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

[Mojo]

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.

...and yrreg once again demonstrates his complete lack of self-awareness.

 

[Mashuna]

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

Yes, that was the discussion where you demonstrated you don't know what evidence is, and that you can't hold an honest discussion. Why would anyone else want to waste their time covering old ground when you never learn?

Unless it's for their own entertainment of course, then that's fine.

 

[GeeMack]

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

You are wrong, and nearly everyone in this discussion has tried to help you understand that. Your willful ignorance of your continued failure is noted.

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.

No. We don't have to come up with any such concurrence. Objective evidence is that which, when considered without bias, will lead independent analysts to reach the same conclusion. I will note that you have ignored my question, so again...

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

If you do have objective evidence to support your claim that some kind of god exists, now would be a fine time to present it. If you have no such evidence, you should have the honesty and integrity to admit it. If you have neither the evidence nor the honesty and integrity to admit it, carry on as you have been. You will continue to fail.

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.

Loss Leader's explanation was perfectly clear. Other people have explained it just as well. Your lack of understanding what constitutes objective evidence and how it is required to support your claim is nobody's fault but your own.

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

Interesting that you should say that when you are so adamant in your refusal to agree on words and concepts.

 

[Agatha]

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

No, this is wishful thinking on your part. You have presented no evidence for the existence of any god. The existence of the universe is evidence only for the existence of the universe; it is not evidence for an act of creation, nor a creator.

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.

We did this some time ago; despite hundreds of careful explanations and making allowances for your lack of fluency in English, you appeared to be unable to grasp the meaning of the word "evidence". You still appear to have not grasped it.

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.

As above; we have already done this and trying to return the discussion to some former time is just running away from the current discussion.

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

The only person dodging is you. Everyone else, both theist and atheist, is in agreement about the meaning of words and concepts. It is you, and only you, who continues to insist on inaccurate and misleading definitions.

"We don't know" is not the position of weakness you appear to think it is. On the contrary, it's a position of strength because it means that people will work towards finding out the answers. Making up supernatural explanations is the position of weakness, and that is where your argument lies.

You have no evidence of a creator, nor of how the universe came to be, nor of how your God came to be. So your religion (just like almost every other religion) made up answers. This is the weakest possible position because it encourages people to stop thinking. Your argument relies on unevidenced guesswork, not on actual evidence.

And by the way, a dead body is not "nothing" - the life has gone but the body is still there. Advocacy of suicide, as you ought to know by now having been infracted for it in the past, is a serious breach of the MA, whether you try to pass it off as a joke or not.

 

[Agatha]

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?

I do not think that anyone has stated that there was nothing before the universe. As time started when the universe started, there is no such thing as before the universe. How can there be a time before time began? Can you go north of the North Pole?

By asserting that atheists believe that there was nothing before the universe, you are making a strawman argument, which is a logical fallacy. Kindly do not ascribe to people positions which they do not hold.

 

[dafydd]

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

Catch the number 42 bus.

 

[dafydd]

What is the experience of mankind?

Sachertorte.

 

[Agatha]

Sachertorte.

I would have said beer, but Sachertorte works equally well.

 

[bruto]

Yrreg, I went to college long ago and studied much of this stuff under the tutelage of well read and extrtemely intelligent theologians and philosophers. I will admit that I have forgotten much, but I do not remember any such person maintaining that what we observe in the universe requires that there be a god maintaning or managing it. This includes those who were convinced that there is such a god and that such a god does remain involved.


You keep telling us to read up and study this stuff. Now it's your turn. Where do you find scholarly backup for your zany idea that the observed universe requires active maintenance?

It really is your turn to come up with something other than insults and garbage, and muster up some scholarship here. As long as you require the scholarship from others you cannot complain when their results disagree with yours.

 

[zooterkin]

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

Sadly, it seems to be lost to posterity, as a number of posts have been disappeared (yet yrreg remains with us, for now at least).

 

[yrreg]

Without concurrence on words and concepts we cannot communicate viably.

Originally Posted by yrreg

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.

Without concurrence on words and concepts we cannot communicate viably.

I have been forever trying to get atheists to concur on words and concepts to no avail.

I had once in Loss Leader a poster who I thought sincerely wanted to come to concurrence on what is evidence in view of determining whether there is sufficient evidence proving the existence of God.

We went into it, but eventually he backed out.

Would you like us two to go into my exchange with Loss Leader and resume from where we dropped off?




Yrreg

 

[Kid Eager]

Sadly, it seems to be lost to posterity, as a number of posts have been disappeared (yet yrreg remains with us, for now at least).

probably just as well. It plumbed new lows of illogic. amongst other things that I will not mention, as it caused the post to be binned.

 

[dafydd]

Without concurrence on words and concepts we cannot communicate viably.

We tend to stick to the dictionary definitions whereas you make up your own definitions.

 

[yrreg]

I like to invite you to concur between us two on what is evidence.

Originally Posted by yrreg

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​

Yes, that was the discussion where you demonstrated you don't know what evidence is, and that you can't hold an honest discussion. Why would anyone else want to waste their time covering old ground when you never learn?

Unless it's for their own entertainment of course, then that's fine.

I like to invite you to concur between us two on what is evidence.


Some of you have repeated time and again that I shirk from evidence, but when I require us to go into it, you come up with the charge that I am the one running away when the work gets to be unfavorable to myself.

That is not the fact, and to show you that I am really interested to work together in mutual trust and sincerity and total commitment to the facts, I am inviting anyone and everyone here to go into this task of concurring on words and concepts, otherwise we cannot ever have any viable communication.

I would not be into this invitation time and again if I have been insincere in my efforts to accept the inputs frp, you atheists; but my impression is that you atheists are the ones shirking this task.


Would you care to resume where Loss Leader and I dropped off, and my impression is that he was the one backing out -- and I decided to abstain from further posting because it is useless.




Yrreg

 

[GeeMack]

Without concurrence on words and concepts we cannot communicate viably.

With you being the exclusive exception, everyone in this discussion is in general agreement on the words and concepts.

I have been forever trying to get atheists to concur on words and concepts to no avail.

That is not true. We all agree on the words and concepts. If we don't agree with your incorrect understanding of words and concepts, that is your failure.

I had once in Loss Leader a poster who I thought sincerely wanted to come to concurrence on what is evidence in view of determining whether there is sufficient evidence proving the existence of God.

We went into it, but eventually he backed out.

You were unwilling or unable to understand the commonly accepted meaning of objective evidence. So once more, the failure belongs to you.

Would you like us two to go into my exchange with Loss Leader and resume from where we dropped off?

Would you be any more inclined to accept the words and concepts we all agree on this time, or would you insist, again, that others accept your incorrect understanding of the words and concepts? Because without concurrence on words and concepts, we cannot communicate viably. And on that point, so far in this discussion, the failure is entirely yours.

 

[yrreg]

And you do not care to go back to investigate what went on there...

Originally Posted by yrreg
Evidence for God is the existence of the universe and you and me.
​

You are wrong, and nearly everyone in this discussion has tried to help you understand that. Your willful ignorance of your continued failure is noted.

Quote:
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.
​

No. We don't have to come up with any such concurrence. Objective evidence is that which, when considered without bias, will lead independent analysts to reach the same conclusion. I will note that you have ignored my question, so again...
Claims have been made that gods exist. No objective evidence has ever been presented to support those claims. Do you have any?
If you do have objective evidence to support your claim that some kind of god exists, now would be a fine time to present it. If you have no such evidence, you should have the honesty and integrity to admit it. If you have neither the evidence nor the honesty and integrity to admit it, carry on as you have been. You will continue to fail.

Quote:
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.
​

Loss Leader's explanation was perfectly clear. Other people have explained it just as well. Your lack of understanding what constitutes objective evidence and how it is required to support your claim is nobody's fault but your own.

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

Interesting that you should say that when you are so adamant in your refusal to agree on words and concepts.

And you do not care to go back to investigate what went on there, but you keep up with the charge that I am the one not interested and not accepting your ipse dixit claims.


So, it is going to be you say and I ask you to investigate what went on there, and you say again that no need, but I ask you to investigate, and on and on.

You don't care to even just go over the exchange between Loss Leader and me, it is all in the records.


Forgive me, it is like Dawkins insisting that he will not debate Craig because debating with Craig is to the enhancement of Craig's c.v.(curriculum vitae) at his Dawkins' expense.



That is why I have now taken up another direction, asking you atheists first if you subscribe to the idea that the universe came forth from nothing at all.


Because we don't need to concur on evidence that the universe exists.




Yrreg

 

[GeeMack]

And you do not care to go back to investigate what went on there, [...]

I was here reading the discussion when it occurred. I know what went on there.

[..] but you keep up with the charge that I am the one not interested and not accepting your ipse dixit claims.

As long as you insist that the meanings of words and concepts must be as you dictate them to be rather than as they are commonly understood by the general population of English speaking people, you are not interested in viable communication. You are interested in controlling the conversation in such a way as to prevent a legitimate exchange of ideas. And that is dishonest.

So, it is going to be you say and I ask you to investigate what went on there, and you say again that no need, but I ask you to investigate, and on and on.

You don't care to even just go over the exchange between Loss Leader and me, it is all in the records.

As I said, I was reading the discussion as it occurred.

Forgive me, [...]

No. Not until you set aside your willful ignorance and your dishonest effort to manipulate the conversation, and actually approach it with a mote of honesty. So far you have not done that. That ignorance and dishonesty is a great deal of the source of your continued failure.

[...] it is like Dawkins insisting that he will not debate Craig because debating with Craig is to the enhancement of Craig's c.v.(curriculum vitae) at his Dawkins' expense.

That is why I have now taken up another direction, asking you atheists first if you subscribe to the idea that the universe came forth from nothing at all.

Several people have responded to your question. Your continued willful ignorance is, as you say, all in the records.

 

[yrreg]

Please think carefully before you write and then think again after writing.

Originally Posted by yrreg

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?

​

I do not think that anyone has stated that there was nothing before the universe. As time started when the universe started, there is no such thing as before the universe. How can there be a time before time began? Can you go north of the North Pole?

By asserting that atheists believe that there was nothing before the universe, you are making a strawman argument, which is a logical fallacy. Kindly do not ascribe to people positions which they do not hold.

You say:

there is no such thing as before the universe. How can there be a time before time began? Can you go north of the North Pole?​

What is north of the North Pole?

You forget to think, the answer is more north onward further north.

"there is no such thing as before the universe"? You mean that you cannot think of existence transcending the universe?

But you just said:

"I do not think that anyone has stated that there was nothing before the universe."​

Please think carefully before you write and then think again after writing.

And do some original personal thinking, even though afterwards you notice that others have also thought along the same direction -- but the difference is you now know what you know after thinking it out yourself.




Yrreg

 

[yrreg]

Not so much from my reading as from my experience...

Yrreg, I went to college long ago and studied much of this stuff under the tutelage of well read and extrtemely intelligent theologians and philosophers. I will admit that I have forgotten much, but I do not remember any such person maintaining that what we observe in the universe requires that there be a god maintaning or managing it. This includes those who were convinced that there is such a god and that such a god does remain involved.


You keep telling us to read up and study this stuff. Now it's your turn. Where do you find scholarly backup for your zany idea that the observed universe requires active maintenance?

It really is your turn to come up with something other than insults and garbage, and muster up some scholarship here. As long as you require the scholarship from others you cannot complain when their results disagree with yours.

Not so much from my reading as from my experience... what about you?




Yrreg

 

[dafydd]

Not so much from my reading as from my experience.

That is obvious.