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

[Quinn]

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

Isn't learning new words fun?

 

[Mojo]

Easy to say I have not answered questions, tell me which ones.

All of them.

But here are a couple in particular:

The concept of God with atheists is that they get it all wrong and miss it.

Take this mantra of atheists who always insist that they are against all gods, goddesses, deities, divinities, whatever spaghettis, invisible pink unicorns, celestial teapots, tooth fairies, Santas, sky daddies, they just don't believe them, etc.

That is certainly not to come to the correct concept of God, specially in the Christian faith, namely, God the creator of the universe.

You have provided no evidence that the concept of God in the Christian faith is any more valid than the concepts of any other "gods, goddesses, deities, divinities, whatever spaghettis, invisible pink unicorns, celestial teapots, tooth fairies, Santas, [or] sky daddies". That is the whole point.

How do you know that the Christian concept of God is "the correct concept of God"?

Why should all these other supernatural entities be rejected in favour of your own personal concept of "God"?

 

[Dinwar]

You are asking the question who created God if God created everything.

That is what you are into, and I have someone with that non-question in this board earlier, I told him to look up infinite regress and do some genuine thinking.

If we don't need a creator to create God, why do we need one to create the universe? All God does is push things back a step; if an infinite regress is impossible God is unnecessary, and if an infinite regress IS possible, there's no such thing as the Creator or Prime Mover or any of those things.

 

[slingblade]

If nothing created god, then god is nothing.

God does not exist.

 

[bruto]

Yrreg, you keep saying the problem with atheism is that it says the world came from nothing. Theism says the world came from nothing. The only difference is that it says God made it from nothing, without giving any more thought to how such a thing might have been done. Once you name a creator you are exempt from having to think one moment longer about how the universe came about. Many very wise and very thoughtful people who believe in God, or gods, continue to think very hard about how the universe came about, but many others (and I suspect you're among them) use God as a free pass for intellectual laziness. How did the universe begin? God made it. End of story. You accuse atheists of not thinking, but I see no evidence you're doing much of that. You're certainly not learning anything here.

You seem to have missed the point here, that many many people have thought very very hard about all sorts of theological and cosmological issues. Some have had faith and lost it. Some have lacked faith and found it. Some have started and ended as atheists, and others as theists. Saying that atheists simply have not thought about God, or haven't thought about him right, is not only an insult to many intelligent people here, but it is simply very very stupid.

 

[Ryokan]

Correction: I am or call myself a liberal Christian, but I have a very complete and extensive Catholic education in the best schools at home and abroad.

A liberal Christian who denies evolution, condemns masturbation, writes hate speech against other religions and refuses to understand what atheism is.

There's not a liberal bone in your body, Yrreg.

 

[Dinwar]

A liberal Christian who denies evolution, condemns masturbation, writes hate speech against other religions and refuses to understand what atheism is.

There's not a liberal bone in your body, Yrreg.

Hey, now, let's be fair. He hasn't broken out the rack or hot irons yet, so he's still got a way to go. It's all a matter of perspective--and when your perspective is so screwy you think atheism means accepting that Jesus Christ is God but rejecting him anyway, I'm sure not torturing us to death is viewed as very liberal.

By the way, here's a response to the whole "how did something come from nothing?" garbage.

 

[X]

And once again we come to this question:

Yrreg, why does it disturb you so to see people acknowledge that there are things we don't yet know?

You want us to should out that since science doesn't yet know what caused the universe to begin (assuming that question even makes sense), it must have been a god. And therefore penis nose Catholic thinking.

But to an atheist, the universe itself is not evidence for a god, merely evidence that the universe exists. Skeptics tend to be reluctant to extrapolate into the unknown, and doubly reluctant to just assume that since we don't know something, a vaguely-defined supernatural entity must be the cause.

Why? Now that's a good question. There are a few reasons:
1) We rely on the evidence to form our conclusions, not the other way around. And as we live in a physical world, evidence tends to be physical. Assuming a supernatural explanation short-circuits inquiry, celebrating unsupported assertions instead of reliance on fact.
2) Using "god" as an answer explains nothing. We gain no knowledge of how things work, and it gives us no further avenues to research. It is, in short, a dead end to investigation. And despite your protestations to the contrary, it is therefore a form of unthinking to assume god, and form of good thinking to say "I don't know, let's see what we can learn".
3) Who created god? I know you don't like this question; you regard it as flippant. But that's because you don't understand it. The point, simply put, is that if you're going to take one thing to which we don't have a definite answer and plug your god into that gap, what's to stop you from assuming one more gap? Or one less? Why the arbitrary stopping at one god? How do you know this god was uncaused? maybe god's creator was the uncaused one? It's an equally valid supposition. You're the one who needs to do some "genuine thinking" on the matter.


Finally, why do you think we shout "penis" and "guiltless masturbation" at you? Perhaps you don't remember, but they were key elements of arguments you used in failed attempts to prove that god existed, and to prove that atheists secretly know god exists but just ignore it/him/her/hir.

 

[pakeha]

...
Now, we are into a dialog, I am reacting to you asking you to enlighten yourself on infinite regress: do I see you getting acquainted with infinite regress and coming back to me, so that we can continue to dialog on God Who is the glue that ties everything securely together in the domain of existence?

Aahhh.
Is THAT the reason why my nose doesn't fall off my face?

... ..

Thanks for the link!
It's easy to forget all this has been gone over time after time.

 

[Mashuna]

Yrreg, did someone once use the phrase "It's as plain as the nose on your face.", and you've manage to both misunderstand it and somehow fold it into your bizarre theories?

 

[zooterkin]

Yrreg, did someone once use the phrase "It's as plain as the nose on your face.", and you've manage to both misunderstand it and somehow fold it into your bizarre theories?

It's part and parcel of how he operates.

 

[catsmate]

However, I suggest you read the atheist scientists socalled who have a nice explanation, namely, nothing is the origin of everything, but read more insight-fully, and see how they understand nothing.

You mean you are unable to understand what they say.

You see, your insistence that you don't know the complete and ultimate explanation of existence, is just that, stubbornness to not think; but you forget to mention that you must be humble and not be so presumptuous as to employ your brain to think on for a sensible answer to the question of the complete and ultimate explanation for existence.

Sorry, still no need for you god to explain anything.

I am having or attempting to engage in a thinking-ful dialog with people here, but if they don't want to think instead of shouting penis, etc., then claim that I am into a monologue, what can I do but continue to explain my ideas and hope to engage someone who will really genuinely relevantly think on my ideas, and engage me with their thoughts.

You're not interested in dialogue, you just want people to think your ideas are correct. However they're unsupported by any evidence.

Congratulations, Yrreg - you have managed to to combine god, spaghetti and penises in a single post.

I pity you. What sort of bizarre thought processes are needed to combine these words in a single content-free post?

Just filter everything through "god must exist otherwise I'm wrong and I can't handle that".

Correction: I am or call myself a liberal Christian, but I have a very complete and extensive Catholic education in the best schools at home and abroad.

Yet you seem rather unfamiliar with even catholic theology and doctrine and the xian bible in general. Not to forget your complete lack of understanding of physics, biology and logic.

You see, Ryokan, that is the big difference between Christianism and Buddhism, Christianism is into rationalism in the most expansive perspectives of existence, but Buddhism is into irrationalism.

No. Xianity is opposed to rationality, rationality leads to agnosticism and atheism due to the lack of evidence for, and contradictions in, xianity.

Take this irrationalism of Buddhism on the non-self: throw a stone at a Buddhist who is looking at you, he will duck even though he insists that he has no self: but of course he will tell you even his ducking to save his head is a delusion or illusion or hallucination.

Is this supposed yo mean something? Or are you just venting your hatred of Buddhists again?

By the way, I don't seem to have seen the inscription at the bottom of your message box indicating that I have saved you from Buddhism, I like that inscription -- or I just imagine that it is no longer there, sorry for the illusion.

What are you rambling on about now?

Considering the FSM has every bit as much validity as your Christian god as far as deities go, and your god is obsessed with sex, I'd hardly say it's OUR problem.

From a logic standpoint I'd say the doctrines of Pastafarianism are more valid than xianity; they're more internally consistent and lack the glaring contradictions and errors that are rampant within xian doctrine.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Yrreg, did someone once use the phrase "It's as plain as the nose on your face.", and you've manage to both misunderstand it and somehow fold it into your bizarre theories?

I think it was intended to be the punchline of one of his earlier presentations.

 

[Mojo]

From a logic standpoint I'd say the doctrines of Pastafarianism are more valid than xianity; they're more internally consistent and lack the glaring contradictions and errors that are rampant within xian doctrine.

Well, Pastafarianism hasn't had as long to develop its contradictions. Give it a couple of thousand years.

 

[Mashuna]

I think it was intended to be the punchline of one of his earlier presentations.

If he's actually got punchlines, this must be the longest shaggy dog story in history!

 

[Agatha]

You are into the fallacy of ignorance, claiming ignorance is not thinking.

No, I would claim that ignorance is not learning.

However, I suggest you read the atheist scientists socalled who have a nice explanation, namely, nothing is the origin of everything, but read more insight-fully, and see how they understand nothing.

Scientists, atheist or otherwise, do not contend that the Universe came from nothing. They contend that immediately after the big bang there was a massive expansion from a singularity (at least, that is my understanding, and I welcome scientific correction on this). Please do not misrepresent science, do some research and find out what is the current understanding of the origins of the universe.

You see, your insistence that you don't know the complete and ultimate explanation of existence, is just that, stubbornness to not think; but you forget to mention that you must be humble and not be so presumptuous as to employ your brain to think on for a sensible answer to the question of the complete and ultimate explanation for existence.

On the contrary, admitting that one doesn't know the answer is humility. Arrogance is pretending that you know answers where no true, evidenced answer is yet possible. Stubbornness is persisting in beliefs without evidence. Which one of us has the humilty to understand that the human race does not have all the answers, Yrreg, you or me? Which one of us is being arrogant and stubborn and insisting that he knows things without evidence?

You have gone into the fallacy of ignorance, but you have forgotten to accompany it with the fallacy of appeal to your humility, that should win you the atheists' Nobel Prize for ignorance and humility.

You are wrong, and unnecessarily insulting. Kindly refrain from insulting people here, it's against the rules and damages your argument.

I am having or attempting to engage in a thinking-ful dialog with people here, but if they don't want to think instead of shouting penis, etc., then claim that I am into a monologue, what can I do but continue to explain my ideas and hope to engage someone who will really genuinely relevantly think on my ideas, and engage me with their thoughts.

One thing you are not doing is dialogue here. There are more atheists than theists, but you choose to come here to post your ideas, nobody forces you to do so. The problem is, as it has been on countless forums and discussion boards over the last few years, that you do not do your part in reading and responding to what people are actually saying. Your idea of a dialogue is where you post your ideas and everyone else thinks about them, but that is a monologue. To be a dialogue you have to also listen to the responses you get and think about them. Until you do that, which will entail a good deal less repetition and a great deal more honesty, your threads will be a monologue from you.

Other people try honestly and sincerely to engage you, they try to explain what they mean by using analogies which you seem to wilfully misunderstand, and after a while they give up trying to engage you in dialogue and make jokes instead. If you improved your posting style, this would not happen. If you listened and really thought about what people are saying, you would understand why people bring up the Flying Spaghetti Monster. You would not dismiss them as just shouting "spaghetti", because that is not what it's about. It's an analogy, intended to show people that just as there is no evidence for the existence of the FSM, so there is equally no evidence for your God.

If you started to use the brain that you claim God gave you, you should be able to understand the workings of an analogy. If your English comprehension isn't up to understanding analogies/metaphors/similes, just explain that your English isn't sufficient and people will simplify the language of their arguments accordingly.

By the way, how do you get out of the maze that I put slingblade in.

You say, I don't know.

[ You mean, I don't think. ]

How dare you put words into my mouth, and judge me based on what you think or hope I would say. How dare you be so rude and arrogant that you think you can speak for me or anyone else here. I've put up with your insults (and only reported the most egregious ones) on this board for a long time, I have tried to engage you honestly and sincerely despite the fundamental difference in our beliefs, and in return you think you can put words in my mouth and judge me on that? I request an apology for that, Yrreg; you have crossed an important line and it does not reflect well on you at all.

Shame, you are again into the plea of ignorance but you should say also that you are just a very humble brain.

Humility is a good thing; it drives us to find out more. You should try a little Christian humility sometime, instead of arrogantly crowing about your unsupported, unevidenced close-minded beliefs.

 

[Dinwar]

You should try a little Christian humility sometime, instead of arrogantly crowing about your unsupported, unevidenced close-minded beliefs.

Given the way many Christians act, this may not be your strongest argument....

 

[Minarvia]

Just wondering, shouldn't it be "closed-minded" beliefs, instead of "close-minded?" No offense!

But Gerry saying you are but a "humble brain..." made me choke on my Diet Coke. Damn you Gerry, or Yergg...or whoever you are!

Now, as for -

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

How about asking, "What's wrong with heaven and earth and everything?"
That could likely go on forever, and as long as this thread already is, I'd bet THAT one would go on even longer.

 

[Minarvia]

given the way many christians act, this may not be your strongest argument....

snaaaap!

Ed - Urgh...why can't I type anything in all caps without this stupid thing de-capitalising every darned letter...

 

[Agatha]

Darn, yes it should have been closed-minded, not close-minded. Thanks for catching that, Minarvia! That will teach me to post without proofreading.