What is evidence and how does it operate, in re God's existence. (bible, Satan)

[Hueffenhardt]

Originally Posted by Ryrge

Okay, then you give me your definition of God.
Ryrge

Side note, I edited out my comment number 7 because after thinking about it some more I don't think it is right.

I am not being evasive or copping out, I am giving you the same answer I give everyone who asks. I don't have a definition for god. I am not making the claim that such a thing exists. I think if someone claims a god exists then the onus is on them to define it, after all they are the one who thinks it exists.

I don't believe any kind of god exists, not a creator god, an exalted man, not Jesus, not Zeus, not Ra, not Odin, not some spirit, not an intelligent designer, not a prayer answerer, not a deist god, not a Mother Earth, not a Father Time, not a Native American god, not a Muslim god, not a Hindu god, not a Prime Mover, not a Heavenly Father, not a Savior, a deity, a white-haired bearded guy, or a god that is the universe with a mind, etc.

[Ryrge]

Originally Posted by Hueffenhardt

Side note, I edited out my comment number 7 because after thinking about it some more I don't think it is right.

I am not being evasive or copping out, I am giving you the same answer I give everyone who asks. I don't have a definition for god. I am not making the claim that such a thing exists. I think if someone claims a god exists then the onus is on them to define it, after all they are the one who thinks it exists.

I don't believe any kind of god exists, not a creator god, an exalted man, not Jesus, not Zeus, not Ra, not Odin, not some spirit, not an intelligent designer, not a prayer answerer, not a deist god, not a Mother Earth, not a Father Time, not a Native American god, not a Muslim god, not a Hindu god, not a Prime Mover, not a Heavenly Father, not a Savior, a deity, a white-haired bearded guy, or a god that is the universe with a mind, etc.

Okay, then shall we just take the God in the Christian faith because this faith is the most influential today?

Here is my revised fundamental concept of God in relation to the universe:

Maker of everything that is not Himself.

You don't have to accept that concept to correspond to anything in objective reality, but I do.

Just the same you do have to be acquainted with that concept, otherwise we will be talking past each other's head.



Ryrge

[Hueffenhardt]

Originally Posted by Ryrge

Okay, then shall we just take the God in the Christian faith because this faith is the most influential today?

Here is my revised fundamental concept of God in relation to the universe:

Maker of everything that is not Himself.

You don't have to accept that concept to correspond to anything in objective reality, but I do.

Just the same you do have to be acquainted with that concept, otherwise we will be talking past each other's head.

That is fine to use your revised definition. As I acknowledged, it is your concept, so you can define it however you wish. But, I am going to stick to that 7 word definition and examine everything else you posit in that context. That seven word definition doesn't say a thing about "the God in the Christian faith", so if you want it in your definition, you need to put it in your definition. And as I am sure you are aware there is no one understanding among Christians as to what God is; there are probably a thousand different versions of the "Christian God" if not more. If you don't believe me, spend some time in the Christian forum.

So, I am going to stick to your 7 word definition.

[Ryrge]

Originally Posted by Hueffenhardt

Originally Posted by Ryrge
Okay, then shall we just take the God in the Christian faith because this faith is the most influential today?

Here is my revised fundamental concept of God in relation to the universe:
Maker of everything that is not Himself.
You don't have to accept that concept to correspond to anything in objective reality, but I do.

Just the same you do have to be acquainted with that concept, otherwise we will be talking past each other's head.

That is fine to use your revised definition. As I acknowledged, it is your concept, so you can define it however you wish. But, I am going to stick to that 7 word definition and examine everything else you posit in that context. That seven word definition doesn't say a thing about "the God in the Christian faith", so if you want it in your definition, you need to put it in your definition. And as I am sure you are aware there is no one understanding among Christians as to what God is; there are probably a thousand different versions of the "Christian God" if not more. If you don't believe me, spend some time in the Christian forum.

So, I am going to stick to your 7 word definition.

You sound so ominously concerned with my definition of God.

[God is] maker of everything that is not God.

You really scare me.

What do you think readers here see in your mood?

Isn't that being overly meticulous as if we are fitting a steel rod into the hollow of a cylinder tube so that the fitting must be very tight as to allow only a microscopic clearance, and the technician inserting it have to use a hydraulic pusher and a hydraulic puller to insert the rod into the hollow of the cylinder tube as also to pull it out?

May I continue?

In religion they call that fanaticism.

But in engineering in regard to tight fitting of machine parts it is called extreme precision.


Well, in which case you are not into religion and philosophy, but are into extreme precision engineering.

Please read the post again from me where I put forth the revised definition of the concept of God:

Originally Posted by Ryrge

Title of post: Okay, then shall we just take the God in the Christian faith because this faith is the most influential today?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hueffenhardt
Side note, I edited out my comment number 7 because after thinking about it some more I don't think it is right.

I am not being evasive or copping out, I am giving you the same answer I give everyone who asks. I don't have a definition for god. I am not making the claim that such a thing exists. I think if someone claims a god exists then the onus is on them to define it, after all they are the one who thinks it exists.

I don't believe any kind of god exists, not a creator god, an exalted man, not Jesus, not Zeus, not Ra, not Odin, not some spirit, not an intelligent designer, not a prayer answerer, not a deist god, not a Mother Earth, not a Father Time, not a Native American god, not a Muslim god, not a Hindu god, not a Prime Mover, not a Heavenly Father, not a Savior, a deity, a white-haired bearded guy, or a god that is the universe with a mind, etc.

Okay, then shall we just take the God in the Christian faith because this faith is the most influential today?

Here is my revised fundamental concept of God in relation to the universe:

Maker of everything that is not Himself.

You don't have to accept that concept to correspond to anything in objective reality, but I do.

Just the same you do have to be acquainted with that concept, otherwise we will be talking past each other's head.

Ryrge

Are you not bordering or even falling over the cliff of over-meticulosity, already unhealthy?

May I just bring your attention to what I have always said about definition in regard to what is evidence, that as we proceed we can revise as need be as more and better insights surface in our minds on the matter at issue?

I hate to say this because it is ad hominem, but I must remind everyone that we are humans, not robots.


Your mindframe is not human but mechanistic or robotic, engineered to the most exacting microscopic precision.


Is that what being an atheist makes of you?



In which case, I am afraid I have to throw in the towel, and abandon this thread, even though you will call me whatever unpleasant names and luxuriate in your robotic triumphant glee.


No, I don't think I am going to engage in any exchange of thoughts with your kind of a mindframe and mindset which is no mind but a computer robotic cpu.


As a matter of fact, I have to run away from you if I meet you in real life in the street.


Now, I can understand how atheists go over the Bible to pick up any however small minutiae to argue the non-existence of God, and not bothering at all to see the big picture where the minutiae are picked out by them.


Anyway, let me just tell you that as I said, I am into the fundamental concept of God in relation to the universe, and on that token I define God as:

Maker of everything that is not Himself.

That fundamental concept of God in relation to the Christian faith does not exclude everything else that Christians also believe about God which everything goes to make up the common teachings of the Christian faith -- of course atheists will bring in their objection that there is no unity and no uniformity of teachings among Christians, and on and on and on and on -- but there are common teachings except among fringe minorities, well you will insist precisely that shows that there are no common teachings among Christians, etc., etc., etc., etc., etc.

I give up.

And I am getting out as I read the next post of Hueff and see him still into his over-meticulous nitpicking robotic brain.



Ryrge

[sanspeur]

You are aware that personal attacks can bring down the wrath of the forum gods aren't you...I see nothing at all wrong with Hueff's posts...If anyone is typing like a robot it is you...Robots, like you tend to repeat the same thing over and over again, but I doubt if a robot could be as condescending and insulting to people as you have been on this thread.

[GldnRule]

Originally Posted by Ryrge

You sound so ominously concerned with my definition of God.

[God is] maker of everything that is not God.

You really scare me.

What do you think readers here see in your mood?

Isn't that being overly meticulous as if we are fitting a steel rod into the hollow of a cylinder tube so that the fitting must be very tight as to allow only a microscopic clearance, and the technician inserting it have to use a hydraulic pusher and a hydraulic puller to insert the rod into the hollow of the cylinder tube as also to pull it out?

May I continue?

In religion they call that fanaticism.

But in engineering in regard to tight fitting of machine parts it is called extreme precision.

Well, in which case you are not into religion and philosophy, but are into extreme precision engineering.

Please read the post again from me where I put forth the revised definition of the concept of God:

Are you not bordering or even falling over the cliff of over-meticulosity, already unhealthy?

May I just bring your attention to what I have always said about definition in regard to what is evidence, that as we proceed we can revise as need be as more and better insights surface in our minds on the matter at issue?

I hate to say this because it is ad hominem, but I must remind everyone that we are humans, not robots.

Your mindframe is not human but mechanistic or robotic, engineered to the most exacting microscopic precision.

Is that what being an atheist makes of you?

In which case, I am afraid I have to throw in the towel, and abandon this thread, even though you will call me whatever unpleasant names and luxuriate in your robotic triumphant glee.


No, I don't think I am going to engage in any exchange of thoughts with your kind of a mindframe and mindset which is no mind but a computer robotic cpu.


As a matter of fact, I have to run away from you if I meet you in real life in the street.


Now, I can understand how atheists go over the Bible to pick up any however small minutiae to argue the non-existence of God, and not bothering at all to see the big picture where the minutiae are picked out by them.


Anyway, let me just tell you that as I said, I am into the fundamental concept of God in relation to the universe, and on that token I define God as:

Maker of everything that is not Himself.

That fundamental concept of God in relation to the Christian faith does not exclude everything else that Christians also believe about God which everything goes to make up the common teachings of the Christian faith -- of course atheists will bring in their objection that there is no unity and no uniformity of teachings among Christians, and on and on and on and on -- but there are common teachings except among fringe minorities, well you will insist precisely that shows that there are no common teachings among Christians, etc., etc., etc., etc., etc.

I give up.

And I am getting out as I read the next post of Hueff and see him still into his over-meticulous nitpicking robotic brain.

Ryrge

Ryrge...chill out Bro'...first of all, it's not that big of a deal what strangers on some web forum think.

Anyway...this thread of yours has been very active, and everybody has made quality contributions.
I don't see any EVIDENCE of a real problem...everyone has been very cool IMO.

[Ryrge]

Originally Posted by sanspeur

You are aware that personal attacks can bring down the wrath of the forum gods aren't you...I see nothing at all wrong with Hueff's posts...If anyone is typing like a robot it is you...Robots, like you tend to repeat the same thing over and over again, but I doubt if a robot could be as condescending and insulting to people as you have been on this thread.

Thanks for the reminder, I was the one not being calm, okay, I have to watch myself.


Just by way of orientation, my definition of God in His fundamental concept in relation to the universe has to do with the most important feature of God, and that is in His role as maker of the universe, the one where we are residing in and are part and parcel of.

And I also said that I am referring to the God of the Christian faith, which Christian faith is the most influential today -- although I do not include the phrase "in the Christian faith," and I will stick to it without the phrase.

Because even without the phrase, God, i.e., the concept, is adequate for the purpose of determining what kind of evidence is applicable to Him to search for, to substantiate His existence in objective reality.


If this God of Christians is not the maker of the universe, i.e. (and forgive the repetition), maker of everything that is not Himself, then He is not deserving of any attention whatsoever from man and also from any other conscious intelligent beings.

But Christians do define God in His fundamental concept in relation to the universe as maker of everything that is not Himself.


Supposing that today there are men and other conscious intelligent beings not informed about the Christian faith, and they come to the thought by their own thinking that they have a beginning to their existence, and from that awareness they reason to a maker of themselves and also everything else with a beginning; and one day they come across the Christian faith, and learned that the God of Christians is taken by Christians to be the maker of everything not Himself, logically they will realize that the God of Christians is the god they also know by their own reasoning.


The present thrust of the thread is into a subtle direction, to determine what kind of evidence is appropriate to apply to God according to the concept above enunciated by yours truly.

It is not into proving from evidence that God does exist in accordance with the concept so presented above.


It seems like figuring out what kind of explosive is applicable to blow up a building, at the same time not applying the kinds of explosive one by one to see whether it does blow up the huge high skyscraper building.

[ Ask the Al-Qaeda gang, they knew how and did blow up high high towers, but even without explosives, with only harmless commercial airliners. ]


Bad analogy, still you get the idea, bad analogy because God is not going to be blown up with explosives, but blown up to be existing by the appropriate kind of evidence.


Anyway, let us see what comes from our mutual efforts to determine what kind of evidence should be applicable to substantiate the existence of God as per concept above, forgive the repetition, maker of everything that is not Himself.

That is the way the atheists here want it, they don't have the patience to dwell with me on the generic concept of evidence, etc.



Ryrge

[Ryrge]

Originally Posted by GldnRule

Ryrge...chill out Bro'...first of all, it's not that big of a deal what strangers on some web forum think.

Anyway...this thread of yours has been very active, and everybody has made quality contributions.
I don't see any EVIDENCE of a real problem...everyone has been very cool IMO.

You did say early on in this thread that everything is evidence to something else even of itself.

And I told you that you have an insight that is useful for the contrivance of a mechanism by which evidence operates.


Here is the mechanism by which evidence operates, namely, as with a piece of machinery, every part is connected to every other part, all parts are connected together to bring about the effect the machine intended by the inventor or machine maker to produce.

So, let us say that you have an idea that there was an island civilization called Atlantis, mentioned by Plato, and you are searching for evidence to substantiate the existence of the island civilization called Atlantis.

So you search what is common in civilization centers, namely, artifacts or man-made objects, still available even just in fragments, and also what is common in civilization centers, records written or memories put in writing by ancient writers.

Logically you scour the Atlantic ocean floor for such fragments and you read Plato and other ancient writers for their accounts of the location of Atlantis, those fragments whatever and those records in written texts or in inscriptions in stones which are still to be found, they are all possible evidence to substantiate the existence of Atlantis.

That is how in my crude presentation how the mechanism of evidence operates, and it is based upon the reality that everything is connected to everything else, by some kind of linkage, for example, on causality, on similarity of say fashion, on being located in the same time and space confines.

Not a good example of the mechanism of evidence, that missing island civilization of Atlantis?

Just the same I want to credit you with the insight that everything is evidence to something, even to itself.


Anyway, let me try again, something more common in everyday's life, you suspect some stranger got inside your home with the intention to steal, while you were away, your neighbors ask you why you entertain such a suspicion, what evidence do you have?

You tell them because things in my closets and cabinet drawers were messed up, and I am not one to leave my things messed up without putting them back neatly.

So, things messed up is common with people specially burglars who break inside homes to look for valuable things they can take away with them.

The mechanism then of the evidence is the messed up things which is common with humans, for only humans are capable of messing up things and leaving them messed up, when they are lazy or they have to be quick in the search for precious things to steal.

Anyway, your neighbors ask you if you miss anything, and you say no, because at this point in time you would not be able to notice anything missing because there are so many things in your closets and cabinet drawers, later on when you are looking for something to wear or some piece of jewel to put on, and you cannot find it in the usual places you keep these things, that is the time you know that the burglar has taken them with him.

Still not a good example of the mechanism of how evidence operates to substantiate the existence of something that needs substantiating?

Sorry, my mind is not so resourceful just now.


But I want to credit you for your insight that everything is evidence to something even to itself.



See if you can contribute some ideas on the kind of evidence that should apply in the substantiation of God's existence corresponding to the concept of God, I will not repeat it again, the concept, because some people are very annoyed with my repetitions.



Ryrge

[SeekerSA]

That is the way the atheists here want it, they don't have the patience to dwell with me on the generic concept of evidence

We have simply been waiting for you to present evidence.

The first attempt you make is a fallacious analogy to the twin towers.

That hardly constitutes evidence. It is called a strawman tactic. Theists use it all the time in forum debates.

How about your camp simply present the world with the fossils of Adam and Eve? Most folk in your camp believe the earth is no older than ±6000 years old so expend some effort where you think the garden of eden may have been.

Human remains that were alleged to be 900 odd years old before passing should show some real signs of wear and tear unlike the normal lifespan of real fossils.

We can ignore for now the plethora of irrefutable evidence for a very old earth which allows for aboigenesis and evolution to transpire. We can also ignore the real fossil record and pretend dino fossils were put there by satan to fool the scientists.

Having the GoE artifacts and A&E bones in the Smithsonian would go a long way to proving your god. We could also reasonably expect a 6k yo fossil of a talking/walking/flying/serpent aka a dragon.

Real science has the wherewithal to test any findings you may have in this regard.

At minimum, you should be able to confirm the creation event.

[Hueffenhardt]

Ryrge,

Yes, when I am discussing the law, logic, or science, I strive to be very precise. Those are three fields that make use of evidence and proofs. If one wants to come to a correct answer and be confident that it is the correct answer one must be precise. Sloppy thinking and sloppy language yield sloppy and untrustworthy results and are open to all sorts of legitimate criticisms.

A sloppy effort is a waste of time as it yields no reliable results, so if we ever want to know the real answer to whatever it was we are working on we'd have to do it all over again, but this time do it right. If one does it well the first time, one only has to do it once. So, criticism along the way and reminders to be precise, helps one produce a better product.

I noticed your latest definition uses the word "Himself" instead of the more neutral "itself". Is that just a figure of speech or are you asserting that god is male, therefore he has a body or a spirit which includes testicles? Do his testicles produce testosterone; does he have a Y-chromosome?

Why is this important? Because if I find something that I can identify as the maker of everything and it is not male, then I can falsify your definition of god. Also, his maleness helps define who he is, not what he did like "maker of everything" does. The idea that he is male is not a dead end, but invites more and more questions, and I like it for that reason. Why would he be male if there were no female? Why would he be male if there was no reproduction? And on and on.

But, you probably just meant it as a figure of speech.