GOD -- THE EVIDENCE.

[HAL]

I posted what my concept of god was (Zeus) and he completely dismissed it! Your concept has to match his or it's blown off.

He's a troll.

[kcrady]

Sus, the site you link to is a glossary of terms.  They included a broad definition of "god(s)" along with things like Gnosis, Goodness and Gamma Ray.  So what?  Their site does nothing to help you make the case that atheists need to adopt some specific god concept.  Again, you resort to question-begging by "editing" their entry to favor your particular god concept without so much as offering an argument for why a creator deity is better than a non-creator that is nonetheless sovereign, like the Jade Emperor.  Or one that hosts terrific parties, like Bacchus.

But OK, since you want to try to turn everybody else's god concepts into yours anyway, I might as well go ahead and debunk your god concept and get this over with.

"The unique, uncreated creator of the created universe."

Unique: This is vague at best and provides no information on which a testable claim could be based.  It does not even differentiate your particular god from all others.  Every god or goddess that is an individual is "unique."  Isis is "unique" since no other goddess is quite like her.  The Jade Emperor is "unique."  Heck, Joe B. Bowers is "unique" (as far as I know he has no identical twin...).  Arguably, the Christian deity (which you admit every now and then that you're arguing for, despite the fact that Christian theology has a much more specific god-concept than yours) is one to whom the adjective "unique" cannot apply.  "He" is supposed to be not one unique individual, but three individuals who are simultaneously one individual.  Yahweh ("the Father") is not "the unique uncreated creator of the created universe" because Jesus ("the Son") also is an uncreated creator of the created universe, and the Holy Spirit was also presumably involved, "hovering over the waters" in the Book of Genesis.  None of the three Persons of the Trinity can claim to be unique as such or uniquely the creator.  They're more like a set of Siamese triplets.

Uncreated/Creator/Created Universe: All of these beg the question by assuming that "the universe" was created by a deity.  You have provided no reasons that we should accept this idea.  If, as the evidence and equations of modern physics and cosmology indicate, the Cosmos (that which emerged from the Big Bang) was not created, but rather is the result of a natural process, all of these "creation" related aspects of your god-concept are ruled out from having any correspondence with reality.  If there is no "created universe" (because there was no "creation," only natural processes), there is nothing for an "uncreated creator" to do.  Occam's Razor slices the concept away.  So, to follow in your footsteps and edit the "up-to-date" god-concept further:

Unique uncreated creator of the created universe

The "of the" no longer has a grammatical function, so it too can be edited out:

of the universe

So now we're left with:

Universe

...without any deities, "creator" or otherwise.  Whaddaya know: the best and most "up-to-date" god-concept is that there isn't one!

[stuffin]

I'm gonna hep you get edjamacated

http://www.dlc.fi/~etkirja/dictionary.htm#mozTocId382589

God: A deity or a god, is a postulated supernatural entity,

So, do you get my idea that atheists have got to have some information about the concept of God that counts, prior to considering the evidence or the lack of evidence for the existence of God.

Susmariosep

pos·tu·late? ?[v. pos-chuh-leyt; n. pos-chuh-lit, -leyt] Show IPA verb, pos·tu·lat·ed, pos·tu·lat·ing, noun
verb (used with object)

1. to ask, demand, or claim.
2. to claim or assume the existence or truth of, especially as a basis for reasoning or arguing.
3. to assume without proof, or as self-evident; take for granted.

[stuffin]

Attn: Susmariosep

You seem intent on having us atheists admit we know stuff about (your) god.

We know enough about (your) god to know he is a mythical entity.

With that said (god is a mythical entity); you now have for your use our concept of (your) god.

So what's next?

[Red McWilliams]

Ya, that's fine. But, before your next post, read the rules. When you make a mistake, it's other people who have to clean up after you. You want to make a good impression, and demonstrate you are forthright.

God, what a jerk!

[Tinyal]

Ya, that's fine. But, before your next post, read the rules. When you make a mistake, it's other people who have to clean up after you. You want to make a good impression, and demonstrate you are forthright.

God, what a jerk!

Red, whoever you are, I am going to assume you are talking about the Sum/Yrreg, and not the Moderator, Ambassador Pony, who's statement you quoted above was entirely called for and appropiate - if this is the case, then please ignore my next sentence as it doesn't apply to you.
  If, however,  you were referring to the Mod, well....it's clear from the quality of your post, it's in-depth analyses, and cutting wit, what kind of responses we can expect from you in this thread.

[lotanddaughters]

If, however,  you were referring to the Mod, well....it's clear from the quality of your post, it's in-depth analyses, and cutting wit, what kind of responses we can expect from you in this thread.

Yeah, Red. Keep that up and you will be moderated real soon. Not moderated like the rest of us, but orange Moderated. Come get some!

[kcrady]

Red's a long-standing Forum member here, going back to Ancient Times^tm.  My guess is he's using sarcastic hyperbole to agree with the Ambassador's point.  "Why, Pony expects a poster to read the rules and be forthright?!  The NERVE!!!"  WB, Red.

[lotanddaughters]

Red's a long-standing Forum member here, going back to Ancient Times^tm.  My guess is he's using sarcastic hyperbole to agree with the Ambassador's point.  "Why, Pony expects a poster to read the rules and be forthright?!  The NERVE!!!"  WB, Red.

It just goes to show. Assuming too much might get me in trouble. Thanks, Kevin.

[Red McWilliams]

What do I have to do to get orange moderated?  That sounds awesome.

Actually, Tinyal, you're pretty much dead on.  Almost nothing I say will be interesting or insightful.  I just really hate the Pony.

And thanks a bunch for spoiling the surprise, kcrady.  I might just have to give you your first -1 for that.

[Red McWilliams]

By the way, I'm reply #1 in this thread. 

[Tinyal]

Please accept my apologies, sorry about that, that's what I get for ass-uming

<I deserve - at the least - to go soak my head in week old Pasta sauce...my punishment commences at dawn!>

[Astreja]

Do you care to talk about the pros and cons of the concept of God as the unique uncreated creator and operator of the uncreated universe, that is my concept for God.

I already did, Susmariosep.  You haven't answered My question, so I will rephrase it yet again.

I see no logical way for there to be an "uncreated creator."  Period.  In order for it to exist and to actually be capable of doing anything, it needs energy.  Where there is energy, there can also be matter; therefore, it seems plausible that some form of matter/energy has always existed.

And if that is the case, the universe simply doesn't need creator gods.

Or you have your own concept of God, the information about the concept of God that is, and perhaps you feel like calling God in your concept of God as the meme whatever that is supposed to mean your concept of God about which you care to tell readers here.

I do not believe in any singular capital-G gods... None at all.  Unless I'm directly quoting someone, I don't generally capitalize the word 'god.'

I think that small-g gods are possible, but have not seen any objective evidence for them and would not, under any circumstances, swear to their existence in a court of law.  That, by the way, was the problem that caused Me to shift from agnostic theist (3.4 on the Dawkins scale) to agnostic atheist (currently about 4.5 on the scale in respect of naturally-occurring, non-omnipotent god-like beings, and 6.999... in respect of the Abrahamic deity).

As you are an atheist I understand you want to describe yourself as lacking belief in any gods, goddesses, deities, divinities, etc.

Doesn't matter what I want to describe Myself as.  I do lack belief, so it just makes sense to say so.

Don't you see it to be reasonable from your part that you have got to know correctly the concept of God among theists that is adequate and up to date, otherwise you are lacking belief in the God that counts among theists today.

Darned right I lack belief in "the god that counts among theists today."  I believe that believers exist but I see very little common ground among them.

As for "know correctly," "adequate" and "up to date," that would only be relevant if there was objective evidence of a particular god.  Otherwise, there's no way of determining if a particular theistic concept is indeed correct, adequate or up to date.

[Graybeard]

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.

If I may translate what you are saying here:
"If you don't have any information evidence, then I cannot see how you can at all talk about there being no evidence whatever of God's existence.

Can you now see how without evidence the only correct thing to do is to say there is no evidence?

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.

The only evidence there is of a god (any god, including the one you think is there) is that people say there is a god.

The clear-thinking atheist therefore only has the word of people without evidence that there are gods.

There's plenty of point in us continuing to talk, but talking does not just consist of you asking the questions and other people answering them.  It also consists of you answering the questions other people ask of you, or at least making the effort to.  If this is to be a two-way conversation, then the questions also have to go both ways.

I agree - You must then agree that it is correct to answer questions directly and not evade difficult questions by being indirect or changing a subject.

Before anything else, you have questions for me about what is my concept of God and of evidence, don't you?

And I have given my concept of God and of evidence from the very first post in this thread that I contributed (though I am not the author of this thread):

• God in concept is the unique uncreated creator and operator of the created universe.
  
• Eivdence in concept is any fact man knows leading him to know another fact.

Now, it is my turn to ask or to request you to proffer whatever if any at all information you have about the concept of God and the concept of evidence.

The concept of all gods is that concept given by those who follow the gods. Each Christian has a different idea of God; no two views are the identical.

Both you and I have a firm idea of who Barak Obama is because we witness his doing things and we see his life. We both have a firm idea of who George Washington is for the same reasons and that his life and works are well-charted by many sources and supported today by research. Your God fulfils neither of these. He has done absolutely nothing.

if you don't have any stock information, then you do research and think and come up with your information)...

In the first lines of this post, you have stated that it is unreasonable to ask for evidence if there is none. There is no evidence of a god.

For myself, from that entry of the Finnish Dictionary of Atheism, I can distill this concept of God, namely, 'the unique uncreated creator and operator of the created universe," of course adding materials from my own stock knowledge as a theist of the concept of God.

You have no knowledge of God - all you have is what people who have read the Bible have told you. Those who wrote the bible wrote stories that are not supported by fact. Those facts that are supported do not concern a god and, as presented in the bible are often placed in the wrong time frame.

The OT is guesses at history with the blanks filled in by "God did it."

[jaimehlers]

Before anything else, you have questions for me about what is my concept of God and of evidence, don't you?

Indeed.  And I already asked them several times in this thread.

Now, it is my turn to ask or to request you to proffer whatever if any at all information you have about the concept of God and the concept of evidence.

No, it's your turn to answer the questions I already asked you, and that I've repeated several times.

I am not requesting you to ask me questions about my concepts, etc., but I want to read what you have for your stock information of what is the concept of God and what is the concept of evidence.

Undoubtedly you would prefer me to not ask those questions, but to be blunt, I'm not going to let up here.  You don't get to ignore reasonable questions that other people ask you.  If you can't answer my questions, then just say so, but I require an answer from you on them.

I am leaving out the rest of your post because it's irrelevant to the questions I asked you in my very first post in this thread.  And I am reposting those questions once again.  I will continue to do so until you choose to answer me.  Do not think that you can dodge or lawyer your way out of answering them.

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!"

[Susmariosep]

Susmariosep is being moderated for his replies and posts.  You will not see his replies until a moderator approves it.  Please be patient!

Jetson

I guess I have to take a leave of indefinite absence.



Susmariosep

[pianodwarf]

I guess I have to take a leave of indefinite absence.

You mean an indefinite leave of absence.

[stuffin]

Susmariosep is being moderated for his replies and posts.  You will not see his replies until a moderator approves it.  Please be patient!

Jetson

I guess I have to take a leave of indefinite absence.



Susmariosep

And so many responses pending......

[nogodsforme]

I guess I have to take a leave of indefinite absence.

You mean an indefinite leave of absence.

No. He was right the first time....

[bertatberts]

Susmariosep is being moderated for his replies and posts.  You will not see his replies until a moderator approves it.  Please be patient!

Jetson

I guess I have to take a leave of indefinite absence.



Susmariosep

Well we did know it was on the cards, when you kept ignoring posts and arrogantly suggest people do more research, just so you could get them to agree with you.
Hence why you were moderated, on this site people actually have to converse it can't be one sided. so goodbye and good luck.

[HAL]

I guess I have to take a leave of indefinite absence.

Bye bye - don't let the door hit you in the ass.

[MadBunny]

I know it's tacky to jump on the train here but....

[Anfauglir]

Susmariosep is being moderated for his replies and posts.  You will not see his replies until a moderator approves it.  Please be patient!

Jetson

I guess I have to take a leave of indefinite absence.

Only if that's what you choose to do.  If on the other hand you choose to follow the forum rules you agreed to when you signed up, and post things that actually address the points being made to you, then your posts will still appear on the forum, as rapidly as we can approve them.  It's your choice to stay or go - but if you stay, you will need to abide by the rules of the forum.  Simples.

[Seppuku]

Simples.

But spot on. Stick the rules, respect how the forum works. Regardless of your views, or even people's opinions of your views, you will do just fine. Should anybody speak out of line, there is an awesome 'Report to Moderator' button, mods aren't Gods, they can't see everything happening in the forum, but if what you report is seen as a violation, then the person you're reporting will have to answer for their actions.

I know for some the rules are a little difficult to abide by, especially if they're used to preaching their views. But if you struggle with anything, please just say so and we can help you out and set you on the right path - not necessarily on the path to changing your views, even if many would be happy if you did, but it'll be a path on engaging us fairly and on grounds we're able to engage fairly ourselves. We may appear to be mean bastards on the surface, but we're actually quite reasonable.

[Nam]

Watch carefully: "The heavens declare the Glory of God!"  Tonight if it is clear look into the night sky at GOD's handywork.
That is the evidence.

I haven't seen the night sky for 4 days. Also, what about the part of the world where it's always daytime, or almost always daytime? I think your logic is unsound.

Some have bought into the evolution lie believing that we are just another animal but contrary to this myth humans are capable of rational deduction.

Saying something as a fact with only "God did it!" As evidence, isn't evidence. It isn't even a sound argument.

Put the lie aside and expose yourself to reality. You won't have to look far the evidence is all around you.

People say things like this when they have only their belief in hand: all others are disregarded. Therefore, you're not here to debate but to convert.

-Nam


[/quote]

[Emily]

**I know iBelieve is no longer posting here.**

Some have bought into the evolution lie believing that we are just another animal but contrary to this myth humans are capable of rational deduction. Once they realize that they have been conned and that they are capable of intelligent thinking then they can begin to accept reality. 

Who's to say other animals aren't capable of making rational deductions, also.

For example, look at this thread: http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,23301.0.html , http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/07/120719-young-gorillas-juvenile-traps-snares-rwanda-science-fossey/

It shows young gorillas dismantling a poacher trap. The gorillas seem to be displaying reasoning skills while dismantling the trap. Homo Sapiens aren't the only species on this planet that are able to use their brains for the good of their clan, or themselves.

[caveat_imperator]

But spot on. Stick the rules, respect how the forum works. Regardless of your views, or even people's opinions of your views, you will do just fine.

It'll never happen. As someone posted on the JREF forum regarding susmario/yrreg/gerry:

I've come to believe that yrreg starts these threads only to boss people around and act smug, rather than to ever offer proof of the existence of a deity. Proof? He repeatedly does the first, and never gets around to the second...

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=8043437&postcount=1006

His inability to boss any and all here almost guarantees he won't come back.

And that is just fine by me.

[Seppuku]

But spot on. Stick the rules, respect how the forum works. Regardless of your views, or even people's opinions of your views, you will do just fine.

It'll never happen. As someone posted on the JREF forum regarding susmario/yrreg/gerry:

I've come to believe that yrreg starts these threads only to boss people around and act smug, rather than to ever offer proof of the existence of a deity. Proof? He repeatedly does the first, and never gets around to the second...

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=8043437&postcount=1006

His inability to boss any and all here almost guarantees he won't come back.

And that is just fine by me.

It always seems to be the way with the most arrogant and unreasonable of them. Then they start going around telling the world how mean and ignorant we are, regardless of any hands being given out to help them. Still, no harm in trying I guess. If he is here to give that kind of shit, I certainly won't tolerate it and if he's not willing to change that attitude, then good riddance. You know you're going to get a one sided argument anyway.

[lg12811]

Im laughing so hard at how people who follow god shut their eyes and pretend that they are right and everyone else is wrong. They even go so far as to say, "im praying for you" and in the same breath condemn you to hell. They will only learn the truth when they die. On that day they will be sitting on the curb waiting for the god bus to come and no one will pick them up. Preach your fantasies all you want but im just sitting here laughing at you for looking so stupid. And of course you'll come back with some nonsense about god loves me or you'll tell me im going to hell but im going to do what all of you believers do. Im going to put my fingers in my ears and lalalalalalalala. I cant hear you! It really is a shame god doesnt exist. If he did I'd punch him in the face for being such an idiot.