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

[Sun Countess]

Don't you mean the priest drank all the blood?

 

[laca]

Don't you mean the priest drank all the blood?

Nice catch

 

[yrreg]

The God of reason and the God of devotion is the same God.

I conceive of God as the maker of everything.


You can say then as an atheist that the maker of everything are ultimate particles of matter and energy whatever, or one particle which by random mutation and natural selection became so many sub-particles, and those are the sub-ultimate particles that physicists are always looking for, even spending billions of tax payers money to contrive giant atom smashers to arrive at.

You don't want to call that first ever ultimate particle God, why not?




Yrreg

 

[quixotecoyote]

Because it butchers the meaning of 'maker' and relies on a questionable interpretation of science to support an idiosyncratic definition used to dishonestly push an unstated religious position.

Next?

 

[gambling_cruiser]

Because gods have usually many attributes not only "maker of everything".
And we don't know what happened at t=0, maybe we'll never be able to find out, maybe some day science will find out.

 

[Yoink]

I conceive of God as the maker of everything.


You can say then as an atheist that the maker of everything are ultimate particles of matter and energy whatever, or one particle which by random mutation and natural selection became so many sub-particles, and those are the sub-ultimate particles that physicists are always looking for, even spending billions of tax payers money to contrive giant atom smashers to arrive at.

You don't want to call that first ever ultimate particle God, why not?




Yrreg

Because its real name was Boris. Why won't you call this ultimate particle Boris, Yrreg? Are you some kind of filthy Boris-hater? Just trot out your proof that this ultimate particle *wasn't* called Boris and I'll get back to you. Of course I refuse to engage with anything you say until you provide definitive proof that the ultimate particle wasn't called Boris.

 

[Nonpareil]

I conceive of God as the maker of everything.


You can say then as an atheist that the maker of everything are ultimate particles of matter and energy whatever, or one particle which by random mutation and natural selection became so many sub-particles, and those are the sub-ultimate particles that physicists are always looking for, even spending billions of tax payers money to contrive giant atom smashers to arrive at.

You don't want to call that first ever ultimate particle God, why not?

Because it stretches the definition of "god" to the point where it has no meaning.

 

[Fiona]

I thought we had reached this point in the last thread, to be honest.

Is there any reason not to merge this thread with

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=135293 ?

 

[ElightenMe]

I conceive of God as the maker of everything.


You can say then as an atheist that the maker of everything are ultimate particles of matter and energy whatever, or one particle which by random mutation and natural selection became so many sub-particles, and those are the sub-ultimate particles that physicists are always looking for, even spending billions of tax payers money to contrive giant atom smashers to arrive at.

You don't want to call that first ever ultimate particle God, why not?




Yrreg

Yeah... that almost makes sense. Oh wait, no it doesn't.

 

[nescafe]

I conceive of God as the maker of everything.

If you must.

You can say then as an atheist that the maker of everything are ultimate particles of matter and energy whatever

Not really, our position is usually that "everything" just is, and does not require a maker.

or one particle which by random mutation and natural selection became so many sub-particles

Since when did subatomic particles mutate, and when did they start reproducing? Epic understanding fail, Gerry.

and those are the sub-ultimate particles that physicists are always looking for, even spending billions of tax payers money to contrive giant atom smashers to arrive at.

Not really. The giant atom smashers are being built to confirm or disprove the Standard Model, and hopefully find a new and unexpected twist on our understanding on how things work at high energies.

That, and accelerating a group of protons to 99.9999991% of the speed of light and them ramming it into another group head on is freaking awesome.

You don't want to call that first ever ultimate particle God, why not?

All the baggage that people attach to the word God, there being no evidence that there was a "first" particle, that a "first" particle is privileged in any way, and that the maths do not appear to require one.

 

[RoboTimbo]

I conceive of God as the maker of everything.


You can say then as an atheist that the maker of everything are ultimate particles of matter and energy whatever, or one particle which by random mutation and natural selection became so many sub-particles, and those are the sub-ultimate particles that physicists are always looking for, even spending billions of tax payers money to contrive giant atom smashers to arrive at.

You don't want to call that first ever ultimate particle God, why not?




Yrreg

So this god has no other properties than "maker of everything"? It has no sentience, no intelligence, does not answer prayers, does not actually exist now?

 

[Fiona]

We know where this goes: we get 30 pages of preaching and then we get a new repeat thread.

Do not look into their eyes....

 

[godless dave]

I conceive of God as the maker of everything.


You can say then as an atheist that the maker of everything are ultimate particles of matter and energy whatever, or one particle which by random mutation and natural selection became so many sub-particles,

Um, random mutation and natural selection are things that happen to living things (and semi-living things like prions and viruses), not subatomic particles.

You don't want to call that first ever ultimate particle God, why not?

Because there's no evidence that those particles have thoughts, or that they care how humans live their lives, or that they communicate with humans, or that they incarnate as a human, get crucified, and then rise from the dead two or three days later.

 

[ElightenMe]

I'm not sure how fundamental particle and "ultimate particle" got confused.

 

[Mashuna]

We know where this goes: we get 30 pages of preaching and then we get a new repeat thread.

Do not look into their eyes....

First D.J.: Okay, campers, rise and shine, and don't forget your booties 'cause it's cooooold out there today.
Second D.J.: It's coooold out there every day. What is this, Miami Beach?
First D.J.: Not hardly. And you know, you can expect hazardous travel later today with that, you know, that, uh, that blizzard thing.
Second D.J.: [mockingly] That blizzard - thing. That blizzard - thing. Oh, well, here's the report! The National Weather Service is calling for a "big blizzard thing!"
First D.J.: Yessss, they are. But you know, there's another reason why today is especially exciting.
Second D.J.: Especially cold!
First D.J.: Especially cold, okay, but the big question on everybody's lips...
Second D.J.: - On their chapped lips...
First D.J.: - On their chapped lips, right: Do ya think Yrreg is gonna come out and see he's making the same point over and over again?
Second D.J.: Tergiversating Yrreg!
First D.J.: Thats right, amoral-atheists - it's
[in unison]
First D.J.: GROUNDHOG DAY!
Second D.J.: GROUNDHOG DAY!

 

[godless dave]

Meet the new thread, same as the old thread.

 

[yrreg]

Are there not many things scientists cannot reconcile with science?

Because gods have usually many attributes not only "maker of everything".
And we don't know what happened at t=0, maybe we'll never be able to find out, maybe some day science will find out.

The problem with atheists then are the attributes people ascribe to God like omnibenevolence and omnipotence, which atheists cannot psychologically reconcile with man's knowledge of evil and free will.


Are there not many things of science which scientists themselves cannot reconcile with science?


About not knowing at happened at t=0, we know what happened after t=0, and from that knowledge we can intelligently draw on the implications at beyond t=0.

Anyway, let us for the present prescind from any concern about not knowing what happened at t=0, because we cannot talk on the basis of not knowing, except as a ground for not thinking, which ground for not thinking is not a universal attitude of mankind.


Let us for the present focus on the attributes people ascribe to God which atheists cannot psychologically reconcile themselves to or reconcile the attributes among themselves, the attributes.

But there are intelligent people who are not psychologically troubled about their incapacity to reconcile the attributes people ascribe to God, because God is above everything else maker of everything, and you have got to be God Himself to be able to know God in Himself as to appreciate the compatibility of God's attributes among themselves and with God's nature.

And they will tell you that attributes of God come from man's thinking, which is intrinsically limited and deficient whatever the reliability of man's intelligence for living and acting in his human circumstances.




Yrreg

 

[godless dave]

So are you defining God as the "maker of everything" like you said, or are you also defining him as having some of those additional attributes? Which is it?

 

[Foster Zygote]

I conceive of God as the maker of everything.


You can say then as an atheist that the maker of everything are ultimate particles of matter and energy whatever, or one particle which by random mutation and natural selection became so many sub-particles, and those are the sub-ultimate particles that physicists are always looking for, even spending billions of tax payers money to contrive giant atom smashers to arrive at.

You don't want to call that first ever ultimate particle God, why not?

For the same reason I don't call atmospheric electrical charges "Thor" or stellar fusion "Apollo".

 

[RoboTimbo]

The problem with atheists then are the attributes people ascribe to God like omnibenevolence and omnipotence, which atheists cannot psychologically reconcile with man's knowledge of evil and free will.


Are there not many things of science which scientists themselves cannot reconcile with science?


About not knowing at happened at t=0, we know what happened after t=0, and from that knowledge we can intelligently draw on the implications at beyond t=0.

Anyway, let us for the present prescind from any concern about not knowing what happened at t=0, because we cannot talk on the basis of not knowing, except as a ground for not thinking, which ground for not thinking is not a universal attitude of mankind.


Let us for the present focus on the attributes people ascribe to God which atheists cannot psychologically reconcile themselves to or reconcile the attributes among themselves, the attributes.

But there are intelligent people who are not psychologically troubled about their incapacity to reconcile the attributes people ascribe to God, because God is above everything else maker of everything, and you have got to be God Himself to be able to know God in Himself as to appreciate the compatibility of God's attributes among themselves and with God's nature.

And they will tell you that attributes of God come from man's thinking, which is intrinsically limited and deficient whatever the reliability of man's intelligence for living and acting in his human circumstances.




Yrreg

Can you reduce that to a question of one sentence or less, please? And make it coherent this time.