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

[bruto]

Thanks, everyone for your reactions, but I am still waiting for Foster Zygote to return.

However, just the same I will say to everyone that this question of God or no God, it has engaged also atheists interminably to this day and everywhere in the internet, and more so in the internet because it is easy and quick to write in the internet and get oneself published.

Now, my opinion or conviction even though I must have already said this piece time and again in my writing in this forum, is that atheists are not genuinely thinking when they write about God in the Christian faith, because they insist on not getting the concept correctly.

Not genuinely thinking because to my observation they always delimit their thinking reach when it comes to God, so that in their delimited thinking they already set as off-limits any thinking that they will exercise with their mind as tabooed when it touches on the concept of God, in accordance with as I already stated God in the following two statements in the Christian faith:

In the beginning God created heaven and earth. Genesis 1:1
I believe in God the Father almighty creator of heaven and earth. Apostles' Creed verse 1​

If atheists do not impose upon their mind the off-limits consideration of the concept of God as per the two statements above, meaning they do not self-censor their minds, then they must first of all consider how the concept of God came about in the minds of the people who did formulate the statements.

Of course that is a matter of intellectual curiosity, how people come about to inform their mind about the concept of God as per the two statements above.

At least therefore for atheists who still have such an intellectual curiosity, they can dialog with me; otherwise they will go into all directions of irrelevancy.


Yrreg

I believe your assertion above is just plain wrong. Simply not correct. Implacably, repeatedly, boringly wrong. Many atheists, like theists, have thought well and hard about all the things you're mentioning here. Some have gone through catechism and even divinity school and lost their faith, while others have found faith in a flash. Many have probably studied it in greater depth than you have, including long and tedious study of the scholastic arguments for and against ontological proof, and the anthropological, psychological and philosophical discussion of how some of those ideas came about. You should probably do the same thing before assuming that the issue is as simple as you make it out to be. There are reasons why theists and atheists, as well as everything in between, still exist, and you have not even scratched the surface.

 

[jsfisher]

What do you say, the concept of God in the Christian faith as creator of the universe came about from thinkers of antiquity who looked around and observed the universe and come to the conclusion that there is an entity creator and in charge of the whole cosmos; now atheists are so insistent that there is no entity in charge -- which is obviously an irrational attitude.

You have repeated that the concept of God in the Christian faith as creator of the heavens and Earth. However, that concept is far from complete. Sure, characterizing something by its deeds and accomplishments is reasonable, but you have limited yourself to just two (creator of heavens, creator of Earth), so your personal concept of God in the Christian faith has little to distinguish it from the concept of God in many, many other faiths.

Is not your God distinguishable from all the rest? Your insistence that God as maker of the heavens and Earth is sufficient for the Christian concept is obviously an irrational attitude.

 

[jond]

I, for one, am happy that FZ has been designated as Yyreg's special friend for this go-round. I was worried that FZ had been a bit bored lately and that he might have been engaged in guiltless masterbation.

 

[jsfisher]

I have another question, Yrreg: How many gods are there in the Christian faith?

No, I don't mean whether it is one or three or three-in-one. Besides the creator of heavens and Earth, how many others are there? One of the commands, "Thou shalt have no other gods before me," clear admits to the existence of other deities. I'm just curious as to how many there are.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I've heard it argued that some flavors of Christianity are polytheistic in everything but name, with concept of the Trinity, the Virgin Mary being considered a Goddess by any practical definition, and Saints qualifying as demigods.

 

[Dinwar]

Now, my opinion or conviction even though I must have already said this piece time and again in my writing in this forum, is that atheists are not genuinely thinking when they write about God in the Christian faith, because they insist on not getting the concept correctly.

Which is funny, because many of us wait until the theists define "god". Which means YOUR SIDE is the one not defining it correctly.

Of course that is a matter of intellectual curiosity, how people come about to inform their mind about the concept of God as per the two statements above.

First, you have to prove that those two statements are relevant to the discussion. You've yet to do so--you've merely insisited that we accept them as relevant, and say we're "not genuinely thinking" if we disagree with you.

Ask Dawkins and also Hawking where the laws of nature or physics come from, and also in re evolution where does the original rise of life come from

That's like saying "Paintings don't exist--the painters can't explain the process by which canvase and pigments form!" Abiogenesis=/=evolution. The fact that you equivocate between the two strongly suggests that you do not have an informed opinion on the matter.

 

[Sun Countess]

I will just say here that it is the teaching of the Christian faith that God's existence is known from evidence in the existence of the material universe.

And I will counter by saying it is the teaching of the Scientology faith that the evil Lord Xenu sent frozen thetans into the volcanoes of the earth, thereby infecting humans with bad thoughts.

In other words, it's an assertion. Is not my imaginary friend, Susie, evident to everybody with a properly working brain? Susie seems to think so. How can you argue against somebody who takes such a childish position as "My boss man is real because he says so!!"

That is for the atheists who deny the existence of any parts of the universe that are not material; for all other humans who admit the existence of other parts of the universe that are not material, then there is also evidence.

Can they prove this evidence? There are people who believe that ghosts and demons are real, and they seem to admit that evidence to themselves. The big problem is they can't seem to show it to other people. It's all inside your heads.

Now, you emphasize that it is anthropomorphical for Christians to address God as Father, that is analogical.

Yes, dear, of course it is. Women ain't ***, version 1.0.

Power is experienced by man from his father.

Women ain't ****, part 2.0.

Wherefore analogically man addresses God the creator of the universe as also father, but not all completely and restrictively as like his biological father.

For a mother is really just an afterthought in the whole biological creation process. Or, as I like to call it, women ain't ****, part 3.0


Yrreg, can you explain why men are the only important entities in all the religions that have been invented and enforced by men? You seem to be delimiting yourself with this particular concept.

You are always looking for authority to depend on, use your own mind to think.

Since this was addressed to me, I'd like you to ask whose mind you think I'm using to do my thinking? Or what authority you think I depend on? Certainly not a bunch of misogynistic religious zealots who need an imaginary bully behind them to keep their women in line.

Here's the thing, yrreg. I could figure out that all this "god" stuff was a crock of nonsense about the same time I figured out that Santa was all make-believe. I learned about the greek and roman gods before I ever learned anything about Yahweh, and he seemed just as silly and make-believe as the others. Only a lot meaner.

Okay, you don't accept some entity built the universe, then what is your ultimate explanation for the existence of the -- now this is not irrelevant, the nose in your face?

There's a whole lot of biological processes that could explain the existence of the nose on my face, and it doesn't start with someone imaginary entity who got the whole universe started. I suggest you read some books on biology and evolution if you want those answers.

Seriously, men in antiquity have thought about the ultimate explanation for everything that has a beginning and an ending, and they have come to the concept of God as the creator of the universe, and they put it down in writing for record to posterity, here are two example of such records: <snip religious musings of ancient men>

Are we no better than superstitious men in antiquity? Maybe you don't think you are, because you think they give you some extra authority that atheists and good Christian women don't have. "Well, I'm just as cool as those ancient goatherders because I've got Yahweh on my side! Go me! Woman, get me a sandwich, and make sure you don't use the wrong pickles!"

Do you think that ancient men got it all right when it came to disease prevention, sewage systems, or space exploration? Why in the world do you look to them as an authority when it comes to any type of "ultimate explanation?"

About evidence, look up my exchange with Loss Mentor I mean Leader on what is evidence, what is the target of evidence, and how evidence operates to be a piece of proof for the existence of something the certainty of whose existence is in doubt.

yrreg, I've read this entire thread. I find your definition of evidence very, how shall we say.....delimiting.

 

[Lowpro]

Well, I don't think you are thinking properly, when you say that the universe needs no creator, unless you insist that the universe is eternal and/or created itself, in which case the universe is God, it created the parts of Itself which are changeable and have a beginning and an ending.

Yes universe created itself (without anthropomorphized intention), and you saying that the universe must be God then is untenable. The creator is not his creation.

Now, you will say that I am admitting the existence of a pantheistic God, everything is God.

Well, everything is God for coming from God, but in that everything there is a God that is Himself not a part of anything but everything else comes forth from Him.

Which is why your assumptions that the Universe is God is untenable. You say that if the universe created itself then it must be God by virtue of being of God, that is simply untrue. That's like saying God saw the Universe create itself then took all the credit...

So, if you just attend to that God Who is the author of everything else that is not Himself, then you have got to God in His concept as the creator of the universe.

I don't believe in a God that created everything, or even anything. It's unnecessary and because God is unnecessary, a redundant useless fifth wheel if you want to be poetic about it, then to conclude that God is required for the universe flies in the face of reason and is an untenable conclusion.

Honestly, in this new thread but merged with an old one by the powers that be here, I am into asking atheists with that question, The Concept of God with Atheists, namely, what do you have in substitute for God?

So, your answer is that the universe has always been around; I can take that but with my explanation above, and then I don't have to deal with scientists who tell us that the universe has a beginning.



Yrreg

Beginning is relative to your reference frame. Your explanation above is not tenable and to accept it as such means you are unreasonable.

 

[pakeha]

On (i): the nose is certainly testimony to the creator God architect and engineer and operator who keeps your nose on your face otherwise it should fall off.

On (ii):...Again, go examine and research and think about infinite regress and come tell me what you find out...

On (1): Could you explain why my nose is a testimony to any god, let alone a creator one?

On (2): Not a lot, actually. Is this question related to your concept of a correct god?

...
So, your answer is that the universe has always been around; I can take that but with my explanation above, and then I don't have to deal with scientists who tell us that the universe has a beginning. ...

That's interesting.
Where did you find scientists who said that?
I'd like to read it for myself.

 

[X]

I think "the creator of the physical universe" is not a bad definition for capital-G God.

It makes the question "Does God exist?" equivalent to the question "Is there a Creator?"

The problem is that yrreg does not stop there.
He defines his god as the "creator of the universe", and then assumes that such a definition clearly indicates the triune Christian god of the Catholic faith.

His definition, is so vague as to be almost useless for his purposes. Earlier in this thread he admitted that if the universe were uncaused (or self-caused), then the universe would be god. He intentionally keeps his definition this vague because then he can claim that anything, anything at all, is god.

It's part of his ever-lasting "gotcha" attempt, to try and prove that non-believers believe in something he can retroactively define as god. And therefore we're all Catholics.

Maybe one day he'll address the many problems with his convoluted argument. But I doubt it.
Part 1
Part 2

 

[catsmate]

I have another question, Yrreg: How many gods are there in the Christian faith?

No, I don't mean whether it is one or three or three-in-one. Besides the creator of heavens and Earth, how many others are there? One of the commands, "Thou shalt have no other gods before me," clear admits to the existence of other deities. I'm just curious as to how many there are.

There are dozens of references to other gods in the babble; xians tend to gloss over this awkward legacy from the polytheistic/henotheist era.

 

[Halfcentaur]

The common placeholder argument about some thing that is capable of doing whatever I want it to.

What is the difference between saying "the thing that creatred heaven and earth and everything" and "the maker"?

You're still just assuming a placeholder. To not recognize the weakness of this argument, you have to have an agenda which is clouding your reasoning.

 

[bruto]

I think "the creator of the physical universe" is not a bad definition for capital-G God.

It makes the question "Does God exist?" equivalent to the question "Is there a Creator?"

Quite. And that, of course, is the big question, where theists and atheists part.

There are plenty of reasons why people choose one or the other, I'm sure, and I have no interest in attacking any of the reasons others prefer faith, but for my part, the question seems to resolve to this:

We start with the realization that the origin and extent of the universe are utterly beyond my ability to grasp or understand. They're unfathomable mysteries. We can verbalize these things and explain some of them using laws and formulas, but there remains something about infinity, singularity and other such ideas that is dark and not intuitive.

I now have two choices. I can look at the scientific approach, which digs piece by piece into those mysteries, never quite getting to the end. but chipping away. What science does figure out makes sense, even if it's difficult to understand, stands up to rational inquiry, is self-correcting, and requires no faith in beings or agencies that exist outside the universe itself.

Or, I can shunt the mystery to a creator. The creator also surpasses understanding, but also requires a mechanism of operation that cannot be explained and cannot be reconciled with things we know. The unfathomable mystery of the universe is not really solved at all, simply shifted from the physical universe we at least know to exist, to another we can never prove. But assigning the mystery to God gives us permission to pass over the mysteries of the universe. It still doesn't make sense, but that's because God works in mysterious ways which we are not even permitted to understand.

The main difference between the two mysteries seems to be that the second acts capriciously, suspiciously like a magnified and multiplied human being, demanding worship and punishing unorthodoxy. God doesn't help us understand anything, but rather gives us an easy excuse for why we can't.

 

[Dinwar]

Or, I can shunt the mystery to a creator.

The reason I consider gods to be intellectually invalid concepts is that to be valid, a concept must have evidence to support it. To say "Goddidit" is to accept that there is some being--God--without having any actual evidence for it. God is nothing more than a means to explain the unknowable. It has no definition except to that it's undefinable, has no abilities except those which are unknowable, has no nature except that which is indescribable.

The honest position to take on this sort of thing is to say "I don't know", and either leave it at that or work to learn it. I've taken the former stance: I don't know what started the universe, or life, and I'm content with that lack of knowledge. My area of interest is megafauna, which you don't get until well after life arose, which doesn't happen until well after the universe starts. Others, like Hawking and Ward, take the later stance: they work to uncover the answers to those questions. What they do not do, however, is to postulate entities prior to having some supporting evidence other than "I dunno". And when they do, science has failsafes to ensure they get called out on it.

Basically, it all boils down the question of whether you're willing to accept concepts without supporting evidence, and whether you're willing to admit the limits of your own knowledge. As much as theists rail at atheists for not accepting the limits of our knowledge and the like, it's actually us atheists who are willing to stand naked in the face of the mysteries of the universe and admit "I don't understand that at ALL...."

 

[Sun Countess]

Quite. And that, of course, is the big question, where theists and atheists part.

There are plenty of reasons why people choose one or the other, I'm sure, and I have no interest in attacking any of the reasons others prefer faith, but for my part, the question seems to resolve to
<snip awesomeness for brevity>

The main difference between the two mysteries seems to be that the second acts capriciously, suspiciously like a magnified and multiplied human being, demanding worship and punishing unorthodoxy. God doesn't help us understand anything, but rather gives us an easy excuse for why we can't.

I heartily approve of this post.

 

[Dancing David]

What is the concept of God with atheists?

In the West the concept of God among Christians is founded on the following two statements from the Christian faith:

In the beginning God created heaven and earth. Genesis 1:1
I believe in God the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth. Apostles' Creed verse 1

Addressing the atheists of this forum: I would like to inquire whether you have this concept of God as per the two statements above.


Yrreg

I like to think that Thoth and Nu had a baby called "the universe"

 

[yrreg]

You mean you don't want to think, you just want to shout spaghetti or penis.

Let us examine the concept of God in the history of ideas.

There used to be a free online history of ideas in the internet, then some university it seems got the copyright to it, and now I can't use it easily, but it takes a lot of work to dig up the nuggets there.

I will look up that free online history of ideas again, and you do likewise; then we will exchange thoughts on what the ancients think about the concept of God as creator of the universe, what are their grounds for accepting and propounding this concept of God, the complete and ultimate explanation for the existence of the universe.

Why should I? God doesn't exist.

You mean you don't want to think, you just want to shout spaghetti or penis.


Well, there is no way to talk with people who don't want to think but to shout spaghetti or penis all the time when you want to stir up their thinking faculty.


Thinking is more than reasoning, more than logic, it is the totality of the mind finding an answer to question, which question can be a problem in real life how to survive, or a curiosity in regard to the complete and ultimate explanation for existence.

For example, you are put in a maze, you have been caught by a wicked evil hunter who delights in observing how you being a human just like himself but unlucky to have been caught and held captive by him, will find your way out of the maze. He tells you that there is a way out, only one, and if you don't find it you will die of hunger, no food and water intake; so you must think and act to find your way out where you will be given food and water -- before you pass out and die from hunger and thirst.

Now, tell me, slingblade, will you get really very busy and resourceful with your mind and body and do some genuine thinking and quick acting, or will you shout shrilly at the evil sadistic hunter, he is a spaghetti and a penis?

Now, this thread on The Concept of God with Atheists, though now merged with an older one of mine, it is my idea to find out how atheists think but they don't think, they just want to shout spaghetti, penis, guiltless masturbation.

By the way, don't forget to think and find the way out of the maze.

And if you do think genuinely think, using your mind, and you have the innate curiosity to occupy your mind with the question about a complete and ultimate explanation for existence, what will you come to as a complete and ultimate explanation for the question of existence?

No, no, don't shout spaghetti, penis, guiltless masturbation.

I say, THINK!



Yrreg

 

[RoboTimbo]

yrreG, why are you unable to think about The Flying Spaghetti Monster? Is thinking (about it) so very difficult for you?

Do you have the concept of The Flying Spaghetti Monster in your mind? Good! Now you're thinking!

 

[RoboTimbo]

Well, I don't think...



Yrreg

Have you tried thinking about The Flying Spaghetti Monster? Why are you locked into your non-thinking by your iron age god?

 

[yrreg]

You say nothing, then you think that you came from nothing, that is not thinking.

The Concept of God with Atheists, namely, what do you have in substitute for God?

*Very slowly and clearly* Nothing.

You're assuming the need you have to fill in the blanks in our knowledge with all purpose thought Spackle, personify it, and label it God is a need that we all share.

I've seen this dance before. You're going restate and redefine your question again and again until you get an atheist to describe some personal opinion of theirs that sorta sounds like something vaguely religious or spiritual if you take it out of context, squint at it, and tilt your head then make some sad attempt at declaring atheist just as religious as everyone else.

You say nothing, then you think that you came from nothing, that is not thinking.

[The rest of your post is irrelevant.]

But at least think by examining your attitude of not wanting to think, insisting instead that nothing is the origin of everything which is of course not thinking.

But if you really want to insist that nothing is the origin of everything, then think further on how nothing works to become everything like -- not being irrelevant now, the nose in your face.

Now, you have a totally new concept of nothing, it is the origin of everything that you don't want to think genuinely think about as to the origin of.

That is what atheist scientists are so hard put up with, they have no intention to think: so they seize on nothing to explain everything, but of course they still have to explain nothing as something, guess what.

But read them first then think genuinely about their explanation, and it should dawn upon your conscious mind: how they are into mental but dishonest prestidigitation of facts and concepts and words.



Yrreg