• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

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

Any god worth its salt could easily make a universe that runs itself. The only reason for doing otherwise would be because the god in question prefers it. A creator god could make any universe it pleases. Evidence that such a god exists and prefers it should come before the assumption that the universe must be only one type. If you are presuming a universe that needs constant input is a necessary consequence of being created you lack the necessary imagination to do this job and should quit before incurring further embarrassment.
 
yrreg, just because we are still here doesn't mean that anyone or anything is maintaining us.

Let's use your model as an example. Say you build your little model universe, give it a good spin, and then you walk away never to return to it again.

Let's say that while it is spinning, there's a little yrreg on one of the worlds who says "Hey look! We're still spinning. Our creator is maintaining us." And then a little Rougarou pipes up and says "Yes, we are spinning. But that's only evidence that we are spinning. It does not mean that the great Yrreg is still around."

Do you see what I mean now? How do you know we are being maintained? The creator (assuming for the sake of this discussion that there was one) could have given us a good start and then moved on. Our existence is not evidence of continuous maintenance. So do you have anything more than that?
 
A too much intellectual and subtle approach if you look at it from an yrregular point of view ... me thinks.

Don't you forget "he decided to believe so" what is sound epistemology, always from an yrregular point of view.

Duracell-bunny lasting threads involving yrregular thinking would come to an end only by applying: "To stop those monsters 1-2-3. Here's a fresh new way that's trouble free. It's got Paul Anka's guarantee. Just don't look! Just don't look! Just don't look! Just don't look! Just don't look!" (Guarantee void in Tennessee).
 
If God actually existed, and could be shown to actually exist, then the definition would pretty much fall into our laps, wouldn't it.

The problem comes when you can't actually show God exists, so you try to define Him into existence. it doesn't work.
 
DrDave said:
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?
Click to expand...

penis
 
yrreg, I'm happy to continue discussing this with you for as long as you are willing, as long as it remains a civil debate.

I think my last example illustrated why I believe we cannot assume a creator is sticking around just because the creation is still active. If you think there are flaws in the logic of that example, please point them out. Otherwise, you should concede that we cannot assume continuous maintenance and therefore that we must point out how we know that continous maintenance is occurring.

yrreg, do you think that there is a God powerful enough to create a universe but not powerful enough to create a universe that can operate without continuous maintenance?
 
A god creating the universe and providing continuous maintenance and a god creating the universe and committing suicide after that fact are equally probable and equally sound from a logical point of view.

A god committing suicide first and creating the universe later*, too, I'm afraid.






*what's the point of being almighty if you can't throw a good prank?
 
yrreg said:
Okay, let us start from the very beginning: God for me, for you nothing.

Are you around, online now?

Very good then.

For myself (as you have concurred with me on the concept of God as
the unique uncreated creator and operator of the created universe,​
in logical anteriority God exists and he chose to create the universe.

For you, there is no God but in logical anteriority to the phenomenon of the universe there was nothing in existence.

Now, tell me how from the logical anteriority of nothing in existence, there came forth the phenomenon of the universe.

I will be clicking on this forum again recurringly to see whether you have replied to me.



Yrreg
Click to expand...

There was not even nothing in existence. Anteriority, is that your new buzzword? Ok, what preceded your god and who created him? What was his anteriority,?
 
I like his attempts to impress us with big words, but they never gel with the rest of his posts.
 
To make a definition of something that can be anything is just silly.



Paul


:) :) :)
 
yrreg said:
Being humorous only, but don't get stuck in your self-assigned role of illiteracy.
Click to expand...

il·lit·er·a·cy (-ltr--s)
n. pl. il·lit·er·a·cies
1. The condition of being unable to read and write.

Now, Yrreg, Can I read and write? You can take your time to answer if you need to.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom