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

[Sledge]

But there are intelligent people

Excellent. Could we talk to one of them? Are they with you now?

 

[Foster Zygote]

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.

I love this sentence. It has many fine attributes.

 

[Fiona]

We could play Yrreg bingo. In yrreg bingo you can score off the things which are in earlier threads and which he says again: to claim a full house you have to find where he said it before. We can have both verbiage and vocabulary, and there are not many choices so it will be quite a short game.

I will be caller:

1.[bingo caller's voice] Should be binned: "prescind" [/voice]

2.[bingo caller's voice] On the shelf: "only god can know himself". [/voice]

Go!

 

[godless dave]

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.

Yrreg, how many guitars do I have in my basement? Don't talk on the basis of not knowing, except as a ground for not thinking.

 

[ElightenMe]

how many guitars do I have in my basement?

Are they all sub-ultimate guitars that have evolved from the ultimate guitar and why shouldn't we call that ultimate guitar god?

 

[Gaspode]

Thread merged with similar thread.

Posted By: Gaspode

 

[Fiona]

Thanks Gaspode

 

[yrreg]

I am trying to work out a bare bone God, without all the appurtenances from mankind.

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?

I am trying to work out a bare bone God, without all the appurtenances from mankind.


You see, as far as mankind is concerned, God is the maker of everything first and foremost, and that is the bare bone God.

That is the conclusion of today's intelligently thinking men.


Omnibenevolence, omnipotence, omniscience, omni-whatever, all these latter attributes are the implications drawn by men using their rational faculty and using it intelligently to examine God, the maker of everything.





Yrreg

 

[RoboTimbo]

I am trying to work out a bare bone God, without all the appurtenances from mankind.


You see, as far as mankind is concerned, God is the maker of everything first and foremost, and that is the bare bone God.

That is the conclusion of today's intelligently thinking men.


Omnibenevolence, omnipotence, omniscience, omni-whatever, all these latter attributes are the implications drawn by men using their rational faculty and using it intelligently to examine God, the maker of everything.





Yrreg

Great. Let's go with a god that is the maker of everything and no longer exists since shortly after t=0. Ok, now what?

 

[Fiona]

3. [bingo caller's voice] Lift up your voices and sing: "god is the maker of everything" [/ voice]


(Rule clarification: to score on this one you have to find at least two separate places he used it before: bonus points for three or more )

 

[nescafe]

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.

From where most of us are standing, omnibenevolence and omnipotence are incompatible attributes with free will and the existence of evil, yes. Except for characterizing that as a problem with atheists, you comprehensibly phrased a correct statement! Congrats!

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

By definition, no.

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.

If by "beyond t=0" you mean "after t=0", then we can by extrapolating backwards from our current state. If you mean "before t=0", we cannot, and there are good reasons to believe it is nonsensical to try.

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.

Oh no, a lapse into gibberish! And you did so well with the sentences before this.

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.

There is no reason to assume the existence of your God, so discussing its attributes is pointless except as an exercise in myth creation.

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.

While I am sure that makes for some excellent mental contortion, I prefer to take the easier path and note that there is no need for a God to explain all.

 

[Mojo]

I am trying to work out a bare bone God, without all the appurtenances from mankind.

Since the whole concept is a man-made construct, that isn't going to leave much.

 

[ElightenMe]

If by "beyond t=0" you mean "after t=0", then we can by extrapolating backwards from our current state. If you mean "before t=0", we cannot, and there are good reasons to believe it is nonsensical to try.

Unless it's a rocket launch countdown.

 

[yrreg]

Is that your position that nothing led to something which is the start of everything?

Is that your position that nothing led to something which is the start of everything?


Isn't that against intelligent thinking?


Perhaps you need to distinguish between the nothing that leads to the something that is the start of everything, from the nothing that leads to nothing.


So, which nothing do you have in mind?

The nothing that leads to something or the nothing that leads to nothing?




Yrreg

 

[RoboTimbo]

Is that your position that nothing led to something God which is the start of everything?


Isn't that against intelligent thinking?


Perhaps you need to distinguish between the nothing that leads to the something God that is the start of everything, from the nothing that leads to nothing.


So, which nothing do you have in mind?

The nothing that leads to something God or the nothing that leads to nothing?




Yrreg

See what I did there?

 

[Fiona]

4.[bingo voice] No use to whimper and no use to beg: which came first, chicken or egg? [/voice]

 

[ElightenMe]

Is that your position that nothing led to something which is the start of everything?

Nope.

Isn't that against intelligent thinking?

Yes. You suggested it.

Perhaps you need to distinguish between the nothing that leads to the something that is the start of everything, from the nothing that leads to nothing.

By definition, nothing can't lead to something. If it could, it isn't nothing.

So, which nothing do you have in mind?

"Is that your position that nothing led to something which is the start of everything?", is your suggestion.

The nothingsomething that leads to something or the nothing that leads to nothing?

Fixed that for you.

 

[nescafe]

Is that your position that nothing led to something which is the start of everything?

Why must there have been nothing? If you extrapolate backwards in time using General Relativity, at t=0 all of spacetime end everything in it was at a single point of infinite density, which is not the same as nothing.

Extrapolating backwards in time is not as meaningful in the Standard Model, but even here the vacuum is not empty -- it consists of a seething froth of virtual particle/antiparticle creation and annihilation, from which real particle/antiparticle pairs can spring forth. Again, not the same as nothing.

Isn't that against intelligent thinking?

Only if you accept the straw argument in the first place.

 

[yrreg]

I accept your correction, just that in you devotion does not follow reason.

Is that your position that nothing led to something God which is the start of everything?


Isn't that against intelligent thinking?


Perhaps you need to distinguish between the nothing that leads to the something God that is the start of everything, from the nothing that leads to nothing.


So, which nothing do you have in mind?

The nothing that leads to something God or the nothing that leads to nothing?




Yrreg

See what I did there?

I think I can accept your correction, except that line in italic now placed by myself.


You see, my insight is that atheists cannot escape from the God of reason, so they suppress in their heart and mind the God of devotion.

Man cannot blind himself to reason but he can suffocate within his heart and mind by abuse of free will devotion to the rational, the intelligent, the good, the true, and the beautiful.

That is the phenomenon of irrationality of which man owing to his free will can perpetrate on himself.

In psychology it is a simple instance of passion overwhelming and annihilating reason.






Yrreg

 

[ElightenMe]

Man cannot blind himself to reason

I beg to differ. It is currently being demonstrated.