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

[Paulhoff]

Just to prove that there's nothing new or original in this thread, Yrreg is recycling material over at TheologyWeb, using the same cracked logic:
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/s...is-the-evidence-for-God-s-existence&p=3450249

Why would anyone in their wildest dreams thing that any of these religious people would come up with anything new, it is always the same old s....... as if we didn't get it the first thousand times we heard it.


Paul

 

[dafydd]

Why would anyone in their wildest dreams thing that any of these religious people would come up with anything new, it is always the same old s....... as if we didn't it the first thousand times we heard it.


Paul

If it wasn't so entertaining then it would be boring.

 

[X]

Just to prove that there's nothing new or original in this thread, Yrreg is recycling material over at TheologyWeb, using the same cracked logic:
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/s...is-the-evidence-for-God-s-existence&p=3450249

You could have proved that using this forum. Yrreg has only ever had the one argument, despite his numerous threads.

 

[yrreg]

To be logical, if you start with nothing as your starting point, what should you do?

Originally Posted by dafydd
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8527647&postcount=1952

Originally Posted by Yrreg

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.

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 am asking Rougarou not you: for atheists there was nothing in existence prior to the appearance of the universe, how do you account for the transit from nothingness to the universe?

To be logical, when you start from nothingness as your starting point, what should you do, to be logical?



By the way, since you want to debate the existence of God, better you first read the best exponents of the concept of God among theists, otherwise you are being or better not being connected.


Yrreg

 

[yrreg]

It was not explicit adequate without the operator.

I see you've had to add "operator" to your definition of God

It was not explicitly adequate and up to date without the operator.



Yrreg

 

[yrreg]

Old question but never answered by atheists except to dodge.

Originally Posted by Kid Eager

Just to prove that there's nothing new or original in this thread, Yrreg is recycling material over at TheologyWeb, using the same cracked logic:
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...ence&p=3450249

​

Why would anyone in their wildest dreams thing that any of these religious people would come up with anything new, it is always the same old s....... as if we didn't get it the first thousand times we heard it.


Paul

Old question but never answered by atheists except to dodge.

Here is the question again, as you start from nothingness, how do you transit to the universe?



Yrreg

 

[Paulhoff]

Old question but never answered by atheists except to dodge.

Your idea of a god is childish, so where is the dodge.


Paul

 

[Paulhoff]

Here is the question again, as you start from nothingness, how do you transit to the universe?

And having a god tell us what? Nothing seeing that you can make it anything you want it to be.

Saying that it always was is BS.


Paul

 

[Paulhoff]

Being honest and saying "I don't know" is a thing we call, "being a grownup".


Paul

 

[pakeha]

Old question but never answered by atheists except to dodge.

Here is the question again, as you start from nothingness, how do you transit to the universe?

Has it been established that before the universe existed there was nothing?

 

[RoboTimbo]

Old question but never answered by atheists except to dodge.

Here is the question again, as you start from nothingness, how do you transit to the universe?



Yrreg

Old question but never answered by theists except to dodge.

Here is the question again, if you say the universe couldn't have come from nothing, how do you posit any god(s) starting from nothing?




ittehgapS

 

[yrreg]

Well, now you bring in the humility tack, it is humble to admit ignorance, humility has suddenly become fashionable.

That is an attitude, it has nothing to do with what Aristotle calls curiosity.

Now, suppose you exercise some curiosity thinking and wonder whether there is nothing prior to the appearance of the universe.

If your position is that there is nothing as it is indeed your position, then how can there be any transit from nothing to something like the universe?

But the universe does exist, so your position is that the universe appeared from a situation of nothingness, or it appeared from a situation of somethingness.

What is the experience of mankind?



Yrreg

 

[GeeMack]

By the way, since you want to debate the existence of God, [...]

There is no debate. Claims have been made that gods exist. No objective evidence has ever been presented to support those claims. Do you have any?

 

[Kid Eager]

Well, now you bring in the humility tack, it is humble to admit ignorance, humility has suddenly become fashionable.

That is an attitude, it has nothing to do with what Aristotle calls curiosity.

Now, suppose you exercise some curiosity thinking and wonder whether there is nothing prior to the appearance of the universe.

If your position is that there is nothing as it is indeed your position, then how can there be any transit from nothing to something like the universe?

But the universe does exist, so your position is that the universe appeared from a situation of nothingness, or it appeared from a situation of somethingness.

What is the experience of mankind?



Yrreg

You really need to get out and Google more:

http://science.howstuffworks.com/dictionary/astronomy-terms/before-big-bang1.htm

 

[AdMan]

Well, now you bring in the humility tack, it is humble to admit ignorance, humility has suddenly become fashionable.

That is an attitude, it has nothing to do with what Aristotle calls curiosity.

Now, suppose you exercise some curiosity thinking and wonder whether there is nothing prior to the appearance of the universe.

If your position is that there is nothing as it is indeed your position, then how can there be any transit from nothing to something like the universe?

But the universe does exist, so your position is that the universe appeared from a situation of nothingness, or it appeared from a situation of somethingness.

What is the experience of mankind?



Yrreg

An argument from ignorance is not a proper argument.

How did your god arise from nothing?

 

[yrreg]

It is like this, the rational mood of the human brain:

When you postulate that nothing prevails in existence prior to the appearance of the universe, then you should stop talking altogether, because nothing will remain nothing that includes you the talker.

If you talk at all as you postulate nothing prevails prior to the appearance of the universe, then you have already given yourself away to the admission of the fact that there has always been something, at least something that is talking, which implicates a mind that thinks and a will that chooses, and has power to endow with existence what he chooses to transit from nothingness to somethingness.


That is the experience of mankind, and only humans who don't want to think at all will claim to be ignorant and humble at that.




Yrreg

 

[AdMan]

It is like this, the rational mood of the human brain:

When you postulate that nothing prevails in existence prior to the appearance of the universe, then you should stop talking altogether, because nothing will remain nothing that includes you the talker.

If you talk at all as you postulate nothing prevails prior to the appearance of the universe, then you have already given yourself away to the admission of the fact that there has always been something, at least something that is talking, which implicates a mind that thinks and a will that chooses, and has power to endow with existence what he chooses to transit from nothingness to somethingness.


That is the experience of mankind, and only humans who don't want to think at all will claim to be ignorant and humble at that.




Yrreg

Gibberish.

Do you have a proper argument?

 

[Kid Eager]

It is like this, the rational mood of the human brain:

When you postulate that nothing prevails in existence prior to the appearance of the universe, then you should stop talking altogether, because nothing will remain nothing that includes you the talker.

If you talk at all as you postulate nothing prevails prior to the appearance of the universe, then you have already given yourself away to the admission of the fact that there has always been something, at least something that is talking, which implicates a mind that thinks and a will that chooses, and has power to endow with existence what he chooses to transit from nothingness to somethingness.


That is the experience of mankind, and only humans who don't want to think at all will claim to be ignorant and humble at that.




Yrreg

Your premise and your conclusion do not link. This attempt at logic therefore disproves your position.

 

[yrreg]

All right, here we go, there has always been something.


Yes? No?



Yrreg

 

[GeeMack]

All right, here we go, there has always been something.

Yes? No?

Since the beginning of time, yes.

Do you think there has always been some kind of god?