, prescinding from, and rewrite my disputed line for me, then I will examine it and tell you whether you get my thought correctly or not.



Or you want to witness a contest of bringing up the nth number of dictionaries to prove... what?

When people start arguing on the basis of dictionary definition, I usually prescind from their presence.

Wrong use of prescind in that line? You have got to be versatile and prolific in language to understand that word prescind in that line from me.


Haha, gotcha!


Oooops, might get in trouble with some people again.


Can't people here some not ever get any magnanimity of spirit, but must complain to the police precinct for any so much as the most effervescent ether of an offense in the words of Yrreg here?





Yrreg

[RoboTimbo]

Originally Posted by yrreg

Just tell me directly and ask me to rewrite the post with no more offense to you, and also demand even an apology.

You've already said that you don't read posts. How about just stopping with the name calling?

Quote:

That should save a lot of unnecessary time and trouble for all concerned.

I don't mind you getting in trouble.

[bruto]

Originally Posted by yrreg

For the rest of you, just point out what is impossible in my concept of God as concept.

The maker of heaven and earth and everything.

You see, everyone, atheists bring in so many concepts of God, but theists like yours truly tell you that in many of their concepts of God, they are missing out on what theists like myself harbor in our brain as the concept of God.






Yrreg

The problem with your definition is not that it is impossible. It is that it is incomplete. I do not think you have considered just what a definition is. A definition defines, and in so doing, it does not only state what it applies to, but what it does not apply to. It is in that latter area that your definition falls short.

I truly think that you have not taken this seriously, and also that you are quite mistaken as to what other theists "harbor in their brains as the concept of God." If your definition were what they harbor in their brains, it would be the definition that we see in dictionaries, and it would be the definition arrived at by theologians when they discuss at length the nature of God. But it is not. Those definitions you spurn are the definitions of other theists, not of atheists, for whom the details of God's specific properties and attributes are irrelevant.

[GeeMack]

Originally Posted by yrreg

Just tell me directly and ask me to rewrite the post with no more offense to you, and also demand even an apology.

That should save a lot of unnecessary time and trouble for all concerned.

Okay, yrreg, since you first arrived here you've been rude, insulting, and demanding. You've refused to even acknowledge all but a few legitimate replies to your posts. You've changed the subject more times than anyone here can count, yet you get all pissy when other people slide off topic a bit. You've bailed out completely on threads where you've been proven to lack the knowledge or sense to continue the discussion, instead of showing some integrity and admitting that you've failed. You've regularly shown you don't have the courage to admit you're wrong about anything. You choose your vocabulary in an effort to sound smart rather than in an effort to communicate effectively, and you ignore everyone's request that you make yourself clear. You rely on the most ridiculous collection of strawmen. You won't refine your definition of god to make it useable in a conversation. And you've threatened through hundreds and hundreds of posts to bring in your evidence to substantiate the existence of a god but never even remotely begun to do that.

You need to essentially start over and rewrite pretty much all your posts. The raw stupidity in most of them is offensive. The complete blind ignorance certainly is, too. You owe us all an apology for the total lack of consideration and respect you've shown to the people here who have made an honest effort to engage you in a productive dialog.

Quote:

You see AndyD, what I am trying to find out is whether atheists here can accept that concept of God, namely: the maker of heaven and earth and everything, as one that is possible in the human brain, but prescinding from the question of God's existence at this point of the thread.

We accept that concept as one that is possible in the human brain. That concept, ridiculous as it is, obviously exists in your brain.

[Shalamar]

Originally Posted by yrreg

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

"Man created God in his own image."

Seven words. What do I win?

[Lord Emsworth]

Originally Posted by yrreg

For the rest of you, just point out what is impossible in my concept of God as concept.[/indent]

Clear up "maker" and I might tell you. Until then, your concept remains insufficient to me. A machine, for example, would not count as God, even if it *could* be called "maker:"
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/coffeemaker


And then there is still this "everything" problem. By definition there cannot exist anything apart from everything, maker or not. This ain't cleared up either and if it is to be taken at face value, then you have your impossibility. A something that is not amongst the existing.

[Elizabeth I]

Quote:

You must remember that language is greater and deeper and higher than any dictionary can contain.

And it is a great catastrophe that people have this idea that they should be enslaved by dictionaries which are made by fellow men who need not be the most versatile and prolific in the use of language.

Anyway, Elizabeth, suppose you tell me what I want to say with that phrase, prescinding from, and rewrite my disputed line for me, then I will examine it and tell you whether you get my thought correctly or not.

Or you want to witness a contest of bringing up the nth number of dictionaries to prove... what?

When people start arguing on the basis of dictionary definition, I usually prescind from their presence.

Wrong use of prescind in that line? You have got to be versatile and prolific in language to understand that word prescind in that line from me.

Originally Posted by Through the Looking Glass

'To be sure I was!' Humpty Dumpty said gaily as she turned it round for him. `I thought it looked a little queer. As I was saying, that seems to be done right -- though I haven't time to look it over thoroughly just now -- and that shows that there are three hundred and sixty-four days when you might get un-birthday presents --'

`Certainly,' said Alice.

`And only one for birthday presents, you know. There's glory for you!'

`I don't know what you mean by "glory",' Alice said.

Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. `Of course you don't -- till I tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"'

`But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument",' Alice objected.

`When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'"

Of course, one can operate in this manner, but then one shouldn't expect anyone to understand what he says. And language, whether spoken or written, is intended to communicate.

How the hell should I know what you meant?

Quote:

Can't people here some not ever get any magnanimity of spirit, but must complain to the police precinct for any so much as the most effervescent ether of an offense in the words of Yrreg here?

Yep, I was right. It's a Babelfish translation, cut and pasted.

[yrreg]

Originally Posted by bruto

Posted by yrreg
For the rest of you, just point out what is impossible in my concept of God as concept.

The maker of heaven and earth and everything.

You see, everyone, atheists bring in so many concepts of God, but theists like yours truly tell you that in many of their concepts of God, they are missing out on what theists like myself harbor in our brain as the concept of God.

The problem with your definition is not that it is impossible. It is that it is incomplete. I do not think you have considered just what a definition is. A definition defines, and in so doing, it does not only state what it applies to, but what it does not apply to. It is in that latter area that your definition falls short.

I truly think that you have not taken this seriously, and also that you are quite mistaken as to what other theists "harbor in their brains as the concept of God." If your definition were what they harbor in their brains, it would be the definition that we see in dictionaries, and it would be the definition arrived at by theologians when they discuss at length the nature of God. But it is not. Those definitions you spurn are the definitions of other theists, not of atheists, for whom the details of God's specific properties and attributes are irrelevant.

Dear Bruto, I hope you are not one to lack in magnanimity unlike pusillanimous souls here who would swoon in fits of anger at the mention of brain peculiarity on their part.


You say about my description of God as the maker of heaven and earth and everything:

The problem with your definition is not that it is impossible. It is that it is incomplete. I do not think you have considered just what a definition is. A definition defines, and in so doing, it does not only state what it applies to, but what it does not apply to. It is in that latter area that your definition falls short.

Let's attend to this particular text from you:

"A definition defines, and in so doing, it does not only state what it applies to, but what it does not apply to. It is in that latter area that your definition falls short."

To be diplomatic I will just say that you have a peculiar idea that dictionaries have the job of restricting people from applying a word to objects they don't include in their definitions.

I for my own part definitely maintain something altogether distinctly different from your idea of the job of dictionaries, namely, that if they do at least imply what objects their definitions apply to, they don't in effect restrict their definitions to only those objects.


I will just seriously suggest to you to think: whether your employment of dictionaries in that respect is doing yourself a service or a disservice, and giving credit to the authors of dictionaries.




Yrreg

*See my post here, in a past thread.

[MIKILLINI]

Originally Posted by Elizabeth I

Of course, one can operate in this manner, but then one shouldn't expect anyone to understand what he says. And language, whether spoken or written, is intended to communicate.

.

He is one who speaks of mastery in English. He may know all the words but does not structure them well for effective communication. In fact, it seems he tries to use every English word there is in one thread.

Case in point: Look at post #186.

[NobbyNobbs]

Originally Posted by yrreg

To be diplomatic I will just say that you have a peculiar idea that dictionaries have the job of restricting people from applying a word to objects they don't include in their definitions.

I for my own part definitely maintain something altogether distinctly different from your idea of the job of dictionaries, namely, that if they do at least imply what objects their definitions apply to, they don't in effect restrict their definitions to only those objects.


I will just seriously suggest to you to think: whether your employment of dictionaries in that respect is doing yourself a service or a disservice, and giving credit to the authors of dictionaries.

Yrreg,

Your basketball is most definitely liquidity and sharp.

And by "basketball" I mean "argument". By "liquidity" I meant "ridiculous" and by "sharp" I meant "pointless".

But since you and I don't let dictionaries restrict us in the use of words, you already understood what I meant, didn't you?

[yrreg]

You want to tell people what you deny or lack in your repertory of concepts, yet you don't want to concur with people on their concepts like God which you deny or maintain to lack knowledge of.


That is why it is almost impossible to have any productive exchange of thoughts with atheists.


Thanks just the same for your contributions, because I am sure from my part that people are having fun here who do derive enjoyment from reading our posts, and also in some way to some extent they are getting some enhancement of their intellectual culture.


Apologies to folks where whose posts I do not react to, because as the saying goes, ars longa, vita brevis,* i.e., art is long but life is short, that is why I have to just limit myself to the posts that I usually answer to, the ones in particular that come immediately after my last post of the previous session.



Another thing, I stop using the word mind, but instead use the word brain, because it is certainly most empirical compared to the word mind.


So, please bear with me: brain is the only thing in a human that no human can deny without erasing himself from the universe of existence as human.





Yrreg

*Ars here has nothing to do with the posterior sewage opening of animals, it is the latin word for art.

[MIKILLINI]

Well Yrreg you can have your concept of God, but that's all you have: A concept. How did you acquire the conception of God?
Or did you just come up with the concept all on your own?

Simple questions, yrreg. Can you answer them?

[X]

Originally Posted by yrreg

Just tell me directly and ask me to rewrite the post with no more offense to you, and also demand even an apology.

That should save a lot of unnecessary time and trouble for all concerned.

Here's a novel idea, mate: Stop insulting people. Seriously. I cannot fathom how you manage to think the problem lies with people reporting your posts. It lies with the way you write them. Stop being rude, and your posts won't get reported.


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

Originally Posted by yrreg

For the rest of you, just point out what is impossible in my concept of God as concept.

The maker of heaven and earth and everything.

You see, everyone, atheists bring in so many concepts of God, but theists like yours truly tell you that in many of their concepts of God, they are missing out on what theists like myself harbor in our brain as the concept of God.

"Impossible" is an odd word choice. If I say nothing is impossible with that definition, will you jump out, yell "Haha Gotcha!" and claim I admitted your god is possible?

Read carefully: Your definition fails to inform other people of what you are talking about.

Allow me to quote you: "theists like myself harbor in our brain as the concept of God."

"the concept of God."

"THE CONCEPT OF GOD"

"THE CONCEPT OF GOD"

What do you notice about the bit I've emphasized?

No, not the fact that I've quoted is multiple times.
No, not the fact that I've written it in caps.
No, not the fact that it is bolded.

The important thing here is that it is singular. You are plainly talking about one specific concept of one specific god.
But your definition does not tell us which god this is.

As has been pointed out to you (repeatedly), there are many (that "many" is a link, btw, to a list of creator gods) god concepts which can easily be described as the "maker of heaven and earth and everything".

The fact is that you obviously have a specific god concept in mind.
Your definition, however, does not inform the reader of which one you have in mind.
That is why your definition is not good enough.




I've said this same thing 3 or 4 times now, in this very thread. Yet thus far you have ignored it.

Please reply, Yrreg, so I know that you understand why I reject your definition of god.






Edit: One final point: Verbosity does not equal eloquence.
(In simpler terms: using lots of big words does not mean you are communicating well.)

[bruto]

Originally Posted by yrreg

Dear Bruto, I hope you are not one to lack in magnanimity unlike pusillanimous souls here who would swoon in fits of anger at the mention of brain peculiarity on their part.


You say about my description of God as the maker of heaven and earth and everything:

The problem with your definition is not that it is impossible. It is that it is incomplete. I do not think you have considered just what a definition is. A definition defines, and in so doing, it does not only state what it applies to, but what it does not apply to. It is in that latter area that your definition falls short.

Let's attend to this particular text from you:

"A definition defines, and in so doing, it does not only state what it applies to, but what it does not apply to. It is in that latter area that your definition falls short."

To be diplomatic I will just say that you have a peculiar idea that dictionaries have the job of restricting people from applying a word to objects they don't include in their definitions.

I for my own part definitely maintain something altogether distinctly different from your idea of the job of dictionaries, namely, that if they do at least imply what objects their definitions apply to, they don't in effect restrict their definitions to only those objects.


I will just seriously suggest to you to think: whether your employment of dictionaries in that respect is doing yourself a service or a disservice, and giving credit to the authors of dictionaries.




Yrreg

*See my post here, in a past thread.

Nobby nobs has said it more artfully that I can, perhaps, but I will just say that you are quite wrong about what you presume I believe about dictionaries. Dictionaries help us to understand the meaning of words as we use them in discourse with each other. It is thus that we can make sure that when we use a word it accomplishes the job of clear communication. If we define a word in our own peculiar way, communication is impeded.

Let me see if I can try once more to express what I mean as if I were speaking to someone who cares about meaning and has a willingness to understand something other than what he already thinks (I realize it's a long shot, but here goes....)

Let us define God, in a way that is incontrovertible, if there is a god at all.

I define God as "something creative"

Now if there is a god at all, this statement is entirely true, and cannot be denied.

But is it a good definition? I don't think so. I think it is a very stupid definition.

Why is it a stupid definition? Because it does not DEFINE. It omits what we need to know to distinguish the thing we are speaking of from other things that are not it.

I could define a dog as "an animal," and would be 100 percent correct, yet the definition would be a bad one, worthless in fact, because other things that are not dogs are animals too.

You see, a statement, even if it is true, is not necessarily a good definition if it does not establish some difference between what it refers to and what it does not.

Now let us look at the definition of god as the creator of everything (including heaven and earth, in case we cannot comprehend what the word "everything" might include). Is that a good definition? Does it distinguish the god belonging to one faith from the god belonging to others? Does it impute any actual characteristics, properties, or attributes to the god in question? It does not. Does it exclude possible forces other than those generally reckoned to be divine? It does not.

So, if you define God as you have, you have perhaps defined the concept of "first cause," which in most theologies is one of the several attributes of God, just as being an animal is one of the several attributes of a dog. You have not, however, come up with a very good definition of God.

And I continue to wonder why you bother with this discussion, since if you chose, you could almost certainly provide a better and fuller definition, or reference one, which would resolve much of this debate even if it did not convince anyone that the god in question actually exists.

[Ron_Tomkins]

Ok..... ............how about this one for the "Tooth Fairy"?

A kindred spirited little girl with pointy ears and transparent wings who floats in a pink cloud of dust, is about 12 centimeters tall and has the ability to grant wishes to children

[Hokulele]

Originally Posted by blobru

Batur asked the master: "Is God yin, or yang?"

Said master: "God can go **** himself. You figure it out."

commentary: guess apples weren't the only fruit in the garden.

Well, that is certainly a new interpretation of kenshō .

[Mojo]

Originally Posted by yrreg

For the rest of you, just point out what is impossible in my concept of God as concept.

The maker of heaven and earth and everything.

OK, let's go through it...

Your definition contains redundancies: "heaven" and "earth" are included in "everything". "The maker of everything" is the same definition.

Your definition contains a potentially ambiguous term: "heaven" could mean the physical universe apart from the earth, or it could mean the supernatural realm in which the afterlife is alleged to occur. If you are to use this definition as a basis for trying to prove that god exists, you will need to prove the existence of "heaven" (I suspect that atheists will accept that the physical universe exists).

Your definition is to broad to be useful to theists, as it doesn't provide enough detail to identify a particular creator god. Theists are generally very specific as to which particular god they believe in.

Your definition is too narrow to include all gods, as some are not creator gods.

Allow me to suggest a definition of a specific "God" that can be used as a basis for discussion, and which I think you can agree with:

The God of the Bible.

[six7s]

Originally Posted by Mojo

Your definition is too narrow to include all gods, as some are not creator gods.

Allow me to suggest a definition of a specific "God" that can be used as a basis for discussion, and which I think you can agree with:

The God of the Bible.

One question:

Which Bible? (there's oodles to pick and choose from)

[yrreg]

Originally Posted by MIKILLINI

Well Yrreg you can have your concept of God, but that's all you have: A concept. How did you acquire the conception of God?
Or did you just come up with the concept all on your own?

Simple questions, yrreg. Can you answer them?

I got that concept of God from The Apostles' Creed which I have memorized from childhood:

I believe in God,
The Father Almighty,
Creator of heaven and earth,

Etc. etc. etc.

I just rewrite it as a definition of God, making it easy to understand for any brain with a minimum command of English vocabulary:

The maker of heaven and earth and everything.

Yrreg

[six7s]

Originally Posted by yrreg

I got that concept of God from The Apostles' Creed which I have memorized from childhood:

I believe in God,
The Father Almighty,
Creator of heaven and earth,

Etc. etc. etc.

Fairy nuff

One question:

Why the Apostles Creed and not In Which a Search Is Organdized, and Piglet Nearly Meets the Heffalump Again?

[paximperium]

Ahhhh, Yrreg, now wasn't that easy?
Your Definition of God:

Quote:

Apostles Creed
I believe in God, the Father Almighty,
the Maker of heaven and earth,
and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord:


Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost,
born of the virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, dead, and buried;


He descended into hell.

The third day He arose again from the dead;
He ascended into heaven,
and sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty;
from thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.


I believe in the Holy Ghost;
the holy catholic church;
the communion of saints;
the forgiveness of sins;
the resurrection of the body;
and the life everlasting.


Amen.

You could have easily defined your god as "God of the Bible" and I doubt many here would have much of an issue with that definition.

[Aitch]

Originally Posted by yrreg

I got that concept of God from The Apostles' Creed which I have memorized from childhood:

So it's not your concept; it's someone else's that you accepted as a child and still hold.

Have you ever queried/examined it?