That is not a fact that I am requiring you to do my homework.
You owe it to yourself to get the most adequate and up to date information on what is the concept of God and also the concept of evidence, for the topic of this thread is "God -- The Evidence."
This presupposes that there's such a thing as "adequate and up-to-date information" on the concept of "God." "Adequate" presupposes that there's a standard of adequacy, that is, an actual god/goddess/pantheon/whatever against which the adequacy of various god-concepts can be measured. "Up-to-date" presupposes that there's an ongoing process of inquiry and discovery about god/goddess/pantheon/whatever that is improving over time. Again, such "improvement" can only be measured against the standard of an actual god/goddess/pantheon/whatever.
Here's the problem: nobody has ever come close to demonstrating that an actual god/goddess/pantheon/whatever actually exists
. Until this happens, we have no reason to think that the writings of N.T. Wright are any more "adequate" or "up-to-date" than the Pyramid Texts, or vice versa. You have a god-concept that you actually believe in, so in your eyes, whatever theologians produce a god-concept that comes closest to "the unique, uncreated creator of the created universe" are the "best," most "adequate" and "up-to-date" of the lot. Since we don't
believe in your god-concept, or anyone else's, we don't think any
of them are "adequate" or "up-to-date." We think they're wrong
. That's what makes us atheists instead of Hindus or Christians or Wiccans or Voudoun shamans or...etc., etc., etc..
Now, you reject all of those other god-concepts for reasons that may very well be similar to our own. The difference between you and us is that we add one more god-concept to the list of failures: yours
. If you would like to persuade us that your
god-concept is an accurate understanding of an actual god that really exists, it's up to you
to pony up the evidence for your god. To ask us what our
god-concept is is a waste of time because we. don't. have. one. That's why you're seeing all these posts about Zeus and Durga and so forth. To us, they're all equally false
, so when you insist on getting god-concepts out of us, we can whimsically dig a few out of humanity's vast theological compost bin and toss 'em on the floor in front of you. "You want a god-concept? There ya go. Oh, wait, what about this one? Or this
one?" And so on. But none of them actually represent the god-concept we think is most "adequate" and "up-to-date" because...
wait for it...
waaaaaaaait for it...
! We. Don't. Believe. In. Any
. Of. Them.
How can you engage in this topic without having first to know what is the concept of God and of evidence.
Good question. As atheists, we don't think there is any such thing as "the" concept of "God." That presupposes that there is an actual "God" (Goddess/Pantheon/Whatever) that really exists, against which different human conceptions of the divine may be measured, and the most accurate of which be singled out as "the" concept of "God." Since the question of whether or not one or more deities exists is the issue being debated here, your assumption that there's such a thing as "the" concept of God (i.e., that there's one that's accurate) is begging the question. One of the major arguments for atheism is "Nope, they're all
incoherent, self-contradictory, meaningless, or have no referent in reality." That is, there is no such thing as "the" concept of the divine because no theist has produced one that is meaningful, logically coherent, and demonstrably corresponds to any real entity (a real deity or deities).
But now you
are here, with a concept of "God" that you think is meaningful, coherent, and corresponds to a "God" that actually exists. Well alright then. Step up and provide your evidence so that we can evaluate it against the measuring stick of reality. If you can show us that your concept of "God" corresponds even partially to an actual God that really exists, then bravo: you have shown us that you have "the" concept of God. Now we have a starting point from which we can launch an inquiry into developing better, more accurate, more "up-to-date" concepts of God. If you can't do it, guess what: your god-concept gets relegated to the vast theological compost bin with the rest of 'em, and asking us
to provide god-concepts for you won't save it.
You want for example to talk about universe and infinity and evidence with people as to have a productive intelligent honest discussion, don't you all have to first acquaint yourselves all of you on what is the concept of universe, of infinity, and of evidence in the market today of ideas among humans?
And come to concurrence on concepts, otherwise you are all talking irrelevantly to the whole business of universe, infinity, and evidence.
We can discuss "universe" with people because there is one. We can wave our arms around pointing at it. We can discus "infinity" because it is a coherent and useable mathematical abstraction that can be derived from tangible finitude.
"Start counting the grains of sand on this beach."
"One, two, three, four, five--"
"Now imagine that this beach just goes on forever--no matter how far you go, there's still more beach, just like no matter how high you count you can always add on another number. That's
If we had dozens or thousands of different concepts of "infinity," with mathematicians in India proposing something entirely different than mathematicians in Rome, etc., and none of them could relate it to anything that demonstrably exists in any way, then we would be in the same situation with "infinity" that we are in with regard to "the divine." There are all kinds
of different, incompatible concepts of god/goddess/pantheon/whatever in the world today and throughout human history. Nobody has provided any evidence that any particular such concept is in any way superior to any other. If you can be the first, step right on up.
I have done my homework and my concept of God is that He is the uniaue uncreated creator of the created universe, and of evidence that it is any fact man knows leading him to know another fact.
OK then, what's your evidence? What constitutes this "homework" you've done?
So, you do your research and thinking and come up with your concepts, and we will work to hammer out the mutually agreed on concepts of God
We'll agree on a concept of "God" when you can show us that there is one for a concept to correspond to. It would be silly for a bunch of people who had never seen a tree to argue over their concepts of "tree." Show them a tree, and their concepts will line up soon enough. Show us a real "God," and the same thing will happen.
so that we will not be talking nonsense and you and people don't even realize that it is all nonsense: because there has not yet been any concurrence (thus joining of the issue) at all agreed on what the concepts are all about.All
"concepts of god/goddess/pantheon/whatever" are nonsense until an actual referent for the concept
--a real god, goddess, pantheon, whatever--can be found. Without an actual referent--one or more real deities--there's no basis for comparing different concepts of the divine, and any "agreement" people might arrive at is as ridiculous as agreeing on the color of a snipe's plumage, or what unicorn poop smells like.
You have the floor. Show us the evidence for a deity, any
we'll be in a position to start figuring out which human concept of the divine most closely matches the reality.