Now, let's talk evidence for God.

Great point. The premise is gibberish but the reasoning sound....as sound as any other gibberish based reasoning. :p
 
Beth said:
It seems to me that there are only two premises and three logical steps. It leads to a tautology, but that’s not gibberish or a reasoning defect.
Click to expand...
If you want to live in a world where nonsense is regarded as reasonable then, by all means, go for it

Meanwhile, back in the real whirled premises such as Memory is death, Sunglasses is chocolate, Keyring is wallet, etc are all regarded as nonsensical gibberish and, therefore, invalid in a reasoned discussion

Beth said:
What is the problem with any of the logical steps (that’s the reasoning).

The premises are:
1: God is being. (G = B)
Click to expand...

Whoa!

Think about that, just for a moment
 
Last edited:
Beth said:
What is the problem with any of the logical steps (that’s the reasoning).

The premises are:
1: God is being. (G = B)
Click to expand...

I don't believe that this statement is semantically well-formed.

Can you give me any other instances in English where a proper noun can be held (validly) to be identical to a gerund?

As Harrison Ford is reputed to have said at one point, "you can type this ****, but you can't say it!"
 
linusrichard said:
I'm afraid I have a little idea of what yrreg is trying to do here, maybe. Let's say you define God as the maker of the Moon. Well, I think we have evidence that the moon has not always existed. Therefore, it is true in a sense that the Moon was "made." Therefore the Moon must have had, in some sense, a "maker." Thus, God exists.

The problem with defining God into existence is that you're left with an utterly meaningless God. If God is defined as the maker of the Moon, then is there any reason at all to believe that God is: omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, good, moral, just, worthy of worship, the only one of its kind, possessed of a will, possessed of a personality, at all conscious, indeed anything more than a chunk of rock and various forces acting on that chunk of rock that put that chunk of rock in orbit around us?

I've seen this elsewhere. Someone was trying to say that (and I have to paraphrase, because his use of language was every bit as indecipherable as yrreg's) God is being, and that we exist, and because we exist we have being, and because we have being, being exists, and because God is being and being exists, God exists. You see the problem with this reasoning, I trust.

If I were so inclined, I could define God out of existence in the same dishonest way this other fellow (not yrreg, yet, although I sense it coming) has defined God into existence. I could define God as a being who is both able to lift any weight, and able to create a weight so heavy, even He can't lift it. It can be easily proven that such a being does not exist. Therefore, God does not exist. Again, the reasoning is bad.

I realize it's been said before in this thread, but the burden is on the theist who wants to bring evidence of the existence of God to define God. And he ought to do it in such a way that (1) there is evidence that God exists, and (2) it is meaningful to say that God exists. I believe you can't do both, but the burden, again, is on the theist.
Click to expand...

Okay, define God out of existence.



Yrreg
 
yrreg said:
Okay, define God out of existence.



Yrreg
Click to expand...

Did you bother to read his post? He just did, with that question that children tend to ask "Can god make a rock so big he cant lift it?"

If you define God as being able to create anything and being able to do anything, then he can't exist, because all you have to ask is: Can god create something that he can't destroy? If the answer is yes, then god is not all powerful and that all powerful all creative god that we have defined can't exist. The same is if the answer is no, then this would mean there is something that god can not create, and the all-creative all powerful god that we have defined can't exist.
 
drkitten said:
I don't believe that this statement is semantically well-formed.

Can you give me any other instances in English where a proper noun can be held (validly) to be identical to a gerund?
Click to expand...
Building :) Well, okay, it's not a proper noun, the there is argument over whether god ought to be so classified as well.


While "God = Being" is not the definition of god that people here like to argue against, it seems similar to the definitions of pantheism or penentheism which cj posted for us earlier. It also strikes me as considerably more sensible that the 'invisible sky daddy' version that is so popular in this forum in that no one seems to actually believe in or defend that definition but there are people who believe that god is best defined as 'the ground of all being' - at least I think that's the phrase I've heard before.
 
Last edited:
Upchurch said:
From the generation of its heavier elements (with some help from nuclear forces) to the assembly of its parts into a roughly spherical shape, the moon was made by gravity. If God is the maker of the moon and the moon was made because of gravity, then gravity is God.

This was, of course, the thesis of another poster. Therefore, yrreg is Oknarf ...er, Franko. Further, not trusting the senses was lifegazer's thing, so Malerin is lifegazer.

Conservation of Woo'ism: woo is neither created nor destroyed. It is merely transferred from one troll to another.
Click to expand...


The maker of the moon first established all things and patterns necessary prior in the order of execution before again prior in the order of execution He made the moon, those all things and all patterns they include gravity.

But you can say that God is gravity in a poetic manner, the product for the producer; that's why also more early men I would safely imagine called the moon God, and the sun, etc., -- you know all that except that you want to play dummy.

That is what atheists prefer to play, dummies.


Like asking dummy-like what gods and how many gods theists want to bring up, at this time in the West in 2008 c.e.

Shame.



Yrreg
 
Beth said:
...there are people who believe that god is best defined as 'the ground of all being' - at least I think that's the phrase I've heard before.
Click to expand...
Please do illustrate how that phrase is more meaningful than 'the stuff of the Universe is made of stuff'

Thank you in advance, and stuff be with you :)
 
yrreg said:
The maker of the moon first established all things and patterns necessary prior in the order of execution before again prior in the order of execution He made the moon, those all things and all patterns they include gravity.
Click to expand...
That's not evidence of any sort. That's just an unsupported assertion, and therefore off-topic for your own thread.
 
I'm still waiting for cj to come up with an experiment or protocol that can test for or otherwise detect the supernatural when, by cj's own definition, we are purely naturalistic beings limited by natural laws and sensory organs.

Anyone else care to take a whack at it? Got any way to detect that dragon in the garage?

** Crickets chirping... **
 
You people asked me to give a description of God, and I gave you one:

The maker of the moon.

Suppose now you give me your descriptions of God which you deny to be existing.

You will say that there are as many as there are believers.

Then just give five, your favorite five descriptions of God which you disbelieve to be existing.

But among intellectually sophisticated people exposed to ideas and systems from the dawn of human conscious intelligence to the present, God is regularly understood today as the latest and most accomplished entity who authored the rest of existence that is distinct from Himself, namely, what is called contingent existence as distinct from necessary existence, of which necessary existence He is the only example.


If you miss that description of God, then you have not been up-to-date with the latest and most accomplished of description about God, after all these millennia when mankind, the most gifted and the most concentrated, have arrived at on the concept of God.

This God is also the maker of the moon and the chicken as the chicken egg and the dna that is the design and program in every living thing.


Just for your mental exercise, tell me or ask yourself which came first from God, the chicken or the chicken egg, the dna or the living entity mapped out programmed in the dna?




Yrreg
 
yrreg said:
But among intellectually sophisticated people exposed to ideas and systems from the dawn of human conscious intelligence to the present, God is regularly understood today as the latest and most accomplished entity who authored the rest of existence that is distinct from Himself, namely, what is called contingent existence as distinct from necessary existence, of which necessary existence He is the only example.
Click to expand...

You are one of these intellectually sophisticated people? I refute you thus. [/Dr Johnson]
 
yrreg said:
You people asked me to give a description of God, and I gave you one:

The maker of the moon.
Click to expand...
There is no evidence that anything "made" the moon. That's just you inferring purpose again.

Suppose now you give me your descriptions of God which you deny to be existing.
Click to expand...
Why?

You will say that there are as many as there are believers.
Click to expand...
Which, you will note, does not include us.

Then just give five, your favorite five descriptions of God which you disbelieve to be existing.
Click to expand...
Why?

But among intellectually sophisticated people exposed to ideas and systems from the dawn of human conscious intelligence to the present, God is regularly understood today as the latest and most accomplished entity who authored the rest of existence that is distinct from Himself, namely, what is called contingent existence as distinct from necessary existence, of which necessary existence He is the only example.
Click to expand...
Or not.

If you miss that description of God, then you have not been up-to-date with the latest and most accomplished of description about God, after all these millennia when mankind, the most gifted and the most concentrated, have arrived at on the concept of God.
Click to expand...
The problem remains, though, that people have simply made this up. You have a definition - not a very good one, but a definition nonetheless - but this thread was supposed to be about evidence. You are going backwards.

This God is also the maker of the moon and the chicken as the chicken egg and the dna that is the design and program in every living thing.
Click to expand...
The moon coalesced through gravitational attraction. Chickens come from eggs via biochemistry.

If your God is involved here, he is very very small.

Just for your mental exercise, tell me or ask yourself which came first from God, the chicken or the chicken egg, the dna or the living entity mapped out programmed in the dna?
Click to expand...
You've just described your God as the invention of man; he was not involved in any way.
 
MattusMaximus said:
I'm still waiting for cj to come up with an experiment or protocol that can test for or otherwise detect the supernatural when, by cj's own definition, we are purely naturalistic beings limited by natural laws and sensory organs.

Anyone else care to take a whack at it? Got any way to detect that dragon in the garage?

** Crickets chirping... **
Click to expand...

Actually that sort of helps greatly. Unfortunately I was working last night, and am off to Birmingham today, and as I am going to reply at length -- I always do really, sorry! -- I'm going to be delayed till tonight. Apologies, I promise i'm not termigivating or whatever that wonderful word is. As old hands will attest when I say I will reply I do - tediously, at length. :)

cj x
 
yrreg said:
Then just give five, your favorite five descriptions of God which you disbelieve to be existing.
Click to expand...
  1. Gods of the Gaps
    Applied aurally, gods expand like styrofoam to fill the gaps in wooists heads.

    Once the woo goes hard, it is very difficult to squeeze anything else in - cos there's No More Gaps! Cool, huh?
    ​
    ------------------------------​
  2. With Friends Like Gods, Who Needs Enemas?
    For those constipated by an incessant diet of woo, gods act as a purgative for the vilest crap.

    Unfortunately, suggestions to stick your god up your arse are often taken literally, whereupon the woo must be vomited out

    Sadly, it seems that wooists must like the taste, as the bile is usually re-ingested to foment even more​
    ------------------------------​
  3. My God is Bigger than Your God
    Those with rock-hard and unshakable 'beliefs' and an unrelenting diet of regurgitated woo dribbling from their chins are typically afflicted with an inexcusable urge to annihilate, subjugate and/or oppress their neighbours

    Inexcusable, that is, without recourse to a secret hotline to an omnipotent bully :)​
    ------------------------------​
  4. The Ultimate Pyramid Scheme
    Are you working towards a better life for you and your family? Are you in control of your future? Are you getting the rewards your hard work deserves?

    It's Turkeys. All the way Down!

    TurkeyWay Sales and Marketing Plan

    Your life does not need to be a trade-off between making the money you need and having the flexibility and time to live your life to the fullest.

    The TurkeyWay Sales and Marketing Plan puts you in control, allowing you the flexibility to work where and when you want, giving you time for family and friends as well as the opportunity to earn a heavenly income.

    The TurkeyWay Sales and Marketing Plan adapts easily to your needs and ambitions and grows with them, offering you all the personal support and assistance you require to become the Independent Business Owner you want to be.

    TurkeyWay - a Global Leader in Direct Selling

    With TurkeyWay, you are connected to the global leader in direct selling, with over 6,400 years of experience, supported by great products and people who will help you succeed, and finally in control of your life.​
    ------------------------------​
  5. Publish And Be Damned
    Research has shown that 81.546% of all statistics are made up on the spot... yet people believe them!

    Other research suggests that over 93% of all people say they 'have a book inside of them'.

    But only a precious few have actually completed a book through the publishing process.

    Where are you in that continuum?

    Do you have a book lurking inside your brain, heart, or soul somewhere?

    What have you done about it?

    It can be done, and you can do it, if you want… and that's a big 'if.'

    Only you know whether you want it badly enough to persist!

    I hope you do, because if you have the book inside of you, you were meant to write it.

    Below, I'll bullet point some of the most important issues I found for accomplishing that goal:
    ------------------------------​
    • Perfectionism:
      Let go of it now. That will kill any writing. And the readers don't care... they merely want a good yarn that they can use to justify being ass-wipes.

      Write freely whatever you want to say. Worry about editing it later. Forget about grammar, spelling, logic, common-sense and all that other stuff you learned in skule.

      Just write first.

      If anyone picks holes in your stuff, blame it on the editors or, better yet, their scriptural illiteracy!
      ------------------------------​
    • Critical Voice:
      This is that nasty voice inside your head that says things like, 'That's unbelievable!' 'Who do you think will swallow that crap?' 'That's mind-numbingly stupid.' And on and on…

      Well DUH!

      Tell that voice to READ TEH RESEARCH and then piss off!

      Y'ain't going nowhere if you listen to reason!
      ------------------------------​
    • Story starters:
      If you feel rusty, or like nothing is coming out, begin with 'story starters,' just to grease your wheels.

      There are a number of excellent books that have these kinds of topics to get your joints juiced, and - research has shown that the more you mix 'n' match any old crap, the more you'll sell!

      If you're at all worried about litigation, then simply use a pseudonym (or, better yet, three or four of 'em!), pretend your book was written a couple of thousand years ago and your home and hosed... What can anyone do? Sue? Hah!
      ------------------------------​
    • The Ending:
      You'll optimise your chances of being believed if you simply make it up!

      Stuck for inspiration?

      Use hallucinogenic drugs and write about weird, anthropomorphic animals whilst you dream of kicking back and enjoying those royalties!
      ------------------------------​
 
Last edited:
Beth said:
...there are people who believe that god is best defined as 'the ground of all being' - at least I think that's the phrase I've heard before.
Click to expand...

six7s said:
Please do illustrate how that phrase is more meaningful than 'the stuff of the Universe is made of stuff'

Thank you in advance, and stuff be with you :)
Click to expand...

Whether it's more meaningful is debatable but the phrase "ground of being" or "ground of all being" is quite different in meaning from "the stuff of the universe." It's a means some mystical schools use to reconcile the duality of human experience with the reality of monism.

The "ground of being" is one of those models which can't be disproven so it's not so exciting in many ways.

Nick
 
Last edited:
yrreg said:
<snip>
If you miss that description of God, then you have not been up-to-date with the latest and most accomplished of description about God, after all these millennia when mankind, the most gifted and the most concentrated, have arrived at on the concept of God.
<more snip>
Yrreg
Click to expand...

Oh thank chocolate! You finally admit that your god is a construct of man and not the other way around!

Congratulations on your awakening, yrreg, and welcome to the world of clear thinking. Will you start posting in intelligible language now?
 
Beth said:
Building :) Well, okay, it's not a proper noun, [/QUOE]

My point exactly.

the there is argument over whether god ought to be so classified as well.
Click to expand...

I disagree.

While "God = Being" is not the definition of god that people here like to argue against, it seems similar to the definitions of pantheism or penentheism which cj posted for us earlier. [/QUTOE]

... which is why cj's ideas are out of the box ludicrous. Because they're not even semantically well-formed.

They're not right. They're not even wrong.

They're word salad, or as another poster put it, "gibberish."
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom