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

[bruto]

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

Perhaps, but given the way the best Christians act, it's worth considering. One must hope that neither Christianity nor atheism is characterized by the arrogant prats who often seem most conspicuous simply because of their volume level.

 

[Dinwar]

One must hope that neither Christianity nor atheism is characterized by the arrogant prats who often seem most conspicuous simply because of their volume level.

It was a joke, aimed at the RCC's hierarchy. When that sort of behavior receives official protection, if not outright acceptance, you can start to judge the organization that engages in the actions. But it was honestly a joke--thus the smiley face.

 

[jsfisher]

Yrreg,

You are far too selective in your posts. You have ignored mine, and I sincerely wish to see your responses to them. Would you please reconsider?

 

[Loss Leader]

I am at present trying to see who is the most thinking competent here; there might be several but I prefer to choose the one most of course on my observation most competent in thinking: one criterion of which is the habit of focusing on the topic and not going into irrelevancies.

In fact, you are not. You are a fisher of words. Your goal is to generate the most words from others so that, somewhere in that mess, you can find a sentence fragment or two with which you can knit. Your hope is to make a rope long enough to tie people down.

Should people keep their answers short, you will soon abandon your quest out of frustration.

 

[slingblade]

In fact, you are not. You are a fisher of words. Your goal is to generate the most words from others so that, somewhere in that mess, you can find a sentence fragment or two with which you can knit. Your hope is to make a rope long enough to tie people down.

Should people keep their answers short, you will soon abandon your quest out of frustration.

This.

Stick with the short, pertinent response (god doesn't exist, or some variation), and he'll be the one desperately puking words, soon enough.

Also, penis.

 

[bruto]

The truth is as plain as the penis on your face. No wait, how does that go again? Ooooh! Drat this thinking business. It's just so complex!

 

[pakeha]

^
Yes and no.
I've had a good time researching infinite regress, actually.
But I'm puzzled as to why yrreG thinks that concept bolsters his case for the judio-christian creator god.

 

[Mashuna]

The truth is as plain as the penis on your face. No wait, how does that go again? Ooooh! Drat this thinking business. It's just so complex!

That could be an accurate statement, I guess it depends on your social life.

 

[JoeMorgue]

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.

And that's the problem with the Prime Mover / First Cause / Practically every other Cosmological arguments / argument that Aquinas pulled out of his bum. Even if I agreed that the question being asked was valid, the answer provided doesn't answer it.

Okay so let's say we do need something to start the universe. I don't think that's the case, but let's run with it.

Okay so the universe need a spark plug. So what was that spark plug?

God.

Okay. What the bloody hell did that just answer!?

Okay so God started the universe. So why isn't asking what started God any less valid then asking what started God? And what started the thing that started God? And so forth.

Why God? Why does this one concept just magically answer everything without needing anything to start it just because we define it as something that solves everything? That's not circular logic that Mobius Strip logic.

 

[yrreg]

That is an irrelevancy, can you see it, the Catholic God came from many sources...

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.

Than you should know that the Catholic definition of "god" comes form many, many other sources than those two quotes.

That is an irrelevancy, can you see it, that the Catholic God came from many sources...


Already in Gen. 1:1 there is the concept of God as creator of everything in the universe that is accessible to man, and that concept is repeated in the Apostles' Creed.

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

That is what I have clearly noticed from talking with atheists that they do not have or do not want or refuse to come to the correct concept of God in the Christian faith, namely, in God's fundamental relation to the universe as the creator of the universe.

Do you see that in your own heart and mind?

So you bring up the thought that God in the Catholic faith derives from many sources; but examine yourself what is your point in regard to the concept of God as creator of the universe which is already established in mankind even earlier than Gen. 1:1 -- for Gen. 1:1 is a written record of the thought of the concept of God as creator, but before the invention of writing man had already come to that concept, otherwise how could man have written later on when man had invented writing, that "In the beginning God created heaven and earth," and then "I believe in God... creator of heaven and earth."

So, my purpose in this latest venture to invite atheists to tell me what is their concept of God, is to make them aware that they are always skirting away from the concept of God as creator of the universe, going into all misdirections.

Take the concept of God as creator of the universe and examine it historically that it is a very old concept arrived at by mankind, from mankind's experience of the universe; and then we will work together: from that concept back to the universe to launch into an expedition to locate the concrete existence of God in His fundamental role of creator.

Expedition where? in the universe.

Expedition when? all the time of the universe.


Now, if there is no creator of the universe, what then?

The universe created itself or it has always been around.


But please don't be always running away from the issue by bringing up irrelevancies.

One sign of irrelevancies with atheists is their insistence but no need at all except for skirting the issue, their insistence namely that they just only just or merely do not believe in all gods, goddesses, deities, divinities, and of course spaghettis, unicorns, etc.

One concept of God is the one you all should just come out and state it bravely and examine it: God creator of the universe.


So, what is it going to be:

God creator of the universe?
Universe created itself?
Universe has always been around?



Yrreg

 

[Hokulele]

Now, if there is no creator of the universe, what then?

The universe created itself or it has always been around.

Really? Those are the only two options you can think of? You may want to go study some cosmology rather than wasting your time on this sort of mental masturbation.

 

[yrreg]

What is your question?

You'll need to do some genuine thinking first. Iron age goat herders have been telling you what to think.


I'd prefer you answer the question, if you can do so logically. So far, you've not used logic.


But what created your god(s)? You may only answer logically and so far you haven't. Title your post "This post contains logic" if it has any logical arguments so I'll know to read it.


The universe is evidence that The Flying Spaghetti Monster created it and was destroyed in making it. Just look at the nose on your face or your penis and think.


I'll ask you to contemplate how The Flying Spaghetti Monster keeps your penis from falling off.



And really think about it.

What is your question?



Yrreg

 

[bruto]

What is your question?



Yrreg

The basic question, I presume, is, why does not RoboTimbo's theory work for you? It is, of course, nonsensical, yet it resembles your own theory (at least as far as you've been able to articulate it) in all details except nomenclature. Actually, it answers somewhat better, since the simultaneous creation of the universe and destruction of the creator solve many other vexing issues of how a god might interact with his creation. If you cannot do any better than RoboTimbo's jocular post, you have a big problem.

 

[yrreg]

If you know how to think and you know history, then you know what is a non-question.

Why is that a non-question, yrreG?




Does this count as a miracle, yrreG, that my nose doesn't fall off my face?

The question I am referring which is time and again brought up by atheists, is namely:

Who created God?


Why is that a non-question?

It is a non-question because the one asking that question does not know about the concept of God as the creator of the universe, for if you are possessed of the correct concept of God as creator of the universe, and you understand universe as the totality of existence aside from God, then there is no need to ask the question of who or what created God, because then it is obvious from a conceptual framework, God is self-existing.

Now, if you insist that someone or something created God, then you are one step backward to come to the correct information of the concept of God, you have come to God again as the self-existing God.

You say you will ask again who or what created God?

I will say but no insult to you, Don't be silly.

Tell you what, you just go with Bertrand Russell in his debate with Fr. Copleston, and claim that you do not accept any concept of a necessary being which started the whole chain of existence with itself as the origin and necessary source of everything else that is not itself, namely, God.

So, your non-question should be about the existence of a necessary being who started the whole existence of things that are not Himself.


You read so many things from atheist writers who also write from ignorance of the issue going all the way back in time to the very first dawn of human conscious thinking by which mankind came to the concept of God as creator of the universe, and these writers keep repeating the same old old old non-issues, and non-questions.

That is why they atheist writers who are more smart just keep skirting the concept of God as creator of the universe and concentrate on non-questions and non-objections.


If you know how to think and you know history, then you know what is a non-question.




Yrreg

 

[arthwollipot]

I can see that yrreg noticed the occurrence of the word "Dawkins" in my last post, and took it as an excuse to ignore all the other words in it. So here's that post again, but reworked so that the offending word doesn't appear. Hopefully yrreg can comment on some of my other words:

And in that connection to delve on what were the grounds for the ancient thinkers to come to such a formulation of God, namely, as creator of heaven and earth, or what I would say to be their totality of the universe.

The ancients came up with gods because they hadn't invented science yet. Once science was invented and people started to be able to make conclusions based on evidence, there was no longer any need to invoke a god as an explanatory principle.

Science has made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist, by explaining what had previously only been explained through god. Every testable statement religion has made about the universe has, on scientific examination, found to be more or less inaccurate.

God is no longer required as an explanatory principle. Now we have science, which is much more reliable.

 

[yrreg]

You go read my exchange with Loss, and report back to me what is...

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?

You two go read my exchange with Loss, and report back to me what is our disagreement.

I will tell you that it has to do with the object or what I call target of evidence, Loss insists it is a proposition and I insist that it is a fact.

I will not go into that exchange anymore, because Loss is not around and that is unfair to him.

However, since atheists are always harping on evidence, go search the internet and report back to readers here what you have found out about who atheists have written extensively and convincingly about what is evidence, what is the target of evidence, and how does evidence operate to enable man to come to the knowledge of one fact from his knowledge of another fact.



Yrreg

 

[Johnny Brant]

We can never define God because we don't know who he is. Jesus said "nobody knows God except me".

 

[GeeMack]

Take the concept of God as creator of the universe and examine it historically that it is a very old concept arrived at by mankind, from mankind's experience of the universe; and then we will work together: from that concept back to the universe to launch into an expedition to locate the concrete existence of God in His fundamental role of creator

I think you're lying here. For more than six years you have been telling us you'd demonstrate the existence of your god. And for more than six years you have never even made a rational effort to do that. It's a futile exercise constructed on a foundation of dishonesty. Yes, you are lying.

 

[GeeMack]

So, your non-question should be about the existence of a necessary being who started the whole existence of things that are not Himself.

No. You're making a claim that such a being exists. You are clearly unable to support the existence of that imaginary being, so you're trying to put the blame for your failure onto other people. You own your failure, yrreg, all of it.

 

[yrreg]

The problem is not no evidence but how much and which is needed.

All of them.

But here are a couple in particular:

[...]


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.

Just keep to the concept of God creator of the universe.


The problem is not no evidence but which is needed and how much.

Now, to be thinking folks, atheists whould get together to agree among themselves what is evidence, which kind is required in connection with God creator of the universe, and how much.

Otherwise you can continue to harp on no evidence but remember you can be blind to evidence unless someone more sight-ful and open-minded than you point it out to you.


But my point is that the universe is the evidence of God the creator, its existence points to the creator: you can only deny this fact by stubborn refusal to admit it.



So, as I said already, which is it going to be:

God creator of the universe?
Universe created itself?
Univese has always been around?


And no need to bring in many gods, etc., that is certainly if you can and do think, an irrelevancy.



Yrreg