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

[Mojo]

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

"I don’t know what you mean by 'glory'," Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. "Of course you don’t—till I tell you. I meant 'there’s a nice knock-down argument for you!' "
"But 'glory' doesn’t mean 'a nice knock-down argument'," Alice objected.
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master—that’s all."
Alice was too much puzzled to say anything, so after a minute Humpty Dumpty began again. "They’ve a temper, some of them—particularly verbs, they’re the proudest—adjectives you can do anything with, but not verbs—however, I can manage the whole lot! Impenetrability! That’s what I say!"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humpty_Dumpty#In_Through_the_Looking-Glass

 

[Agatha]

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

No, not if we want to facilitate clear communication. after all, we are humans, so using human-made dictionaries is a Good Idea.

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

I am sure we will agree on a dictionary if it becomes necessary to do so; what is important is that you use terms in the way they are intended to be used. It should not have escaped your notice that everyone except you agreed on the definition of evidence.

Do you see that problem?

I can see that using dictionaries might be a problem for you, given that you still insist on using definitions which nobody else agrees are correct.

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.

And as is usual, you resort to insults instead of addressing the substantive points that people have made.

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.

Loss Leader did not flee the thread - you refused to answer his questions and then disappeared for weeks at a time, only dropping in on Fridays to ignore everything that had been posted in the interim. We already agreed on the definitions - that is, everyone except you agreed.

Further, this is not your thread. Anyone can post in it and copyright belongs to the JREF.

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

We are only reflecting your arguments back to you - it was you who brought in penises in the first place if you recall.

Just because you atheists don't admit of intrinsic goodness

Strawman argument; nobody except you has suggested that atheists do not admit intrinsic goodness, and it is a false assertion on your part.

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).

But that was your argument, that the penis was evidence for your God. The posts are still here. This thread you started which quickly got dumped to AAH is just one example. You were the one to bring genitalia into the discussion; just because it was your worst argument ever does not mean you can now disclaim responsibility.

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

When do you plan to start attending (by which I mean actually reading and responding to posts) to any of us, never mind 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.

Rougarou was unfailingly polite and courteous to you, but you could not or would not respond to the points made in his/her posts.

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?

Best of luck, dafydd. I fear you will need it.

Have you done that experiment with the North Pole and a globe yet, yrreg?

 

[dafydd]

Best of luck, dafydd. I fear you will need it.

No luck needed. He believes in a sky daddy, I don't. End of story.

 

[Mojo]

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.

Now, who was it who brought in the penis?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4300574#post4300574
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=136564
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=137267

 

[dafydd]

Now, who was it who brought in the penis?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4300574#post4300574
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=136564
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=137267

Yrreg often suffers from these memory lapses.

 

[yrreg]

Use your brain to work on possibilities, no need to hide behind ignorance.

Originally Posted by yrreg

...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

You don't know which means you don't want to know; for it is very simple, just ask yourself whether in logical anteriority to the appearance of the universe, is there something or there is nothing.

You have a mind, one of the beautiful things of the mind is that it can work on possibilities in accordance with a person's own experience and also the common experience of mankind.


So you have no excuse; were you taking an essay type exam, you would definitely flunk with an appeal to "We don't know what happened before our Universe 'came forth'."

You can say which is what some atheists are into, there are other universes popping in and out, and one of them popping up and still around is our universe.

See? that simple, if only you will use your brain to work on possibilities.


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

To posters of posts I do not reply to, please write your posts as to make some consistent and coherent sense, for I cannot be figuring out what you are saying at all; a lot of you atheists are into rote memory recall, piecing together slogans from your atheist mentors but without any consistent and coherent message.

Besides, you are a tsunami here and I can't be investing my time and labor even though it is all for fun which fun -- however for being fun is still most profitable in terms of exercising our brain cells -- I can't be into indiscriminate investment of my time and attention to all of you, specially with posters whose only contribution is to utter something that they will not voice out in actual outside the net milieu of decent society.



Yrreg

 

[dafydd]

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

To posters of posts I do not reply to, please write your posts as to make some consistent and coherent sense, for I cannot be figuring out what you are saying at all; a lot of you atheists are into rote memory recall, piecing together slogans from your atheist mentors but without any consistent and coherent message.

Oh Jesus Christ on crutches! All the irony meters in the universe just exploded.

 

[Mojo]

Yrreg often suffers from these memory lapses.

Let's face it, people wouldn't bring up the subject if yrreg hadn't already tried to ram it down their throats.

 

[dafydd]

specially with posters whose only contribution is to utter something that they will not voice out in actual outside the net milieu of decent society.



Yrreg

I will say anything that I say here to anybody, anywhere. What your point is escapes me. You have the cheek to say we do not make consistent and coherent sense and yet you write mangled English like ''will not voice out in actual outside the''? What the hell is that supposed to mean? Is English your first language?

 

[RoboTimbo]

To posters of posts I do not reply to, please write your posts as to make some consistent and coherent sense, for I cannot be figuring out what you are saying at all;


Yrreg

But you don't understand logic. I've told you before to title your threads "this post contains logic" if it did. None of your posts have contained logic. Or sense.

I'll tell you again to title your post "this post makes sense"only if it does. So far, none of yours have so you are right to not lie about it like you lied about atheists bringing up penis when it was you who did that.

 

[X]

Oh Jesus Christ on crutches! All the irony meters in the universe just exploded.

That's nothing. Wait until he instructs us to do it in 40 words or less.

 

[yrreg]

Do you want us to go line by line into my dialog with Loss?

Originally Posted by yrreg

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.


Originally Posted by yrreg

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.


Originally Posted by yrreg

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":

Originally Posted by yrreg

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.

Do you want us to go line by line into my dialog with Loss?


But you read me saying that Loss was into self-endless-looping, don't you?


The hardest thing that makes it impossible for me, aside from being courteous to him, to continue to dialog with him is his retracting what we had already concurred on -- much later in the thread.

Look up the word "retract" in that thread.


I am courteous to Loss but I see in him a lawyer who is into propositions instead of facts; and in my experience as also in my book, lawyers before anything else look for facts, they are not into examining propositions as though they are in the classroom.

That is why in Loss I can't see any genuine lawyer with true experience in real life law matters.



But what is there to prevent you and I to go into a dialog to work on concurrence on what is evidence, etc.?


My parting words to him Loss are intended to be polite words but being an intelligent and self-examining person as I assume he Loss is, he knows my real intention, which is that I can't continue with him any further, because he is into retracting things already concurred on, and that arbitrarily i.e. retracting: it is not different from atheists today insisting that they will not talk about anything else but only on things they can see with their eyes, etc., arbitrarily.


By the way I brought my dissatisfaction with Loss owing to his self-endless-looping to the complaints board, but the reply is that they entertain complaints against moderators, not against a poster.

Now, can I complain to a moderator by reporting Loss as into self-endless-looping?

If the moderator in charge will be good as to attend to my complaint he will tell me to just ignore Loss: and that is what I did with florid words though on a patina of polite courtesy.


Lastly, that thread on Seeking agreement etc., it is I submit a good thread for readers to consult to know how difficult it is to really know what evidence is all about, just the same they will learn something, also even on how atheists talk.




Yrreg

 

[Paulhoff]

With at least 70,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars just in the visible universe, the god of the bible makes no sense at all.

Paul

 

[Agatha]

You don't know which means you don't want to know

NO! " I don't know" does not mean the same as "I don't want to know".

How dare you suggest that any of us who have explained that science isn't yet able to answer certain questions have meant that we don't want to know. We do want to know, but we want the right answers, not bronze-age fairy tales.

for it is very simple, just ask yourself whether in logical anteriority to the appearance of the universe, is there something or there is nothing.

If you think the question of whether there was anything before the universe is simple, and indeed if you think it's a meaningful question, I can only beg you to educate yourself instead of appealing to your own ignorance and incredulity.

Did you do that experiment with a globe yet, to see if you can go north of the north pole?

You have a mind, one of the beautiful things of the mind is that it can work on possibilities in accordance with a person's own experience and also the common experience of mankind.
So you have no excuse; were you taking an essay type exam, you would definitely flunk with an appeal to "We don't know what happened before our Universe 'came forth'."

On the contrary, since that is the current state of knowledge, that answer would be right. If someone goes into a science exam and answers factual questions with fairy tales and bronze-age mythology, then they would fail.

<snip irrelevancies>

To posters of posts I do not reply to, please write your posts as to make some consistent and coherent sense, for I cannot be figuring out what you are saying at all; a lot of you atheists are into rote memory recall, piecing together slogans from your atheist mentors but without any consistent and coherent message.

Irony, thy name is yrreg.

As many people have attempted to explain to you, your grasp of English is not as good as you think it is. This would not be a problem if you were aware of your limitations, but you appear to labour under the misapprehension that you are posting clearly and coherently. If you truly don't understand what somebody posts, all you have to do is ask them to put it into more simple language for you.

Besides, you are a tsunami here and I can't be investing my time and labor even though it is all for fun which fun -- however for being fun is still most profitable in terms of exercising our brain cells -- I can't be into indiscriminate investment of my time and attention to all of you, specially with posters whose only contribution is to utter something that they will not voice out in actual outside the net milieu of decent society.

That last sentence is terrible English, for example. In fact as a sentence it ought to be imprisoned for life for crimes against the beautiful English language.

Nobody forces you to come to a critical thinking website. But as you are here, it's expected that you actually do some critical thinking. Using the excuse that there are a lot of posters on the opposite side of the argument to you is no excuse for ignoring points or insulting people. You choose to be here, you should follow the etiquette here.

 

[Mojo]

But you read me saying that Loss was into self-endless-looping, don't you?

Yes, I did. You owe me another irony meter.

 

[dafydd]

Do you want us to go line by line into my dialog with Loss?


But you read me saying that Loss was into self-endless-looping, don't you?


The hardest thing that makes it impossible for me, aside from being courteous to him, to continue to dialog with him is his retracting what we had already concurred on -- much later in the thread.

Look up the word "retract" in that thread.


I am courteous to Loss but I see in him a lawyer who is into propositions instead of facts; and in my experience as also in my book, lawyers before anything else look for facts, they are not into examining propositions as though they are in the classroom.

That is why in Loss I can't see any genuine lawyer with true experience in real life law matters.



But what is there to prevent you and I to go into a dialog to work on concurrence on what is evidence, etc.?


My parting words to him Loss are intended to be polite words but being an intelligent and self-examining person as I assume he Loss is, he knows my real intention, which is that I can't continue with him any further, because he is into retracting things already concurred on, and that arbitrarily i.e. retracting: it is not different from atheists today insisting that they will not talk about anything else but only on things they can see with their eyes, etc., arbitrarily.


By the way I brought my dissatisfaction with Loss owing to his self-endless-looping to the complaints board, but the reply is that they entertain complaints against moderators, not against a poster.

Now, can I complain to a moderator by reporting Loss as into self-endless-looping?

If the moderator in charge will be good as to attend to my complaint he will tell me to just ignore Loss: and that is what I did with florid words though on a patina of polite courtesy.


Lastly, that thread on Seeking agreement etc., it is I submit a good thread for readers to consult to know how difficult it is to really know what evidence is all about, just the same they will learn something, also even on how atheists talk.




Yrreg

Can we have that again in logical English please?

 

[yrreg]

Don't you see that your instinct is to maintain disconnection?

Okay, guys atheists, what goalpost do you want to go into in re God's existence?

As usual we will have to agree first to work on words and concepts to come to concur on their meanings.


Would you like to talk about the concept of God?

But of course you will right away say that thee are many concepts of gods, goddesses, deities, divinities, etc.

Then you will say that God for you is a sky daddy, or a flying spaghetti monster, or à la B. Russell (shame on him) a celestial teapot, that is your way of a rational discourse.



Next you will say that Christians cannot even agree on what is God.

And here is the tour de force, "How can we have any concept of God when we do not believe in God?"

That is why I ask you to read on God the concept from among the best exponents of God in the history of mankind from "In the beginning God created heavens and earth" Gen. 1:1, to the current Roman Catholic Catechism.

But, don't you see that your instinct is to maintain disconnection?



Yrreg

 

[yrreg]

Can we two have a dialog between ourselves, answer please.

Originally Posted by yrreg

Do you want us to go line by line into my dialog with Loss?


But you read me saying that Loss was into self-endless-looping, don't you?


The hardest thing that makes it impossible for me, aside from being courteous to him, to continue to dialog with him is his retracting what we had already concurred on -- much later in the thread.

Look up the word "retract" in that thread.


I am courteous to Loss but I see in him a lawyer who is into propositions instead of facts; and in my experience as also in my book, lawyers before anything else look for facts, they are not into examining propositions as though they are in the classroom.

That is why in Loss I can't see any genuine lawyer with true experience in real life law matters.



But what is there to prevent you and I to go into a dialog to work on concurrence on what is evidence, etc.?


My parting words to him Loss are intended to be polite words but being an intelligent and self-examining person as I assume he Loss is, he knows my real intention, which is that I can't continue with him any further, because he is into retracting things already concurred on, and that arbitrarily i.e. retracting: it is not different from atheists today insisting that they will not talk about anything else but only on things they can see with their eyes, etc., arbitrarily.


By the way I brought my dissatisfaction with Loss owing to his self-endless-looping to the complaints board, but the reply is that they entertain complaints against moderators, not against a poster.

Now, can I complain to a moderator by reporting Loss as into self-endless-looping?

If the moderator in charge will be good as to attend to my complaint he will tell me to just ignore Loss: and that is what I did with florid words though on a patina of polite courtesy.


Lastly, that thread on Seeking agreement etc., it is I submit a good thread for readers to consult to know how difficult it is to really know what evidence is all about, just the same they will learn something, also even on how atheists talk.




Yrreg




Can we have that again in logical English please?

Can we two have a dialog between ourselves, answer please.





Yrreg

 

[dafydd]

Okay, guys atheists, what goalpost do you want to go into in re God's existence?

No goalposts needed. All gods are inventions of mankind. What bit of that do you not understand?

 

[yrreg]

I have to sign off now, later I will be back.

In the meantime, please anyone, I need someone who will dialog with me one on one.




Yrreg