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

[Sledge]

I'll answer this for you.

Yrreg believes that if he can get atheists to admit belief in a concept, and not object to his arbitrary labeling of it as "god", he will have proven that atheists really do believe in God, and are denying it in order to practice guiltless masturbation.

I'd kinda guessed that was the idea, I just wondered if Yrreg could be honest enough to admit it.

From The Hitch-Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy, 2nd series, Fit the Twelfth.

I should have remembered that.

 

[Piscivore]

Woah woah woah. Back up, everyone. I think we're missing something.

Does yrreg have a new word? Or did I miss this one somewhere along the way?

Wait until he discovers "ascertain".

 

[yrreg]

Matter must have been created by something that requires no explanation as to its...

Has matter always been around from the very beginning or there was something before the appearance of matter?

No, matter has not always been around and therefore must have been created by something that requires no explanation as to its creation by definition.

Is that the kind of answer you're looking for?

Are you cyborg an atheist?




That is one question.

This is my next question:

Do you admit that matter has not always been around?




Yrreg

 

[Fiona]

7. [bingo voice] All the fours : socratic discourse [/voice]

 

[godless dave]

Do you admit that matter has not always been around?

There has never been a time when there wasn't matter.

 

[Robert Oz]

I only just realised if you look at the letters down the left hand side of yrreg's avatar, you get an idea of the content of his posts.

 

[yrreg]

... dissertation on how psychology dictates logic in re atheists' mode of discourse.

Do you admit that matter has not always been around?

There has never been a time when there wasn't matter.

You mean then that matter has always been around.


In which case do you also admit that something else was also around with matter, or it is only matter and nothing else?




At this point, I am getting to see more and more the psychology of atheists of the vocal hostile belligerent type, namely:

The atheists' psychology dictates the atheists' logic.​

What then is the atheists' logic?

That should deserve a doctoral dissertation on how psychology dictates logic in re atheists' mode of discourse.




Yrreg

 

[godless dave]

You mean then that matter has always been around.

As long as there has been time, there has been matter.

In which case do you also admit that something else was also around with matter, or it is only matter and nothing else?

There's no evidence of anything else.

 

[yrreg]

Is it one matter that has always existed or more than one matter?

Originally Posted by yrreg
You mean then that matter has always been around.​

As long as there has been time, there has been matter.

Originally Posted by yrreg
In which case do you also admit that something else was also around with matter, or it is only matter and nothing else?
​

As long as there has been time, there has been matter.​

There's no evidence of anything else.

You mean you don't have any evidence you know about that there is anything else present with matter, and matter has been always around.

Logically you cannot deny that there is anything else present aside from matter.

Of course you can insist that no one either can affirm that there is something around with matter.


So, we can take it from what you admit that matter has always been around, and prescind from the question which you cannot answer because you have no evidence so far as you are concerned, namely, that aside from matter there is something else present.


You say that matter has always been around.

Is it one matter that has always existed or more than one matter?




Yrreg

 

[Paulhoff]

A very good video posted by Aepervius



Watch it a few times until you understand it yrreg.

Paul

 

[yrreg]

You also say: "As long as there has been time there has been matter."

As long as there has been time, there has been matter.



There's no evidence of anything else.

Sorry, dave, I forgot to mention that you also say, "As long as there has been time, there has been matter."

In which case there has always been aside from matter, time.


So, you maintain that there have always been time and matter, and you have no evidence of anything else.


We can take it from there that matter and time have always existed.


I like to address my question to you again:

Is that matter one matter or there are other matters?​

And as regards time,

is that time composed of splices of time or it is one time all the time?​

I want to honestly thank you that you have not taken the path of bringing in the Flying Spaghetti Monster,




Yrreg

 

[X]

I'll answer this for you.

Yrreg believes that if he can get atheists to admit belief in a concept, and not object to his arbitrary labeling of it as "god", he will have proven that atheists really do believe in God, and are denying it in order to practice guiltless masturbation.

I'd kinda guessed that was the idea, I just wondered if Yrreg could be honest enough to admit it.

No, he won't admit it. But it is what he's trying to do.

He created a thread on random mutation in evolution, (which wound up in the science sub-forum) which in the end became a pretense to argue that randomness is the atheist's god.

 

[Mashuna]

7. [bingo voice] All the fours : socratic discourse [/voice]

8. What made the rain, what made the snow? Atheists can't answer "I don't know".

 

[ElightenMe]

I wanted to start a new topic on atheists cannot escape the God of reason, but the God of devotion, most probably yes because they do exercise free choice.


That is a new approach to the study of atheists, but as can be already seen by readers here who are not atheists they don't want to talk about anything except what they claim that God is no different from the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

And readers here who are not atheists, when you go into the psychological profile of atheists as writers on no God, they will accuse you of being ad hominem and insulting them.

Isn't human behavior all human psychology, unless you want to treat human behavior as akin to the programmed robot.


Here is one trait with atheists who care to discuss about God or no God, they will eventually bring in the "we don't know" card, by which they mean in the last analysis they don't know anything by which God can be accessed from empirical avenues of knowledge.

For example, what comes before the Big Bang, they will insist they don't know nothing or cannot know anything, therefore end of discussion.



If you go further they will complain that you are too proud to claim to any capacity or propensity to speculate on what brought about the Big Bang.



Try asking them this question, and see whether they will come forth with a straight answer:

Has matter always been around from the very beginning or there was something before the appearance of matter?​

Yrreg

Wrong. The insistence is that the research is currently in progress, therefore any speculation is just pointless.

Your question is flawed because it makes the assumption of a beginning.

 

[ElightenMe]

Are you cyborg an atheist?




That is one question.

This is my next question:

Do you admit that matter has not always been around?




Yrreg

Second question as invalid. By usage of the word "admit", you are implying that the subject of your question is true.

Do you admit that matter (or energy) has always been around?

 

[ElightenMe]

There has never been a time when there wasn't matterenergy.

 

[ElightenMe]

As long as there has been time, there has been matterenergy.



There's no evidence of anything else.

 

[ElightenMe]

Sorry, dave, I forgot to mention that you also say, "As long as there has been time, there has been matter."

In which case there has always been aside from matter, time. So, you maintain that there have always been time and matter, and you have no evidence of anything else.

We can take it from there that matter and time have always existed.


I like to address my question to you again:

Is that matter one matter or there are other matters?​

And as regards time,

is that time composed of splices of time or it is one time all the time?​

I want to honestly thank you that you have not taken the path of bringing in the Flying Spaghetti Monster,




Yrreg

Strawman. He never said time always existed.

 

[Hokulele]

And as regards time, is that time composed of splices of time or it is one time all the time?

Why? Are you trying to reinvent calculus this week?

 

[ElightenMe]

Why? Are you trying to reinvent calculus this week?

Surely not possible? Math requires logic!