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

[Sun Countess]

Okay, today, two lessons, totality of existence and things exist anything.

Does somebody have a yrreg-to-English translator? What does things exist anything mean? Exist is not a transitive verb.

That is why you have got to be like children to enter into wisdom.

Wrong. Wisdom comes with age; it's not something that we lose as we mature and develop language and critical thinking skills.

You have been conditioned to not ask all the questions that children ask, because of fear.

Now, work on your fear.

Wrong. I asked childish questions when I was a child. If I want to know something, I'm not going to ask a child how I should phrase my question, and I'm certainly not going to think that a childish question is somehow weightier or meatier than one that I could ask on my own.

What exactly do you think anybody here is afraid of? And didn't you get the answers to your child-like questions when you were an actual child? Get the answers, and move on, man. Why are you so afraid of intellectual progress?

 

[Complexity]

First, we must come to the concept and existence of god as maker of everything.

What I call the necessary being creator of everything with a beginning.

Then we will work out what is his business with us, which us is also made by him.

There is no god, there was no creation, nothing was made.

Your idea of what is necessary is wrong.

'We' will work nothing out, for nearly all of us disagree with you.

Something that does not exist has no 'business' with us.

 

[tsig]

I submit that your message can very well fit into the totality of existence.


Let scientists speculate all they want, they can't still not get out of the totality of existence, except to pretend to not think about it.


In that totality of existence we humans are also situated and the sun we see arising on the eastern horizon, and also extinct species once upon a time now extinct.

So, we can just leap to the question that an intelligent mind asks, is there a part that exists all the time and in all the space?

You say:



I can take that, the collective consciousness; when we die we will continue in the collective consciousness, do I read you correctly?

That is some collective consciousness not incompatible with a necessary being creator of everything that has a beginning.

Now, we just have to do some needed polishing on the idea.


I would love to continue this idea with you.



Yrreg

Let's all polish the god.

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

First, we must come to the concept and existence of God as maker of everything.

What I call the necessary being creator of everything with a beginning.

Then we will work out what is His business with us, which us is also made by Him.


I would love to continue with you on the topic of this thread.



Yrreg

Well no, first you'd have to prove there IS a god that made everything as opposed to a god made up by primitive humans that could not explain the universe any other way and whose worship has been fixed by tradition and coercion.

Then you'd have to prove that said god actually in any way still interacts with the universe

Then you'd ahve to prove that this interaction stretches to manipulating life on this planet

Once you've proven all of that then you can try to prove that this god cares about humanity over the rest of life

And then and only then can you try to prove that your particular way of worshipping/interpreting god is actually the right way.

And no, the bible nor any other 'holy' text are admissable as proof, as they've clearly been written by humans for humans and been altered by humans to fit the current political need.

 

[Mojo]

First, we must come to the concept and existence of God as maker of everything.

Turtles ahoy!

 

[yrreg]

The proof is in the necessary inference from the totality of existence...

Well no, first you'd have to prove there IS a god that made everything as opposed to a god made up by primitive humans that could not explain the universe any other way and whose worship has been fixed by tradition and coercion.

Then you'd have to prove that said god actually in any way still interacts with the universe

Then you'd ahve to prove that this interaction stretches to manipulating life on this planet

Once you've proven all of that then you can try to prove that this god cares about humanity over the rest of life

And then and only then can you try to prove that your particular way of worshipping/interpreting god is actually the right way.

And no, the bible nor any other 'holy' text are admissable as proof, as they've clearly been written by humans for humans and been altered by humans to fit the current political need.

The proof is in the necessary inference from the totality of existence which totality has also parts transient in their duration of existence.

If you cannot learn by inference from looking at your nose, then I guess you are not qualified to ask questions about proof.

Because you could not see it, the proof, even though you have I hope a nose in your face.




Yrreg

 

[dafydd]

The proof is in the necessary inference from the totality of existence which totality has also parts transient in their duration of existence.

If you cannot learn by inference from looking at your nose, then I guess you are not qualified to ask questions about proof.

Because you could not see it, the proof, even though you have I hope a nose in your face.




Yrreg

Most people have a nose on their face.Is English your first language? Do you know somebody who can translate your posts into something comprehensible?

 

[Dancing David]

That is why you have got to be like children to enter into wisdom.

You have been conditioned to not ask all the questions that children ask, because of fear.

Now, work on your fear.



Yrreg

Here is a childlike question,

How could you tell?

If a universe that has an operator looks exactly like one without?

Gee Unca Yrreg, how could you tell the difference?

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

The proof is in the necessary inference from the totality of existence which totality has also parts transient in their duration of existence.

That sentence makes absolutely no sense at all. Really, it means nothing in english

If you cannot learn by inference from looking at your nose, then I guess you are not qualified to ask questions about proof.

I find it very hard to look at my nose except in a mirror, but I'm guessing you mean that because I do not accept your premise of 'god exists' that I should not ask if god exists, because only those that accept that he exists from the start can question?

Because you could not see it, the proof, even though you have I hope a nose in your face.

If the proof can only been seen by those that want to see it, it is no proof at all.

 

[Loss Leader]

The proof is in the necessary inference from the totality of existence which totality has also parts transient in their duration of existence.

That sentence makes absolutely no sense at all. Really, it means nothing in english

"Since some things are created and then cease to exist, the universe itself must have been created. Thus, it is necessarily true that God created the universe."

He just says it backwards, "The proof that God exists is a necessarily true deduction from the fact that the universe had a beginning, which we know because some things in the universe have beginnings."

Deductive reasoning is the only kind Gerry does. Since his premises are always flawed, and since he refuses to inductively learn why they're flawed or what premises might be correct, this generally leads to worthless deductions.

"All cows are red; and some people can survive on nothing but crab grass; thus some people are red."

 

[Elizabeth I]

That sentence makes absolutely no sense at all. Really, it means nothing in english

I find it very hard to look at my nose except in a mirror, but I'm guessing you mean that because I do not accept your premise of 'god exists' that I should not ask if god exists, because only those that accept that he exists from the start can question?

Actually I think he's trying to say it's as plain as the nose on your face. Our boy has a habit of trying to fancy up plain English - in another post (I can't be bothered to look up his specific babbles) he said something about an idea being "genuine salt." It would help if he would learn the plain English first, then start quoting his dictionary at us.

 

[bruto]

The proof is in the necessary inference from the totality of existence which totality has also parts transient in their duration of existence.

If you cannot learn by inference from looking at your nose, then I guess you are not qualified to ask questions about proof.

Because you could not see it, the proof, even though you have I hope a nose in your face.




Yrreg

But if you're looking for an eagle it doesn't matter if you see your nose. You have failed from the start to demonstrate the necessity of a creator. Saying it's so is not enough.

 

[Sun Countess]

If you cannot learn by inference from looking at your nose, then I guess you are not qualified to ask questions about proof.

Because you could not see it, the proof, even though you have I hope a nose in your face.

It's just the penis argument all over again, this time dressed up for polite company.

You have a nose, therefore God.

"Who made my (insert body part here), mommy?" "God did." Nothing childish about that argument at all. Once you get that answer, stop right there. There's nothing more you need to learn or understand.

Have I got that right, yrreg?

 

[A Lurker]

It's just the penis argument all over again, this time dressed up for polite company.

You have a nose, therefore God.

"Who made my (insert body part here), mommy?" "God did." Nothing childish about that argument at all. Once you get that answer, stop right there. There's nothing more you need to learn or understand.

Have I got that right, yrreg?

You've almost got that right; he actually used the Nose argument first...

forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4987782&postcount=311

and then moved it onto Penii (penises? Penises! You know, lots of them, just like in Yerrg's mind!) because he thought that was even more of a clear way of defining himself as existing... he pricks, there for he is.

Probably because as he also revealed around the same time a biblical chauvanism when talking about "domestic help"; he sees himself as a Biblical Man, and women should in turn take the Biblical role set out for them, soft little things that do all the backbreaking domestic work, for the Daddy figure in their lives. Yup, Yrreg has intense difficulty understanding other people just don't always share the same assumptions and prejudices as he does... on gender or on anything else.

But Yrreg it's Sunday; I am sure you've had an intensely religious Sunday, but I'm only coming out of lurking to tell you that I deny god so I can guiltlessly masturbate today. Do you believe me when I say that?

 

[yrreg]

Okay, you tell me then, atheists, what concept of God you are denying existence to.

Okay, you tell me then, atheists, what concept of God you are denying existence to.



Yrreg

 

[blobru]

Is there an echo in here?

 

[six7s]

I deny the existence of a thunder-making concept such as Thor

 

[Olowkow]

Okay, you tell me then, atheists, what concept of God you are denying existence to.



Yrreg

I think you mean "what concept do we not believe in". I doubt if any of us want to "deny existence to" any gods.

I don't believe the concept of some invisible being that gives me goodies when I believe, and busts my balls when I don't.

 

[Paulhoff]

Okay, you tell me then, atheists, what concept of God you are denying existence to.



Yrreg

All the ones that don't tell us anything about the working of the universe.

That pretty much wraps them all up.

Paul

 

[yrreg]

Masturbation you mention, that is a shocker, your only contribution?

For atheists who want to bring in masturbation in their posts.


That is a shocker, your only contribution?

Typical.


As some atheist from being erstwhile Christian confessed that he became an atheist for cognitive consistency and guiltless masturbation.

But now he seems to insist that he was being funny.

More like into a shocker.

Or he should ask himself which is funny and which is a shocker.

Typical.


I can see some strain of exhibitionism there, with impunity in the net of course.




Yrreg