It is starting to look like the answer is no.

I'll be the nth person to suggest in so many words that you cut to the chase. What is your end game? What god do you endorse? What is your best evidence that it exists?

This might end up being irrelevant, but it is worth pointing out: you claim that lots of people before you have proposed this formulation of god, but you have not been able to provide any examples of anyone else using this formulation.

I do not really have a default defintion of God in my vocabary, I usally respond to use of the word by other people. But still I guess

God == "An object of worship for one or more individuals."

Thanks everyone for your participation.

If I don't reply to your posts, please I assure you that I read them, it is just that I don't see you joining the issue here, which is the following as I already told Masque de Z way back in Post #6, 10-14-2014, 08:46 PM, see annex below.


Thanks Piers for your concept of God, appreciate that; I hope sincerely that we and others also will continue in the exchange.

God == "An object of worship for one or more individuals."

That is also my concept of God, but I go further to mention what is this object of worship, and I say that (forgive me for the repetition),

It is in concept the creator and operator of the universe and everything with a beginning.

So, if you concur with me on the concept of God above to be a valid concept, then you might want to ask me whether there is really such an object in existence?

Annex:

Quote:

Post #6 http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...89&postcount=6
10-14-2014, 08:46 PM

Quote:

by Masque de Z

Why dont you start with your own ideas first about how God can enter a Scientific or Philosophical discussion from a purely logical point of view where it becomes necessary that it exists because it serves a purpose, has certain properties etc.

You see I have this idea that man can get to the existence of God from the concept of God, which concept has already been formulated by the thinkers of mankind from since millennia way back.

Here is that concept:

God is the creator and operator of the universe and everything with a beginning.

Is that all right with you for a first matter of our exchange?

And we will talk on the basis of philosophical thinking and writing?

Yes, let's just accept the definition for a moment and let's see your evidence or arguments for why such an object exists. Sure I see why people might object given how it kind of begs that the universe is created and has a beginning and the like, but whatever. Let's accept that and move on.

Well your definition seems way more specific. The main problem with it is that I suspect there are people who believe they are worshipping god, but their god does not necessarily satisfy all your constraints.

Actually I don't.

The reason you are getting such varied responses is because in your OP you presented a definition of a god and then simply stated that you wanted to converse philosophically about it. But that's a very broad request. It would help if you would state specifically what it was you wanted to discuss. Are you asking whether or not people agree with that definition, or why atheists do not agree that such a thing exists, or something else? If you could provide some direction in which you want the conversation to continue it would do a great deal in helping to shape the conversation to where you want it to go.

Neither am I, I don't think you've understood what I'm asking him. See below.

This is what I'm trying to establish too. All I've had so far is 'People have thought it before me'. I don't consider that a good enough reason but I'm not getting anywhere trying to get this guy to offer a better one.

"People have thought it before me" is not his reason for the existence of god. Its his explanation of where his definition of god comes from.

That's not how I'm interpreting what he said below:

He's saying that there's a god who's a creator (he's not defining god there), and he thinks that because it was formulated long ago. Even if you're right it's the same difference, I still need a better reason than 'other people think that'. Don't you?

No hes not. Hes offering up the concept of god, asking if we all agree on the concept, and then ( apparently) going to go on to prove why this god exists.

You need a better reason than "other people think that" to do what?

My proof for the existence of God is the universe starting with you and me, as evidence leading us to conclude to the existence of God, in concept as I said and forgive me for the repetition: Creator of the universe and everything with a beginning.

So, I will add to the universe and you and me, to add: and everything with a beginning, these are the evidence leading us to conclude to the existence of God.

Anyway, tell me how you want me to prove God exists.

Thanks everyone for your participation.

For your proper orientation, please read Post #78.


To Piers and everyone, please let us all join in the exchange I am now into engaging in with Piers.

So, Piers, as you are disposed to accept for the sake of exchange my concept of God, then tell me -- aside from what I already proposed on my procedure to prove God exists, what you Piers and everyone else would want me to use as your choice of a method to prove God exists.

I must commend you Piers most sincerely that you are a civil poster and most disposed to do reasoning.


And I commend the owners and operators of this poker website for availing the public of a forum to discuss things, and also most important and praiseworthy so far, your moderators do not butt in to join the discussion and then delete, move, modify, etc., and even lock up a thread or ban the author of a thread or a poster, for not giving in to his own personal convictions because his convictions are conspicuously emotive than cognitive.

At least I have not noticed any moderator or administrator joining in this thread, but I am not into taking notice of what official status a poster occupies, though.

Sorry for my mistake, my words above should also and more pertinently be addressed to uke_master.

Sorry for the mix-up on Piers and uke_master.

The best place to start would be with your strongest piece of evidence.

Okay, my strongest piece of evidence is the universe and in particular you and I, humans, and everything with a beginning.


Now, and please do not bring up this objection that I am stalling, for I will now require us first to work on what it is to prove something by evidence.

Do you all accept this first requirement, namely, that we first have a mutually concurred on concept of what is proof by evidence?

Sure. I'll first point out that using the term 'proof' in this manner can be a bit dubious in that we don't prove things in a rational context the way we do in a mathematical context. There is no formula where we punch in some values for the pieces of evidence we have to calculate whether or not something is reasonable to believe. Instead what we have are varying levels of confidence.

For instance, if we propose that the sun will rise tomorrow morning, we may begin with the evidence that it rose this morning. That gives us a reason to consider that it may rise again tomorrow. We then compound this with the evidence that it rose yesterday morning, and the day before, etc. This gives us a stronger level of confidence that it will also rise tomorrow morning. If we then add our knowledge of celestial bodies and planetary motion we become more confident still.

Can we agree that this is how rationality works?

We don't need a creator for this to have happened. Invoking one is both unnecessary and it's special pleading.

And circular.

God is the creator of everything.... Hey, look at everything, that proves it.

I came looking forward to be proven wrong and see the 'evidence' that there is a god... Not surprisingly I find the same nonsense repeated over and over..

A discussion where theists talk of evidence/proof of a god always results in you looking a little silly.

All evidence and proof points to the various religious teachings being what I believe them to be.. Stories created by primitive people, which try and explain the unexplainable (at the time) and to offer control over people by way of super natural consequences if they didn't behave..

Exactly.

If God is the creator of everything, that implies he is the creator of himself as well. And this is why the Universe may possibly need no other creator than itself.

I don't think his argument is just, "Okay, my strongest piece of evidence is the universe and in particular you and I, humans, and everything with a beginning." I think he is first trying to establish that we all are using the same definition for god and that we have a common ground for establishing reasonable belief so that we are not all talking past each other. Having common ground is integral for rational discourse. I think this is a great place to begin. I expect the explanation of how you, I, humans, and everything with a beginning indicates the existence of a god will follow once he feels that we are all on the same page.

well, hoooooold on there bub. He hasnt presented his evidence yet!

You're right, sorry. I may of jumped the gun slightly..

To believe in a magic man in the sky, the evidence must be rock solid!

This could be the defining moment of the human race.. He clearly has some aces up his sleeves..


I cannot wait!!

Thanks for your replies, everyone, appreciate that.



Well, you want to be strict with the word proof in regard to very narrow meaning as in mathematics.

Suppose we use the word proof in all instances where people are looking for proof like in criminal investigation, in the courts, in everyday life, in the office, in the press, etc., in school, in the supermarket, in the restaurant, in government offices like the Internal Revenue Service, you get my idea?

So, the way I understand proof, it is the basis for certainty in our information of something, for example, prove to me that you have a nose in your face -- how would you and I prove to the person asking us to prove to him that we have a nose in our face?

In this thread I like for people to prove or disprove the existence of God understood in concept as the creator and operator of the universe; if you want to use mathematics, it is all right with me, but then I will have to do ask you what are the foundational premises of the mathematics you are employing to prove or disprove God existing, and also what is mathematical certainty.