[Moderated] What's wrong with this definition of God: maker of heaven and earth and everything? - Page 6

nescafe · 16th February 2009, 03:12 AM

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.

Getty, it is not about whether the God you conceptualize is logically possible, it is about whether the God you conceptualize is logically necessary. These are two very different things.

I am an atheist. I will happily concede that any concept of God that is not obviously internally incoherent or flat out contradicted by our observations of the Universe may be logically possible. I will then proceed to point out that the Flying Spaghetti Monster, a small teapot in orbit around Saturn, and the majority of dieties and fairy tales that humankind has ever believed in are also logically possible. I do not believe in them either, so why should I believe in your concept of God?

If you want to claim that your concept of God is logically necessary, you must show your work and be able to convince skeptics who will do their best to show that your concept is not logically necessary. So far, all your attempts have been complete and utter failures.

Mojo · 16th February 2009, 04:15 AM

Originally Posted by yrreg

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.

What about theists other than yourself? You are missing out on the concepts of god of all those theists whose concept of god differs from yours.

bruto · 16th February 2009, 07:23 AM

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.

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

You should not have rewritten it. "The father almighty" is an essential element. Even so, I doubt very very much whether any one of the church fathers responsible for standardizing the apostles' creed would have considered that a full definition, rather than a shorthand definition for a concept much more fully fleshed out elsewhere.

In any case, though, you have at least provided us with a background for your definition. We now know that your definition is, indeed, based on a larger context, and whether you acknowledge it or not, the idea in your brain which that definition calls up is based, not only on the definition, but on the unspoken ideas that that context provides. This is no problem. Most of our ideas of complex concepts owe much to context. Your problem is not that this is so, but that you seem unwilling to acknowledge it.

You could as easily, and more productively, simply say "when I mean God I mean the God of the Apostles' Creed." You could even be justified in appending to that a slightly snarky, but entirely permissible comment, such as "if you don't know what that is, look it up." Since there is abundant information and scholarship regarding the creed and its object, anyone needing further clarification could then go to that creed, read it, and if needing even further clarification, study its origins, and from that point on you could, in all good conscience, accuse any opponent of nitpicking and derailment for pretending not to understand what you meant. Anyone can dispute the validity of the creed and its object, but nobody of good sense arguing in good faith could pretend that you are being vague, obscure, disingenuous or misleading for citing the god identified by that creed as what you mean when you use the word. It would be rampant optimism to suggest that this would free your threads of all bickering, but at least we'd be bickering about something more substantial than your arguable understanding of what a definition is.

It requires a certain kind of obstinate hubris to believe that something as elegantly pared down as the Apostles' Creed needs editing. I'm reminded of the verse in John 11:35. Alexander Woollcott once noted that there was only one English sentence that he knew that could not be improved upon: that from the KJ Bible, "Jesus wept." The Jehovah's Witness version reads "Jesus gave way to tears."

yrreg · 16th February 2009, 01:03 PM

Originally Posted by six7s

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?

Because I thought it is a pretty smart definition of God.

And I can see that the people who produced that very early statement of belief for Christians were very pretty smart and sharp and very versatile and prolific in language of the plain kind.

Yrreg

yrreg · 16th February 2009, 01:09 PM

Originally Posted by Mojo

Posted by yrreg
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.

What about theists other than yourself? You are missing out on the concepts of god of all those theists whose concept of god differs from yours.

I speak for myself, other theists can speak for themselves.

Yrreg

Hokulele · 16th February 2009, 01:13 PM

So early versions of Odin were wrong, but early versions of God were right.

Suuuuuuure.

yrreg · 16th February 2009, 01:19 PM

Originally Posted by bruto

You should not have rewritten it. "The father almighty" is an essential element. Even so, I doubt very very much whether any one of the church fathers responsible for standardizing the apostles' creed would have considered that a full definition, rather than a shorthand definition for a concept much more fully fleshed out elsewhere.

In any case, though, you have at least provided us with a background for your definition. We now know that your definition is, indeed, based on a larger context, and whether you acknowledge it or not, the idea in your brain which that definition calls up is based, not only on the definition, but on the unspoken ideas that that context provides. This is no problem. Most of our ideas of complex concepts owe much to context. Your problem is not that this is so, but that you seem unwilling to acknowledge it.

You could as easily, and more productively, simply say "when I mean God I mean the God of the Apostles' Creed." You could even be justified in appending to that a slightly snarky, but entirely permissible comment, such as "if you don't know what that is, look it up." Since there is abundant information and scholarship regarding the creed and its object, anyone needing further clarification could then go to that creed, read it, and if needing even further clarification, study its origins, and from that point on you could, in all good conscience, accuse any opponent of nitpicking and derailment for pretending not to understand what you meant. Anyone can dispute the validity of the creed and its object, but nobody of good sense arguing in good faith could pretend that you are being vague, obscure, disingenuous or misleading for citing the god identified by that creed as what you mean when you use the word. It would be rampant optimism to suggest that this would free your threads of all bickering, but at least we'd be bickering about something more substantial than your arguable understanding of what a definition is.

It requires a certain kind of obstinate hubris to believe that something as elegantly pared down as the Apostles' Creed needs editing. I'm reminded of the verse in John 11:35. Alexander Woollcott once noted that there was only one English sentence that he knew that could not be improved upon: that from the KJ Bible, "Jesus wept." The Jehovah's Witness version reads "Jesus gave way to tears."

As a matter of fact, God for me as maker of heaven and earth and everything, that is essential to God.

As for the God of the Bible or the God of the Koran, that is for me a script by men of what they want God maker of heaven and earth and everything to be for them in particular.

So, as far as I am concerned here in this thread, let us just keep to the concept of God, the maker of heaven and earth and everything.

By the way didn't I mention about scripts by men for God to play in some earlier threads, posts?

Yrreg

joobz · 16th February 2009, 01:43 PM

Originally Posted by yrreg

As a matter of fact, God for me as maker of heaven and earth and everything, that is essential to God.

Sounds Fine.

Ok.
To me, God is a dog seen in a mirror.
Perhaps we should provide evidence for our differing definitions? You start.

Macoy · 16th February 2009, 01:59 PM

Originally Posted by yrreg

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

Yrreg

I am curious as to your definition here, of "almost".

Are you productively filling your atheistic boots?

bruto · 16th February 2009, 02:09 PM

Originally Posted by yrreg

As a matter of fact, God for me as maker of heaven and earth and everything, that is essential to God.

As for the God of the Bible or the God of the Koran, that is for me a script by men of what they want God maker of heaven and earth and everything to be for them in particular.

So, as far as I am concerned here in this thread, let us just keep to the concept of God, the maker of heaven and earth and everything.

By the way didn't I mention about scripts by men for God to play in some earlier threads, posts?

Yrreg

If what you are ultimately saying is that all you believe or know of god is that whatever god might be, it created the universe, and all else remains to be determined, then fair enough.

I do wonder why, if you rely on the Apostles' Creed for your script, you are so reluctant to include the other half of its definition of God.

Just curious, do you have an issue with the "father almighty" part of it? I know I do, but I'm surprised to see you so reticent to acknowledge that part of the creed.

You're beginning to sound like more of a deist than a theist.

slingblade · 16th February 2009, 02:16 PM

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

Where is the word "everything?"

MIKILLINI · 16th February 2009, 02:39 PM

Originally Posted by yrreg

As a matter of fact, God for me as maker of heaven and earth and everything, that is essential to God.

As for the God of the Bible or the God of the Koran, that is for me a script by men of what they want God maker of heaven and earth and everything to be for them in particular.

So, as far as I am concerned here in this thread, let us just keep to the concept of God, the maker of heaven and earth and everything.

By the way didn't I mention about scripts by men for God to play in some earlier threads, posts?

Ok, a concept derived from the Apostle's Creed. Now we know which God you have chosen.
Now, what I find interesting is that you mention in this post about the Bible and the Koran as being scripts of men and how the interpretation is for them in particular.
So the reason for not using the Bible or Koran for your interpretation is because the Apostle's Creed expresses it more to your particular liking? Even though the Creed is also a script of man?

arthwollipot · 16th February 2009, 07:12 PM

Originally Posted by yrreg

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.

So why don't you tell us what you harbour in your brain as the concept of God.

If it's "maker of heaven and earth and everything", let me assure you that we get it. We most certainly understand by now that this is what you harbour in your brain as the concept of God.

That has absolutely nothing to do with our brains.

six7s · 16th February 2009, 08:24 PM

Originally Posted by yrreg

Originally Posted by 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?

Because I thought it is a pretty smart definition of God.

OK... again... fairy nuff...

However, your answer simply prompts another line of questions:

Is, in your book, having "a pretty smart definition of God" a pretty smart thing? If so, I sincerely ask why?

Originally Posted by yrreg

And I can see that the people who produced that very early statement of belief for Christians were very pretty smart and sharp and very versatile and prolific in language of the plain kind.

Are you suggesting that AA Milne was not "very pretty smart and sharp and very versatile and prolific in language of the plain kind"?

NobbyNobbs · 16th February 2009, 08:37 PM

Originally Posted by yrreg

Because I thought it is a pretty smart definition of God.

If the Apostles' Creed is a pretty smart definition of God, why did you feel obligated to change to something that is....shall we politely say....not quite so smart?

It's like when someone asks you to define Shakespeare's writings and you hand them the Cliff Notes.

yrreg · 17th February 2009, 02:40 AM

Originally Posted by bruto

Posted by yrreg
As a matter of fact, God for me as maker of heaven and earth and everything, that is essential to God.

As for the God of the Bible or the God of the Koran, that is for me a script by men of what they want God maker of heaven and earth and everything to be for them in particular.

So, as far as I am concerned here in this thread, let us just keep to the concept of God, the maker of heaven and earth and everything.

By the way didn't I mention about scripts by men for God to play in some earlier threads, posts?

Yrreg

If what you are ultimately saying is that all you believe or know of god is that whatever god might be, it created the universe, and all else remains to be determined, then fair enough.

I do wonder why, if you rely on the Apostles' Creed for your script, you are so reluctant to include the other half of its definition of God.

Just curious, do you have an issue with the "father almighty" part of it? I know I do, but I'm surprised to see you so reticent to acknowledge that part of the creed.

You're beginning to sound like more of a deist than a theist.

No, I am not hiding anything of The Apostles' Creed, not even that part about father almighty.

What I am doing is to bring your attention to the quintessence of God as far as we humans can know of Him with our reason and intelligence.

The rest is a matter of faith, on the script of men claiming to be commissioned by God to teach about God.

You see, first I want to see if you can at least see the possibility of the concept of God as maker of heaven and earth and everything.

Then for people here although atheists who can still with their brain harbor the possibility of the concept of God as maker of heaven and earth and everything, I will invite them to join me in the search of anything which can satisfy that description of God.

What's in it for me?

It is fun, and I hope will be fun for you also.

And of course intellectually rewarding.

About God being psychologically comforting for people who take Him for a father, I confess I do that myself; but remember that is a script I take the presumption to make up for God, on the ground that I know Him from reason and intelligence to be maker of heaven and earth and everything.

Do you feel that for yourself it demeans you? That is your privilege founded upon your free thought and free choice.

Yrreg

yrreg · 17th February 2009, 02:45 AM

Just pm me if you really want me to react to your thoughts, okay?

Otherwise, don't waste the time of readers and the forum's bandwidth.

No offense intended, just speaking out my brain's honest and direct thoughts.

Yrreg

RoboTimbo · 17th February 2009, 04:40 AM

Originally Posted by yrreg

What I am doing is to bring your attention to the quintessence of God as far as we humans can know of Him with our reason and intelligence.

Ok, so we get that you have a definition of god. You've also been given definitions of the Tooth Fairy and the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Do they exist because we have a definition?

Quote:

The rest is a matter of faith, on the script of men claiming to be commissioned by God to teach about God.

Finally, you've admitted it. You have a definition of god and faith.

PM me if you want to show me some evidence.

joobz · 17th February 2009, 05:42 AM

Originally Posted by yrreg

Just pm me if you really want me to react to your thoughts, okay?

Otherwise, don't waste the time of readers and the forum's bandwidth.

No offense intended, just speaking out my brain's honest and direct thoughts.

Yrreg

Um, no. It's not ok.

The point of the forum is public discourse. You've stated your position and we've stated ours. If you choose to not continue the discussion and merely repeat your position, that is your prerogative. It only serves to undermine your argument as it gives all appearances of an inability to respond.

You do not, however, get any say in who or how often people post in this thread, nor do you get a say in what they post. If you are embarrassed by the comments, that's your problem. Either defend your position or become an intellectual punching bag.

I'll help you along. You can start by answering the following question: Why is your definition of god any better/worse than my definition of god? For a reminder, my current definition of god is a dog seen in a mirror.

slingblade · 17th February 2009, 06:59 AM

Originally Posted by yrreg

No, I am not hiding anything of The Apostles' Creed, not even that part about father almighty.

It's not important, really.

Quote:

What I am doing is to bring your attention to the quintessence of God as far as we humans can know of Him with our reason and intelligence.

Oh, yes, you brought this to our attention, because no one in the R&P forum had yet thought to discuss the idea of people worshiping imaginary beings. Wow, thanks so much.

Quote:

The rest is a matter of faith, on the script of men claiming to be commissioned by God to teach about God.

The rest of what? You've wasted many, many threads with all this crap, and so far, nothing has come of it, aside from a few really good jokes made at your expense. Oh, do continue.

Quote:

You see, first I want to see if you can at least see the possibility of the concept of God as maker of heaven and earth and everything.

You've already been told several times that a maker of everything must also be the maker of itself, and so is part of the everything it supposedly creates, and you don't really understand that, do you?

Quote:

Then for people here although atheists who can still with their brain harbor the possibility of the concept of God as maker of heaven and earth and everything, I will invite them to join me in the search of anything which can satisfy that description of God.

Yes, and tomorrow, we're going to teach you to use the big boy's potty.

Quote:

What's in it for me?

We care?

Quote:

It is fun, and I hope will be fun for you also.

Oh, you can't imagine.

Quote:

And of course intellectually rewarding.

One keeps hoping you'll actually learn something. One is beginning to despair.

Quote:

About God being psychologically comforting for people who take Him for a father, I confess I do that myself; but remember that is a script I take the presumption to make up for God, on the ground that I know Him from reason and intelligence to be maker of heaven and earth and everything.

Late at night, in the dark, you comfort yourself with thoughts of an imaginary daddy who loves you.

Quote:

Do you feel that for yourself it demeans you? That is your privilege founded upon your free thought and free choice.

Next up: water is still wet.

bruto · 17th February 2009, 07:01 AM

Originally Posted by yrreg

No, I am not hiding anything of The Apostles' Creed, not even that part about father almighty.

What I am doing is to bring your attention to the quintessence of God as far as we humans can know of Him with our reason and intelligence.

The rest is a matter of faith, on the script of men claiming to be commissioned by God to teach about God.

You see, first I want to see if you can at least see the possibility of the concept of God as maker of heaven and earth and everything.

Then for people here although atheists who can still with their brain harbor the possibility of the concept of God as maker of heaven and earth and everything, I will invite them to join me in the search of anything which can satisfy that description of God.

What's in it for me?

It is fun, and I hope will be fun for you also.

And of course intellectually rewarding.

About God being psychologically comforting for people who take Him for a father, I confess I do that myself; but remember that is a script I take the presumption to make up for God, on the ground that I know Him from reason and intelligence to be maker of heaven and earth and everything.

Do you feel that for yourself it demeans you? That is your privilege founded upon your free thought and free choice.

Yrreg

Bold = the part I still have a problem with. This is not an issue of ability to hold a concept, or of understanding.

In my case, this comes back, as it has all along, to a fundamental disagreement with regard to what you consider to be "knowing" as opposed to faith.

I doubt we will ever agree on this, but as far as I am concerned, all the properties of God, whether or not they are included in your definition, are matters of faith and reason, not of experience, and separating out that one part of the definition as a special exception to this starts you down the wrong path once again.

By the way, I will add that the last couple of responses I have had from you have been much more to the point, as well as polite, and however much we may never meet on opinion, I appreciate the effort.

joobz · 17th February 2009, 08:13 AM

Originally Posted by slingblade

Yes, and tomorrow, we're going to teach you to use the big boy's potty.

Not to derail, but last night my 2 year old son attempted to use the potty for the first time. It was so cute that it was hard not laughing, but I didn't want to give him some sort of complex. He wanted to use the urinal thing we got him, but he had already peed in his diaper. So he ended up basically humping the contraption.

Macoy · 17th February 2009, 08:21 AM

First time I had to use it, my dad sat next to me reading me my favourite comic.

I reckon the experience screwed us both up for decades.

MIKILLINI · 17th February 2009, 08:21 AM

Originally Posted by yrreg

No, I am not hiding anything of The Apostles' Creed, not even that part about father almighty.

What I am doing is to bring your attention to the quintessence of God as far as we humans can know of Him with our reason and intelligence.

What preponderance of evidence are you going to present that persuades your belief in God?

Mister Agenda · 17th February 2009, 08:35 AM

Yrreg, looks like you're stepping up your game when it comes to communication. Good show!

Myriad · 17th February 2009, 08:42 AM

From the point of view of most adherents of the religions professing the Apostle's Creed, applying "maker of heaven and earth" as the definition of God (as opposed to just one line item on His resume) is inadequate to the point of sacrilege.

Most protestant religious practices, for example, are primarily concerned with achieving salvation through God's grace. As far as the doctrines of salvation are concerned, who created heaven and earth is hardly relevant at all. Had God not created the world but instead acquired dominion over it by defeating the great Uullm, the true creator of heaven and earth, in a Baby Back Ribs Battle in Kitchen Stadium, the practical import would be negligible. Two chapters out of 1,189 in the King James Bible would be different, and the phrase "the defeater of Uullm" would be swapped for "the maker of heaven and earth" in the Apostle's Creed. The parts of Christianity regarding how God wants people to behave would not be affected at all.

By focusing on God's role as creator of heaven and earth, are you rejecting those other doctrines (saints, the virgin birth, judgment, salvation, Christ, etc.) or are you just disregarding them? If you're rejecting them, then you are indeed getting into the realm of deism. On the other hand if you believe in them, why define God in such a way as to disregard them?

Respectfully,
Myriad

Silentknight · 17th February 2009, 03:42 PM

Originally Posted by joobz

Sounds Fine.

Ok.
To me, God is a dog seen in a mirror.
Perhaps we should provide evidence for our differing definitions? You start.

It's important to remember that the modern domesticated God as we know it was descended from its wild ancestor Flow.

Piscivore · 17th February 2009, 03:54 PM

Originally Posted by Silentknight

It's important to remember that the modern domesticated God as we know it was descended from its wild ancestor Flow.

Pfft, "god". Tac is smarter.

yrreg · 17th February 2009, 04:20 PM

Originally Posted by bruto

Posted by yrreg
No, I am not hiding anything of The Apostles' Creed, not even that part about father almighty.

What I am doing is to bring your attention to the quintessence of God as far as we humans can know of Him with our reason and intelligence.

The rest is a matter of faith, on the script of men claiming to be commissioned by God to teach about God.

You see, first I want to see if you can at least see the possibility of the concept of God as maker of heaven and earth and everything.

Then for people here although atheists who can still with their brain harbor the possibility of the concept of God as maker of heaven and earth and everything, I will invite them to join me in the search of anything which can satisfy that description of God.

What's in it for me?

It is fun, and I hope will be fun for you also.

And of course intellectually rewarding.

About God being psychologically comforting for people who take Him for a father, I confess I do that myself; but remember that is a script I take the presumption to make up for God, on the ground that I know Him from reason and intelligence to be maker of heaven and earth and everything.

Do you feel that for yourself it demeans you? That is your privilege founded upon your free thought and free choice.

Bold = the part I still have a problem with. This is not an issue of ability to hold a concept, or of understanding.

In my case, this comes back, as it has all along, to a fundamental disagreement with regard to what you consider to be "knowing" as opposed to faith.

I doubt we will ever agree on this, but as far as I am concerned, all the properties of God, whether or not they are included in your definition, are matters of faith and reason, not of experience, and separating out that one part of the definition as a special exception to this starts you down the wrong path once again.

By the way, I will add that the last couple of responses I have had from you have been much more to the point, as well as polite, and however much we may never meet on opinion, I appreciate the effort.

Before anything else, bruto, you do agree with me that the concept of God as the maker of heaven and earth and everything is a possible concept in the brain of man.

This possibility of the concept is a matter of knowing.

Do you also accept that statement immediately preceding above?

So that our exchange will be neat and tidy, suppose you just tell me what you see to be from my post referred to by you, one thing that is from me a matter of knowing and one thing just one thing that is from me a matter of believing.

Just one thing each, then we can exchange thoughts further on what is knowing and what is believing, and hope to not be bogged down into definitions.

Yrreg

Sun Countess · 17th February 2009, 04:26 PM

Originally Posted by Silentknight

It's important to remember that the modern domesticated God as we know it was descended from its wild ancestor Flow.

Is the wild Flow a relative of the modern-day Flew? I hear that this God fellow was last spotted somewhere in the vicinity of his brain.

Originally Posted by yrreg

Just one thing each, then we can exchange thoughts further on what is knowing and what is believing, and hope to not be bogged down into definitions.
Yrreg

But...but...getting bogged down in definitions is the hallmark of every yrreg thread! I thought this one was actually beginning to get somewhere. Oh well.

Ron_Tomkins · 17th February 2009, 05:04 PM

Sorry, yrreg but you're replying selectively and actively ignoring important questions addressed to you

Here's my definition of yrreg:

A troll

*End of transmission*

bruto · 17th February 2009, 08:06 PM

Originally Posted by yrreg

Before anything else, bruto, you do agree with me that the concept of God as the maker of heaven and earth and everything is a possible concept in the brain of man.

That seems reasonable even if we can carp about the way it is phrased. We can have a concept of a creator. The concept may or may not be clear, coherent, correct or rational, but we can have it. As it stands now, since there is nothing other than the act of creation itself as an attribute, the concept is pretty basic, and could even be considered second-hand, in that the meat of the concept is really that the universe is created, and from it we derive the concept that something did it. Nonetheless, it's a concept, and yes, you can have it in your brain. It's all yours!

Quote:

This possibility of the concept is a matter of knowing.

If you mean we can know that the concept is possible, yes. If you mean that we can know that we have the concept ourselves, yes. Beyond that, if the referenced sentence has any other meaning, I do not see what it could be. What is not a matter of knowing is the subject of the concept. I can have a concept of something that is not true. I can even have a concept of something that is practically or logically impossible. To experience the thought is not to experience the thing thought of.

Quote:

Do you also accept that statement immediately preceding above?

as qualified above....

Quote:

So that our exchange will be neat and tidy, suppose you just tell me what you see to be from my post referred to by you, one thing that is from me a matter of knowing and one thing just one thing that is from me a matter of believing.

If I am getting this right (your sentence structure is a bit odd), I would say it this way. We both know you have a concept of a creator, which you call "God," and that this concept is in general agreement with what other people mean when they use the term "God." You believe that such a god exists, and you believe that you know it, but you have yet to convince anyone that you know it, or to provide a convincing argument for how you come to believe that you know it.

I hope that is clear enough, and addresses what you mean.

Quote:

Just one thing each, then we can exchange thoughts further on what is knowing and what is believing, and hope to not be bogged down into definitions.
Yrreg

Indeed, I think this, and not the issue of definitions, is where we will find a disagreement that may prove unbridgeable, but let's see what happens.

Elizabeth I · 17th February 2009, 08:54 PM

Quote:

Just pm me if you really want me to react to your thoughts, okay?

Otherwise, don't waste the time of readers and the forum's bandwidth.

No offense intended, just speaking out my brain's honest and direct thoughts.

So why are you bothering with this thread if you just want to exchange private emails?

MIKILLINI · 17th February 2009, 09:11 PM

I can agree with your concept of God Yrreg, except the maker of everything. I haven't seen that claim made by anyone except those like you who believe in this God.

The existence of God can't really be tested, but the belief in God can be. So Yrreg, can you provide evidence that persuades you to believe in your God?

thegrave · 18th February 2009, 05:35 PM

Originally Posted by yrreg

That's not being exact and specific; please be exact and specific.

That is why I am very exasperated in exchange of ideas with you guys, you tend to tergiversate and/or prevaricate and even calumniate, instead of being exact and specific in reacting to the issue.

Yrreg

"everything" is simply wrong.

For a start, my thoughts exist - IT didn't make them.

Also, IT can't actually make anything. If IT is already 'the' everything [which faithers seem to believe] then how can IT make 'anything' else! That would be more than the 'everything' IT was! WHICH means IT wasn't everything to begin with.

So your use of the term 'everything' is wrong!

slingblade · 18th February 2009, 10:06 PM

Originally Posted by thegrave

So your use of the term 'everything' is wrong!

Good try, bravo, and all that, but we've been telling and telling him that for pages now.

He's ignoring us. It's easier for him.

Anyway, well done, nice effort.

wollery · 18th February 2009, 10:11 PM

Playing devil's advocate here for a minute, I think the "everything" that Yrreg is referring to is the Universe. That's a pretty useful definition, since we cannot measure anything outside the Universe, and indeed, it defines the limits of our knowledge.

Of course, the maker of the Universe is the Big Bang, which I suspect isn't what Yrreg means, but there you go, vive la difference and all that.

NobbyNobbs · 18th February 2009, 11:11 PM

Originally Posted by yrreg

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.

I was ok with this so far.

This bit...

Originally Posted by yrreg

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.

..started me scratching my head.

This part...

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.

...I kind of understood, but didn't know where he was going with it.

Then this...

Originally Posted by yrreg

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.

..made me smile.

This...

Originally Posted by yrreg

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

made me laugh.

However, this...

Originally Posted by yrreg

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*.

...made me get up and walk away from the computer because I couldn't breathe I was laughing too hard and oh god it hurts what the hell is he talking about I can't stop laughing...must...breathe...ok..better...calming down...calming down...back to the computer...breathe...calm....

Originally Posted by yrreg

Please, for the love of viable communication,

Nope. Lost it again.

MIKILLINI · 19th February 2009, 05:16 PM

Originally Posted by NobbyNobbs

Quote:

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.

...made me get up and walk away from the computer because I couldn't breathe I was laughing too hard and oh god it hurts what the hell is he talking about I can't stop laughing...must...breathe...ok..better...calming down...calming down...back to the computer...breathe...calm....

Yrreg must have channeled into Donald Rumsfeld's brain to come up with that word salad.

Here is Rumfeld's; The Unknown

Quote:

As we know,There are known knowns. There are things we know we know. We also know
There are known unknowns.
That is to say We know there are some things We do not know.
But there are also unknown unknowns, The ones we don't know We don't know.

yrreg · 19th February 2009, 05:49 PM

If you want me to react to you, just pm me, I am dealing now with bruto.

Now, bruto, you agree with me that the concept of God as the maker of heaven and earth and everything is possible in your brain.

Suppose we now go forth and search for this God.

Is that a sensible adventure.

And please don't bring in creator, not now, just keep to my concept of God as worded, scil., the maker of heaven and earth and everything.

That is the trouble with atheists, they keep bringing in things which they need not, but should keep to the terms of the thesis or proposition or the concept as stated:

God as the maker of heaven and earth and everything.

Yrreg

16th February 2009, 03:12 AM	#201
nescafe Caffeinated Beverage Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Just above the coffeemaker Posts: 864	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. Getty, it is not about whether the God you conceptualize is logically possible, it is about whether the God you conceptualize is logically necessary. These are two very different things. I am an atheist. I will happily concede that any concept of God that is not obviously internally incoherent or flat out contradicted by our observations of the Universe may be logically possible. I will then proceed to point out that the Flying Spaghetti Monster, a small teapot in orbit around Saturn, and the majority of dieties and fairy tales that humankind has ever believed in are also logically possible. I do not believe in them either, so why should I believe in your concept of God? If you want to claim that your concept of God is logically necessary, you must show your work and be able to convince skeptics who will do their best to show that your concept is not logically necessary. So far, all your attempts have been complete and utter failures.

16th February 2009, 04:15 AM	#202
Mojo Mostly harmless Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Nor Flanden Posts: 22,097	Originally Posted by yrreg 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. What about theists other than yourself? You are missing out on the concepts of god of all those theists whose concept of god differs from yours.
	__________________ "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

16th February 2009, 07:23 AM	#203
bruto Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy Posts: 11,191	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. 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 You should not have rewritten it. "The father almighty" is an essential element. Even so, I doubt very very much whether any one of the church fathers responsible for standardizing the apostles' creed would have considered that a full definition, rather than a shorthand definition for a concept much more fully fleshed out elsewhere. In any case, though, you have at least provided us with a background for your definition. We now know that your definition is, indeed, based on a larger context, and whether you acknowledge it or not, the idea in your brain which that definition calls up is based, not only on the definition, but on the unspoken ideas that that context provides. This is no problem. Most of our ideas of complex concepts owe much to context. Your problem is not that this is so, but that you seem unwilling to acknowledge it. You could as easily, and more productively, simply say "when I mean God I mean the God of the Apostles' Creed." You could even be justified in appending to that a slightly snarky, but entirely permissible comment, such as "if you don't know what that is, look it up." Since there is abundant information and scholarship regarding the creed and its object, anyone needing further clarification could then go to that creed, read it, and if needing even further clarification, study its origins, and from that point on you could, in all good conscience, accuse any opponent of nitpicking and derailment for pretending not to understand what you meant. Anyone can dispute the validity of the creed and its object, but nobody of good sense arguing in good faith could pretend that you are being vague, obscure, disingenuous or misleading for citing the god identified by that creed as what you mean when you use the word. It would be rampant optimism to suggest that this would free your threads of all bickering, but at least we'd be bickering about something more substantial than your arguable understanding of what a definition is. It requires a certain kind of obstinate hubris to believe that something as elegantly pared down as the Apostles' Creed needs editing. I'm reminded of the verse in John 11:35. Alexander Woollcott once noted that there was only one English sentence that he knew that could not be improved upon: that from the KJ Bible, "Jesus wept." The Jehovah's Witness version reads "Jesus gave way to tears."
	__________________ "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)

16th February 2009, 01:03 PM	#204
yrreg Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 2,329	Because I thought it is a pretty smart definition of God. Originally Posted by six7s 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? Because I thought it is a pretty smart definition of God. And I can see that the people who produced that very early statement of belief for Christians were very pretty smart and sharp and very versatile and prolific in language of the plain kind. Yrreg
yrreg Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 2,329

16th February 2009, 01:09 PM	#205
yrreg Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 2,329	I speak for myself, other theists can speak for themselves. Originally Posted by Mojo Posted by yrreg 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. What about theists other than yourself? You are missing out on the concepts of god of all those theists whose concept of god differs from yours. I speak for myself, other theists can speak for themselves. Yrreg
yrreg Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 2,329

16th February 2009, 01:13 PM	#206
Hokulele Official Nemesis Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Trying to decide whether to set defenses against an army, or against mole rats. Posts: 27,274	So early versions of Odin were wrong, but early versions of God were right. Suuuuuuure.
	__________________ Yvette: "Blasty! Blasty! Blasty!" Some person: "Why did you shoot that?" Yvette: "Blasty! Blasty! Blasty!" - Tragic Monkey

16th February 2009, 01:19 PM	#207
yrreg Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 2,329	God for me as maker of heaven and earth and everything, that is essential to God. Originally Posted by bruto You should not have rewritten it. "The father almighty" is an essential element. Even so, I doubt very very much whether any one of the church fathers responsible for standardizing the apostles' creed would have considered that a full definition, rather than a shorthand definition for a concept much more fully fleshed out elsewhere. In any case, though, you have at least provided us with a background for your definition. We now know that your definition is, indeed, based on a larger context, and whether you acknowledge it or not, the idea in your brain which that definition calls up is based, not only on the definition, but on the unspoken ideas that that context provides. This is no problem. Most of our ideas of complex concepts owe much to context. Your problem is not that this is so, but that you seem unwilling to acknowledge it. You could as easily, and more productively, simply say "when I mean God I mean the God of the Apostles' Creed." You could even be justified in appending to that a slightly snarky, but entirely permissible comment, such as "if you don't know what that is, look it up." Since there is abundant information and scholarship regarding the creed and its object, anyone needing further clarification could then go to that creed, read it, and if needing even further clarification, study its origins, and from that point on you could, in all good conscience, accuse any opponent of nitpicking and derailment for pretending not to understand what you meant. Anyone can dispute the validity of the creed and its object, but nobody of good sense arguing in good faith could pretend that you are being vague, obscure, disingenuous or misleading for citing the god identified by that creed as what you mean when you use the word. It would be rampant optimism to suggest that this would free your threads of all bickering, but at least we'd be bickering about something more substantial than your arguable understanding of what a definition is. It requires a certain kind of obstinate hubris to believe that something as elegantly pared down as the Apostles' Creed needs editing. I'm reminded of the verse in John 11:35. Alexander Woollcott once noted that there was only one English sentence that he knew that could not be improved upon: that from the KJ Bible, "Jesus wept." The Jehovah's Witness version reads "Jesus gave way to tears." As a matter of fact, God for me as maker of heaven and earth and everything, that is essential to God. As for the God of the Bible or the God of the Koran, that is for me a script by men of what they want God maker of heaven and earth and everything to be for them in particular. So, as far as I am concerned here in this thread, let us just keep to the concept of God, the maker of heaven and earth and everything. By the way didn't I mention about scripts by men for God to play in some earlier threads, posts? Yrreg
yrreg Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 2,329

16th February 2009, 01:43 PM	#208
joobz Tergiversator Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: That's how you get ants Posts: 17,503	Originally Posted by yrreg As a matter of fact, God for me as maker of heaven and earth and everything, that is essential to God. Sounds Fine. Ok. To me, God is a dog seen in a mirror. Perhaps we should provide evidence for our differing definitions? You start.
	__________________ 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

16th February 2009, 01:59 PM	#209
Macoy Writing on water Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 1,363	Originally Posted by yrreg That is why it is almost impossible to have any productive exchange of thoughts with atheists. Yrreg I am curious as to your definition here, of "almost". Are you productively filling your atheistic boots?
Macoy Writing on water Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 1,363	__________________ Realists live in a world of their own

16th February 2009, 02:09 PM	#210
bruto Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy Posts: 11,191	Originally Posted by yrreg As a matter of fact, God for me as maker of heaven and earth and everything, that is essential to God. As for the God of the Bible or the God of the Koran, that is for me a script by men of what they want God maker of heaven and earth and everything to be for them in particular. So, as far as I am concerned here in this thread, let us just keep to the concept of God, the maker of heaven and earth and everything. By the way didn't I mention about scripts by men for God to play in some earlier threads, posts? Yrreg If what you are ultimately saying is that all you believe or know of god is that whatever god might be, it created the universe, and all else remains to be determined, then fair enough. I do wonder why, if you rely on the Apostles' Creed for your script, you are so reluctant to include the other half of its definition of God. Just curious, do you have an issue with the "father almighty" part of it? I know I do, but I'm surprised to see you so reticent to acknowledge that part of the creed. You're beginning to sound like more of a deist than a theist.
	__________________ "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)

16th February 2009, 02:16 PM	#211
slingblade Guest Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 23,642	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 Where is the word "everything?"
slingblade Guest Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 23,642

16th February 2009, 02:39 PM	#212
MIKILLINI Incromulent Logic Join Date: May 2007 Location: The Illini State Posts: 2,881	Originally Posted by yrreg As a matter of fact, God for me as maker of heaven and earth and everything, that is essential to God. As for the God of the Bible or the God of the Koran, that is for me a script by men of what they want God maker of heaven and earth and everything to be for them in particular. So, as far as I am concerned here in this thread, let us just keep to the concept of God, the maker of heaven and earth and everything. By the way didn't I mention about scripts by men for God to play in some earlier threads, posts? Ok, a concept derived from the Apostle's Creed. Now we know which God you have chosen. Now, what I find interesting is that you mention in this post about the Bible and the Koran as being scripts of men and how the interpretation is for them in particular. So the reason for not using the Bible or Koran for your interpretation is because the Apostle's Creed expresses it more to your particular liking? Even though the Creed is also a script of man?
	__________________ 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.

16th February 2009, 07:12 PM	#213
arthwollipot Observer of Phenomena Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: The other side of your screen Posts: 43,038	Originally Posted by yrreg 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. So why don't you tell us what you harbour in your brain as the concept of God. If it's "maker of heaven and earth and everything", let me assure you that we get it. We most certainly understand by now that this is what you harbour in your brain as the concept of God. That has absolutely nothing to do with our brains.
	__________________ 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.

16th February 2009, 08:24 PM	#214
six7s veretic Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Aotearoa Posts: 8,710	Originally Posted by yrreg Originally Posted by 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? Because I thought it is a pretty smart definition of God. OK... again... fairy nuff... However, your answer simply prompts another line of questions: Is, in your book, having "a pretty smart definition of God" a pretty smart thing? If so, I sincerely ask why? Originally Posted by yrreg And I can see that the people who produced that very early statement of belief for Christians were very pretty smart and sharp and very versatile and prolific in language of the plain kind. Are you suggesting that AA Milne was not "very pretty smart and sharp and very versatile and prolific in language of the plain kind"?
	__________________ Evolution and the rest of reality fascinates the be-jeebus out of me!

16th February 2009, 08:37 PM	#215
NobbyNobbs Gazerbeam's Protege Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: The Mended Drum Posts: 5,630	Originally Posted by yrreg Because I thought it is a pretty smart definition of God. If the Apostles' Creed is a pretty smart definition of God, why did you feel obligated to change to something that is....shall we politely say....not quite so smart? It's like when someone asks you to define Shakespeare's writings and you hand them the Cliff Notes.
	__________________ I wish someone would find something I wrote on this board to be sig-worthy, thereby effectively granting me immortality.--Antiquehunter The gods do not deduct from a man's allotted years on earth the time spent eating butterscotch pudding. AMERICA! NUMBER 1 IN PARTICLE PHYSICS SINCE JULY 4TH, 1776!!! --SusanConstant

17th February 2009, 02:40 AM	#216
yrreg Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 2,329	Originally Posted by bruto Posted by yrreg As a matter of fact, God for me as maker of heaven and earth and everything, that is essential to God. As for the God of the Bible or the God of the Koran, that is for me a script by men of what they want God maker of heaven and earth and everything to be for them in particular. So, as far as I am concerned here in this thread, let us just keep to the concept of God, the maker of heaven and earth and everything. By the way didn't I mention about scripts by men for God to play in some earlier threads, posts? Yrreg If what you are ultimately saying is that all you believe or know of god is that whatever god might be, it created the universe, and all else remains to be determined, then fair enough. I do wonder why, if you rely on the Apostles' Creed for your script, you are so reluctant to include the other half of its definition of God. Just curious, do you have an issue with the "father almighty" part of it? I know I do, but I'm surprised to see you so reticent to acknowledge that part of the creed. You're beginning to sound like more of a deist than a theist. No, I am not hiding anything of The Apostles' Creed, not even that part about father almighty. What I am doing is to bring your attention to the quintessence of God as far as we humans can know of Him with our reason and intelligence. The rest is a matter of faith, on the script of men claiming to be commissioned by God to teach about God. You see, first I want to see if you can at least see the possibility of the concept of God as maker of heaven and earth and everything. Then for people here although atheists who can still with their brain harbor the possibility of the concept of God as maker of heaven and earth and everything, I will invite them to join me in the search of anything which can satisfy that description of God. What's in it for me? It is fun, and I hope will be fun for you also. And of course intellectually rewarding. About God being psychologically comforting for people who take Him for a father, I confess I do that myself; but remember that is a script I take the presumption to make up for God, on the ground that I know Him from reason and intelligence to be maker of heaven and earth and everything. Do you feel that for yourself it demeans you? That is your privilege founded upon your free thought and free choice. Yrreg
yrreg Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 2,329

17th February 2009, 02:45 AM	#217
yrreg Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 2,329	Just pm me if you really want me to react to your thoughts, okay? Just pm me if you really want me to react to your thoughts, okay? Otherwise, don't waste the time of readers and the forum's bandwidth. No offense intended, just speaking out my brain's honest and direct thoughts. Yrreg
yrreg Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 2,329

17th February 2009, 04:40 AM	#218
RoboTimbo Hostile Nanobacon Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Prosperity, AZ Posts: 21,886	Originally Posted by yrreg What I am doing is to bring your attention to the quintessence of God as far as we humans can know of Him with our reason and intelligence. Ok, so we get that you have a definition of god. You've also been given definitions of the Tooth Fairy and the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Do they exist because we have a definition? Quote: The rest is a matter of faith, on the script of men claiming to be commissioned by God to teach about God. Finally, you've admitted it. You have a definition of god and faith. PM me if you want to show me some evidence.

17th February 2009, 05:42 AM	#219
joobz Tergiversator Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: That's how you get ants Posts: 17,503	Originally Posted by yrreg Just pm me if you really want me to react to your thoughts, okay? Otherwise, don't waste the time of readers and the forum's bandwidth. No offense intended, just speaking out my brain's honest and direct thoughts. Yrreg Um, no. It's not ok. The point of the forum is public discourse. You've stated your position and we've stated ours. If you choose to not continue the discussion and merely repeat your position, that is your prerogative. It only serves to undermine your argument as it gives all appearances of an inability to respond. You do not, however, get any say in who or how often people post in this thread, nor do you get a say in what they post. If you are embarrassed by the comments, that's your problem. Either defend your position or become an intellectual punching bag. I'll help you along. You can start by answering the following question: Why is your definition of god any better/worse than my definition of god? For a reminder, my current definition of god is a dog seen in a mirror.
	__________________ 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

17th February 2009, 06:59 AM	#220
slingblade Guest Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 23,642	Originally Posted by yrreg No, I am not hiding anything of The Apostles' Creed, not even that part about father almighty. It's not important, really. Quote: What I am doing is to bring your attention to the quintessence of God as far as we humans can know of Him with our reason and intelligence. Oh, yes, you brought this to our attention, because no one in the R&P forum had yet thought to discuss the idea of people worshiping imaginary beings. Wow, thanks so much. Quote: The rest is a matter of faith, on the script of men claiming to be commissioned by God to teach about God. The rest of what? You've wasted many, many threads with all this crap, and so far, nothing has come of it, aside from a few really good jokes made at your expense. Oh, do continue. Quote: You see, first I want to see if you can at least see the possibility of the concept of God as maker of heaven and earth and everything. You've already been told several times that a maker of everything must also be the maker of itself, and so is part of the everything it supposedly creates, and you don't really understand that, do you? Quote: Then for people here although atheists who can still with their brain harbor the possibility of the concept of God as maker of heaven and earth and everything, I will invite them to join me in the search of anything which can satisfy that description of God. Yes, and tomorrow, we're going to teach you to use the big boy's potty. Quote: What's in it for me? We care? Quote: It is fun, and I hope will be fun for you also. Oh, you can't imagine. Quote: And of course intellectually rewarding. One keeps hoping you'll actually learn something. One is beginning to despair. Quote: About God being psychologically comforting for people who take Him for a father, I confess I do that myself; but remember that is a script I take the presumption to make up for God, on the ground that I know Him from reason and intelligence to be maker of heaven and earth and everything. Late at night, in the dark, you comfort yourself with thoughts of an imaginary daddy who loves you. Quote: Do you feel that for yourself it demeans you? That is your privilege founded upon your free thought and free choice. Next up: water is still wet.
slingblade Guest Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 23,642

17th February 2009, 07:01 AM	#221
bruto Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy Posts: 11,191	Originally Posted by yrreg No, I am not hiding anything of The Apostles' Creed, not even that part about father almighty. What I am doing is to bring your attention to the quintessence of God as far as we humans can know of Him with our reason and intelligence. The rest is a matter of faith, on the script of men claiming to be commissioned by God to teach about God. You see, first I want to see if you can at least see the possibility of the concept of God as maker of heaven and earth and everything. Then for people here although atheists who can still with their brain harbor the possibility of the concept of God as maker of heaven and earth and everything, I will invite them to join me in the search of anything which can satisfy that description of God. What's in it for me? It is fun, and I hope will be fun for you also. And of course intellectually rewarding. About God being psychologically comforting for people who take Him for a father, I confess I do that myself; but remember that is a script I take the presumption to make up for God, on the ground that I know Him from reason and intelligence to be maker of heaven and earth and everything. Do you feel that for yourself it demeans you? That is your privilege founded upon your free thought and free choice. Yrreg Bold = the part I still have a problem with. This is not an issue of ability to hold a concept, or of understanding. In my case, this comes back, as it has all along, to a fundamental disagreement with regard to what you consider to be "knowing" as opposed to faith. I doubt we will ever agree on this, but as far as I am concerned, all the properties of God, whether or not they are included in your definition, are matters of faith and reason, not of experience, and separating out that one part of the definition as a special exception to this starts you down the wrong path once again. By the way, I will add that the last couple of responses I have had from you have been much more to the point, as well as polite, and however much we may never meet on opinion, I appreciate the effort.
	__________________ "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)

17th February 2009, 08:13 AM	#222
joobz Tergiversator Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: That's how you get ants Posts: 17,503	Originally Posted by slingblade Yes, and tomorrow, we're going to teach you to use the big boy's potty. Not to derail, but last night my 2 year old son attempted to use the potty for the first time. It was so cute that it was hard not laughing, but I didn't want to give him some sort of complex. He wanted to use the urinal thing we got him, but he had already peed in his diaper. So he ended up basically humping the contraption.
	__________________ 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

17th February 2009, 08:21 AM	#223
Macoy Writing on water Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 1,363	First time I had to use it, my dad sat next to me reading me my favourite comic. I reckon the experience screwed us both up for decades.
Macoy Writing on water Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 1,363	__________________ Realists live in a world of their own

17th February 2009, 08:21 AM	#224
MIKILLINI Incromulent Logic Join Date: May 2007 Location: The Illini State Posts: 2,881	Originally Posted by yrreg No, I am not hiding anything of The Apostles' Creed, not even that part about father almighty. What I am doing is to bring your attention to the quintessence of God as far as we humans can know of Him with our reason and intelligence. What preponderance of evidence are you going to present that persuades your belief in God?
	__________________ 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.

17th February 2009, 08:35 AM	#225
Mister Agenda Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Columbia, SC Posts: 2,622	Yrreg, looks like you're stepping up your game when it comes to communication. Good show!

17th February 2009, 08:42 AM	#226
Myriad Hyperthetical Moderator Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 8,204	From the point of view of most adherents of the religions professing the Apostle's Creed, applying "maker of heaven and earth" as the definition of God (as opposed to just one line item on His resume) is inadequate to the point of sacrilege. Most protestant religious practices, for example, are primarily concerned with achieving salvation through God's grace. As far as the doctrines of salvation are concerned, who created heaven and earth is hardly relevant at all. Had God not created the world but instead acquired dominion over it by defeating the great Uullm, the true creator of heaven and earth, in a Baby Back Ribs Battle in Kitchen Stadium, the practical import would be negligible. Two chapters out of 1,189 in the King James Bible would be different, and the phrase "the defeater of Uullm" would be swapped for "the maker of heaven and earth" in the Apostle's Creed. The parts of Christianity regarding how God wants people to behave would not be affected at all. By focusing on God's role as creator of heaven and earth, are you rejecting those other doctrines (saints, the virgin birth, judgment, salvation, Christ, etc.) or are you just disregarding them? If you're rejecting them, then you are indeed getting into the realm of deism. On the other hand if you believe in them, why define God in such a way as to disregard them? Respectfully, Myriad
	__________________ The cosmos is a vast Loom, with time the warp and space the weft. We are all fruit of the Loom, unaware.

17th February 2009, 03:42 PM	#227
Silentknight Your rice is served Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: A straight narrow river Posts: 1,748	Originally Posted by joobz Sounds Fine. Ok. To me, God is a dog seen in a mirror. Perhaps we should provide evidence for our differing definitions? You start. It's important to remember that the modern domesticated God as we know it was descended from its wild ancestor Flow.
	__________________ Two roads diverged in a yellow wood, so I got out my machete and hacked my own damn path.

17th February 2009, 03:54 PM	#228
Piscivore Smelling fishy Join Date: May 2004 Location: Home is wherever I'm with you Posts: 26,479	Originally Posted by Silentknight It's important to remember that the modern domesticated God as we know it was descended from its wild ancestor Flow. Pfft, "god". Tac is smarter.
	__________________ Give a man a fish, feed him for a day. Take his fish away and tell him he's lucky just to be alive, and he'll figure out how to catch another one for you to take tomorrow. "...untrustworthy obnoxious twerp." - CFLarsen

17th February 2009, 04:20 PM	#229
yrreg Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 2,329	The distinction between knowing and believing. Originally Posted by bruto Posted by yrreg No, I am not hiding anything of The Apostles' Creed, not even that part about father almighty. What I am doing is to bring your attention to the quintessence of God as far as we humans can know of Him with our reason and intelligence. The rest is a matter of faith, on the script of men claiming to be commissioned by God to teach about God. You see, first I want to see if you can at least see the possibility of the concept of God as maker of heaven and earth and everything. Then for people here although atheists who can still with their brain harbor the possibility of the concept of God as maker of heaven and earth and everything, I will invite them to join me in the search of anything which can satisfy that description of God. What's in it for me? It is fun, and I hope will be fun for you also. And of course intellectually rewarding. About God being psychologically comforting for people who take Him for a father, I confess I do that myself; but remember that is a script I take the presumption to make up for God, on the ground that I know Him from reason and intelligence to be maker of heaven and earth and everything. Do you feel that for yourself it demeans you? That is your privilege founded upon your free thought and free choice. Bold = the part I still have a problem with. This is not an issue of ability to hold a concept, or of understanding. In my case, this comes back, as it has all along, to a fundamental disagreement with regard to what you consider to be "knowing" as opposed to faith. I doubt we will ever agree on this, but as far as I am concerned, all the properties of God, whether or not they are included in your definition, are matters of faith and reason, not of experience, and separating out that one part of the definition as a special exception to this starts you down the wrong path once again. By the way, I will add that the last couple of responses I have had from you have been much more to the point, as well as polite, and however much we may never meet on opinion, I appreciate the effort. Before anything else, bruto, you do agree with me that the concept of God as the maker of heaven and earth and everything is a possible concept in the brain of man. This possibility of the concept is a matter of knowing. Do you also accept that statement immediately preceding above? So that our exchange will be neat and tidy, suppose you just tell me what you see to be from my post referred to by you, one thing that is from me a matter of knowing and one thing just one thing that is from me a matter of believing. Just one thing each, then we can exchange thoughts further on what is knowing and what is believing, and hope to not be bogged down into definitions. Yrreg
yrreg Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 2,329

17th February 2009, 04:26 PM	#230
Sun Countess Appearance of intelligence Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Vancouver Posts: 3,176	Originally Posted by Silentknight It's important to remember that the modern domesticated God as we know it was descended from its wild ancestor Flow. Is the wild Flow a relative of the modern-day Flew? I hear that this God fellow was last spotted somewhere in the vicinity of his brain. Originally Posted by yrreg Just one thing each, then we can exchange thoughts further on what is knowing and what is believing, and hope to not be bogged down into definitions. Yrreg But...but...getting bogged down in definitions is the hallmark of every yrreg thread! I thought this one was actually beginning to get somewhere. Oh well.

17th February 2009, 05:04 PM	#231
Ron_Tomkins Satan's Helper Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: NYC Posts: 32,047	Sorry, yrreg but you're replying selectively and actively ignoring important questions addressed to you Here's my definition of yrreg: A troll *End of transmission*

17th February 2009, 08:06 PM	#232
bruto Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy Posts: 11,191	Originally Posted by yrreg Before anything else, bruto, you do agree with me that the concept of God as the maker of heaven and earth and everything is a possible concept in the brain of man. That seems reasonable even if we can carp about the way it is phrased. We can have a concept of a creator. The concept may or may not be clear, coherent, correct or rational, but we can have it. As it stands now, since there is nothing other than the act of creation itself as an attribute, the concept is pretty basic, and could even be considered second-hand, in that the meat of the concept is really that the universe is created, and from it we derive the concept that something did it. Nonetheless, it's a concept, and yes, you can have it in your brain. It's all yours! Quote: This possibility of the concept is a matter of knowing. If you mean we can know that the concept is possible, yes. If you mean that we can know that we have the concept ourselves, yes. Beyond that, if the referenced sentence has any other meaning, I do not see what it could be. What is not a matter of knowing is the subject of the concept. I can have a concept of something that is not true. I can even have a concept of something that is practically or logically impossible. To experience the thought is not to experience the thing thought of. Quote: Do you also accept that statement immediately preceding above? as qualified above.... Quote: So that our exchange will be neat and tidy, suppose you just tell me what you see to be from my post referred to by you, one thing that is from me a matter of knowing and one thing just one thing that is from me a matter of believing. If I am getting this right (your sentence structure is a bit odd), I would say it this way. We both know you have a concept of a creator, which you call "God," and that this concept is in general agreement with what other people mean when they use the term "God." You believe that such a god exists, and you believe that you know it, but you have yet to convince anyone that you know it, or to provide a convincing argument for how you come to believe that you know it. I hope that is clear enough, and addresses what you mean. Quote: Just one thing each, then we can exchange thoughts further on what is knowing and what is believing, and hope to not be bogged down into definitions. Yrreg Indeed, I think this, and not the issue of definitions, is where we will find a disagreement that may prove unbridgeable, but let's see what happens.
	__________________ "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)

17th February 2009, 08:54 PM	#233
Elizabeth I Olympic Equestrian Wannabe Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Defending the Alamo Posts: 9,268	Quote: Just pm me if you really want me to react to your thoughts, okay? Otherwise, don't waste the time of readers and the forum's bandwidth. No offense intended, just speaking out my brain's honest and direct thoughts. So why are you bothering with this thread if you just want to exchange private emails?
	__________________ • 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...

17th February 2009, 09:11 PM	#234
MIKILLINI Incromulent Logic Join Date: May 2007 Location: The Illini State Posts: 2,881	I can agree with your concept of God Yrreg, except the maker of everything. I haven't seen that claim made by anyone except those like you who believe in this God. The existence of God can't really be tested, but the belief in God can be. So Yrreg, can you provide evidence that persuades you to believe in your God?
	__________________ 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.

18th February 2009, 05:35 PM	#235
thegrave New Blood Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 18	Originally Posted by yrreg That's not being exact and specific; please be exact and specific. That is why I am very exasperated in exchange of ideas with you guys, you tend to tergiversate and/or prevaricate and even calumniate, instead of being exact and specific in reacting to the issue. Yrreg "everything" is simply wrong. For a start, my thoughts exist - IT didn't make them. Also, IT can't actually make anything. If IT is already 'the' everything [which faithers seem to believe] then how can IT make 'anything' else! That would be more than the 'everything' IT was! WHICH means IT wasn't everything to begin with. So your use of the term 'everything' is wrong!
thegrave New Blood Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 18