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

[yrreg]

Please transcend from the adjectival phase of your brain.

That is no way to think of something that is alien to you owing to your humble ignorance situation.



You ask how can God transit from nothingness, and that shows that your brain is not thinking properly.

Not even God can transit from nothingness.

If as indeed it is the case that from nothing no thing at all can transit into something, then the conclusion is undeniable that there is always something even prior to the appearance of the universe.


So, if you are thinking, we are now into the undeniable situation that something always exists.



Yrreg

 

[X]

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.

Quite wrong.
To admit ignorance is the very essence of curiosity. It lets you know what you have yet to learn.
Not admitting ignorance, insisting you "know" everything, is the complete antithesis of curiosity. For if you "know" everything, what is there left to be curious about?
Not knowing something doesn't bother most members of this forum, yrreg. We would prefer to admit ignorance instead of making up an unsupported answer.



And as far as you latest question ("There has always been something? Yes/No"):
The response is "I don't know". A perfectly honest response. But you will hate it. It doesn't allow for made-up certainty, which is what your position depends on.

 

[yrreg]

No more adjectives or adjectival nouns, please.

I have to take a leave, but I will be back later.


In the meantime, do you accept that there is always something even prior or in the situation logically prior to the phenomenon of the universe?

Your concept of God is most obsolete, not adequate and definitely out of date.

Read up on expositions in regard to the concept of God among the best exponents of theism; otherwise you are not getting connected, or at most only to Thor and Odin.




Yrreg

 

[AdMan]

No more adjectives or adjectival nouns, please.

I have to take a leave, but I will be back later.


In the meantime, do you accept that there is always something even prior or in the situation logically prior to the phenomenon of the universe?

Your concept of God is most obsolete, not adequate and definitely out of date.

Read up on expositions in regard to the concept of God among the best exponents of theism; otherwise you are not getting connected, or at most only to Thor and Odin.




Yrreg

Is this supposed to make any sense?

 

[GeeMack]

So, if you are thinking, we are now into the undeniable situation that something always exists.

Since the beginning of time.

Do you think there has always been some kind of god, even before the beginning of time?

 

[Mashuna]

Read up on expositions in regard to the concept of God among the best exponents of theism; otherwise you are not getting connected, or at most only to Thor and Odin.


Yrreg

You should be careful what you wish for Yrreg; if people take your advice, no-one will ever read your posts again.

 

[aleCcowaN]

<deleted>

 

[Kid Eager]

Puppies???? Oh, the horror!!!

 

[zooterkin]

For a human with a functioning brain it is impossible for him to even entertain in his mind the thought of nothingness prevailing prior to the appearance of the universe.

Nonsense.

 

[yrreg]

You miss my answer to your last post earlier.

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?

You miss my answer to your last post earlier.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8490281&postcount=1935 = #1935.

Title of post: 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.

Originally Posted by 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.

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 [to] act petulant.



Yrreg

You are getting lost.

Attend to my post earlier.


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


You are stuck with God's continuous maintenance of the universe, I already told you that God is continuously maintaining the universe whether directly or indirectly.

So, what is your point, be coherent otherwise you keep repeating the same thought again and again like you are not aware of the latest news from me directed to you.

I am giving some attention to other atheists here, and I am asking them whether they are of the conviction that the universe comes forth from nothing.

Anyway, please read my latest communication to you, for I see that you are repeating again and again your insistence that God is not continuously maintaining the universe, and I am telling you that whether directly or indirectly He is maintaining continuously the universe.

There.

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


I was going to post this message already but decided to take another read of your post at the top, and you said there:

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?
​

You want me to choose between:

(i) God powerful enough to create a universe.

(ii) God not powerful enough to create a universe that can operate without continuous maintenance?
​

Are you trying to be funny?

It is the same foolishness of fallacious thinkers who ask "Can God create a stone so heavy He cannot carry it?"

It is like what Satan challenges Jesus to do:

Matthew 4:5-11

5 Then the devil taketh him up into the holy city, and setteth him on a pinnacle of the temple,

6 And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone.

7 Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.

8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;

9 And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me.

10 Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.

11 Then the devil leaveth him, and, behold, angels came and ministered unto him.

Dear Rougarou, are you Satan in this forum?

If you are Satan in person then God really exists and He is not going to play your silly game of paradox by which you intend to entrap Him to do your silly challenge.


A paradox can only work in words, but in reality there is no possibility of a paradox.

A paradox is the affirmation of something in a first statement and slyly denying it in a second statement while giving the appearance of affirming still the first statement.


I will not any further deal with you on this nonsense unless you prove yourself first to be Satan,* then I will invoke Jesus and you will scram, vamoose, beat it, get lost with your tail between your legs.


But we have gone or I have gone into the Bible, for my purpose here is to work on reason.

Let us go back to reason which is a gift of God to man, tell me do you ascribe to the position that from nothing the universe comes forth?

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

*Dear Rougarou, you can prove yourself to be Satan by declaring in writing that you accept Jesus Christ to be your Lord and Savior, recite the Apostles' Creed, pray the Our Father, and for Catholics also the Hail Mary, and don't forget the Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit, as it was in the beginning is now and ever shall be world without end, amen, and proclaim to God that you repent and will now take up the work of spreading the good news of God's love for mankind with sending His Son to die on the cross.

And do all that in writing in a message published in this forum.
​

Yrreg

 

[pakeha]

...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?

This was answered by Kid Eager and others.

You really need to get out and Google more:

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

yrreG, you answer, as far as I can tell, is this:

What existed before the big bang? It's still an open question. Perhaps nothing. Perhaps another universe or a different version of our own. Perhaps a sea of universes, each with a different set of laws dictating its physical reality.

To sum up, we don't know.
Yet.

... 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. ..

Talk? Think? Choose?
How does that follow upon the existence of 'something' before time?

 

[yrreg]

Originally Posted by yrreg

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?

Yes, there has always been God.

You will come to that knowledge if you use your brain to think on the fact that there is always something even prior to the appearance of the universe; but if you insist that the universe comes forth from nothingness, then there is no hope for you to have the whole unabridged complete picture of existence.



Yrreg

 

[yrreg]

Quite wrong.
To admit ignorance is the very essence of curiosity. It lets you know what you have yet to learn.
Not admitting ignorance, insisting you "know" everything, is the complete antithesis of curiosity. For if you "know" everything, what is there left to be curious about?
Not knowing something doesn't bother most members of this forum, yrreg. We would prefer to admit ignorance instead of making up an unsupported answer.



And as far as you latest question ("There has always been something? Yes/No"):
The response is "I don't know". A perfectly honest response. But you will hate it. It doesn't allow for made-up certainty, which is what your position depends on.

Well, if you insist on being ignorant, there is nothing I can do for you because I cannot overcome your free choice.

To the question there exists always or it is the case that there has always existed something, yes or no?

You answer you don't know.

You mean you cannot make up whether it is yes there has always been the case that in existence which is the case there has always been something, or no.

See, if you don't even have the brain to see what the question is, and it is not asking you whether you know something or you don't know something, but to think as to come to a choice based on your experience and the common experience of mankind, that there has always been something.

How is that a common experience of mankind that there has always been something?

Because all the time that you are existing is all the time that there has always been something; can't you see it?

Here, read carefully: if there has been nothing at all even prior or in logical anteriority to the appearance of the universe, then you would not be here at all and neither that point of the singularity which is the beginning of the universe -- for that Big Bang does not say that there was nothing in logical anteriority to the universe, but it only says that there is a beginning point: and your brain takes over to immediately by direct inference discerns that there has always been something in logical priority to the appearance of the universe.

That something is not subject to time and space, otherwise it also is in the universe which has a beginning, and then it cannot be any final and definitive and undeniable explanation for the existence with a beginning of the universe.

If you cannot see that with your brain, then you are destined to be lost forever without the complete picture of existence.



Yrreg

 

[Mojo]

You are stuck with God's continuous maintenance of the universe, I already told you that God is continuously maintaining the universe whether directly or indirectly.

But you have provided no evidence that this is the case.

 

[yrreg]

Evidence for God is the existence of the universe and you and me.

Originally Posted by yrreg

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?

Evidence for God is the existence of the universe and you and me.

But we have got to first come to concurrence on what is evidence, what is the target of evidence, and how does evidence operate to hit its target.

I have had a long discussion with someone here by the name of some Loss Leader, but if you like I invite you to work with me to come to concurrence on what is evidence, what is the target of evidence, and how does evidence work to hit its target.

Otherwise, it is all dodging when people don't want to first agree on words and concepts.



Yrreg

 

[zooterkin]

Well, if you insist on being ignorant, there is nothing I can do for you because I cannot overcome your free choice.

No, it's ok, I don't think any of us is planning to follow your example.

 

[Kid Eager]

Post reported for advocating suicide.

that's why I quoted it earlier upstream, for posterity...

 

[Kid Eager]

Evidence for God is the existence of the universe and you and me.

But we have got to first come to concurrence on what is evidence, what is the target of evidence, and how does evidence operate to hit its target.

I have had a long discussion with someone here by the name of some Loss Leader, but if you like I invite you to work with me to come to concurrence on what is evidence, what is the target of evidence, and how does evidence work to hit its target.

Otherwise, it is all dodging when people don't want to first agree on words and concepts.



Yrreg

You haven't learned anything, have you. Every time it approaches a logical conclusion that you can't avoid, you reset the clock back to an earlier point.

Oh look - here we are again at that part of the argument where we YET AGAIN do the "let's come up with a set of definitions that I want to use, but pretend that we arrived at them by consensus" dance.

Tedious, unimaginative, puerile, and shallow thinking. Reminds me of watching a child change the rules of a game when they start losing.

Back onto ignore for you: nothing to see here.

 

[dafydd]

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

How does a god help in this matter?

 

[dafydd]

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

That is not English. It is gibberish.