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

[Paulhoff]

Seeing that this god can be anything, what's the big deal about it.


Paul

 

[RoboTimbo]

let us both continue thinking how God operates the universe, from our each one's experiences and also the accumulated experiences of mankind from when mankind first came to the state of conscious thinking capability and activity to the present.

Yrreg

I hope you are continuing to think about Spaghetti when you have Spaghetti dinner with garlic bread. You show that you are a Flying Spaghetti Monster worshipper when you eat Spaghetti. When you eat Spaghetti, that helps The Flying Spaghetti Monster maintain the universe.

It's really any kind of pasta, though. That shows you love The Flying Spagetti Monster with your heart and your nose and your penis.

 

[Paulhoff]

Originally Posted by yrreg
let us both continue thinking how God operates the universe, from our each one's experiences and also the accumulated experiences of mankind from when mankind first came to the state of conscious thinking capability and activity to the present.

Yrreg

And if one rubs two sticks together real hard for some time, one can make fire, which unlike your god, is useful.


Paul

 

[kerikiwi]

From my part I choose both of the two alternatives, let me explain.
.....


....

Sorry if you cannot get what I am trying to communicate to you.
....

To be honest with you,I am rather getting a bit lost with you.

BUT I am very happy that you concur with me God exists as the unique uncreated creator and operator of the created universe.

You can't choose two mutually exclusive alternatives. You can't explain such a choice since such a choice is impossible.

Apology accepted

You are not being honest when you claim Rougarou agrees with you that god exists

We are all getting a little lost. You are in good company

 

[AdMan]

Anyway, you know that God exists, only you want me to explain to you how I know that God is continuously directly immediately operating the universe or endowing it with laws etc.

...

BUT I am very happy that you concur with me God exists as the unique uncreated creator and operator of the created universe.

Yrreg, are you really as dense as you come across? Either that or you are amazingly disingenuous.

yrreg, we don't need to ask ourselves where everything comes from, because weeks ago we agreed (for the sake of THIS discussion only) that everything comes from God. There's no need to defend that position. It has been agreed upon as a starting point.

 

[pakeha]

...In any event, the universe is operating continuously and God is the agent ultimately to be accredited both for its continuous existence and its continuous operation.

I hope you will eventually explain why that is so.

 

[Paulhoff]

I can say that God is continuously maintaining its operation.

Yes, you can say anything you want, that is why it is worthless.

Paul

 

[MIKILLINI]

You say:

The current question is whether God continuously maintains creation. You asserted that God does continuously maintain the universe. Again, how do you know God did not create a universe with laws that allowed it to run without God's constant, continuous attention?
​

Thank you for your thinking up a question in a two pronged formulation if I may see it to be so, namely:

How do I know that God continuously maintains the universe, or He endowed it with laws "that allowed it to run without God's [His] constant, continuous attention"?​

What is your choice, that God maintains continuously the operation of the universe, or that He endows it with laws which enable it to operate by itself without God's continuous attention?




Anyway, you know that God exists, only you want me to explain to you how I know that God is continuously directly immediately operating the universe or endowing it with laws etc.

And I explain it from my own experience as someone who loves to assemble things and keep them running, like for example a rotating wheel.

So, from concepts in the mind we come to know the objective event in the world outside our mind that God operates the universe to keep it continuously in existence and in continuous operation.

Sorry if you cannot get what I am trying to communicate to you.

But let me read from you what is your most important point.

To be honest with you, I am rather getting a bit lost with you.

BUT I am very happy that you concur with me God exists as the unique uncreated creator and operator of the created universe.

Yrreg

This is how you work these threads; When you get someone to agree of God's existence, they agree ONLY for the sake of moving the discussion along because you blather on incessantly while attempting to make it a "gotcha" moment.
I requoted Rougarou, just to give you another chance to answer his "How do you know?"question;

yrreg, we don't need to ask ourselves where everything comes from, because weeks ago we agreed (for the sake of THIS discussion only) that everything comes from God. There's no need to defend that position. It has been agreed upon as a starting point.

Again, how do you know God did not create a universe with laws that allowed it to run without God's constant, continuous attention?

 

[DrDave]

Can anyone break the nose argument down for me a bit

I understand it as this:

1) I have a nose
2) My nose has an end
3) My nose has a beginning
4) My nose is attached to my face
5) My nose does not fall off my face
6) ???
7) God created the universe

What fits into step 6?

 

[Agatha]

6) I (Yrreg) cannot comprehend how my nose stays on my face unless God keeps it firmly stuck there.

 

[Mojo]

Can anyone break the nose argument down for me a bit

I understand it as this:

1) I have a nose
2) My nose has an end
3) My nose has a beginning
4) My nose is attached to my face
5) My nose does not fall off my face
6) ???
7) God created the universe

What fits into step 6?

"Collect underpants."

 

[DrDave]

6) I (Yrreg) cannot comprehend how my nose stays on my face unless God keeps it firmly stuck there.

"Collect underpants."

Worryingly, these both fit just as well as each other!

I struggle to believe that anyone would think that God would be involved with something as trivial (noses that is, not underpants - collecting them is less trivial)

ETA: I see now why Yrreg spends most of these threads beating around the bush, laying it out does not reflect well on the argument

 

[pakeha]

Play nice, fellas!
I think yrreG has made significant progress since this post:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4457889&postcount=287

Just tell me what you mean by appearance of design.
Is your penis an appearance of design or a reality of design?

 

[Rougarou]

yrreg, your example illustrates what you would do if you were a god, but it was not necessary. I understand that it is your opinion that god should maintain the universe, but your example does not demonstrate that it is actually happening. Again, from my personal experience and observing other creators, I have to think it is much more likely that a creator would eventually lose interest in one creation and move on to something else.

I gave you god as the uncreated creator and that god created the universe for the sake of getting the discussion rolling. I'm sorry, but you don't get "continuous maintenance" for free.

 

[yrreg]

It seems you want to play dumb and incoherent to act petulant.

Dear Rougarou: It seems you want to play dumb and incoherent to act petulant.

yrreg, your example illustrates what you would do if you were a god, but it was not necessary. I understand that it is your opinion that god should maintain the universe, but your example does not demonstrate that it is actually happening. Again, from my personal experience and observing other creators, I have to think it is much more likely that a creator would eventually lose interest in one creation and move on to something else.

I gave you god as the uncreated creator and that god created the universe for the sake of getting the discussion rolling. I'm sorry, but you don't get "continuous maintenance" for free.

Glad you are still around.

I really must confess that I don't get exactly what you are driving at.


You want to see with your eyes God actually performing before your eyes operating the universe, namely: keeping it in existence and in action, like you see your father operating a simple potter's wheel which he also himself had assembled?


I like to go into your psychology, first asking you are you trying to be smart in the sense of being self-deceptive playing dumb with dumb questions?

You say:

from my personal experience and observing other creators, I have to think it is much more likely that a creator would eventually lose interest in one creation and move on to something else.
​

So, you are agreeing that God does operate the universe whether directly continuously or by his laws and props thus indirectly: but still continuously either way.

Why do you bring in the thought that God

much more likely [that a creator] would eventually lose interest in one creation and move on to something else.
​

Forgive me, but that is playing dumb, because as the universe still exists and still runs, it is obvious to your intelligence that God is continuously keeping the universe in existence and in operation.

What exactly is your point?

Your experience at this very moment as you read my words here is that the universe is existing and operating, and that is due to God's continuous maintenance of its existence and its function.


I seem to see that you are incoherent or purposely pursuing incoherence by playing dumb.

Consider your last words in your above quoted post:

I gave you god as the uncreated creator and that god created the universe for the sake of getting the discussion rolling. I'm sorry, but you don't get "continuous maintenance" for free.
​

There are two statements you make which cannot cohere:

1. I gave you god as the uncreated creator and that god created the universe for the sake of getting the discussion rolling.
2. I'm sorry, but you don't get "continuous maintenance" for free.
​

No. 1 statement is your acceptance that God created the universe for the sake of our discussion, that is also true for I do not see anything incoherent from God's part for His creation with one of His purposes that we would have this discussion.

Then out of the blue you come with this No. 2 statement, I'm sorry, but you don't get "continuous maintenance" for free.

Suppose, dear Rougarou, you examine your mind carefully as to what exactly is the thought you are conveying to me with bringing in statement No. 2?

--------------------


Okay, tell me, you agree with me that God exists and He is the creator of the universe and its operator, but you want me to expound to you whether God is a direct operator or an indirect operator, and I told you and am telling you again, that God is the continuous operator whether directly or indirectly but still in effect continuous operator.

I fear that you are purposely acting dumb and incoherent just to appear 'smart' but your intention is act petulant.



Yrreg

 

[jsfisher]

Ah, yes. Why address the clearly expressed points when insult and ridicule are so much better.

Well done, yrreg.

 

[Paulhoff]

So, when someone and/or a group of people, (and it does not matter how many are in that group), tell me something, whatever it is, and I want some kind of proof, it is me that has a problem?

Well, no it isn't my problem. It is called, "Learning from Experience".


Paul

 

[fuelair]

Nothing -it is no better or worse than any other definition of a pretend being/system used by the deluded who follow it.

 

[pakeha]

Hey, yrreG's back!

...You want to see with your eyes God actually performing before your eyes operating the universe, namely: keeping it in existence and in action, like you see your father operating a simple potter's wheel which he also himself had assembled?...
Forgive me, but that is playing dumb, because as the universe still exists and still runs, it is obvious to your intelligence that God is continuously keeping the universe in existence and in operation....
Your experience at this very moment as you read my words here is that the universe is existing and operating, and that is due to God's continuous maintenance of its existence and its function. ...
Then out of the blue you come with this No. 2 statement, I'm sorry, but you don't get "continuous maintenance" for free.
... you want me to expound to you whether God is a direct operator or an indirect operator, and I told you and am telling you again, that God is the continuous operator whether directly or indirectly but still in effect continuous operator. ...

I fear that you are purposely acting dumb and incoherent just to appear 'smart' but your intention is act petulant. ....

Ah, yrreG!
Have you considered the possibility you've yet to explain why the Universe needs a 'continuous operator'?

 

[X]

You know, I have a mechanical watch.
I have to wind it up to get it started. But I don't have to move the hands myself...