-->
@mustardness
Take your crap elsewhere, ebuc.
Evidence For The Existence of God
Posts
Total:
196
The thing no one has addressed, is that God is singular. This is why He is called God. The atheist uses the word God with no idea of what they are saying. So I must ask. When you call a being "God", why do you give Him that name?
The atheist wants a definition of God. But a definition of what? We must know what the atheist means when he says "God". If the atheist is going to use the theist's meaning, then they must accept the theistic meaning. If they will supply their own meaning, then their expectations for this being must be reasonable and logical.
We have been talking past each other because the atheist is attempting to define a singular as a multiple.
When we say "God", we have defined a set consisting of a single member. So there are 2 sets, the set of "God", and the set containing "Everything Else". Notice this remains logical regardless of whether God exists or not.
We thus cannot define "God" using the same qualities we used for
"Everything Else". That is illogical as they are in different sets, and the reason they are in different sets is because they have different qualities.
God is singular. He is God. None of the qualities of Everything Else apply to Him.
So atheist, why do you call Him God?
-->
@ethang5
Which theistic meaning? The Christian, Islamic, Greek, Roman...? There are so many theistic meanings to God, you have to provide the correct one, which of course you nor anyone else would actually know.If the atheist is going to use the theist's meaning, then they must accept the theistic meaning.
So atheist, why do you call Him God?
That's the name given to all invisible super beings that have never been shown to exist.
If the atheist is going to use the theist's meaning, then they must accept the theistic meaning.
Which theistic meaning? The Christian, Islamic, Greek, Roman...?
All are the same. But if you don't like the theistic meaning, supply your own. If you use a word, should not that word have meaning to you?
There are so many theistic meanings to God, you have to provide the correct one, which of course you nor anyone else would actually know.
Dishonest. We have supplied one. You didn't like it. When we say, "OK, supply your own", you mention a me "given".... given by whom? Surely you aren't telling us you are using a word whose meaning you do not know? Is it any wonder you can't figure out a definition?
So atheist, why do you call Him God?
That's the name given to all invisible super beings that have never been shown to exist.
What does "super" mean? Given by whom? Why did you adopt this meaning?
There you have it. The atheist is not talking about a singularity, but an incoherent multiplicity of "gods", and has no reason for using the word "god(s)" except that it is the word "given" to "super" beings by some unnamed group.
Now the atheist will castigate the theist for not being able to define a word he himself doesn't know the meaning of, cannot logically define, and has no logical reason for assigning.
Can't you just smell the intellectual honesty?
-->
@ethang5
We need not go further than this as it shows your ignorance of other religions.All are the same.
We have supplied one. You didn't like it.
One is one of many. No one said anything about not liking it.
Is it any wonder you can't figure out a definition?
Is it any wonder you're ignorant of other religions definitions?
The atheist is not talking about a singularity, but an incoherent multiplicity of "gods"
That's because there are a multiplicity of gods with a wide variety of definitions, not just one.
Can't you just smell the intellectual honesty?
Yes, just not from you.
All are the same.
We need not go further than this as it shows your ignorance of other religions.
I need know nothing about other religions. You are being asked for your definition of God. Do you have one?
We have supplied one. You didn't like it.
One is one of many. No one said anything about not liking it.
You rejected mopac's definition. You seem not to be able to supply one of your own.
Is it any wonder you can't figure out a definition?
Is it any wonder you're ignorant of other religions definitions?
Why is my knowledge of other religions definitions relevant here? Do you mean something when you say God? Do you know what that is?
The atheist is not talking about a singularity, but an incoherent multiplicity of "gods"
That's because there are a multiplicity of gods with a wide variety of definitions, not just one.
You are being asked for your definition. Surely you mean something when you say God. Do you know what that is?
Can't you just smell the intellectual honesty?
Yes, just not from you.
Not from you either. I at least can define what I mean when I say God. You either cannot, or will not.
That is intellectual dishonesty.
-->
@Goldtop
Mine is built upon God's word and what I see of the world in relation to His word. Thus we have different starting points/ideas.Mine is based on reality and an understanding of the world around us while yours is based on the words of ignorant goat herders who lived centuries ago. You're living in the past with myths and superstitions.
Nice try, yet that is still to be determined as anything other than an assertion. You understand the world around you as you funnel it through the sieve of your basic beliefs. Since you deny God you have to funnel the information/data through another set of guidelines.
The underlined is emotionally chocked full of Ad hominems and explosive language that does nothing to prove your point. I have used them too, but I understand why they are used. They want to exploit the situation and curry favor but they signify a bully tactic to attack the person rather than the argument.
There are some things that are self-evident truthsIn reality, yes. In your worldview, no.
So you are not giving me the benefit of using logic, yet how would you understand my thoughts without it? Are you saying I am communicating nothing?
yet hard to prove from an empirical standpoint because they are abstract or non-physical in their natureWhich is the exact same thing as non-existent.
Produce the law of identity physically. You can't because it is an abstract thought, yet it is necessary to communicate.
My knowledge is micro-thin. But I don't have to make sense of everything.Your knowledge is literally non-existent and you have yet to make sense of anything.
Again, you haven't demonstrated, just asserted. Attacking me instead of my argument does nothing for proving you are right and what you say is true. When you make a claim/assertion the burden of proof falls on you to demonstrate the soundness of the claim. If I had no knowledge I would be a vegetable and not able to communicate with anyone. Do you see that happening here? If so, then what does it say about you communicating with me?
-->
@ethang5
I at least can define what I mean when I say God. You either cannot, or will not.That is intellectual dishonesty.
I'm sure you could come up with hundreds of sources with definitions for hundreds of different gods, just like me or anyone else.
But, if you actually believe that you have "THE" definition of God, then that would indeed be intellectually dishonest.
-->
@PGA2.0
You understand the world around you as you funnel it through the sieve of your basic beliefs.
Wrong again, I accept the world around me for what it is and how it affects me. I don't decide to change it to suit my beliefs, which is what religions do.
Produce the law of identity physically. You can't because it is an abstract thought
And that's all that God is, an abstract thought. Thank you for making that comparison.
-->
@Goldtop
Very much so.
Yeah, we Heliolaters are pretty compelling...I kinda hoped you would say "That's not a real god" so I could be all like "oh so there is a "real" god now?" and you could be all like "damn."
But no dice.
Heliolatry is the right religion; who knew?
-->
@keithprosser
The sun does fulfil at least some of the function expected of a god, but perhaps not enough of them to be a proper god! I'm thinking that the sun doesn't actually respond to prayers or reward good deeds and punish bad ones for instance.
Why does a "proper" god have to respond to prayers?
Why can't a superhuman being with powers over nature and human fortunes suffice for a proper god?
Why can't a superhuman being with powers over nature and human fortunes suffice for a proper god?
-->
@MagicAintReal
Well, I'm an atheist but I don't deny the sun exists!
I am sure the sun exists, but I am also sure it doesn't hear or answer prayers for instance.
I at least can define what I mean when I say God. You either cannot, or will not. That is intellectual dishonesty.
I'm sure you could come up with hundreds of sources with definitions for hundreds of different gods, just like me or anyone else.
Sure. But I am asking what you mean when you say "God". It is clear now that when you say "God", you haven't a clue what you mean.
You agreed that we needed a definition of "God". You don't have one, and will reject all others. Only the deranged or the dishonest deliberately use words whose meanings they do not know.
But, if you actually believe that you have "THE" definition of God, then that would indeed be intellectually dishonest.
What I believe is immaterial. YOU used the word. Now here you are dodging a question asking, "what do YOU mean when YOU use the word. You haven't clue.
When you can tell us what YOU mean when you say "God", we will all be closer to a definition. But I suspect you want a malleable definition so you can play semantics with it.
I know, and can define, the words I use.
-->
@ethang5
Define god.
-->
@ethang5
I'll repeat this yet again because it seems you have yet to comprehend it. There are hundreds of entities that have been referred to as "God" throughout history. If the person were a Christian, I would assume he referred to Christ as God, a Muslim to Allah, a Norwegian to Thor. Whatever the case, the term God has been referred to in a number of ways. I don't think I can make this any clearer and hope not to have to repeat myself.I am asking what you mean when you say "God"
Only the deranged or the dishonest deliberately use words whose meanings they do not know.
I'm sure that will come back to you some time soon. But, whats puzzling is you said this...
I know, and can define, the words I use.
But, first you said this...
What I believe is immaterial.
So, should I care that you can define the words you use and that your argument is meaningless?
The Supreme and Ultimate Reality is God
-->
@Mopac
According your holy dictionary but as I've shown other holy dictionaries don't make that claim.
All praise be to Merriam Webster.
I am asking what you mean when you say "God"
I'll repeat this yet again because it seems you have yet to comprehend it.
You aren't being asked what other people refer to as God. We are asking what you mean. And it is obvious, you have no meaning. Mouthing words that have no meaning is gibberish.
There are hundreds of entities that have been referred to as "God" throughout history.
And no one is asking you about that. You can't even dodge the question sensibly.
If the person were a Christian, I would assume he referred to Christ as God, a Muslim to Allah, a Norwegian to Thor.
No one has asked you who "the person" was referring to, but who YOU are referring to. You don't know, yet you keep using a word which for you, has no meaning. Lol. It's funny. When you say "God", is your mind blank or is it full of nonsensical gibberish?
Whatever the case, the term God has been referred to in a number of ways.
You have not been asked the number of ways God has been referred to. When you can't or won't answer a question, it's best to stay quiet.
I don't think I can make this any clearer and hope not to have to repeat myself.
You can't say what the word "God" means to you when you use it. It is very clear. One can only repeat what one has said. You have failed to state what the word "God" means to you when you say it. That is why you can't repeat it.
Only the deranged or the dishonest deliberately use words whose meanings they do not know.
I'm sure that will come back to you some time soon. But, whats puzzling is you said this...
Dodge!!
I know, and can define, the words I use.
But, first you said this...What I believe is immaterial.
I'm asking you what YOU mean. How is what I believe material? Surely you can think for yourself?
So, should I care that you can define the words you use and that your argument is meaningless?
If my argument was meaningless, you would not be spouting gibberish. You use a word, yet have no idea what the word you use means.
So much for the logical atheist knocking the theistic argument out of the park. Scratch their surface folks, and you'll find that they and their arguments are vacuous.
How good is your argument if you have to dodge? Thanks goldy, you've been informative and entertaining.
-->
@ethang5
Gods don't exist.
The word is an invention for an imaginary being who is also an invention by primitive, ignorant, superstitious savages. It has whatever meaning the individual human imagination gives it.
You were right when you said it has no meaning.
-->
@keithprosser
Well, I'm an atheist but I don't deny the sun exists!I am sure the sun exists, but I am also sure it doesn't hear or answer prayers for instance.
Yeah, I get that, but why does a god have to answer prayers to be a "proper" god?
I'm challenging your idea of a proper god, even though we're both atheists (well, I'm a heliolater).
-->
@ethang5
I reckon I'm fairly careful about using the word 'God'. It's inconvenient that in English we have 'god' and 'God', especially because occasionally (such as starting a sentence) we have to write 'God' when 'god' would have been better!
I like to see a checklist of the attributes something has to have to be a god. For example, most mythological entities that have been dubbed 'gods' didn't create the universe, so perhaps an entity that conscioously and deliberately created the universe would certainly be a god,not creating a universe doesn't disqualify one!
I am an atheist, but that doesn't mean I have to deny the existence of something just because someone calls it a god. If the sun really is MAR's god as he claims then I don't deny the sun exists - but I do dispute that the sun is an actual god! I think a 'proper god' has to be more than a physical process operating accoding to physcal laws (known or unknown) - a proper god has to manifest something like conscious thought and awareness.
By that I mean that as an atheist I don't think there is conscious, aware entity pulling the strings to bring about some end or object. Something must have happened to start the universe - I just don't know what it was! Being an atheist I am betting that whatever did start up the universe was not something conscious, or thinking or plan-forming. I don't think the universe came from nothing - I belive it came from something, but that something was 'just physics' - it wasn't any sort of conscious or thinking agent.
'Capital G God' is a particular instance of all the gods people have imagined over the millennia. I often write 'YHWH' in an attempt ot avoid the ambiguity of the word 'God' which has the dual meaning of 'generic god' and the particular god of Christianity.
-->
@MagicAintReal
I am not necessarily opposed to the sun being a god, but it complicates the definition of an atheist! We do owe our existence to the sun and it certainly has the power to destroy us. If worshipping and praising the sun had any effect on it I'd worship and praise it because I don't want it to go out! But that isn't how the sun works - the sun runs on atomic fusion, not the prayers of acolytes and the sun doesn't are about the sex of who I sleep with.
The sun is a very good god - it gives without demanding anything from us. But it's not the 'sort of god' atheists are against. It is those gods that are supposed to have some sort of consciousness atheist can't accept.
-->
@keithprosser
I am not necessarily opposed to the sun being a god, but it complicates the definition of an atheist! We do owe our existence to the sun and it certainly has the power to destroy us. If worshipping and praising the sun had any effect on it I'd worship and praise it because I don't want it to go out! But that isn't how the sun works - the sun runs on atomic fusion, not the prayers of acolytes and the sun doesn't are about the sex of who I sleep with.The sun is a very good god - it gives without demanding anything from us. But it's not the 'sort of god' atheists are against. It is those gods that are supposed to have some sort of consciousness atheist can't accept.
Wow, solid response, nicely said.
Praise Hydrogen...and Helium.
-->
@keithprosser
Thank you. It is obvious you have a concept in your mind when you say God. One of your founding criteria is creation of the universe. Though it doesn't have to be.
I always say, the party that has to dodge questions cannot possibly have the better argument. But if we are talking God, and one side has no understanding of why they are using the word God, we are going to be talking past each other.
A thing doesn't have to be real for us to be able to agree on a definition. For example, a unicorn, fairies, or superman are all fictional but have clear definitions. I call this animal a unicorn because it has a bushy tail, a mane, equine features, and a spiral horn on its forehead. Those qualities make it a unicorn to me, and that is what I mean when I say "unicorn".
Now, what qualities make a being God to you? What qualifies it as God in your mind? What do you mean when you say God? If you can't answer these questions, you have no business using the word. You haven't a clue what it means.
-->
@ethang5
I can see that no matter how many times I repeat the answer, it's not being comprehended.We are asking what you mean
When you can't or won't answer a question
Yes, I answered the question, repeatedly. No need to lie about it simply because you can't comprehend the answer. Not my fault.
-->
@ethang5
Thank you. It is obvious you have a concept in your mind when you say God. One of your founding criteria is creation of the universe. Though it doesn't have to be.
I meant 'created the universe' as an example of the sort of thing that people might disagree about what constitutes a god. I think we all have a list of qualities and properties that something must have to qualify as a god. I'm not even sure what the properties of, eg. Mars are, but people seem happy to call him a god. I doubt there is a single defintion of 'god' that everyone would agree with 100%, but I'd be interested in anyone's attempt at it!
As an atheist I deny the existence of any entity that transcends the laws of physics or any foreseeable extension to such laws. I deny there is any 'cosmic consciousness', or similar term! I believe there is only matter and energy; life and consciousness emerge from them without being bidden by a master planner.
My atheism is a consequence of my materialist view of reality - it's not the other way around. The universe came into being in a way that we are yet to discover) consisting of matter and energy. What we see today is the result of the interactions of matter and energy over billions of years as dictated by laws and no god - or truly god-like thing has ever existed.
However although gods don't exist, religions do exist and they are important for the understanding of history and of the present -hence my inteest in the subect.
Nope. As we have just seen with goldy, he doesn't have a clue.I think we all have a list of qualities and properties that something must have to qualify as a god.
I doubt there is a single defintion of 'god' that everyone would agree with 100%,
Sure, but goldy was not asked for a consensus, he was asked for his own minimum criteria. He couldn't say.
My atheism is a consequence of my....
Sorry. You love to spout off about your atheism as if it is something you should be praised about. I don't think it makes you special or noteworthy in any way.
If you can somehow force a liberal into a point- counterpoint argument, his retorts will bear no relation to what you've said -- unless you were in fact talking about your looks, your age, your weight, your personal obsessions, or whether you are a fascist.
In the famous liberal two-step, they leap from one idiotic point to the next, so you can never nail them. It's like arguing with someone with Attention Deficit Disorder. -- Ann Coulter
-->
@ethang5
Sure, but goldy was not asked for a consensus, he was asked for his own minimum criteria. He couldn't say.
I'm not sure why Ethan is compelled to lie about this, but based on his past posts here and on ddo, it's quite a common tactic with him.
At the very least, the Gentle Reader will comprehend my answers and will probably also wonder why Ethan is compelled to lie.
Of course, he believes he has "THE" definition of God, so he says, but we are yet to see that. He'll just on complaining his questions don't get answered.
Cite the post where you answered. You cannot.
You have nothing but dodge and dance Goldy. Not one reader here can cite where you answered.
Please, have meanings for the words you use. Gibberish is not spoken here.