GOD -- THE EVIDENCE.

[jaimehlers]

The problem is that I do not agree that your definition of God, "the unique uncreated creator and operator of the entire universe", is logically consistent.  It contains several assumptions which need to be clarified.

What do you mean by saying that God is unique?

If God was uncreated, then where did he come from?

How do you know that God was uncreated?

Why must the universe have been created?

Why does the universe require an operator?

These are not loaded questions.  I am genuinely curious what your reasoning is, and I am not trying to play "gotcha!"

First you proffer your concept of God as you know God to be in concept with theists today, then we will work out a concurrence to meet your objections about the concept.

We are into concepts in our mind, what you are to my observation interested in has to do with the actual objective reality of existing things.

So, first formulate your concept so as to inform yourself that you do have a correct acquaintance with the concept of God, then we will work out together to examine whether your concept of God is congruent to my concept of God -- I being a theist, and next we will work out whether the concept of God we concur on as the one harbored by theists today is a valid concept at all, or not.

The problem is that while you have a concept of God, atheists do not.  So expecting this discussion to start by comparing concepts of God is not feasible.  I think atheists would be willing to work with your own concept of God, provided you can resolve the problems they have with it.  That's why I asked you those questions.  I may have more, it depends on how you answer the questions I already posed.  But if you want to discuss this with me, you need to be willing to answer the questions I have.

[kin hell]

G'day Sus

can you please address Jeffs post

>snip<

Please forgive me, but if Jeffs wants me to reply to his post, he can and should do it himself;

you shall not parse
you troll, under abridged

your "sentence" lacks the s the e the n the c and the e

I don't recall what he said in his post.

...which is why I included his post's link, so you could easily reacquaint yourself with his post

But instead you choose to "guess" what it was he said....

Thank you for giving us such a blatant display of your ego, and of your honest intent regarding your approach to evidence or discussion.

I like how instead of addressing the pertinent points (regarding your claims) that Jeff made, that you choose  deliberate wilful ignorance to dodge having to answer those points.

but if I did not give him the courtesy of a reply perhaps it is because I find his post to be a disconnect in regard to God and evidence.

.....says who you egotistical turnip?

replying to someone on this forum, is not a courtesy, it is a fucking requirement

perhaps you need to read the rules .......yet again ........as that knowledge seems to have escaped you.

Please forgive me, but we have to be connected.

Susmariosep

...but we are connected Sus mario there is a direct connection between your baseless lawyering arrogance and my disdain for it.

[Tinyal]

Here again is my concept of God, namely, the unique uncreated creator and operator of the created universe.

And here is my concept of evidence, namely, any fact man knows leading him to know another fact.



Susmariosep

I'd bet $10 this Susmariosep is also known as Yrreg/Gerry, from the Randi forum - he's a very, very 'singular' xian, and - if I may say so - his twisted use of English, and his need to 'lead' people towards his arguments, will be very, very frustrating.

This is who I think it is, from a typical thread :

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=135293

Good luck with him all

[jetson]

Here again is my concept of God, namely, the unique uncreated creator and operator of the created universe.

And here is my concept of evidence, namely, any fact man knows leading him to know another fact.



Susmariosep

I'd bet $10 this Susmariosep is also known as Yrreg/Gerry, from the Randi forum - he's a very, very 'singular' xian, and - if I may say so - his twisted use of English, and his need to 'lead' people towards his arguments, will be very, very frustrating.

This is who I think it is, from a typical thread :

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=135293

Good luck with him all

Good catch tiny...

Here's a specific post that truly seems to match what we have going on in this thread.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4430764&postcount=91

DON'T FEED THE TROLL!  Coming from an admin...kind of funny, actually.  This will not end well.

[Zankuu]

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=135293

That thread is like looking in a mirror.

[Emily]

if I may say so - his twisted use of English, and his need to 'lead' people towards his arguments, will be very, very frustrating.

I have a sense that he definitely wants to lead people towards his position in order to claim victory by being vague. Pretty dishonest form of communication, if you ask me. I am hoping I am wrong about his intentions, but so far he has not even begun to carry on his argument (or more accurate begin his argument) because the posters here can see through him.

[12 Monkeys]

GTFO sus

[Tinyal]

I can only hope you don't get to experience his 20 month long proof, of which his solid (in his mind) conclusion can be accurately summarized as 'Nose + Penis = God!'.

On the other hand, some might see that as a unique Piece Of Art....

Me - I"ll pass

 

[Mr. Blackwell]

Susmariosep,

I concur that God is the unique uncreated creator and operator of the created universe and also that evidence is any fact man knows leading him to know another fact.

Now what?

[Astreja]

Now, if you want to point out that the concept of God from yours truly is invalid, then show how it is invalid as a concept, but again first we must agree on what is an invalid concept.

Here again is my concept of God, namely, the unique uncreated creator and operator of the created universe.

As I mentioned earlier, I find the "uncreated creator" concept to be illogical because a creator needs energy in order to create; ergo, creation ex nihilo is essentially a contradiction in terms.

I also find the "unique" concept to be without any merit whatsoever, as there is currently no way of determining the actual number of creator-gods that might have been in existence prior to the formation of our universe.

I think we're going to have to just chuck all the hypotheticals and philosophical concepts straight out the window, and start working on an empirical methodology so that science can determine if an "uncreated creator" is actually possible.

[kcrady]

[P]lease now just orient yourself in the current times and circumstances and inform yourself on what theists thinkers have for an adequate and up to date concept of God.

If you don't want to talk about the God of theists today, then that is your privilege to talk about primitive gods, goddesses, deities, divinities, etc.

Well, here's one of your major communication difficulties.  There is no such thing as "the" God of theists today.  Hindu theists would not agree with Christian theists that God is both male and triune (a Trinity).  Islamic theists would agree that God is male, while rejecting the Trinity concept.  Wiccan theists would accept that God is female and triune (the Triple Goddess, Maiden, Mother, Crone) and accompanied by a male counterpart who is, as far as I know, not triune.  African animists and South American ayahuasca shamans have conceptions of divinity that are much more plural and local.  The various god concepts have a diversity of purported relationships with the natural Cosmos, from a kind of distant opposition (e.g., Hinduism, which regards the material cosmos as "maya," or illusion) to dwelling directly in nature as nature (Wicca, animism), with the Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) occupying something of an intermediate position.  In short, you would not be able to produce unanimous agreement among theists that "God"  is "the unique creator and operator of the created universe."  Or for that matter, that there is such a thing as "the created universe" and it's not an endless cycle of birth-growth-aging-death-rebirth.

As atheists, we don't have a dog in that hunt.  We have no reason to privilege your particular concept of "God" as the right one.  So, we're not going to be in a hurry to do so.  Now if you could provide evidence that there was a "unique creator and operator of the universe" then that evidence would give your concept an edge over other, less well-evidenced god-concepts.

Another thing I would like to point out to you is that your definition is a bit vague.  Let's take the first element of your concept, "the unique creator...of the created universe."  It is only at best implied that this "unique creator" is any sort of sapient being.  If the Big Bang emerged as a result of a quantum fluctuation in an energetic spacetime geometry ("the spacetime manifold") the spacetime manifold could be called "the unique creator of the created universe."

The "and operator" clause does go a bit further in implying that your god is an intelligent entity of some sort, but it is still only implied.  If the nature of the spacetime manifold resulted necessarily in the set of physical principles we tend to mistakenly call "laws" of physics,[1] then the spacetime manifold could be legitimately considered the "operator" of our Cosmos even though it is not necessarily intelligent in any way that humans might recognize.  However, the "operator" clause is itself vague: to what degree does god "operate" the Cosmos?  Does it determine the wave functions and collapses thereof for every single quantum particle throughout space and time, or does it set the initial conditions of the Big Bang and let the Cosmos run on autopilot, or something in between, like steering a star once in awhile?

In order to work effectively for validating your ideas, your god-concept is going to have to be specific enough for both sides to make testable claims about it, and for the results of observation and/or experiment (i.e., "evidence") to be unambiguous as to whether they validate or disconfirm your beliefs.  The more difficult it is for either side to move the goalposts and try to weasel out of the results, the better.  So, ideally, your concept of god should be precise enough that you can specify certain anticipated consequences that we would expect to see if your god existed, which we would not expect to see if philosophical naturalism--or some other variant of theism--is true. 

Compare with the search for the Higgs boson.  Physicists were able to specify, decades ago, what a "Higgs boson" is supposed to be like--its mass, decay products, lifetime, interaction with other particles, energy levels at which it might be found, and so forth.  Because of this, they were able to build a gigantic apparatus--the Large Hadron Collider--to, among other things, test for the existence of the Higgs boson.  They were able to state, in advance, exactly what kind of experimental results would show that the Higgs boson does not exist, and what kind of results would show that it does.  So far, it appears that they've found it, though further testing and validation is necessary.  If they performed the experiments and no evidence for a Higgs boson resulted, the physicists would have had no choice but to say, "Whelp, there's no Higgs boson.  Back to the drawing board," and go scrap all theories that require Higgs bosons.  They would not get to cheat and say, "Well, maybe the Higgs boson just works in mysterious ways!  Maybe it hides itself from us so we'll have free will in whether we choose to believe in it or not!"  To the contrary, they took their best current understanding of how Universe works--the Standard Model--and stuck its neck out across an experimental chopping block, on purpose.  They did this because their goal is not to defend the Standard Model (no matter how much they might like it or their careers might ride on it), but to do their best to find out if it's actually accurate or not. 

Are you willing to do this sort of thing with your god-concept?  To specify it clearly enough that we can compare it to reality and see how well the two match, with clear anticipated consequences and minimal "wiggle room" for either side to evade the results?  Your god-concept should be specified in ways that anticipate different observational results than what naturalistic physics would predict for a Cosmos without a Creator/Operator.  If you cannot specify such differences, then the existence of your god-concept is equivalent to its non-existence as far as observable reality is concerned.  Occam's Razor does the rest.

Taking the god-concept you've provided us with so far ("the unique creator and operator of the created universe"), and assuming that you're talking about an entity at least as intelligent as a human being and in comparable ways (i.e., possessing faculties of rationality and logic, as well as purposeful intent as we understand these terms), then we should anticipate that if your god exists, the Cosmos will show evidence of being created (not emerging as any kind of natural event), and being operated (as opposed to behaving solely according to its own natural regularities, or being some kind of metaphysical chaos with no pattern of behavior at all).

Physicists are able to accurately model the behavior of the Cosmos from vast swaths of galaxies all the way down to quantum particles without needing to include any factors in their equations to account for any sort of external "operation."  They are also able to model its origins all the way back to an infinitesimal fraction of a second after the Big Bang without needing to incorporate any intelligent or semi-intelligent "creator."  These models match the evidence the Cosmos gives us in the results of experiments and observations.  Now, perhaps the Creator/Operator is so sublime that she can encode whatever she wants the Cosmos to do into its initial conditions and press the button on her Big-Bang-O-Matic, and she gets exactly the results she wants without ever twiddling the Cosmic Joystick to "operate" it any further.  It is also possible that her purpose(s) for creating the Cosmos could be as utterly unfathomable to us as the purpose of the Large Hadron Collider is to bacteria living on one of the doorknobs.  So how could we tell if this sort of Creator/Operator existed or not?

This is why your god-concept is too vague for us to work with.  It is possible to interpret it in a way that there is no discernible difference in observable reality between the naturalist model (atheism) and the existence of a "unique creator and operator of the created universe" (for certain values of "unique creator and operator of the created universe").  Can you provide any additional specifications for your god-concept that could "nail it down" for us a little better?       

1.	They are descriptions of natural regularities--explaining how entities in the Cosmos behave.  They are not legislation proscribing how the Cosmos ought to behave.

[kcrady]

I can only hope you don't get to experience his 20 month long proof, of which his solid (in his mind) conclusion can be accurately summarized as 'Nose + Penis = God!'.

On the other hand, some might see that as a unique Piece Of Art....

Me - I"ll pass

 

You mean, like this:



^the god Priapus.  The Greek wording reads "Savior of the World."

[bertatberts]

Please forgive me, but if Jeffs wants me to reply to his post, he can and should do it himself; I don't recall what he said in his post. but if I did not give him the courtesy of a reply perhaps it is because I find his post to be a disconnect in regard to God and evidence.

Please forgive me, but we have to be connected.

Susmariosep

Don't play games with our forum members.  You brought this thread back from the dead, and JeffPT put a lot of thought and effort in replying to you.  If you can't be bothered to at least reply with a response that is worthy of his effort, you should find another forum.

Jetson

I was a bit suspicious about this guy when I read his first few comments, I think he's the same guy that posted this, on theologyweb. http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?147735-Atheists-arguments-are-mockery-and-parody-against-God
He's only here to goad, you either think like him or he's not interested.

Edit: noted that Tinyal had already outed him.

[JeffPT]

And I say, "Evidence is any fact man knows leading him to know another fact."

But that's YOUR definition, not anyone elses. As you keep saying, if you want to communicate properly, you have to use the words properly, and forming your own definitions for words is not helpful.  It just makes things harder to deal with. 
 
What you are really describing here, however, isn't the definition of evidence; it is more akin to describing a 'theory' or maybe an 'inference'.   For instance: Jim is seven feet tall.  This is a fact.  This fact allows us to infer / theorize certain information about Jim, such as the idea that he can reach the top shelf of my kitchen cabinets better than I can (which doesn't have to be true, as Jim might have shoulder problems and be unable to reach upward).  The fact that Jim is 7 feet tall, however, is not enough information to go on in order to conclude that he actually CAN reach into the top shelf of my kitchen cabinet better than me, thus the idea that he can reach the top cabinet is not a fact. 

So why don't you give an example of a fact that leads you to another fact (which you call evidence here) and we can see if my understanding holds up.  Facts stand alone I believe.  They don't let you know other facts in and of themselves. 

Both concepts have similarities, in that both are concerned with fact(s).

But one of them is closer to the common use of the word 'evidence', and the other is not. 

So, do you see that you are using fact and I am using fact.

Yes, both are using facts, but in different ways.  The first definition is far better than yours I believe.  And when I say better, I mean more commonly understood to mean 'evidence'.

[Susmariosep]

The problem is that I do not agree that your definition of God, "the unique uncreated creator and operator of the entire universe", is logically consistent.  It contains several assumptions which need to be clarified.

What do you mean by saying that God is unique?

If God was uncreated, then where did he come from?

How do you know that God was uncreated?

Why must the universe have been created?

Why does the universe require an operator?

These are not loaded questions.  I am genuinely curious what your reasoning is, and I am not trying to play "gotcha!"

First you proffer your concept of God as you know God to be in concept with theists today, then we will work out a concurrence to meet your objections about the concept.

We are into concepts in our mind, what you are to my observation interested in has to do with the actual objective reality of existing things.

So, first formulate your concept so as to inform yourself that you do have a correct acquaintance with the concept of God, then we will work out together to examine whether your concept of God is congruent to my concept of God -- I being a theist, and next we will work out whether the concept of God we concur on as the one harbored by theists today is a valid concept at all, or not.

The problem is that while you have a concept of God, atheists do not.  So expecting this discussion to start by comparing concepts of God is not feasible.  I think atheists would be willing to work with your own concept of God, provided you can resolve the problems they have with it.  That's why I asked you those questions.  I may have more, it depends on how you answer the questions I already posed.  But if you want to discuss this with me, you need to be willing to answer the questions I have.

You are not getting connected with me.

I am asking you based on your information if any of the concept of God among theists today the best exponents of monotheism, on or about or in regard or as to the concept of God.

If your information is sufficient according to your own opinion then present it here, if not sufficient, then do more reading of the best exponents today of monotheism.

You will say that I am moving the guidepost from theism to monotheism, okay, then replace every instance of monotheism with theism.


Can you comprehend my request, it is not that you will accept my concept of God, but that you produce whatever information you have of God from the best exponents of theism today.

In other words, what is your stock information about the concept of God among theists.

I just want to see whether you do have any information at all about God; please, not that you are to agree with me (not at this point) on my concept of God.

And please keep in mind that we are talking about concepts, like for example the concept of a centaur, do you have any information at all about what is a centaur from your if any stock information derived from your reading of literature which does mention centaur.



Susmariosep

[Quesi]

You are not getting connected with me.

Yeah.  There is a serous disconnect here. 

snip
(F)or example the concept of a centaur, do you have any information at all about what is a centaur from your if any stock information derived from your reading of literature which does mention centaur.

Susmariosep

Yes.  A centaur is a mythical being, and a god is a mythical being.  Centaurs are half human, half horse.  Gods sometimes have bodies, and sometimes don't, and sometimes have human forms and sometimes animal forms and sometimes combinations of the two. 

[Susmariosep]

Well, I am still waiting for Hal to react to my latest message here addressed to him.

We are talking now on how we come to a fact:

• http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,539.msg519745.html#msg519745
  

I might have to just deal with Hal because he is to my observation not into rote memory recall and disconnected posting but into serious connected thinking.

And I look forward to more genuinely profitable exchange of thoughts with him, even though he tends if my observation is correct to resort to harsh language like calling me one slimy little troll, which tendency is an obstacle to clear and productive and honest thinking.



Susmariosep

[jetson]

I might have to just deal with Hal because he is to my observation not into rote memory recall and disconnected posting but into serious connected thinking.

You are free to have a debate with HAL, in the debate section, but you are not free to ignore others in this thread simply because you don't like their responses.  If you choose that path, you will be heavily moderated.  Count on it.

[HAL]

We come to a fact by using our external senses of sight, hearing, touch, smell, and taste to come to the presence of a fact, for example, you want to come to the fact of the sourness or sweetness of an orange, then you apply your taste buds to the meat/juice of the orange.

OK so far.

From your part now, tell me how you come to a fact, thereby we will both have a concurring concept of what is a fact; but we still have to work out how we come to internal states or conditions of our body and our mind.

I'm an empiricist. But I don't need to explain what that means to you. That's how I arrive at facts. Look at my signature. That guy wouldn't even admit he could ever say that a street was wet, he claimed he could not be sure it was a fact, because he didn't trust his senses.

Anyway, I trust my senses and the instruments that give me readings to perceive, which indicate what the outside world is doing.

I'll answer more questions, but I'm not gong to be the sole debater with you. My dear friends are going to help, and if you ignore them then I will ignore you also. Besides, I am building a model railroad and I have less interest in these types of debates as time goes on. They are basically pointless in the end.

[Tinyal]

If you guys/gals want my 2 cents, it will not be productive to pay any attention to Gerry whatsoever - other than as entertainment.  His ability to twist the English language is famous on several other forums.  One of Yrreg's threads on Randi's forums is 4 years worth of posts - dozens of people (many much, much better debaters/smarter than I) have tried to make a dent in his posts, but have failed.
Nothing fazes him, or when it does - he just bails on the thread and starts another.

Beside's the entertainment value , the other thing of note is it was determined the way he posts is the actual way he talks/thinks in RL.  In the phillipines, it's thought that he 'leads' a small group of like-minded godbothers, all of whom try to do this 'leading' technique, torturing the english language into a catatonic state in the process.

For those who are interested take a look at yrreg threads over at Randi, or PM me - he's a one man show for sure, and if it wasn't so sad (and the fact that he's serious), his posts can get really, really entertaining/funny.

[Tinyal]

Sum may, or may not return now that he know's that we know who he is - my bet is he will return, as he cannot resist the feeling that if he just leads an atheist along according to his 'technique', then the atheist won't be able to deny god exists.

He hasn't changed in the 7 years I've had the....pleasure..... of reading his posts - here, for your amusement, is a great example of his posting style/content from back in 2005 - it even includes the now-famous Yrreg 'nose' argument for god, a truly amazing piece of ....logic! (and he hasn't changed one bit since then - not only hasn't changed, his 'argument' itself hasn't moved an inch in at least that much time.)

I apologize to the mods for repeating the entire post, but it is so...so....ummm.....illuminating, that I repeat it here.  I was just going to include the link, but reading it all at one glance sure brings back the good ole days!

From TheologyWeb 2005:

"The universe is the evidence for God's existence.
This thread from me in another forum was locked up twice by moderators there after a lot of action from me and contending posters.

Then I started two new threads which were I can say quickly locked up.

Lastly this morning I started a new thread, it's not been locked up yet; but I decided to walk out from that forum not waiting further to see what the moderators will do to it.
Now, I am back in this TheologyWeb forum.
I am bringing here that previously twice locked up thread; I cannot imagine the moderators here will ever lock it up -- not on the grounds for which moderators there locked it up not once but twice.
-----------------------
[ From posts in previous forum ]

We can call God by other names like nature and evolution, but these names only indicate ultimately that God is the maker of everything in the universe that is not Himself.

Would you atheists not want to also call God, the randomness?

You can also if you also explain the origination and annihilation on the one hand and on the other the order and the stability in the universe, by your own peculiar concept of randomness, by which you will slip in order and stability on the sly; just as you want to insist on your own peculiar concept of nothingness, by which you always slip in on the sly something to represent the nothing.

Now, if you have been following my posts from the very first initiating message from me, here are my step by step presentation of the argument for God's existence with the universe as the evidence.

Step 1. Set forth the concepts of universe, evidence, and God:

A. Universe = the totality of existence where man lives in and is part and parcel of, as also everything else that exists or at least can be the subject of man's imagination and discourse.

B. Evidence = a fact known by man by which he comes to know another fact.

C. God = in the Christian faith in His fundamental relation to the universe, maker of everything that is not Himself.


Step 2. Enumerate the kinds of actual and imaginable components of the universe:

A. Things which are subject to origination and annihilation.

B. The imaginable thing that is the maker of A., Whom Christians call God.


Step 3. Present the evidence:

A. In the universe there is the fact that the nose of man as man himself is subject to origination and annihilation,

B. Therefore it is the fact that he cannot be his own maker, and also everything else in the universe that is subject to origination and annihilation cannot be their own maker,

C. Wherefore, all these things with an origination and an annihilation witness to the fact of the actual existence of the imaginable being Whom Christians call God, as the maker of everything in the universe that is not Himself.

You still ask, Where is the evidence there?

Okay, again but concisely:

In the universe:

I. The evidence is the fact that there are beings in the universe which are subject to origination and annihilation,

II. Therefore it is the fact that they cannot be their own maker,

III. Wherefore it is the fact that the imaginable being maker of everything in the universe that is not himself is the being that is the maker of all these beings subject to origination and annihilation, Whom Christians call God.

Since atheists maintain that there is no God Whom Christians call in His fundamental relation to the universe as maker of everything that is not Himself, then they must present objections: to the demonstration above for the existence of God from the fact of the existence of the universe, where there is the fact that there are beings subject to origination and annihilation.

Now, let me see rational objections, not mockery and parody of God, and not misdirection or evasions of the issue.
---------------------
[ Here below is the enumerated list of my statements above on the universe as the evidence for God's existence; it will be more convenient to refer to them by their numbers. ]



(1) Step 1. Set forth the concepts of universe, evidence, and God:

(2) A. Universe = the totality of existence where man lives in and is part and parcel of, as also everything else that exists or at least can be the subject of man's imagination and discourse.

(3) B. Evidence = a fact known by man by which he comes to know another fact.

(4) C. God = in the Christian faith in His fundamental relation to the universe, maker of everything that is not Himself.

(5) Step 2. Enumerate the kinds of actual and imaginable components of the universe:

(6) A. Things which are subject to origination and annihilation.

(7) B. The imaginable thing that is the maker of A., Whom Christians call God.

( Step 3. Present the evidence:

(9) A. In the universe there is the fact that the nose of man as man himself is subject to origination and annihilation,

(10) B. Therefore it is the fact that he cannot be his own maker, and also everything else in the universe that is subject to origination and annihilation cannot be their own maker,

(11) C. Wherefore, all these things with an origination and an annihilation witness to the fact of the actual existence of the imaginable being Whom Christians call God, as the maker of everything in the universe that is not Himself.
So, atheists here, what do you think of the universe as evidence for God's existence.

Gerry

[Mr. Blackwell]

<snip>
So, atheists here, what do you think of the universe as evidence for God's existence.

Gerry

I'm not a real atheist but I sometimes play one on this forum.

I think using the universe as evidence for God's existence is like using the words I have just typed as evidence of my existence.[1]



Does anyone remember who I am?

1.	i.e. petty much worthless without science to back it up

[jaimehlers]

You are not getting connected with me.

I am asking you based on your information if any of the concept of God among theists today the best exponents of monotheism, on or about or in regard or as to the concept of God.

If your information is sufficient according to your own opinion then present it here, if not sufficient, then do more reading of the best exponents today of monotheism.

You will say that I am moving the guidepost from theism to monotheism, okay, then replace every instance of monotheism with theism.


Can you comprehend my request, it is not that you will accept my concept of God, but that you produce whatever information you have of God from the best exponents of theism today.

In other words, what is your stock information about the concept of God among theists.

I just want to see whether you do have any information at all about God; please, not that you are to agree with me (not at this point) on my concept of God.

And please keep in mind that we are talking about concepts, like for example the concept of a centaur, do you have any information at all about what is a centaur from your if any stock information derived from your reading of literature which does mention centaur.

So, if you're only interested in coming up with some shared concept of God, why are you asking atheists about it?  Imagine asking someone born without sight to contribute to a shared concept of color, and you might have an idea of just how odd it is to ask an atheist what attributes they think God has.  The difference is that atheists conclude based on the complete lack of evidence that there is no such thing as God, and trying to define the attributes of something that doesn't exist is pointless.

If you want to get anywhere in this conversation you seem to want to have with atheists, you need to first be able to show that it's about a real entity rather than an imagined one.  That means you need to be able to provide a definition for God that can be tested empirically.  Your current definition, "the unique uncreated creator and operator of the entire universe", is simply too vague and general for this, because it makes several big assumptions that are themselves predicated on assumptions; this also makes it logically inconsistent.  That's why I asked you those questions, so you could clarify your definition of God into something useful for discussing with atheists.  I'll list them again in the hopes that you'll either answer or at least admit that you can't answer them due to lack of knowledge.

What do you mean by saying that God is unique?

If God was uncreated, then where did he come from?

How do you know that God was uncreated?

Why must the universe have been created?

Why does the universe require an operator?

These are not loaded questions.  I am genuinely curious what your reasoning is, and I am not trying to play "gotcha!"

[joebbowers]

If the universe exists, I am it's creator.
The universe exists.
Therefore, I am it's creator.


That is irrefutable, is it not, Christians? How is that any different from your "proof"?

[12 Monkeys]

If the universe exists, I am it's creator.
The universe exists.
Therefore, I am it's creator.


That is irrefutable, is it not, Christians? How is that any different from your "proof"?

Pre-historic goat-herders have not written stories about you?

[caveat_imperator]

I'd bet $10 this Susmariosep is also known as Yrreg/Gerry, from the Randi forum - he's a very, very 'singular' xian, and - if I may say so - his twisted use of English, and his need to 'lead' people towards his arguments, will be very, very frustrating.

This is who I think it is, from a typical thread :

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=135293

Good luck with him all

I thought the posting style looked familiar. If it is yrreg he's also on RatSkep.

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/general-faith/the-search-for-god-an-expedition-in-thinking-t32421.html

[Susmariosep]

You are not getting connected with me.

I am asking you based on your information if any of the concept of God among theists today the best exponents of monotheism, on or about or in regard or as to the concept of God.

If your information is sufficient according to your own opinion then present it here, if not sufficient, then do more reading of the best exponents today of monotheism.

You will say that I am moving the guidepost from theism to monotheism, okay, then replace every instance of monotheism with theism.


Can you comprehend my request, it is not that you will accept my concept of God, but that you produce whatever information you have of God from the best exponents of theism today.

In other words, what is your stock information about the concept of God among theists.

I just want to see whether you do have any information at all about God; please, not that you are to agree with me (not at this point) on my concept of God.

And please keep in mind that we are talking about concepts, like for example the concept of a centaur, do you have any information at all about what is a centaur from your if any stock information derived from your reading of literature which does mention centaur.

So, if you're only interested in coming up with some shared concept of God, why are you asking atheists about it?  Imagine asking someone born without sight to contribute to a shared concept of color, and you might have an idea of just how odd it is to ask an atheist what attributes they think God has.  The difference is that atheists conclude based on the complete lack of evidence that there is no such thing as God, and trying to define the attributes of something that doesn't exist is pointless.

If you want to get anywhere in this conversation you seem to want to have with atheists, you need to first be able to show that it's about a real entity rather than an imagined one.  That means you need to be able to provide a definition for God that can be tested empirically.  Your current definition, "the unique uncreated creator and operator of the entire universe", is simply too vague and general for this, because it makes several big assumptions that are themselves predicated on assumptions; this also makes it logically inconsistent.  That's why I asked you those questions, so you could clarify your definition of God into something useful for discussing with atheists.  I'll list them again in the hopes that you'll either answer or at least admit that you can't answer them due to lack of knowledge.

What do you mean by saying that God is unique?

If God was uncreated, then where did he come from?

How do you know that God was uncreated?

Why must the universe have been created?

Why does the universe require an operator?

These are not loaded questions.  I am genuinely curious what your reasoning is, and I am not trying to play "gotcha!"

Just tell me if you have any of information about the concept of God for example among Christians, in God's fundamental relation to the universe.

If you don't have any information, then I cannot see how you can at all talk about there being no evidence whatever of God's existence.

I am not asking you to accept God and His attributes, but to request you to just give me what information you have of God in His fundamental relation to the universe, for example, among Christians.

I hope you are getting connected with me, if not I guess there is no point with us continuing to talk, and I will just relate with Hal and people like Hal but please everyone do not engage in distractions by resorting to harsh language.


Susmariosep

[Zankuu]

I am not asking you to accept God and His attributes, but to request you to just give me what information you have of God in His fundamental relation to the universe, for example, among Christians.

Oh, I'm an ex-Christian so maybe I'm qualified to answer:

According to modern day Christians God is a holy, all loving, divinely jealous, justifiably wrathful, omnipotent, omniscient, creator of the universe.

Now what?

[Susmariosep]

We come to a fact by using our external senses of sight, hearing, touch, smell, and taste to come to the presence of a fact, for example, you want to come to the fact of the sourness or sweetness of an orange, then you apply your taste buds to the meat/juice of the orange.

OK so far.

From your part now, tell me how you come to a fact, thereby we will both have a concurring concept of what is a fact; but we still have to work out how we come to internal states or conditions of our body and our mind.

I'm an empiricist. But I don't need to explain what that means to you. That's how I arrive at facts. Look at my signature. That guy wouldn't even admit he could ever say that a street was wet, he claimed he could not be sure it was a fact, because he didn't trust his senses.

Anyway, I trust my senses and the instruments that give me readings to perceive, which indicate what the outside world is doing.

I'll answer more questions, but I'm not gong to be the sole debater with you. My dear friends are going to help, and if you ignore them then I will ignore you also. Besides, I am building a model railroad and I have less interest in these types of debates as time goes on. They are basically pointless in the end.

You say: "Anyway, I trust my senses and the instruments that give me readings to perceive, which indicate what the outside world is doing."

Compare your statement to my statement: "We come to a fact by using our external senses of sight, hearing, touch, smell, and taste to come to the presence of a fact, for example, you want to come to the fact of the sourness or sweetness of an orange, then you apply your taste buds to the meat/juice of the orange."


You were asking me how we come to facts, and I gave an example of how we come to facts.

From your part, please give me an example of how we come to facts.



Susmariosep