The totality of existence and its implications. (eternal, Earth, married)

[Hueffenhardt]

Originally Posted by Ryrge

Okay, it is possible the concept of a maker of everything except itself, so what is the problem with finding the corresponding object corresponding to the concept of maker of everything except itself in the realm of reality outside man's mind?

Moderator cut: delete]

Have you re-read my posts, yet like I asked you to do? I think it may take you a few times of reading my posts before you will start to understand.

You talk about not wanting to talk past each other, that is what you are doing. It is like you have made up in your mind what it is I think and ignore what I say 6 times to correct your misunderstanding of my position.

I have already answered the above question, many, many times in this thread, so how about you read my posts again.

Here let me outline it for you again:

1) It is possible that some being made everything except itself.
2) To demonstrate that one would need to show how everything was made.
3) Now, after that is done, all we have accomplished is to show that everything was made; we don't know by whom or by what everything was made, that is a separate task.
4) We would then need to know who or what are suspects are, and then show that it was this being that made everything.

It follows the same course as a death investigation:
1) It is possible that this person died at the hands of another.
2) To demonstrate that this person was murdered, we'd have to show how they were murdered (i.e., with a gunshot to the head, through strangulation).
3) Now, after we have shown that this person was murdered by gun shot; we still don't know who shot the person, identifying the killer is a separate task.
4) We would then need to know who are suspects are, and then show that it was this particular suspect that murdered the other person.

You have not adequately defined what god is. At this point, your term god does not refer to a specific object, because you haven't defined god well enough to specify what kind of object god is. An undefined god, as you have, instead of pointing to a particular object actually refers to a range of possible objects that might be responsible for making everything except itself. So, if you are able to prove that everything was made, you have not yet proven the existence of a particular object (a defined god), but you have only proven there must be some object (out of a range of suspects) that made everything. Similarly, if you are able to prove someone was murdered, you have not yet proven the identity of the murderer, but you have only proven there must be some person (out of a range of suspects) that committed the murder.

So, evidence of everything being made will not point to an object in reality, until after you have identified that object, told us what it is, and show us why it is responsible for making everything, as opposed to some other object.

[Hueffenhardt]

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

So he has and it is is another shrinkage in the first cause Gap for God.

Though how he proves it is beyond me and probably beyond most of us including one valued and dogged Theist poster who claimed to know that Hawking was talking nonsense.

To him I gave the same response I give you. Hawking is a top brain in his field. While his theory requires peer review and crit or endorsement from other great brains in the field, I'd say his views have earned a bit of credit, wouldn't you say?

Stephen Hawking's idea, although maybe new to the general public, has been around for a number of years among physicists. I have been aware of it for a while, and although even I don't have my head completely around it, I understand it well enough in principle to consider it plausible.

(Remember I majored in physics and earned a minor before switching to psychology).

[Hueffenhardt]

In a murder investigation, after you have established that a murder took place, you know there is a murderer out there, you just don't know who yet. Someone may ask you, who is your suspect. If you were to answer that the murderer is your suspect of the murder. They'd say, no, who do you suspect is the murderer? They are looking for you to identify the person (the object) you think committed the murder.

If you ever establish that everything was made, you'll know there is something out there that made everything, you just won't know who it is yet. Someone may ask you who do you think this maker of everything is.

If you answer, "god is who I think is the maker of everything", you will in essence have said nothing, since you define god as the maker of everything. So, replacing the word "god" in the earlier sentence with "maker of everything", your sentence now reads:

"the maker of everything is who I think is the maker of everything".

I'd say, "No, who do you suspect is the maker of everything?" I am looking for you to identify the object you think made everything. What is that object? You have said it is a being that existed before the universe began and now is part of the universe. OK, what do you mean by being, does it have a physical or spiritual body, what else do you mean by being? Tell me about this object you think is the maker of everything. How does it move physical objects in the universe? Etc. Etc.

Or, if you want, skip defining this object, and let's talk about your evidence that the universe was made. Or to use my analogy, let's first identify whether a murder has been committed, before we go identifying a suspect.

[Pawporri]

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

I am quite convinced that Hueff. could objectively set out the best possible case for the existence of God, god and First Cause and in the succinct and logical way that seems to evade most theist apologists. Whether it would be as convincing as any arguments against the existence of those entities is rather moot (not Mute as some people put it - that means something else)

First cause - even Dawkins said a case can be made.

god - one has to argue for an element of forward planning in the appearance of the universe and that is harder to argue.

God (or any other personal god) is going to struggle.

But I think that it can be left in Hueff's capable hands not only to even - handedly argue the case but try to make a coherent argument of Ryurge's case, as Ryurge himself seems to be struggling.

Agreed. This is good "Chewing" and I am learning a lot. I will give Ryrge a lot of credit, as Huff did, for his starting definition of God as a "Being." But it is only a starting point.

How would you expand from there ?

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by LuminousTruth

Oh, I hadn't understood your objection before...perhaps it was too late at night.
I was thinking that we could skip over the Ignosticism and go along with the usual or average definitions.

So that if God exists as an "extra" thing, then our Universe + God = Greater than God = Totality of Existence.

I thought that was what the implication was, and since I was thorougly confused by the O.P. I had decided that I would just go on the thread title: which drew me to learn more about this topic.

Well that would be ok with me as I would simply give a list of possible definitions for 'god' and discuss on that basis so as to avoid shifting the goalposts or Equivocating (eg. 'You agree the universe exists don't you? Well that's what I call 'God'. Now that we have agreed that 'God' exists, let me tell you what the Bible says about Him...')
I'd just say that this was not the same thing even though it had been given the same label. However, I don't want to usurp Hueff's thread. Probably all of your Questions will be answered in his dealings with Ryurge.

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by Pawporri

Agreed. This is good "Chewing" and I am learning a lot. I will give Ryrge a lot of credit, as Huff did, for his starting definition of God as a "Being." But it is only a starting point.

How would you expand from there ?

I would be tempted to use the definition of 'that which made everything' (with the assumption that it didn't make itself or wasn't made by anything else) This being the First cause argument, I'd look at the case for and against that.

In Tandem I'd look at the implications of a first cause being intelligent in the sense of planning ahead as one could regard the inherent laws of physics and mater as a form of 'intelligence' especially since I regard those laws as essentially the ones that eventually produced our intelligence.

In reserve I'd have discussion of any personal gods since I'd be fully expecting the Leap of faith from an intelligent First cause to a being which communicates with us.

But as I said, I'd like to leave Hueffenhardt clear to discuss as he's dealing with a lot of concepts I'd be tempted to accept as 'widely understood'.

[Pawporri]

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

I would be tempted to use the definition of 'that which made everything' (with the assumption that it didn't make itself or wasn't made by anything else) This being the First cause argument, I'd look at the case for and against that.

In Tandem I'd look at the implications of a first cause being intelligent in the sense of planning ahead as one could regard the inherent laws of physics and mater as a form of 'intelligence' especially since I regard those laws as essentially the ones that eventually produced our intelligence.

In reserve I'd have discussion of any personal gods since I'd be fully expecting the Leap of faith from an intelligent First cause to a being which communicates with us.

But as I said, I'd like to leave Hueffenhardt clear to discuss as he's dealing with a lot of concepts I'd be tempted to accept as 'widely understood'.

As Christy Girl would say "Awesome, simply Awesome !"

[Ryrge]

Originally Posted by Hueffenhardt

[...]

I have already answered the above question, many, many times in this thread, so how about you read my posts again.

Here let me outline it for you again:

[...]

You have not adequately defined what god is. At this point, your term god does not refer to a specific object, because you haven't defined god well enough to specify what kind of object god is. An undefined god, as you have, instead of pointing to a particular object actually refers to a range of possible objects that might be responsible for making everything except itself. So, if you are able to prove that everything was made, you have not yet proven the existence of a particular object (a defined god), but you have only proven there must be some object (out of a range of suspects) that made everything. Similarly, if you are able to prove someone was murdered, you have not yet proven the identity of the murderer, but you have only proven there must be some person (out of a range of suspects) that committed the murder.

So, evidence of everything being made will not point to an object in reality, until after you have identified that object, told us what it is, and show us why it is responsible for making everything, as opposed to some other object.

Okay, Hueff, here are two paragraphs from your excerpted post above which I will put into a format more convenient to read:

Originally Posted by Hueff

1. You have not adequately defined what god is.

2. At this point, your term god does not refer to a specific object, because you haven't defined god well enough to specify what kind of object god is.

3. An undefined god, as you have, instead of pointing to a particular object actually refers to a range of possible objects that might be responsible for making everything except itself.

4. So, if you are able to prove that everything was made, you have not yet proven the existence of a particular object (a defined god), but you have only proven there must be some object (out of a range of suspects) that made everything.

5. Similarly, if you are able to prove someone was murdered, you have not yet proven the identity of the murderer, but you have only proven there must be some person (out of a range of suspects) that committed the murder.

6. So, evidence of everything being made will not point to an object in reality, until after you have identified that object, told us what it is, and show us why it is responsible for making everything, as opposed to some other object.

Please everyone who is a theist, please come to the assistance of a fellow theist one Ryrge, so that we can understand the concern of an atheist, namely, one Hueff.

To my reading of the statements above of Hueff, he has three concerns

A. That I have not adequately defined God (statements 1-3).

B. What it is to prove something exists in reality outside man's mind (statements 4-5).

C. How evidence works (statement 6).

For the present I will invite fellow theists to let pass B and C, and concentrate on A.


I have defined God as:

the maker of everything except Himself,

by that I mean He made everything in the universe but not Himself, and by universe I mean the totality of existence.

Now, fellow theists please give here to readers and posters alike what are your definitions of God.

We are going to present our definitions of God, then we will ask Hueff what he thinks of our definitions.

At this point, we all everyone theists and atheists, please let us just keep to the definition of God, keep to A, let us let pass for the present B and C.


I am most sincerely and earnestly appealing to fellow theists to give their definitions of God here, but if atheists care to give their definitions of God, please also do.

Only one very simple request on defining God, make it short, simple but some people will balk that it is an impossible request owing to their profundity of thinking and the massive expanse of their knowledge, just the same exert your utmost good will and capability to first pinpoint in your mind what is the most important thing you have to say apropos the issue of defining God the concept of that is, and then do it with the least number of words which are plain, clear, and precise.


I appeal to fellow theists, please present your definitions of God here and now, even though you might be annoyed because you have already given your definitions of God many times over, just the same for the love of God and mankind that we all theists are dedicated to, please just this time give your definitions of God in the most shortest wording you can master, and in plain, clear, and precise words, even though as I say some of you might balk because you have such a profundity and such an expanse of knowledge of God that your definition must to do justice to God be crafted in (smile here) many many many words.

Anyway, have a go at it, a short plain, clear, precise definition of God, the God that we fellow theists love and for that love we also love fellow men even though not all are fellow theists, but quite the opposite to us and contradictory to us, namely, atheists who are still though fellow humans.


And here is my overly repeated definition of God which is not acceptable to Hueff because according to him I have not adequately defined God as to satisfy his requirement of an adequate definition of God.

Maker of everything except Himself.

Okay, Hueff, you also give an adequate definition of God based on your acquaintance with so many descriptions of God already from theists in your history of exchange of thoughts with theists on the issue of God or no God, and also from your previous knowledge and belief in God when you were once for a good number of years I assume in that span of your lifetime when you were a Christian theist, I assume, Christian theist.

But I fear you will balk because you will say that you don't believe anymore in the existence of God so you don't have to give your definition of God.

Just the same I am appealing to you to give your definition of God on the basis of what you are acquainted with of definitions of God in your previous Christian theist life and also on your reading of definitions of God from theists -- all right, just please...., please...., please....?



Ryrge

[Ryrge]

I made the earlier post at 5:20 AM local time 8 hours ahead of Greenwich, it is now local time where I am writing this post 6:55 AM; and no one neither theist nor atheist has replied to the post.


I guess you guys are in parts of the earth where you are now sleeping.

Well, when you wake up take a look at my latest posts.


I will now take the initiative to say what I think is bugging Hueff.

What is bugging him is that my definition of God is not an adequate definition of God, not adequate to his thinking in respect of an exchange of thoughts on God or no God.

But it is adequate enough for the iconic best [sic] sellers of atheist authors to write about God and more correctly no God.

They must have an adequate definition of God so as to be able to write so much about there being no God.

Unless they are into an exercise to write on an inadequately defined God, which if I may use the word silly instead of irrational make them look silly, writing so much and competing among themselves who sell more books about no God and getting a big market among their fellow atheists.

When all the time they are without an adequate definition of God.


Anyway, tell me, Hueff, what is an adequate definition according to your thinking of anything at all.

Please give an example of an adequate definition of something of your choice anything at all.

Then I will try to show you and hope to assure you that my definition of God, namely:

Maker of everything except Himself,

is adequate and not inadequate, for the purpose of exchanging thoughts on the issue of God or no God in the totality of existence that is the universe where you and I have residence and are part and parcel of.



Ryrge

[Hueffenhardt]

If god exists, it is something, rather than nothing, right? All I am asking is for you to tell me what that something is. You'd be able to easily do that if you knew what god actually is. You could tell me what a car is, what a dog is, why can't you simply tell me what a god is?

I tell you what I believed god was, back when I believed in god. I'll show you how easy it is. Now you won't believe in the god I used to believe in, so you tell me what your god is. I was raised Mormon by the way. I'll talk about the god I believed in as if I still do, so using the present tense.

God is an exalted man. He has a spirit and an immortal body. He lives on a planet near the star Kolob. He once was a human being and lived his mortal life on a different planet. He served his god, he died, and was resurrected, meaning his body and spirit were reunited, and became a god. His body has a spiritual fluid flowing through his veins now instead of blood. He looks like a man, only he radiates light. He is married to an exalted woman, a goddess. He and his wife or wives gave birth to the spirits that reside in our bodies.

I could go on and on, but that is what god was to me when I was a believer. Now what is god to you?

Now, some might say that we believe in the same god, we just have different beliefs about god. I would say that if your god is the universe itself, we don't just differ on the details, you believe in a completely different god than I did. Even though we both believed our god created the universe. What we meant by the term god was totally different.

Oh, yeah, I almost forgot, each of us can become exalted men and women and become gods and goddesses, too.

I might have believed in a god that doesn't exist, but at least I knew what god was.