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

[Robrob]

Shocking the person demanding others "read" so readily admits they don't.

 

[RoboTimbo]

asking you atheists first if you subscribe to the idea that the universe came forth from nothing at all.


Yrreg

Do you subscribe to the idea that your god(s) came forth from nothing at all?

I want you to think before you answer. If you aren't going to think, then don't answer.



ittehgapS

 

[dafydd]

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.

Who created your god? Where is the evidence?

 

[bruto]

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




Yrreg

So you are moving the goalposts again after chastising us in general for not reading up on the literature.... now you're saying there's nothing very useful there.

My experience is that there is no reason to believe a god is maintaining the universe, but this matters very little, just as your experience and your interpretation matter very little. You (you you yourself )have invited us to read up on the literature so as to find common ground with you, but you don't really want that, do you?

Your writing and thinking are unforgivably sloppy and filled with inaccuracy and lies. This is true even if what you say is correct. Nobody is going to believe you even if you are right, because you are so bad at what you are doing.

 

[Paulhoff]

E=mc² something that has a use.

GOD, something that is useless, unless you want to divide people.


Paul

 

[wollery]

What is north of the North Pole?

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

I'm standing 200 metres away from the North Pole. How do I go further North? Easy, I walk 200 metres towards the North Pole.

Now I'm standing at the North Pole, please explain, which direction should I walk in to go further North?

 

[X]

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.

Oh, we atheists concur on words and concepts. The only one who doesn't, usually, is YOU.

 

[MIKILLINI]

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

You mean at this point?

In fact, you are not. You are a fisher of words. Your goal is to generate the most words from others so that, somewhere in that mess, you can find a sentence fragment or two with which you can knit. Your hope is to make a rope long enough to tie people down.

Should people keep their answers short, you will soon abandon your quest out of frustration.

 

[pakeha]

...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. ...

I've answered this before, as have others.
We don't know what happened before our Universe 'came forth'.
Here's some interesting speculation on the subject, also posted up before:
http://science.howstuffworks.com/dictionary/astronomy-terms/before-big-bang1.htm

 

[Mashuna]

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

Did you read my post where I said that this is demonstrably a waste of time?

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.

Yrreg, you clearly run away from debates when they become unfavourable.

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.

You're obviously not interested in trust, sincerity or facts. It's really funny that you think you are, but pretty much everything you've ever posted proves the opposite.

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.

As your ability to repeat long discredited points is evident while completely failing to understand or accept inputs from the people you're debating with, this is again clearly false. You're here to preach, not learn. Which is a real shame, as you're a terrible preacher and have much to learn.

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

What's to resume? Loss Leader gave a correct and useful definition of evidence, you gave a useless one that you thought would serve your own purposes but was incorrect. You refused to move from this position or debate honestly, so the conversation was over.

 

[Mojo]

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

Catch the number 42 bus.

That'll only take you as far as Denmark Hill. You'll have to walk the rest of the way.

 

[Mojo]

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.

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.

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.

OK, let's go back and investigate. Indeed, we find that it is all in the records. Here is your last post from that thread, posted after Loss Leader had (politely) challenged you "to explain your ideas regarding evidence using any examples you like":

Dear Loss Leader,

I am so glad that you have corrected your endless self-looping.


I am going to take a leave of absence, but I want to tell you that I have in you a good partner in my quest for exchange of thoughts on what is evidence.



When I return here I will look you up.


Let our posts here stay for people who care to read about what is evidence.


Thanks for your presence, and I am so very glad that you did not anymore continue with endless self-looping.



I started a thread in that board on appeals against moderators but it was right away shot down for being in the wrong board; that is a reasonable reaction from their part, the personnel running that board.

The explanation given is because it is not as I see and agree with them: it is not any appeals against an action of a moderator as a moderator -- correct.



Yrreg

I think we can all see who backed out of the discussion.

 

[dafydd]

Yrreg, you clearly run away from debates when they become unfavourable.

Until he comes back with another variation of his theme, more skewed definitions and concepts couched in awful English that he hopes that we will agree with so he can say Gotcha!, you've just admitted that god exists! This moment will never come for him.

 

[Agatha]

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.

No. There is no onward or further north; every step you take, in any direction, is not north. I can see that we will have to add compass directions and geography to the list of things that you appear not to understand. Unfortunately, this gap in your education, just as your refusal to accept dictionary definitions of common words such as "evidence" is going to make it near-impossible to conduct a viable discussion here.

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

I can imagine it, but I see no evidence that anything transcends time and space. Imagination is not a substitute for evidence. J K Rowling imagined Hogwarts, but that doesn't mean that the place exists.

But you just said:

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

Indeed I did. Unfortunately, you were trying to suggest that it is the atheist position that there was "nothing before the universe". We are reminding you that nobody holds that position, so you are making a strawman argument. Do you understand what this means?

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

I always do, so please don't waste any time worrying about this. I do realise you are attempting to be personally insulting by suggesting I don't put thought into my posts; I fear that you will earn yet more yellow cards should you choose to continue this route.

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.

Are you suggesting that I am not doing "original personal thinking"? Once again, you appear to be personally insulting as a substitute for addressing the substantive points that people are making.

No one person, not even someone as brilliant as Stephen Hawking, can possibly know the finer points of every scientific discipline. It is important to recognise one's own limitations and to consult the works of experts to fill in the gaps of one's own knowledge. This applies to everyone; to you, to me, and to everyone else. Personal thinking has an important place, but it is no substitute for learning. Learning, educating oneself about the world, should be a life-long endeavour.

Since concurrence on concepts is important in discussions, could you please look at a globe (not a map) and find the north pole, then try to go further north. Since every movement of your finger takes you away from the north pole, you are not going north. How, then, can you go further north? Please try this out on a globe so that you can grasp this basic concept. I realise this is a slight derail but I think it is vital that you understand why people are using this as an analogy.

 

[Mojo]

Yrreg, you clearly run away from debates when they become unfavourable.

No, he runs away when he realises that they have become unfavourable.

 

[Mashuna]

No, he runs away when he realises that they have become unfavourable.

Ok, I agree there is a twenty page difference between the two statements. I stand corrected.

 

[Toontown]

What's wrong with this definition of God: Mythical all-powerful copy of an ancient tyrant king who has become totally corrupted by absolute power

Or, how about this: Tyrannosaurus Rex

Blessed are they who are small and fast, for He knoweth that they may escape unscathed. And He shall look upon them with indifference, and stalk them not.

But woe unto those who are slow and meaty. For they shall be eaten. And even those who have the great horned faces shall tremble, and fall prey. For strong is the Lord God who hungereth for them.

 

[yrreg]

Dictionaries are made by fellow humans, we should be making our own definitions...

Originally Posted by yrreg

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.

Dictionary definitions are made by fellow humans, we should have our own for our own issue.

You see: if we go to dictionaries we will just bring in more controversies on which definitions of which dictionaries we will concur on.

Do you see that problem?


Bringing in all kinds and manners of irrelevancies and squabbles, that is what I have always experienced with atheists, for they really don't want to resolve a question, but they seek to always flee from it, even resorting to ignorance as a ground for not going into the issue at all.


Now, just because Loss Leader backed out from my thread* inviting atheists to work with me to concur on words and concepts in particular on what is evidence, what is the target of evidence, and how evidence works to arrive at the target of evidence, there is nothing except your reluctance and even resistance for you or anyone else to work with me to concur on words and concepts, in particular on what is evidence, etc.

*Seeking agreement with atheists instead of disagreement to resolve the God debate: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=228442​

There is also the grievous trouble in talking with atheists, they will bring in such terms as penis in order to derail a topic.

Just because you atheists don't admit of intrinsic goodness, that does not dispense you from avoiding the mention of penis (observe now, someone will bring in penis just to show mankind that he can say anything he wants -- whatever standards of decency prevailing in any civil discourse on any topic not concerned with genital anatomy).


Now, you atheists here are a tsunami, I cannot be attending to you all.

That is why I seek to dialog with a particular poster who appears to be above using terms like penis without any connection whatever to the issue at hand; I thought that Rougarou was such a poster, but he became incoherent and disconnected -- as is routine with atheists: when the discussion gets to develop into something that is productive of a resolution of the question involved.


I am addressing you, dafydd, to talk with me without bringing in distractions and adjectives and adjectival nouns which are all derails of the topic at hand, can you and will you take the place of Rougarou?



Yrreg

 

[dafydd]

Dictionary definitions are made by fellow humans, we should have our own for our own issue.

We all should have our own definitions of words? How would we communicate? You have no idea what the purpose of language is.

I am addressing you, dafydd, to talk with me without bringing in distractions and adjectives and adjectival nouns which are all derails of the topic at hand, can you and will you take the place of Rougarou?

Only when it's a full moon.

 

[yrreg]

No, I am not moving the goalpost at all, you're the one doing it by naked allegation.

Originally Posted by yrreg

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




Yrreg

​

So you are moving the goalposts again after chastising us in general for not reading up on the literature.... now you're saying there's nothing very useful there.

My experience is that there is no reason to believe a god is maintaining the universe, but this matters very little, just as your experience and your interpretation matter very little. You (you you yourself )have invited us to read up on the literature so as to find common ground with you, but you don't really want that, do you?

Your writing and thinking are unforgivably sloppy and filled with inaccuracy and lies. This is true even if what you say is correct. Nobody is going to believe you even if you are right, because you are so bad at what you are doing.

No, I am not moving the goalpost at all, you're the one doing it by naked allegation.


So, what do you want for a goalpost, tell me, and we two you and I will keep our eyes on the goalpost, but no bringing in penis, please.


What goalpost do you want, on the concept of God, on what is evidence, on nothing as the origin of the universe, but please not about penis.


You see, you will run away again.


I cannot have any continuing dialog with you atheists, I really want to engage in one, but it has to be just with one atheist poster at a time, because you are a tsunami -- I can't attend to you all, for it would be foolish of me to deal with a tsunami.

Do you notice that only atheists are talking among themselves here, because others who are not atheists shun this forum owing to you atheists always derailing and bringing in penis.



Yrreg