GOD -- THE EVIDENCE.

[Susmariosep]

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?

Now, I like you to just concentrate on God in His fundamental relation to the universe.


From my part and forgive for the repetition, in His fundamental relation to the universe God is the unique uncreated creator and operator of the universe.

Tell me what is your concept of God in His fundamental relation to the universe, just concentrate on His fundamental relation to the universe.

[ Preview post
Fetching preview... ]


Okay, I will do without the preview and just click the send link.



Susmariosep

[ Resource Limit Is Reached
The website is temporarily unable to service your request as it exceeded resource limit. Please try again later.
________________________________________
Apache/2.0.64 (Unix) mod_ssl/2.0.64 OpenSSL/0.9.8e-fips-rhel5 DAV/2 mod_auth_passthrough/2.1 mod_bwlimited/1.4 FrontPage/5.0.2.2635 Server at whywontgodhealamputees.com Port 80 ]

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

Hope it works now.


Susmariosep

[HAL]

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. ...

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

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

I thought I did? up there ^^^

I said empirical - the scientific method, you know what science is don't you? Why are you wasting my time asking the same question when I gave you my answer?

[caveat_imperator]

Why are you wasting my time asking the same question when I gave you my answer?

yrreg has a habit of asking a question over and over and over, etc., if the answer he receives isn't the one he wants.

[12 Monkeys]

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?

Now, I like you to just concentrate on God in His fundamental relation to the universe.


From my part and forgive for the repetition, in His fundamental relation to the universe God is the unique uncreated creator and operator of the universe.

Tell me what is your concept of God in His fundamental relation to the universe, just concentrate on His fundamental relation to the universe.

[ Preview post
Fetching preview... ]


Okay, I will do without the preview and just click the send link.



Susmariosep

[ Resource Limit Is Reached
The website is temporarily unable to service your request as it exceeded resource limit. Please try again later.
________________________________________
Apache/2.0.64 (Unix) mod_ssl/2.0.64 OpenSSL/0.9.8e-fips-rhel5 DAV/2 mod_auth_passthrough/2.1 mod_bwlimited/1.4 FrontPage/5.0.2.2635 Server at whywontgodhealamputees.com Port 80 ]

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

Hope it works now.


Susmariosep

WRONG "God" has a father,mother and siblings and other "gods" he shares the Pantheon of the gods with,try again.

[Susmariosep]

Someone asked me to react to JeffPT's post.

Welcome Susmarjosep

Here is my concept of God: the unique uncreated creator and operator of the created universe.

The first problem I see with this sentence is that there are 2 descriptors for your concept of God which describe what it is NOT, and not what it actually is. To say something is unique is to say that it is NOT like other things.  To say something is uncreated is to say that it is NOT created.  It's like describing my computer as NOT a printer and NOT a toaster.  We know what it's NOT; please try to describe what your concept of god IS. 

Also, saying that God created and operates the universe is an unsupported assertion.  It has not been established that the universe was created by a deity of some sort. 

My personal feeling is that you need to try again. 

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

This is worse.  I'd rather we stick with the standard definition of evidence here that you could find in most any dictionary.  This is from Dictionary.com

1. that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.
2. something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign:

I do not accept your definition above.  If you'd like to find or coin a new word to encompass what you said up there, feel free.  But the phrase you posted does not define 'evidence'. 

The certainty of God's existence or nonexistence must before everything else start with concurrence on the concept of God, otherwise folks i.e. everyone is talking past everyone's else head, and that is irrational behavior.

True that.

Now, since atheists insist on evidence, then specially atheists should work first to come to concurrence with theists on a common mutually accepted concept of what is evidence; otherwise everyone would be talking past everyone's head, which is irrational behavior.

We have one.  We've always had one.  There's been one for a long time.  The problem is that theists tend not to follow the one in the dictionary and atheists do.

The problem is bigger than that though.  God, for most believers is a foregone conclusion.  They START by saying, 'There is a god' and work everything else back into it; whereas the atheist (most often) starts with the question 'Is there a god' and uses the evidence to guide that answer.

It also has a lot to do with how much of the evidence is actually taken into consideration.  This concept has its roots in the sheer ignorance of all the available evidence.

For example: 'Jesus rose from the dead'.  Now, the Christian will look at that phrase with the preconceived notion that God is real, so obviously, Jesus can rise from the dead.  It's in the bible, and they take the bible to be 'evidence' that it actually happened.  It ONLY works like this if you first believe in God.  If you are an atheist, however, when you look at that phrase, you take it in a different direction.  You see the bible as one source that confirms that Jesus rose from the dead, but you need more than that; so you look at who wrote the gospels (we don't know), you look at the historical evidence that Jesus rose from the dead (zero), and you look at how many of the original copies of the manuscripts we have (zero), and the 'evidence' that the bible presents suddenly gets pretty flimsy.  Given the reality that people do NOT rise from the dead, and that there have been thousands of proposed gods or god like figures who have risen from the dead in the history of mankind, and that the odds that someone simply made that story up are so much greater than the odds of someone rising from the dead 3 days later, and it's a slam dunk. 

You see what I mean?  An atheist is guided by the evidence in terms of religious belief.  On one hand, we have 'evidence' that Jesus rose from the dead in the form of the gospel stories.  We also have 'evidence' (all that other stuff I mentioned, plus a whole lot more) that goes against that notion.  When put side by side, the sum total of the 'evidence' here is massively against the notion that Jesus rose from the dead. 

That's just one example; there are thousands you could come up with. 

Coming up with a solid concept of what god IS is a very good idea, however.  Keep at it and see what you come up with.  Don't beat yourself up, however, when you realize it's a completely nebulous concept which defies definition in any meaningful sense.

Dear J, sorry for not attending to your post.



Right at the start of your reply to me if you choose to reply to me, just proffer your concept of God and your concept of evidence, and formulate your concepts from your own thinking and wording, no need to refer to reference works.

No need to cite authorities.


May I just request everyone to act for himself, don't talk on behalf of another.



Susmariosep

[Susmariosep]

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. ...

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

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

I thought I did? up there ^^^

I said empirical - the scientific method, you know what science is don't you? Why are you wasting my time asking the same question when I gave you my answer?

You say, "I thought I did? up there ^^^"

Is that ^^^ a link?


Susmariosep

[HAL]

You say, "I thought I did? up there ^^^"

Is that ^^^ a link?


Susmariosep

You know what it means. If you can't figure that out then you have no business speaking of higher-order concepts.

Stop wasting space by signing your member name to your posts - it isn't necessary, and please stop quoting all that text from other member's posts - it wastes space in the thread.

[Susmariosep]

Quote from: Susmariosep on July 17, 2012, 08:37:47 PM
http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,539.msg519745.html#msg519745

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.

That is my example of how we come to a fact, and I am answering to your question addressed to me on how we come to facts.



Susmariosep

[HAL]

That is my example of how we come to a fact, and I am answering to your question addressed to me on how we come to facts.



Susmariosep <--Editorial comment by HAL - stop doing this it's stupid and not needed

And I answered your question.

Now what? Back to my baseball game I guess.

[Tinyal]

I assume you guys/gals are starting to get the feel of a yrreg thread

Predictions of such a thread go like this:

1. Yrreg asks that you see things like he does
2. He ignores anyone that replies who does anything else than agreeing with him
3. He finds someone who - usually out of frustration - just says 'ok ok, I agree - now what?'
4a. Repeat step 1
4b. If no one just agree's with him, he abandon's the thread and starts a new one some days/weeks later.
5.  Repeat step 1

Let's see how close I get with my prediction

[Susmariosep]

You say, "I thought I did? up there ^^^"

Is that ^^^ a link?


Susmariosep

You know what it means. If you can't figure that out then you have no business speaking of higher-order concepts.

Stop wasting space by signing your member name to your posts - it isn't necessary, and please stop quoting all that text from other member's posts - it wastes space in the thread.

Well, forgive me for my ignorance of higher-order concepts.

I guess owing to my ignorance, I will have to dispense myself from relating with you.

Forgive me.


If there are people who know, just the same for my instruction, what is the meaning of ^^^ in the higher-order concepts realm, please for a public service tell everyone starting with yours truly.

Thanks in advance.


Now, if I may, are there people who can do without higher-order concepts? I like to exchange thoughts with you on God and evidence.



Susmariosep

[HAL]

I assume you guys/gals are starting to get the feel of a yrreg thread

I'm just doing this for entertainment between innnings. Trolls are fun for a while, if you realize it's for entertainment only.

[Susmariosep]

What I am trying to achieve with posters here is what I think is joining the issue.

The topic here is God -- Evidence, and I understand it to mean on the existence of God ascertained from evidence or not ascertained from evidence.


If the powers here come to the conclusion that I am just into malingering here, they know what to do with me.

[Zankuu]

The topic here is God -- Evidence, and I understand it to mean on the existence of God ascertained from evidence or not ascertained from evidence.

Most of us haven't found any evidence for a god. That's why we're atheists.

[Susmariosep]

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?

Now, I like you to just concentrate on God in His fundamental relation to the universe.


From my part and forgive for the repetition, in His fundamental relation to the universe God is the unique uncreated creator and operator of the universe.

Tell me what is your concept of God in His fundamental relation to the universe, just concentrate on His fundamental relation to the universe.

[ Preview post
Fetching preview... ]


Okay, I will do without the preview and just click the send link.



Susmariosep

[ Resource Limit Is Reached
The website is temporarily unable to service your request as it exceeded resource limit. Please try again later.
________________________________________
Apache/2.0.64 (Unix) mod_ssl/2.0.64 OpenSSL/0.9.8e-fips-rhel5 DAV/2 mod_auth_passthrough/2.1 mod_bwlimited/1.4 FrontPage/5.0.2.2635 Server at whywontgodhealamputees.com Port 80 ]

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

Hope it works now.


Susmariosep

WRONG "God" has a father,mother and siblings and other "gods" he shares the Pantheon of the gods with,try again.

I am asking for people now to just proffer whatever information they have on God in His fundamental relation to the universe.

12 Monkeys, you are not connected with me when you reply to the following effect, see above at the end of your post.



Susmariosep

[stuffin]

What I am trying to achieve with posters here is what I think is joining the issue.

The topic here is God -- Evidence, and I understand it to mean on the existence of God ascertained from evidence or not ascertained from evidence.


If the powers here come to the conclusion that I am just into malingering here, they know what to do with me.

There is no evidence for god's existence, therefore, why should we seek evidence to prove he doesn't exist.

[Loke]

A more worthwhile pastime would be; attempting to catch eel wearing frictionless gloves

[Susmariosep]

What I am trying to achieve with posters here is what I think is joining the issue.

The topic here is God -- Evidence, and I understand it to mean on the existence of God ascertained from evidence or not ascertained from evidence.


If the powers here come to the conclusion that I am just into malingering here, they know what to do with me.

There is no evidence for god's existence, therefore, why should we seek evidence to prove he doesn't exist.

Are you even just aware that you are asserting that tthere is no evidence but you balk at proffering your concept of evidence?

What you want is that people don't even talk about God and evidence.

Read this excerpt from the debate between Russell and Copleston, where at least Russell had the civility to ask to be dispensed from talking about meaning of the question on the cause of the universe because for him there is no meaning to that question:

A DEBATE ON THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

[ … ]

C: It may be that the scientist doesn't hope to obtain more than probability, but in raising the question he assumes that the question of explanation has a meaning. ]
But your general point then, Lord Russell, is that it's illegitimate even to ask the question of the cause of the world?

R: Yes, that's my position.

C: Well, if it's a question that for you has no meaning, it's of course very difficult to discuss it, isn't it?

R: Yes, it is very difficult. What do you say -- shall we pass on to some other issue?

http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p20.htm

Well, if that is your routine attitude, I have to excuse myself from relating with you.



Susmariosep

[Mr. Blackwell]

Why are you wasting my time asking the same question when I gave you my answer?

yrreg has a habit of asking a question over and over and over, etc., if the answer he receives isn't the one he wants.

It's a behavior modification technique. Withhold the treat until you get the proper response...like training a dog.

[MadBunny]

Susmariosep, do you know the problem with apologetics for your god?

[stuffin]

Well, if that is your routine attitude, I have to excuse myself from relating with you.

Susmariosep

You dismiss me because I can't prove your god doesn't exist.

THE GALL!!!

 

[nogodsforme]

Remember whatshername, the obnoxious theist who would not read anyone's posts? She spent weeks telling us we were all stupid idiots,  we did not understand the historical research methods, that she had proved god and Jesus, nobody here was as smart and as educated as she was, etc, etc?

After a few weeks of insulting everyone and calling names and refusing to discuss her ideas, she imploded and disappeared.

This Suspectsupermario is the same kind of person. Suspectsupermario does not know verbal karate or practice mental judo. He is a Grand Master of Imaginary Yoda Jedi Invisible Ninja Verbal Mental Aikido. Swish swish! He is the only person who has ever achieved that high level.

I suspect Suspectsupermario can play this game for a very long time. Have fun. I don't have the time or patience to play with psychos. I therefore must excuse myself from relating with Suspectsupermario.

But I'm happy to watch the master at work. Wow, did you see him spin? It was so fast, like he didn't move at all!

[ParkingPlaces]

Susmariosep

The green text means that I am speaking to you as a moderator.

You don't seem to be clear on a few concepts. Such as what a discussion is. Nor are you clear on what atheism is. You appear to be asking us to describe the god that most of us think does not exist. And our inability to do so appears to irritate you.

If you expect to have a conversation here that meets all of your standards, you either need to get different standards or just accept that few, if any, of us can take you seriously. Many have tried to reply, and yet you appear to have dismissed most of their efforts as too feeble to be worthy of a response.

Until you can explain to us how we are supposed to be able to describe in detail any god when we, as atheists, assume there isn't one, don't expect a whole lot of success in this conversation. The god most of us don't believe in has no height, weight, color, birthmarks, hairstyle, ideas, thoughts, power, abilities, personality, kids or political affiliation. With that in mind, your demand for details is fruitless.

In the meantime, unless you can find a way to participate in a thread without a holier-than-thou attitude, we moderators may have to step in and start babysitting you. That is never fun. For either side. So please try to find another way to communicate your thoughts and do what you can to learn how to let others play too. Being picky when you're out of your league seldom works.

Edit: Forgot. Can you please control your quoting. To quote an entire post from another user and than dismiss it in one sentence is a waste of everything from electricity to time. It is fine to quote a small part of another post if that is all you are going to ignore, but there is no need to quote everything someone else says. Especially if you are hell bent on ignoring it.

[JeffPT]

Dear J, sorry for not attending to your post.

Thank you for the apology, but you still haven't attended the post.  I think there were some valid points in there that I would like you to address.  Touch on all of them, please.

My concept of evidence is laid out for you in my post that you quoted.  I gave you 2 definitions from the actual dictionary that I find to be the normal definitions of 'evidence'.  I suggest, since the dictionary is the normal place we turn to when we need to understand what words mean, that you use that source as well instead of something you make up.  You just muddy the waters doing that. 

With regard to the concept of God, this is a 2 level question for me.  When we are speaking about God (capital G), I get my concept from the bible and sometimes from Christians (which is difficult because they are often different when it comes to how they define it).  In terms of god (lower case g), however, I don't have one of my own. It's a completely nebulous concept that defies any sort of solid explanation.   If you completely take out the cultural indoctrination to the Christian God, there is no concept of god that forms in my mind.

As an atheist, I do not believe in any god, and thus the sum total of my dealings with god is the refutation of an entity that other people claim exists.  Therefore, the concept of god that I refute always concerns the concept of god that the theist takes.  It has to.  That's the way it works.  It takes someone claiming something to begin the debate, and whether you choose to acknowledge it or not, when we say "I don't believe in God", we only say that because someone else has first said they do believe in God.  We wouldn't have to be termed 'atheists' if there weren't 'theists' to begin with.  Just like we don't have terms for people who are pretty sure Elvis is dead.  We don't call them 'a-Elvis-ists'.  We just call them rational people. 

To use an analogy, your question is similar to if I had asked you for your concept on 'fairy tale creatures'.  You might be able to say quite a few of them, but then, when you run out of fairy tale creatures that other people have created, and you start to think of your own concept of fairy tale creatures, you have a hard time forming an individual concept that covers everything that might come into your mind.  Right?  Think of it like that.  Its not one of my better analogies but it will do.

The thing is, you have a concept of God in your mind, and that's the one you think exists.  It doesn't matter what our concept is, it's yours that your going to try and defend.  All that matters is your concept.  Now, you've laid out what your concept of God was very early on, which was a good idea.  Very good actually.  The problem is that it was a very poor conveyance of what you think God really is.  I'm not saying that to be a personal attack on you, I am saying it because that's what I felt it was, and I laid out the reasons why in the post you quoted (and still haven't dealt with). 

You seem to have come here thinking that if we could just bridge the communication gap, then we could make some headway and we could see things your way.  The problem is that there are billions of atheists in the world and billions of Christians.  In the grand scheme of things, there are only 3 options here (and all are equally possible).  Either you are right, we are right, or neither of us are right.  And it really could be you that's wrong about God.  Really, it could.  Until you can accept that possibility, then the communication gap doesn't matter.  You HAVE to be willing to admit you could be wrong before you have any chance of seeing the truth about anything.  Do you acknowledge that?   

[Astreja]

From my part and forgive for the repetition, in His fundamental relation to the universe God is the unique uncreated creator and operator of the universe.

How do you get around the problem that I identified -- that an "uncreated creator" cannot create from nothingness because it requires energy in order to act in any capacity whatsoever (and therefore cannot be said to be the creator of everything)?

[Susmariosep]

Susmariosep

The green text means that I am speaking to you as a moderator.

You don't seem to be clear on a few concepts. Such as what a discussion is. Nor are you clear on what atheism is. You appear to be asking us to describe the god that most of us think does not exist. And our inability to do so appears to irritate you.

If you expect to have a conversation here that meets all of your standards, you either need to get different standards or just accept that few, if any, of us can take you seriously. Many have tried to reply, and yet you appear to have dismissed most of their efforts as too feeble to be worthy of a response.

Until you can explain to us how we are supposed to be able to describe in detail any god when we, as atheists, assume there isn't one, don't expect a whole lot of success in this conversation. The god most of us don't believe in has no height, weight, color, birthmarks, hairstyle, ideas, thoughts, power, abilities, personality, kids or political affiliation. With that in mind, your demand for details is fruitless.

In the meantime, unless you can find a way to participate in a thread without a holier-than-thou attitude, we moderators may have to step in and start babysitting you. That is never fun. For either side. So please try to find another way to communicate your thoughts and do what you can to learn how to let others play too. Being picky when you're out of your league seldom works.

Edit: Forgot. Can you please control your quoting. To quote an entire post from another user and than dismiss it in one sentence is a waste of everything from electricity to time. It is fine to quote a small part of another post if that is all you are going to ignore, but there is no need to quote everything someone else says. Especially if you are hell bent on ignoring it.

Sorry, I did not notice the green text because I am using a black background with text in yellow... see quote below.

Use Web pages colors ?    No:
Background color: black
Text color:   yellow
Links color:   green
Visited links color: red   

Now I have switched to Web pages color, all white background and text font in black, and I can see your text in green.

No intentional disregard about your text in green which I have never noticed to the present, but yes now, it is all in green.

Glad to know that you are a moderator, I don't recall you posting in this thread -- perhaps the one warning me that I have to reply to people because this is a discussion and not just a debate between two posters.


So, please, accept my regrets if you feel that I am intentionally disregarding your person and your office.

Some people tend to see insult when they read something contrary to their own convictions, I am not referring to you specifically but I do worry that you feel that way.

Sorry and more regrets.

=================


You say:

• [Bolding from Sus] Until you can explain to us how we are supposed to be able to describe in detail any god when we, as atheists, assume there isn't one, don't expect a whole lot of success in this conversation. The god most of us don't believe in has no height, weight, color, birthmarks, hairstyle, ideas, thoughts, power, abilities, personality, kids or political affiliation. With that in mind, your demand for details is fruitless.
  

With all due respect, I am not asking atheists here to describe God in detail.

But I am asking atheists here to read up on or ask around for the information of what is the concept of God among theists, in particular in His fundamental relation to the universe.

And from the very beginning I am asking for your everyone's contributions, as I already in my first post tell everyone here my concepts of God and of evidence, and I invite everyone to proffer their concepts if they have any so that we will not be talking past each other's head when we are not possessed of the same mutually accepted concept insofar as information is concerned of God as of evidence.

Re: GOD -- THE EVIDENCE.
« Reply #31 on: July 16, 2012, 04:53:07 PM »
http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,539.msg519552.html#msg519552

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

I invite everyone here specially atheists and theists to first come to concurrence on the concept of God and the concept of evidence.

Here is my concept of God: the unique uncreated creator and operator of the created universe.

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


The certainty of God's existence or nonexistence must before everything else start with concurrence on the concept of God, otherwise folks i.e. everyone is talking past everyone's else head, and that is irrational behavior.

Now, since atheists insist on evidence, then specially atheists should work first to come to concurrence with theists on a common mutually accepted concept of what is evidence; otherwise everyone would be talking past everyone's head, which is irrational behavior.


First, we deal with concepts, then we will go into the actual objective reality of existing things outside our mind to search for God.



Susmariosep

For the rest of your post, please exercise your discretion in regard to what you have to do with my presence here.


I have to forego replying to posters who are not moving in the same current as the topic of the thread is directed on.

I am only one here and there are many posters who want to write but when I see that they anyone are just out of the intended current of the thread, then it would be naive of me to entertain them.

Now, if these people are aggrieved against me, they can always approach moderators to complain against me.



I am now actually working on why I do not anymore react with Hal, but I will have to do that another time.

Precisely I resumed my activity here at this time of the day in order to work on an explanation why I am not anymore reacting to Hal, but I will react to him again if he writes as to get connected with the topic.




Susmariosep

[bertatberts]

With all due respect, I am not asking atheists here to describe God in detail.

But I am asking atheists here to read up on or ask around for the information of what is the concept of God among theists, in particular in His fundamental relation to the universe.

Well that would be a near impossibility, because every theists concept of God is different.

And from the very beginning I am asking for your everyone's contributions, as I already in my first post tell everyone here my concepts of God and of evidence, and I invite everyone to proffer their concepts

But your not, as you've just clarified it above, by saying you want the us to tell you the theist concept of God and it's fundamental relation to the universe.

if they have any so that we will not be talking past each other's head when we are not possessed of the same mutually accepted concept insofar as information is concerned of God as of evidence.

How will we be talking past each others heads, if our only response to you must be repeating what a theist concept of God is, and it's fundamental relation to the universe.

You are not asking us to respond in our own right, you are only asking us to talk to you on your terms. Which is one sided.
However I don't expect you to realise that. All I expect is that you will come back with "your not connecting with me."

[Grimm]

• [Bolding from Sus] Until you can explain to us how we are supposed to be able to describe in detail any god when we, as atheists, assume there isn't one, don't expect a whole lot of success in this conversation. The god most of us don't believe in has no height, weight, color, birthmarks, hairstyle, ideas, thoughts, power, abilities, personality, kids or political affiliation. With that in mind, your demand for details is fruitless.
  

With all due respect, I am not asking atheists here to describe God in detail.

But I am asking atheists here to read up on or ask around for the information of what is the concept of God among theists, in particular in His fundamental relation to the universe.

Oh!  Certainly.  I've read a few things this morning, and will be glad to poke around at offering a few more this afternoon.  So far, I have the following - and while my tone may be tongue-in-cheek, rest assured that these are all god-concepts prevalent in the literature of human history:

- God licked the universe into existence, then fed the aspects of nature with her udders before vanishing entirely from the narrative.
- God died, and the universe was formed from his body, blood, secretions, hair...
- A great celestial flower opened, bringing forth god, who, in sleeping, dreamed everything into existence - and it shall vanish when he awakes.
- God is uncaring and distant, and this world was made as a refinery of sorts, a place where perfection is acquired in increments through repeated lifetimes of forgetfulness and effort; regardless, it does not interfere.
- There are two gods, and it is the god of Evil that created the world, that it might have something to toy with.

So far, I haven't found a single unifying concept - but there certainly is a lot of literature about all of these!  I haven't even touched on the most popular god-concepts.

And from the very beginning I am asking for your everyone's contributions, as I already in my first post tell everyone here my concepts of God and of evidence, and I invite everyone to proffer their concepts if they have any so that we will not be talking past each other's head when we are not possessed of the same mutually accepted concept insofar as information is concerned of God as of evidence.

Hmm.  You speak oddly - choosing to arrange words in ways that actually change their meaning to ... something other than I think you intend.    That said, 'evidence', as a concept, is fairly simple:

"The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid." 

No more, no less.  We should further define facts: a thing which is verifiably and demonstratively true.   So.  Evidence becomes "the available body of demonstratively true elements that indicate whether a belief or proposition is valid."

Easy enough!  It is worth noting that nothing about evidence or fact is subjective.  How those facts are arranged may be.

I have to say that your given concept of evidence is highly flawed.

[HAL]

But I am asking atheists here to read up on or ask around for the information of what is the concept of God among theists, in particular in His fundamental relation to the universe.

OK found one!

Zeus -

King of the gods

After reaching manhood, Zeus forced Cronus to disgorge first the stone (which was set down at Pytho under the glens of Parnassus to be a sign to mortal men, the Omphalos) then his siblings in reverse order of swallowing. In some versions, Metis gave Cronus an emetic to force him to disgorge the babies, or Zeus cut Cronus' stomach open. Then Zeus released the brothers of Cronus, the Gigantes, the Hecatonchires and the Cyclopes, from their dungeon in Tartarus, killing their guard, Campe.

As a token of their appreciation, the Cyclopes gave him thunder and the thunderbolt, or lightning, which had previously been hidden by Gaia. Together, Zeus and his brothers and sisters, along with the Gigantes, Hecatonchires and Cyclopes overthrew Cronus and the other Titans, in the combat called the Titanomachy. The defeated Titans were then cast into a shadowy underworld region known as Tartarus. Atlas, one of the titans that fought against Zeus, was punished by having to hold up the sky.

After the battle with the Titans, Zeus shared the world with his elder brothers, Poseidon and Hades, by drawing lots: Zeus got the sky and air, Poseidon the waters, and Hades the world of the dead (the underworld). The ancient Earth, Gaia, could not be claimed; she was left to all three, each according to their capabilities, which explains why Poseidon was the "earth-shaker" (the god of earthquakes) and Hades claimed the humans that died (see also Penthus).

Gaia resented the way Zeus had treated the Titans, because they were her children. Soon after taking the throne as king of the gods, Zeus had to fight some of Gaia's other children, the monsters Typhon and Echidna. He vanquished Typhon and trapped him under Mount Etna, but left Echidna and her children alive.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeus