All that there is in the universe is still all that there is in the universe. Humans can't make 'all that there is in the universe' not 'all that there is in the universe' or make 'more in the universe' than 'all there is in the universe'. What does he even think he's saying above except stating an obvious tautology in a manner as if to suggest that humans, in some way, can make A=A untrue?

 

Every word means exactly what the person using it wants it to mean. Its just that if they want to be able to exchange information with other humans they are going to have to agree to common meanings. The word 'god' is no different.

 What about a Christian or Muslim scientist? So far this is all just silliness.

A conscious creator of the universe, or any conscious entity or otherwise existing thing that is labeled as immaterial or supernatural. 

It isn't up to the atheist to define god. We do not define things that don't exist in order to state they don't exist. No one does this. It is the theist who needs to define god and then whether or not each specific god exists can be addressed. We need not worry about whether or not undefined gods exist as we do not ever concern ourselves with the existence of undefined entities.  

 All this guy is trying to do is shift the burden of proof with a really bad argument based in definitions. So far he has said nothing worthy of consideration.

He just stated everyone makes their own definition of 'god' and now he states that no one can fully conceive of something worthy of the title 'god' which assumes they are using his definition. Weird, huh?  

 How could one possibly know the characteristice required to create a universe. If a pre-universe state is inherently unstable then a pre-universe state could be said to have the necessary characteristics to create a universe. He is simply trying to set up arbitrary requirements by which he can sneak in his personal god definition/concept.

 Wow. When you call the universe a creation then you can require it has a creator because creations have creators. Brilliant. It's like a personal audience with Einstein. 

No. There is a hidden assumption that the universe requires creation. It is not at all axiomatic.  

No, it comes in when one states the universe is a creation or that it requires a creator. 

 He has just arbitrarily assigned a creator to the universe and then arbitrarily and without proof assigned it the quality of being an entity.

 That's all I'm responding to. The guy has contorted logic and reasoning so badly that nothing that follows is of any impotance. Another person who thinks they have the ultimate proof simply because they actually have no idea what they are talking about. Self confused to the point of thinking they have the ultimate answers.   

You're too polite, hun.  I would never thank someone for wasting my time.

 It's was ok up to this point

If one wishes to call that which created our universe god fair enough, but that which created our universe is not necessarily conscious, so to assume it is an entity rather than non-conscious energy is just irrational, to then subscribe Omnipotent Omniscient Omnipresent to what may be non-conscious energy again is a rational,

Energy is all that is required to create our universe one can call this energy god, the flying spaghetti monster, bob, toaster, rolled up newspaper, whatever

It isn't necessarily conscious, therefore it isn't necessarily an entity

Tell him nice try but no cigar

Did someone noticed this "proof" is unnecessary lengthy? As if the mere effort of a circular logic could become solid proof by it's mere act of repetition? But ok, I'll play along with the youtuber.

That was beautiful, specially the last part. If it had stayed at that I'd had buy the youtuber a drink.

Yes and no. Different people give different definitions of god in order to meet their particular criteria/needs/beliefs. However, most atheists I've known are very careful in their use of the word god, this is to say, they (we) use the term the claimant use and the characteristics they ascribe to their alleged deity, when debating it's existence. To try and disproof the alleged existence or the validity of someone's construct by redefining it as seen fit is a dishonest form of argumentation, one, by the way, we see used and abused in this kinds of discussions.

Sigh... can anyone say "not this sh*t again"? The universe is evidence of two (2) things: that the universe exists and that it had to have a beginning. PERIOD. Furthermore, this arguments presents the same blatant creationist assumption: the universe was created, i.e. that a voluntary effort by a conscious being took place in order for the universe to come into being. Thus far there are nothing but speculation and dishonest (false) proof to support that claim.

Yes, it is an Axiom, but only within the syllogistic logic of the youtuber argumentation, because in order for the creation of the universe to be an argument of god's creation, you have to blindly accept the assumption that the universe is a creation. Discard that unsubstantiated claim and the "axiom" falls apart.

So this guy starts by saying "all of our definitions/alleged attributes of god are fallible due to our incapability to acknowledge perfection", and then goes on to suggest he inferred god's true attributes? And worst, they are nothing but the same old god characteristics. And even worst, they rely on even more assumptions. Let's see here:

Assumption:That the universe (or rather, this known universe)is everything and nothing exists outside of it.

Same assumption. Just because I know everything about every possible problem a mustang 68 could have and every possible solution to those problems doesn't mean I am an omni-car repairman.

Assumption: The universe in it's entirety was created all at the same time. Oh really? And there's proof of this, yes? or is this another "axiom"? And since we're on the subject, I wonder how does the expansion of the universe fits in that assumption. I've often mused at the thought of god, in a sweat stained t-shit and a pair of over-revealing jeans, bent over at the edges of the universe, overtiming in order to finish the parts of a galaxy he putted aside for tomorrow.

From here on there's nothing more than the same old re-heated bs, but one thing caught my attention, and it was too much a piece of a mental jewel to be passed:

So, these characteristics, by definition, point out to be a part of god, and therefore gods exists? Really? And since, oh, lets say, all characteristics pertaining to magical properties, by definition, point out to be a part of magical beings, that means faeries and gnomes and whatnot also exists? Well if so I want me a dragon, and I better hear none of you saying I'm irrational about dragons, the dictionary says they exists, not me. At best this is an argumentum ad populum, but even then is a suck balls argument.

Tell that youtuber that imaginary beings also have imaginary properties, and their appearance in a dictionary is not a validation for their existence. This all started just fine, saying that the label "god" was all too subjected to arbitrary claims by all sides, but cowers in the end by proposing a poor excuse of a religion-free description of god, and it fails just as much as the DSM in it's approach of a theory-free categorization of mental illnesses.

Hi Vessel,

I think a lot of the problems you're seeing with this guys statement is that he is compounding his use of the word 'God' within sentences. more below:

What I read here is that he is attempting to say, A always has equalled A and it is humans that have labelled it A then expounded upon that label. In the absence of humans there is no exponentiation of abstract meaning upon A, there's just A.

The problem to me is that he has used his "God" label twice in the sentence to mean different things. He has once applied it as a variable and then once applied it under his (yet to be announced) definition.

I'm supposing this wouldn't be so much of a problem if he had indicated it thus:

The most fundamentally important thing to understand about the [variable] God is that it is a human construct. It is a label that we have assigned to something.

Before there were humans to conceive of a God/ [universe], all there was in the Universe was all there was in the Universe, [this was not labelled nor attached to the label "God"].

What do you think?

He then goes on to explain his proposition of the variable God.

Variables are assigned according to the prescribed operation by the operator, so in my view you guys are saying the same thing here precisely.

I don't think this guy is trying to claim that "God" is the one and only exclusive variable in the english language, but rather pointing out that it is merely a variable like any other variable label constructed in human minds.

I'm sorry Vessel I just don't get your point at all, what about a muslim scientist?

I figure I agree with this guy in principle here, anyone using a word in any context has some conception of meaning to the word, and by de facto that meaning is ostensibly individual to that mind. Anything more than that just doesn't seem relevant to me.

Excuse me for bringing up Quantum science where it's not invited, but it's not right to ignore the very real philosophical conundrum for this word 'immaterial' presented by our knowledge of the microscopic world.

An event on a quantum scale, say for a simple example a scattering process with an electron and positron, can happen to be 'caused' in more than one way, problem is if we try to establish which process is happening via observation, due to the measurement problem, it is impossible. So we are left to take the probability that the scattering event will occur. You'd think that means we take a basic distributive probability, right? ABS(probability of process A^2) + ABS(the probability of process b^2) but, No, that is not the case. The actual probability is ABS(probability of process A + probability of process B) ^2 And there is a major difference in what that means interpretatively.

A normal classical distribution |A^2 + B^2| is a mathematical expression for classical causality: the weight of deterministic factors generalised over the degrees of freedom of the outcome.

The Quantum distribution says no such thing on the other hand, what |A+B|^2 actually says is that the result comes from the distribution of both processes sharing the same timespacereality position, ie both causes happened together and bumped against each other.

In classical determinism there is only room for one process in one place at one time, but this scattering effect insists upon two or more processes superimposed upon each other. In a classical view of the universe there is no material 'place' for the second process to occur within, therefore quantum probability necessitates something not natural to the classical physical world.

So, then, it is not right to summarily dismiss the existence of immaterial things if your definition of immaterial is confined to what can be deduced from classical reality. In the terms of classical reality, the quanta units of the universe cross over into immaterial. In terms of quantum reality, the jury is still out on whether these parts of the universal wavefunction are materially real (multiverse) or not materially real (hidden variables), so again, an opinion informed by certain specific physical phenomena does not summarily discount immateriality or supernaturalism, it simply keeps them in perspective.

I agree with you. The atheist should be in a position to say that they know what they are dismissing, but it is up to the theist to provide that information. Without that information there is no obligation on the atheist to not dismiss it. The atheist position can always fairly claim neutrality.

 

Fair statement. I think you're right that he has pushed his God concept quite arbitrarily from here.

His proof of an extant 'creator' can be rescued, but first we have to stamp out the wrinkles in his application of the word 'creation'.

To do that we need to clarify our use of the word 'universe'- two things that people take it to mean.

1. we can think of the universe as a lump of energy. The law of conservation of energy clearly states such energy is not created or destroyed, and this law holds in the farthest and deepest reaches of the visible universe which we can observe. As far as we know, this lump of energy-mass does not need a creator. It has, moreover, transformative abilities up to and including acts which we would consider utterly impossible or supernatural, like Quantum tunneling, and therefore it needs no outside help, either, to achieve the most fantastic ends... such as creation of a giant interactive universe of properties.

2. not all people think (1) when they say universe. Many, indeed most, define their personal concept of the universe by its seemingly endless properties. Space, Time, Physical objects and physical action. All of these properties which are tangible and conceivable to the average person, DO require a creative force (conscious or unconscious) in order to exist.

Now the reality is, to the best of our human knowledge, the 'creator' of (2) is (1)

Therefore, when we speak of an entity creating the universe, and we mean, by "universe" the visible matter interacting over time and space as we know it then the entity we are referring to is The collection of energy which is also the universe.

So then we need not define the properties necessary to the creator of the universe according to definition (2), we can instead take the ageless unchanging properties of definition (1) and they churn out pretty much indentical answers-
The body of energy which is the universe, is everywhere. Omnipresence.
The body of energy which is the universe can do/be anything up to and including paradoxical things. Omnipotence.

We can then say an omnipotent, omnipresent entity is the 'creator' of the universe. This entity is however, for all intents and purposes, the body of substance of the universe itself.

I'm with you here Vessel, DIE 'first cause/prime mover argument' !! please die you are embarrassment to all theists.

The first cause argument is like saying you were born the ocean and because you are immersed in water you know that water is the basis of all existence; but in reality to someone born on land you know jack-sh*t.

Thanks for all your replies. I’ve sent the author the link to this page and invite him to reply. He's having trouble getting an account setup so I'll post his reply myself.

“Post this to Vessel's attention. When I get an RR password, I'll be there myself. Do they not accept hotmail addresses, or what? I've not received a single email from the site with instructions for completing registration.

Anyway, here is my first response:

I had said, ""The most fundamentally important thing to understand about God is that God is a human construct. It is a label that we have assigned to something. Before there were humans to conceive of God, all there was in the Universe was all there was in the Universe."

Vessel says, "All that there is in the universe is still all that there is in the universe. Humans can't make 'all that there is in the universe' not 'all that there is in the universe' or make 'more in the universe' than 'all there is in the universe'. What does he even think he's saying above except stating an obvious tautology in a manner as if to suggest that humans, in some way, can make A=A untrue?"

Well, I wrote it in plain english; and, it still seems pretty clear to me. Are you confused? Is what I said not true? Or, are you just desperate to criticize it for no reason at all?

Vessel says, "Every word means exactly what the person using it wants it to mean. Its just that if they want to be able to exchange information with other humans they are going to have to agree to common meanings. The word 'god' is no different."

Yes, the word, "God" is different. "Rain" is the same to everyone. There's generally no confusion about what someone means, when they use the word, "rain." But, when people start talking about God, they start talking nonsense. Why? Because, not everyone uses the same definition of "God." So, they argue and argue over it, until they get angry and then hate the others that define God differently than they define God. And then ,they seek to DESTROY those who believe differently about "God." That's an ENORMOUS difference with the word, "God." A difference worth discussing.

Vessel says, "What about a Christian or Muslim scientist? So far this is all just silliness."

What is silliness is for you to be picking apart insignificant minutia in an effort to elude the entire point of the post. And, it's ad hominem - doesn't establish anything, except your own petty arrogance. Let's continue, shall we?

I had said, "But, what is so often missing in discussions about God is the particular definition to which they are referring. When an atheist says, "God cannot possibly exist," to exactly WHAT are they referring that they would claim does not exist?"

Vessel says, "A conscious creator of the universe, or any conscious entity or otherwise existing thing that is labeled as immaterial or supernatural"

So says you - and, for yourself. But, not others. Unless you specify the definition to which you are referring, your comment is meaningless. So, you must say something like, "The Christian God cannot possibly exist..." and then, go on to prove why He does not exist. It's a bit pedantic; but, you don't mind, do you? I thought not. Let's move on.


Vessel says, "It isn't up to the atheist to define god."

If the atheist is going to make assertions about God, it is. Look, you're typically debating with people who do not think logically. If you want them to respect logic, you have to follow it, too. That means defining terms clearly in the context of your assertions - especially, when referring to something as nebulous and variable as "God."

Furthermore, if even ONE definition of God can be proven to be tenable, active atheism (the idea that God does not exist, as opposed to never having considered the possibility or concept of such a thing) becomes untenable. The definition I present as God being All that is True in the Universe is a tenable definition of God. It allows God to be:

1 - Creator of the Universe.

2 - Omnipresent

3 - Omnipotent

4 - Omniscient

Furthermore, it is axiomatic - it proves itself. An axiom IS a proof. Saying A = A is axiomatic. It proves itself. Saying that God = All that is True in the Universe is also axiomatic. It proves itself. If it's not true, it's not God. If it's true, it is God. If it is God, it is True. If the Truth exists, then the God we have defined as Truth exists. For this God to NOT exist, Truth would also have to NOT exist.

Now, theists typically ascribe these same attributes to their Gods; but, they cannot prove their much more specific definitions. Therefore, they are required to exercise faith and belief for their God. To present a tenable and provable definition of God to one who has previously had to exercise faith can be quite persuasive in getting them to dump their ridiculous ideas about God. That is the whole point in the exercise you're criticizing. It wasn't meant for you. But, since you like criticism, let's see how you like it when it's turned on you. Moving on:

Vessel says, " All this guy is trying to do is shift the burden of proof with a really bad argument based in definitions. So far he has said nothing worthy of consideration."

Ad hominem. No further response needed. Why would you waste keystrokes on meaningless drivel, such as that? It established only your own arrogance and inability to rationally debate the topic at hand. To wit:
You say it is a "bad argument." But, WHY is it bad? If you weren't going to say what was "bad" about it, why did you open your pie hole in the first place? Huh?

Vessel says, "He just stated everyone makes their own definition of 'god' and now he states that no one can fully conceive of something worthy of the title 'god' which assumes they are using his definition. Weird, huh?"

No, it's not weird. It's a truism. And, it doesn't assume that they are using any particular definition of the word. I've not once encountered anyone who would claim to be able to fully comprehend "God." Have you? Are you such a person that can fully comprehend "God?" You don't seem to be able to comprehend even the simplest of ideas communicated in the simplest of language for the simplest of people. You have my pity (not really, I'm just giving you a taste of your own medicine).

I said, "The best that any of us can do is attempt to discern what characteristics such a being must have in order to be Creator of the Universe and define God in accordance with that."

Vessel says, " How could one possibly know the characteristice required to create a universe."

I didn't make any claim to any such ability. Note the phrase. "...attempt to discern."

But, it is fair to say that, in order to create the Universe, any Creator would need to meet the following basic criteria:

1 - They must be ABLE to Create the Universe (omnipotent)

2 - They must KNOW HOW to Create the Universe (omniscient)

and

3 - They must be PRESENT to Create the Universe (omnipresent)

This is pretty basic stuff. And, I already explained it once. If you can't understand it, you might consider remaining silent and sparing yourself the embarrassment you just suffered. (I can argue ad hominem, too - isn't it fun?)

Vessel says, "If a pre-universe state is inherently unstable then a pre-universe state could be said to have the necessary characteristics to create a universe."

Well, get to the business of proving that - whatever it is. I am forced to wonder why you posted this? I have not been discussing theories - only what is observably true. You seem to be prattling about some imaginary theoretical nonsense that escapes me. Perhaps, you could make an attempt to explain yourself? I'll be patiently awaiting - but, not holding my breath (since, it is clear you have no idea what you're talking about).

Vessel says, "He is simply trying to set up arbitrary requirements by which he can sneak in his personal god definition/concept. "

Isn't that what EVERY person does when they use the construct of "God?" The question then becomes, "does this definition of God make sense?"

Well, that was an utter waste of time responding to that drivel. There wasn't even one point worthy of my effort. Oh, well. After wiping the slobber from your chin, see if you can come up with something intelligent to say.

You're a complete joke! You seem to think that mindless nit-picking passes for rational discussion. It doesn't.”

Hey Albby.

You are not "obliged" to accept an axiom. Only certain axioms are required to be accepted because they are "self evidence." The other two categories are those that are "universally accepted" and those that are "accepted for the sake of argument."

Yet the latter two categories are by no means mutually exclusive. Even more so, syllogisms and axioms are not mutually exclusive.

For instance:

Physical laws allow for predictability.

Science uses physical laws.

Therefore, science allows for predictability.

This whole syllogism is something that is assumed for the sake of argument.  A great majority of the human population accept it for the sake of argument (or at least don't even question it) and so it is "universally accepted."

By no means, however, is the major premise necessary. It's something that is merely assumed because the alternative scenario would neither allow for predictability nor, if it actually was the state of things, could even be understood.

The way I see it is, if universal laws actually weren't universal or constant.. my mind would either explode because I would never know if I would fall up or spontaneously combust... or, my mind would merely try to "create" a fictious construct by which to make everything appear as if it followed some rule (kind of like the old astronomers did with retro and retroretrogress, for the heliocentric model).

(Hmm.. heliocentric? I think that's right).

So.. what I guess I'm saying is.. even if his syllogism is not "self evidence" it is still something that can be accepted for the sake of argument.  For many people, e.g. theist, it is just accepted--like scientist do with the aforementioned syllogism. 

Horrible from the start. Ill defined, presuppositionalist apologetics which have been rebutted a million times. That's what I think.

Oh, and the author should try to learn some basic logic. 

   Yo daedalus, That was Eleanor Roosevelt that said , "Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people." ???

Anyway,  GOD is one thing and freaking RELIGION is another .... I AM GOD <<< all is god. Now what ? Figure out some way to pray?, sheezzz, for god's sakes religion is stupid; science is working on all of this; it's all we got worth a hoot.

Thanks for coming aboard  Badbark and your friend ..... God is a "no brainer", Religion is bad brains. God of abe crap is still going strong, God GOD damn it!

Embarrassing it is. That's why I say as the best jesus/buddha character said "I am ONE with the father". What is it with stupid religious loons and even atheists that mix god and religion. We must find a way to fix this crap .... shit I will be long dead before that happens.   

Religion has nothing to do with GOD ....

Damn words .... really freaks me out

a zillion quotes from the greatest human minds and we are still stuck in the dark age. The internet is helping, and so fix the freaking TV ASAP. GOD save US ! (from unnecessary suffering) and only WE god can .....   

GOD ? no problem. GOD of ABE ? FUCK OFF !

 

  .... so God was just there with nothing better to do than too create this ?.  Really ? WOW. How'd you know ? Wow that's so smart, and how shall I pray ?  Some Gods scare me   nahhhhhh , NOT .... but some people sure the fuck do .... so "godless", so clueless ..... religion is mostly devil shit .....

Oh yah.. and "I AM GOD AS YOU" is going off the deep end.  I'm sensing a theme... and I feel it may burst into something deep at any moment.  Sort of like an advertising campaign..

Here's another reply from the author -

 

I'm still unable to login to RR. If you would, please, post this, too:

You seem to be stuck on one particular definition of "creation." The following characteristics are NOT required for Creation:

1 - Sentience
2 - Intelligence

High pressure creates heavy metals. All that is True in the Universe (God) Creates the Universe.

There's your argument for the Universe being a creation. I am under no obligation to be bound by the cartoon characterization of God of which atheists seem to be so fond. And, I am under no obligation to be bound by your chosen definitions of "creation" and "creator, "either.

Within the context of the terms I have defined in my proof, I have succeeded in establishing its truth. Unless, you have some other logical arguments to present.

And, I have to tell you, you would be wasting your time. Why? Because, I'm not making extraordinary claims that bear a burden of proof and because I'm not saying anything that is inconsistent with reality as can be readily observed by anyone and because, I'm not seeking approval or followers; nor, does anything I am saying require faith or belief.

Of course, the endeavor does beg the question, "Why bother defining God?" The answer is that God-belief is an enormous problem on this planet. Virtually all of the God-believers do so out of faith. When you prattle on and on about how and why God could never exist, they just shut you down. You cannot defeat their faith with contrarianism - and, they will not listen to your logic, if you assault their faith directly. To asault their faith is to assault their ego. To assault their ego is to have them shut you and your message out. So, you are wasting your time with a conventional approach.

I am employing an alternative approach that has proven itself effective on multiple occasions. I have actually had people lay down their faith in response to the line of reasoning you are so desperate to pick apart. I am getting results. It's working.

It works; because, it concedes the existence of God. You'll never get anywhere with a God-believer, when you start off by telling them that God does not exist. They will just point out, correctly, that you cannot prove that God does not exist. To which you will respond that you cannot be expected to prove a negative. And, that's usually about as far as that gets.

On the otherhand, I affirm the existence of God, Creator of the Universe. That piques their curiosity in the face of my objections to Christianity - but, they don't shut me down. I go so far as to tell them that I can prove the existence of God, when they cannot. I point out that they need faith, while I don't.

They invariably want to see the proof I claim to have- so, I give it to them. Now, I don't care whether they accept it, or not. The main thing is to get them to read it in the privacy of their own thoughts. While they are reading my proof of God, their ego is not being assaulted. They will recognize the truth of what I am saying - even if they will not admit it to me. Planting a seed of doubt is all that is needed to displace faith.

Even if they disagree vehemently with my position, they are still being dragged through the process of critically examining the subject.

And, I do not expect immediate results, either. The times this has worked, it has always been a time-delayed reaction, where they come back to me later and concede that it was my line of reasoning that finally got them to take a critical look at their own beliefs.

And, that is the best that you can hope to do to combat the very real problem of God-belief. If you can get them to critically examine their own beliefs, you've won the battle.

Now, you're welcome to continue trying to disprove something that you cannot disprove, if you like. But, my entire premise is based on All that is True in the Universe. You cannot defeat that. But, have fun trying.

 If you think I misunderstood it then explain what you mean. Of course it seems clear to you, you wrote it.

 

 

Why is it worth duiscussing?  Why bother with the term god at all?

 You can continue if you like, but I read ahead and it isn't getting much better. The entire point of the post is basically saying God exists if we define God as a an orange root vegetable often enjoyed by Bugs Bunny, so I'm not overly worried about trying to elude the point. This also isn't ad hom, nor is any part of my post. If you want to reference fallacies, get to know them first. They can be your friends if you know when to reference them correctly.   

 I'm pedantic? You present this argument and I'm pedantic? Name a theistic god from any religion that is not said to be conscious. 

 Again, it isn't up to the atheist to define god. I don't refer to any god except when referencing a particular religions deity as defined by that religion, or the conscious entity creator of the universe they all seem to posit. There is no other way to refer to god, as aside from those instances, the word god has no use. We don't need to make up a definition. We simply need to realize all the present ones are referencing fictions and therefor these gods are not actually existing things.

 If I define god as a carrot then god exists and atheismbecomes untenable. Yeah!!!!

 

Creator implies intent. 

 So if the universe was spawned by a parent universe then the  parent universe has to be everywhere?  But the parent universe isn't this universe so it can't be where this universe is. If it was where this universe is, then they would be the same universe.

So whatever created our universe can do something beside create universes? How do you know that? I don't think the definition  of omnnipotence is able to create universes. But then again your whole argument is based in redefining words so...

 Knowledge requires consciousness. Your back to a conscious entity. 

Actually axioms don't prove themselves, but that is probably a side discussion. 

We already have a word for truth, its spelled t-r-u-t-h. Saying that god = all thats true in the universe is only axiomatic if one defines god as all thats true in the universe. We are then saying all thats true in the universe is all thats true in the universe, a tautology. 

 

One of which is consciousness. 

 Why bother with trying to redefine their god? If what they refer to as god is untenable then the concept should be dropped altogether. I would be happy to drop my atheism (because it becomes meaningless once all god concepts have been dropped) once all theists have dropped the gods they have defined.  

By the way, I love criticism turned on me when it can show me that I am holding some incorrect belief or position. Let's move on.

Please learn what this means. 

It wasn't meaningless. The words "it is a really bad argument from definitions" have meaning. 

 My whole response tells you what's bad about it. By the way, I don't eat pie. I'm not big on sweets. Anyway, read back through and you should be ableto see why I think its a bad argument. 

 

Yes. I've met people who have tried to define god as the universe, or even as whatever created the universe (cough, cough) and even though they are not presently fully known there is no reason to think it is impossible to fully comprehend them. There is no reason to think we are necessarilly unable to fully comprehend these things. We could some day have a theory of everything.

I can comprehend God as far as people define it. After that there is nothing to conprehend. 

And yet, I do wonderfully. 

 Firstly, you refer to god as a being. Secondly,

But, it is fair to say that, in order to create the Universe, any Creator would need to meet the following basic criteria:

 Something like a quantum fluctuation may be capable of creating the universe. Is a quantum fluctuation all powerful? that something is capable of creating the universe does not imply it is capable of doing anything else whatsoever.

 

 Knowledge implies consciousness. Whatever created the universe, if anything,  need not be conscious therefor need not know anything.
 

 Omnipresent means everywhere, always, not simply present at a specific point at the time the universe came to be.

Its not basic stuff its ridiculous stuff. Its like the musings of a lonely teenager. Believe me, I'm not embarrassed in the least. Now, can you not see how silly your argument is?

 Its simple. You are making claims about what is necessarilly required if something is to create a universe. I am giving an example of a possible scenario which runs contrary to your requirements.  Your requirements are thereby shown not to be necessary. Your definition of god is just as arbitrary as anyone elses and no better supported.

I probably won't waste more time on this but feel free to respond all you like. if you say something that I find compelling I will acknowledge it. 

It is pure silliness!

I wasn't referring to anything in particular.. merely suggesting what I thought to be true, that in order for science to have any sort of relevance (in my book) it would have to have the ability to predict.  In order to predict, it is necessary that there are laws that are universal/constant or not-random/not ever-changing at a non-predictable rate.

Something like that.

And yes, I know a certain amount of "randonmess" is suggested in quantum physics--yet, I still think my earlier contention applies.  The randonmess is just inconsequential--small enough that it still allows for the ability of predictability.

Of course.. maybe I'm wrong.  I was just making a general contention.  I'd be happy to learn more though. 

There are three scales ish, quantum which is just pure silliness, our scale which is far more predictable and the cosmic scale lots of unknowns, there is a certain amount of silliness out there to be found but it's looking mostly stable

C is used as the universal constant C is the speed of light, but we can slow light down to about 18 miles per hour we can also make light travel faster than the speed of light between two points

? what interest you more quantum or cosmic

 

Hey Rhad, hello to everyone. Nice paint job on the forum, it has a more "official" feel to it, and goes easier on the eyes too.

Now, back to the subject at hand.

I didn't meant we are under the obligation to accept an axiom. An axiom, being as it is self-evident, is to be taken as that, self-evident. Our youtuber here (btw, would you mind making an account or at least identifying yourself by a name?) is attempting to pass his god creator as an axiom, which as I have said, it is not, it is a syllogism. I stress this out because, depending on the outcome, some syllogisms can only be true within the bounds of it's premises and logic; take for instance the example of the Aristotle was a cat syllogism, this is only true within the syllogism, but outside of it, i.e. in the real world, that is mere bull.

Same thing happens with the god creator syllogism. It is not self-evident, it does not proves itself, and it could only be taken as truth if we accept it's main presupposition as truth, that the universe is a creation, something which, in and on itself, is neither an axiom nor there are any conclusive evidence to support it. Therefore, no axiom, no self evident, no truth, no proof, and no cookie.

I completely agree on this. It is something accepted "for the sake of argument". But, and here's the catch, if something merely hypothetical (and god is no more than this, a hypothesis to explain the universe) is accepted for the sake of argument then it cannot be passed as truth latter on since, thinking back, we accepted it only as a tool to make a point. If we accepted, for the sake of argument, the existence of the invisible pink unicorn to address god's supernatural capability to be beyond contradictions, it doesn't mean the IPU exists.

Indeed. I don't think many syllogisms are meant to be taken neither literally nor as self-evident. If this is just to have a nice talk about hypothetical stuff, then bring the drinks and chips and let's chat. But if the youtuber wants me to accept this as "truth", then he's gonna have a hard time. Hell, I wouldn't take the "because I said so" arguments from my mom, think I'm gonna blindly accept this from him?

 

 

Now, this is for you youtuber (again, a name please?)

cre·a·tor

n.  

1. One that creates: the creator of a new television series; a born creator of trouble.
2. Creator God. Used with the.

cre·a·tion

     1. the act of producing or causing to exist; the act of creating; engendering.

     2. the fact of being created

     3. something that is or has been created

     4. the Creation, the original bringing into existence of the universe by God

     5. the world; universe

     6. creatures collectively

     7. an original product of the mind, esp. an imaginative artistic work: the creations of a poetic genius

     8. a specially designed dress, hat, or other article of women's clothing, usually distinguished by imaginative or unique styling: the newest Paris creations (source: www.dictionary.com)

Ok, since I think I know where you're going, I'll grant you that much.

"High pressure creates heavy metals". By this I can infer your use the word "create" means "to cause to exist" yes? I really hope you don't believe (or try to prove) high pressure has a will of it's own, or that it posses knowledge about making high metals. In this argument you're committing the error of comparing a natural process, which occur without the need of any willful decision and/or action taken place for it's happening, and an event which needs of both a decision and an action from an entity in order for it to take place. Even worst, you're labeling them as equivalent in their origin, and that's just as fallacious as comparing the birth of a wild tree with the production of a Ferrari as natural events: while one was a the product of a natural process which required no will or intended action at all, the other is a manufactured event which required the intervention of willful, knowlegeable, capable entities to do it, or to put it in one word, of creators. 

If heavy metal "creation" is your argument to prove the universe is the product of a creator, then my friend, your argument has been shown erroneous. Therefore no proof, until you come up with a way to prove the universe is the product of such an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent being. And let us clear a loophole someone might use: the aforementioned definition of creation, specifically "1. the act of producing or causing to exist; the act of creating; engendering." One thing is to cause to exist (e.g. heavy metal production) and other, far different a thing, is to willfully act upon the creation of a thing, as defined in the definition of creator: 1. ONE THAT CREATES, meaning the creator decides to create something and takes action to do so. So please, don't try to anthropomorphisize natural phenomena and then call it all that is true in the universe. All that is true in the universe is this: 1) The universe exists. 2) The universe had a beginning.

 

As for the rest of your post, regarding people doubting the capabilities their dogma grant to god and the results you'd had with this and so on. I don't want to comment on your motives for doing so, simply because I don't know them. I could infer some of them but I prefer to hear them from you. Regardless of that I can say one thing: God the Creator is, at best, only an hypothesis for the creation of the world (not theory, hypothesis), one which has been proven to have enough holes to sink the titanic and it's two sisters. And while your proof might seem elegant and lead to question the ficticious characteristics people often claim for their god, thus clearing the way for a more rational view of such a being, it still relies on that very ficticious, hypothetical entity to answer the old question of how did everything got here.

To call the universe a creation, the product of the willful effort, is to rely in an answer which answers nothing, but rather gives the illusion of an answer. The problem with this is that the need to ask about that particular question is then "sated", and the progress of humanity is therefore hindered. We are the curious-sapiens, we thrive and prosper answering the unknown. Religion only trade down the opportunity to learn and advance as a species in exchange of platitude and false self-reassurence. Your proof does as much.

Yes, kind of, you slow light down that much by passing it through a Bose-Einstein Condensate.

C is the constant speed of light in a vacuum your high school physics teacher would have beat you round the head with those last three ultra important words, right? Even a pane of glass will slow light a little.

 

1 - Nothing in my discussion implied consciousness. 

2 - I made no assumptions.  That any being capable of Creating the Universe must have omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence is patently obvious.  Furthermore, anything possessing those three characteristics would NECESSARILY BE THE UNIVERSE.  Why?  Because, the Universe is the only thing that COULD possess such characteristics.  Therefore, God, Creator of the Universe, IS the Universe.

3 - The word, "entity" does not require consciousness.

From www.dictionary.com

entity - en·ti·ty      /ˈɛntɪti/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[en-ti-tee] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

–noun, plural -ties.

1.	something that has a real existence; thing: corporeal entities.

2.	being or existence, esp. when considered as distinct, independent, or self-contained: He conceived of society as composed of particular entities requiring special treatment.

3.	essential nature: The entity of justice is universality.

 

Unless you have some logic, reason, rationality, evidence, and/or proof that the Universe is not and cannot be considered an entity, the proof stands up to your scrutiny.  But, you can keep the cigar.

 

 

No, what you wrote was an utterance of ignorance. 

"God" is merely a human construct.  It is a label that we have arbitrarily assigned to something.  We must define "God" before "God" has any meaning at all. 

You, apparently, have a very foolish definition of God that serves no purpose, except, to help you pander to your own self-important arrogance.  The definition of God I present attempts to fill no gaps, explains nothing, and preserves an honest Process of Discovery.  It is merely a conceptualization - but, that does not render it invalid or in reference to anything unreal or supernatural.

Consider thinking, or remaining silent.

 

 

I had said, "“The most fundamentally important thing to understand about God is that God is a human construct. It is a label that we have assigned to something. Before there were humans to conceive of God, all there was in the Universe was all there was in the Universe."

LOL RON says, "This implies coherency and comprehensibility. Old gods were anthropomorphizations of nature, but the current idea just seems to be the bare label, shepherded to evade definition and falsification."

Well, not today.   I said what I meant.   Keep your straw men to yourself.  Thanks.

I had said, ""God" is a variable. What I mean by that is that it means exactly what the person using the word wants it to mean."

LOL Ron says,  "In a given circumstance to make a certain point, if only for the concept's self-preservation. An ad hoc."

Ok, and your point in essentially repeating me would be?  You seemed to have some reason for saying this.  What was it?

I had said, "When a Christian refers to God, they are referring to an entity that has been defined by their Bible and their imagination."

LOL RON says, "I don't agree that it's well defined. I recall a joke on an RRS show about asking a hundred Christians about their god, and getting as many different answers."

I didn't claim that God was well-defined.  I essentially said the opposite.  It is defined as much by the imaginations of God-believers as their Holy books.  Was I not clear enough? 

I had said, "When a Muslim refers to Allah, they are referring to an entity that has been defined by the Quran and their imagination. But, when a scientist refers to God, they are not referring to either definition, are they? They have their own ideas about who and what God is."

LOL RON says, "Echoing Vessel here that the implied mutual exclusivity between scientists and standard adherents is unjustified."

What implied mutual exclusivity?  And, you seem to be going out of your way to:

A - Miss the entire point of the exercise

and

B - Scrutinize minutia to the point of absurdity

What you're doing is like criticizing a 1001 piece puzzle for the shape of its pieces, and not the finished puzzle.  That establishes exactly what?  How can you conduct a meaningful discussion, when you bog yourself down in such ridiculousness?

LOL RON says, "...but to say that god is something that has to be literally argued out of existence is a shifting of the burden of proof."

If an atheist is going to assert, "God does not exist."  or, "God cannot exist," then the burden of proof has correctly shifted to the atheist.  Likewise, if the theist is going to assert, "God exists," or "God can exist," then the burden of proof is correctly shifted to the theist.  Both are extraordinary claims that bear a burden of proof - that most cannot meet. 

To meet the burden of proof, the atheist must be able to prove a negative, based on the definition of God involved in the dispute.  This is not impossible - it can be quite easily dispensed with logically, if there are contradictions that preclude that God's existence.   We know that invisible Pink Unicorns do not exist; because, if they're pink, they're not invisible; and, if they're invisible, they're not pink.

Also, to meet the burden of proof, the theist must be able to prove that their God exists, based on the definition they would assert.  I've done that.

I had said, "This renders active atheism (the idea that God does not exist) to be fallacious, in that it is a position that cannot be proven. It's untenable.

"Of course, the concept of God rubs both ways - neither those who believe in God nor those who do not believe in God can possibly fully conceive of anything that is worthy of the title, "God." The best that any of us can do is attempt to discern what characteristics such a being must have in order to be Creator of the Universe and define God in accordance with that."

LOL RON says, "Why are we looking for this traits? It begs the question."

Of course, it begs the question.  The construct of God is quite superfluous.  It is not needed.  But, there is no reason why one cannot exist.  "Universe" is a superfluous human construct, too.  But, we maintain it, don't we?

I had said, "But, fundamentally, it can be agreed by virtually all that God is defined as Creator of the Universe. Fair enough?"

LOL RON says, "You're contradicting your previous statements about inadequate definition."

And, you are nit-picking minutia.   What is the point of maintaining a construct of God that is not Creator of the Universe?  That is the most basic common element of a definition of God that we can hope to have.   And, it is the most basic characteristic of God held by literally billions of people around the planet.  So, that makes it the only one that is of any importance at all.  But, important, it absolutely IS.

YOU may not see any reason for a construct of God; but, billions of other people do.  We have to deal with these people on their own terms, if we expect to deal with them at all.   And, we must deal with them, if we are to deal with the problems they are causing.  Wouldn't you agree?  And, isn't that a better approach than extermination?  So, let's stop being ridiculous and accept that God is Creator of the Universe, shall we?  That's the most widely accepted definition.  Deal with it.

I had said, "So, if that is our definition of God, then the existence of the Universe MUST NECESSARILY be evidence of such a Creator"

LOL RON says, "Specious reasoning."

Of course, it's specious reasoning.   Billions of people want to believe in God, Creator of the Universe.  If they are going to define God as Creator of the Universe, they are correct in maintaining that the existence of the Universe is evidence of that Creator.  But, it is specious in that they have chosen the construct, when it isn't needed.  They have done so to address some other need that has nothing to do with creating the Universe.

I had said, "After all, without the Creation, why bother considering who/what Created it?"

LOL RON says, "Begging the question."

The same question is asked by scientists.  What is the problem?  It's that word, "who," isn't it?  It does seem to presume an intelligence where one presumably does not exist, doesn't it?

Well, consider this:

Wikipedia presents a couple of different definitions of intelligence:

"Individuals differ from one another in their ability to understand complex ideas, to adapt effectively to the environment, to learn from experience, to engage in various forms of reasoning, to overcome obstacles by taking thought. Although these individual differences can be substantial, they are never entirely consistent: a given person’s intellectual performance will vary on different occasions, in different domains, as judged by different criteria. Concepts of "intelligence" are attempts to clarify and organize this complex set of phenomena. Although considerable clarity has been achieved in some areas, no such conceptualization has yet answered all the important questions and none commands universal assent. Indeed, when two dozen prominent theorists were recently asked to define intelligence, they gave two dozen somewhat different definitions"

and,

"A very general mental capability that, among other things, involves the ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly and learn from experience. It is not merely book learning, a narrow academic skill, or test-taking smarts. Rather, it reflects a broader and deeper capability for comprehending our surroundings—"catching on", "making sense" of things, or "figuring out" what to do."

Evolution exhibits intelligence.  It determines what works and what does not.  It remembers and repeats what works and discards what does not.  This positive ratcheting effect of evolution causes it to constantly be in the process of improvement and increasing complexity.  Evolution "knows" what works, and what doesn't.  And, the process is present everywhere in the Universe, wherever matter and energy can be found.  Sometimes, it produces life - intelligent life.  So, evolution can even know when to produce intelligence and when not to produce intelligence.  It, like all other evolutionary endeavors, is just a tool for survival that may, or may not, work.  If it doesn't, evolution will discard it.

Perhaps, some questions should be begged - if for no other reason than to get you to think about them.

I had said, "And, if the Creation exists, then it must have been Created - by something. We can simply choose to call that God."

LOL RON says, "So... stupid. Begging the question again."

Ad hominem.  I would have thought a moderator of a site, such as this, would know better.  Oh, well.

I had said, "And, if we leave our definition at that, as God is Creator of the Universe, we technically have no burden of proof -- it's an axiom, a self-evident truth, and certainly not an extraordinary claim.

LOL RON says, "Presuppositionalist dreck. You're stuck with an ineffectual, non-explanatory pantheistic label stuck on nature, or trying to work out how an unsubstantiated mythological Abrahamic god is "axiomatic."

Ad hominem.  Straw man.  You should be embarrassed.

I had said, "Where the burden of proof comes in is when we start making unprovable assertions about God, Creator of the Universe. That is what Christians and other God worshippers have done. They have arbitrarily assigned unprovable and nonsensical characteristics to the Creator of the Universe, thus rendering the entity to which they refer as "God" non-existent. But, that in no way invalidates the existence of a God that has created, or is creating the Universe. It just invalidates their definition of God."

LOL RON says, "You've gotten around it by redefining it as nothing. It adds nothing, does nothing, explains nothing, and is totally superfluous."

I have defined God as All that is True in the Universe.  That is not "nothing."   And, it doesn't have to explain anything.  The word, "Universe" adds nothing, does nothing, explains nothing, and is totally superfluous.  Your point?  This is a proof of the existence of God, conditioned upon MY specific definition of God.  It works.  You don't have to embrace it, accept it, or pay it any attention; but, IT WORKS.   That's all it has to do.

LOL RON prattles, "Fuck this shit. It goes on an on, and it hasn't earned the privilege of continued reading, having tripped over its assumptions out of the gate."

Well, fuck you, too!  Wasn't that fun?  Too bad, that you're too fucking stupid to understand why I would do this.   Of course, not bothering to read the rest of it condemned you to your ignorance.  Idiot. 

Now, would you care to continue this discussion in a civilized manner?  Or, should we continue slinging shit at one another?  Your choice.  I'll play the game either way.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So, you have defined god as the universe? why? You made an argument ad populum earlier, so here is one back at ya. More people call the universe the universe then they call it god.

 

Make up all the words you want, for all the things you want. All you'll do is make it impossible to have meaningful conversations with people who use standard definitions for things.

but maybe thats your goal: to step out of normalcy and establish your own privatized language, and then ask us to adjust ... just because it works for you.

 

the universe is the universe (which IS descriptive - why do you think the term is meaningless?), and god doesn't exist. this works for many people.  It seems that you have done nothing more than swapped the terms "god" and "universe", except added some agency of creation.

I don't know if you done anything of value except that you have done a mediocre job of describing your version of pantheism.

 

 

 

edit: btw, I would also add that your definition hardly encompasses all religions. If Xianity is true, then so is Satan. So, by your definition, God = Satan, too. ("Everything True in the Universe&quot. Also, sin, evil, Hell, nothingness, etc.

I don't think we know if humans won't be able to understand all that is true in the universe. It's not illogical to reason that the universe could be simpler than we ever imagined and fall under a single law, etc.  Whether that is true or not seems to hardly be appropriate to the discussion. It's a speculation that has no sign of being answered soon (but, could). Whether we would know that we know everything about the universe is another matter, but reduces to absurdity. If this is what you mean, fine, we can't know what we can't know.

Anyhow, The problem is that you are simply taking the minimum requirements of what God might be, presuppose those conditions exist, and call them God.  Why not throw in another universe while you are at it?

Besides, you still fall under the problem of what caused your God?

You also use the term "creation". We know of nothing that has decidedly been created out of nothing, we only know that things change states. While we can't know what happened before the first Planck time, we have no reason to believe or disbelieve it was a Creation ex nihilio; intelligently or not (though, it appears unlikely that it was by an intelligent agent for a number of reasons).

So, you may be calling the act that created the universe "god" but which act? The one that directly caused it, or the possibly infinite causes along the causal chain. Again, you are defining your god into existence by creating an arbitrary stopping point and presupposing it exists.

To say "whatever started the universe is god" is like saying, "whatever crapped in my yard was a pixie... whether it was a dog, squirrel, or homeless guy". You are just creating a nebulous definition of something you can't be accurate about - and you even claim that you can NEVER know anything about it (which presupposes that you know that this is a quality of the thing you are defining). 

"Whatever caused a boulder to fall in the Bad Lands, the New York Yankees and Anarchy is called Gtiiigyu"  See, anyone can create arbitrary collections of words and name them. For what purpose? Can I show that Gtiiigyu was responsible for all those things? How? What evidence do I have to show that they are connected? Or do I just claim they are connected by the simple fact that I connected them?

"God is the cause and truths of the Universe" (I'm paraphrasing you).

OK, you called something "god".

 

The true level of coffee in my mug and the cause of erosion, I call God.

 

Now, My definition of God differs from yours, but is every bit as true.  How do you claim you have a better lock on the term?  Can I now claim that I have proved God exists? I'll be famous!

 

 

You need to expand your idea of what constitutes "understanding all that is true in the universe" - by an enormous margin.  I'm talking about including even the most intimate details of circumstances and events, as well as beings, as far away as the other end of the Universe.  We will quite simply never reach that point - ever.  At least, if we do, discussions like this will be so insignificant as to not even be quaint.  But, for now, it's a safe assumption that we are incapable of fully comprehending All that is True in the Universe, or God.

Well, you brought it up - and, I answered it.

When we discover another Universe, I will.  For now, and always, I will define God as All that is True in the Universe.  That is the only construct and definition of God that works and allows God to be Creator of the Universe.  If you can come up with another definition that is tenable, I would be happy to hear it.  Can you do this?

No, I don't fail on that at all.  That question need not even be addressed for the definition to be tenable.  WHATEVER is responsible for the Creation of the Universe will automatically be incorporated into the definition of God, as a part of All that is True in the Universe - along with everything else that is true in the Universe.  Even if we discover other Universes, we would adjust our definition of the Universe to incorporate them.  That is the point of the construct of "Universe."

So, what?  That is not relevant.  I am making no assertions about the origins of the Universe, except to state that it is quite obviously creating itself as a result of All that is True in the Universe, or God.

We don't have to know to have a workable definition of God that allows God to be Creator of the Universe.  We need only define God as All that is True in the Universe.  The questions surrounding how the Universe is being Created and what started it can be answered in due time, and in accordance with our willingness and ability to learn them. 

 

I have done no such thing. 

1 - The Universe is STILL being Created.  Its creation was not a discreet event in the past.  In actuality, it is like an explosion that is still exploding (or, possibly, one of many in a sequence of explosions).  The "event" has not finished.

2 - ALL of the processes involved in the Creation of the Universe are necessarily encompassed by All that is True in the Universe, or God.

Well, then it's good that I never said any such thing, isn't it?  I said, God is ALL that is True in the Universe, not just some unknown causal event.

No, I have created the most accurate definition of God possible.   Its accuracy even surpasses our abilities to comprehend.

I never made any such claim.  But, the definition I have crafted is not dependent on our own understanding.

Pardon me for being blunt; but, your definition of God could never be proven to be Creator of the Universe.  That is the most common definition of God.  If your more specific definition of God does not allow for God to be Creator of the Universe, then it's merely a private definition that will have no meaning to anyone else.  The definition that I provided allows God to be Creator of the Universe.  That is how I can claim to have a "better lock" on the term.  If you're going to maintain a construct of God, it should at least be provably able to Create the Universe.  Otherwise, you are just engaging in fantasy.

It is a syllogism of the form:

God is Creator of the Universe.  All that is True in the Universe is also Creator of the Universe.  Therefore, God is All that is True in the Universe.

Now, it is axiomatic that All that is True in the Universe is Creator of the Universe.  Therefore, it is axiomatic that God is Creator of the Universe.

So, it is an axiomatic syllogism.

Ahh, but, here, you are mistaken.  It is axiomatic that the Universe is a creation - it is a creation of All that is True in the Universe.  "Creation" does not presuppose, nor does it require sentience, intelligence, or volition.  It only requires a process capable of creation.  And, that those processes exist is patently obvious for all rational and objective observers.

But, that's OK, if the syllogism is also axiomatic.  It is not conditioned upon anything external to it.

Again, you are mistaken.  The God I have defined is not merely hypothetical.  It has been defined into existence, using an axiom.  It explains nothing.  The explanations come from a rational process of discovery that is not even a part of the discussion. 

That's just it - it IS self-evidently true - by definition. 

Well, this one is.

I don't expect you to take anything I'm saying, just because I say so.  Here's your challenge:

Come up with a definition of God that allows God to be Creator of the Universe in all of its most intricate detail, but does NOT require that God be All that is True in the Universe.  Your definition must also not require any faith or belief and be self-evidently true.

When you discover that you cannot do this, then you should reconsider your position and accept mine.  I look forward to your attempt!

 

You might at least wait until another post to remind me, yet AGAIN, to get a screen name.  It's lifewhispers.  Satisfied?  And, I would have had one long ago, if the site had any way to contact its administrators or had actually sent me the login information I needed to my hotmail address.  I had to give my comcast address to gain access - and, I didn't like having to do that.  I get enough junk email, as it is.

Gee, thanks!  As if I needed your permission.  Please, stick to your own arguments and attempting to refute mine.  It's not like you had a snowball's chance in Hell of convincing me that I had misused the terms, anyway - I know better.

Despite your cherry-picked definition of "creator," it is acceptable to ascribe the word "creator" to a thing that has no sentience or intelligence.  You almost had to have skimmed past a definition that includes my usage in order to find the one you posted.  That's only slightly dishonest.  A more honest approach would have been to scrutinize all common definitions and when you discovered that I had used the word acceptably in accordance with at least one of them, dropped the subject.  After all, it netted you exactly what?

Yes, of course. 

What have I said in ANY of my comments that would imply that I would ever do any such thing?   My point was obvious.  High pressure is simply part of a process that can create heavy metals.  At least, make some attempt to remain objective.  And, yes, I will ridicule you every time you do shit, like this.  Got it?  Good.

I'll make a deal with you:

Don't insult my intelligence; and, I won't insult yours.  Fair enough?

I have done no such thing.  Nothing in any of my discussions has implied decision on the part of any entity.  I know you are desperate to find fault with my reasoning; but, you will have to stick to what I've actually said and not some silly straw men you want to pummel. 

I will simply acknowledge the silliness of your ridiculous straw man argument and move on.

 

 

Well, it isn't.  It was just an EXAMPLE.  I thought I was clear enough about that.  It totally obliterates the notion that I am attempting to posit an intelligent, sentient God that makes choices and interferes with our lives.  That IS the straw man argument that keeps coming up - although, why, remains a mystery.

Those characteristics are merely coincidental to the definition of God as All that is True in the Universe. 

I have done no anthropomorphizing - outside of employing a simple pronoun that is as innocent as labeling a sailboat a "she."  If you want to take issue with that, then you need to capitulate now; because, that is about as lame of an argument against my definition of God as there is.  If you have real arguments, present them; but, let's leave this one out of it.  I'm not making the claim you imply I am making; so, just drop it.

I will leave you to your own devices to figure out why that statement is fallacious.  That's even more simplistic than the typical theist would posit.  And, it's an insult to any rational process of discovery.  There's a whole lot more to it than that - and, you know it.

My motivation is to provide an alternative and rational definition of God that allows God to have the characteristics God believers most often attribute to God, but without the dogma and primitive superstitious nonsense.  When they see that it's possible to prove the existence of God, they will realize that faith is not required to know God, or All that is True in the Universe.

This is absolutely essential in combatting irrational God belief.  And, the typical methods employed by atheists are not working.   Why?  Because, atheists do not believe in God; and, God believers will not listen to them.  If they will not listen to them, then they are impotent in educating them out of their ignorance.

If you think I've failed in my endeavor, I invite you to attempt to improve upon it.  Can you come up with a more rational definition of God that can be proven to be Creator of the Universe?  Or, not?

It is neither hypothesis, nor theory.  It is merely a human construct that is either tenable, or not, based on its definition.

No, it does not rely on any such thing.  It explains nothing.  It merely stands as evidence of itself.  And, that's all it has to do.  I trust I won't have to repeat myself on this point, again?

But, my definition of God does no such thing.  It fully preserves an honest process of discovering All that is True in the Universe, or God.  Only your straw man characterization of God does what you claim it does.

I have presented nothing "religious."  Nothing I have presented makes any extraordinary assertions, promises, or threats.  There is no dogma, no superstition, no faith, and no belief involved.  It fully preserves an honest process of discovery.  It provides no false self-assurances.  So, you're just plain WRONG about that.  Ordinarily, I would only claim you to be mistaken or incorrect; but, there is a moral component to your distortion of my position that merits the use of the word, "WRONG."

 

I think you've taken that bit too literally, lifewhispers. I'm kidding around there mostly. the first cause argument - everything must have a cause therefore the universe must have a cause therefore God. is something I find embarrassing to theists and just stupid really. The problem with what you've written above is not really that it resembles the first cause argument in saying creator therefore God, so excuse my facetious reply.  In truth your reasoning is circular, what you've said is creator therefore created therefore creator, similar circular reasoning is used to as a base for prime mover/first cause argument.

The first cause argument also invokes the premise that the universe was caused, similarly you have invoked the universe as a creation. As I pointed out in my post we can know the universe by it's substance or by it's properties. Only the properties of the universe require a cause or creator. The substance of the universe, and, therefore - the universe, doesn't. So there is no basis for calling the universe summa summarum 'caused' or a 'creation', the universe is most definitely made up of uncreated uncaused substance, the first cause argument fails therein because it states everything must have a cause, that is patently untrue, fundamentally in our universe, some things just are, like vacuum fluctuation.

The way you have presented your proof fails in the same way, although I agree strongly with your principle, I must admit your argument has a hole where you call the universe a 'creation'.

Now, before this gets missed, I do see that you are starting your argument with the proposition 'God is the creator of the universe', from there I agree your reasoning is fairly sound. You say God is the creator - in order to be God then it must have the ability to create - state requirements for creator.

Up until this point I'm following you just fine. When you get to your conclusion, it is arbitrary and unsound and I don't follow anymore.  You have required the creator artificially in your argument, which is fine, you can do that.  But you cannot then conclude from your own requirement that the creator exists .

 

When you then import that God is the universe, you have set up a problem for yourself your artificial requirement of a creator now applies to God. You have said the Universe requires creator, the creator is God, God is the universe.  And thus you've stolen your own concept and broken your argument.

 

 

You trust wisely, I don't have a problem with that at all. I just think it could use a little work