Tnanks veeDDzz for your post.




I am talking about God in the Christian, Islam-Muslim, and orthodox Jewish religions.

So, you will have to look up from the records or literature of these religions on what is their concept of God.

But no need because I can tell you here as from a Christian who is also into the study of the concepts of God in Islam and in Judaism.

In philosophical language God in concept is the creator and operator of the universe and everything with a beginning.

That is the common in philosophical language, concept of God in the three faiths: Christianity, Islam, and Judaism.

Now, atheists purposely pretend to get the concept of God all wrong and they resort to insulting metaphors to get people all mixed up, because they atheists cannot afford to lose in logical debate on the concept of God, in concept as the creator and operator of the universe and everything with a beginning.

So, for us to talk about God intelligently, as my concept of God is the creator and operator of the universe and everything with a beginning, if you want to talk about God but not in the concept I have stated time and again, then you are in the wrong discourse.

With that background and when you do go to read up on the concept of God in the three religions mentioned above, you will come to know that God is unique in His own class, meaning the three religions hold that there is only one God.

So, do you realize that your post is founded on a lot of misinformation, the No. 1 wrong information is your having the idea that God is created by another God..

When you write on any topic at all, get to read up on extant literature on the topic, otherwise you are not in the discourse at hand.

On what basis can you conclude that I haven't read the extant literature?

You're making an assumption and an insulting one at that.

I only asked you a simple question and you purposely avoided answering it. Why? because you assume I haven't read the literature. That's not a good enough reason and it is definitely not indicative of someone who wants to talk philosophically. If anything, you want to avoid talking philosophically.

Thanks neeeel for your post, I must commend you for the virtue of persistence, but it can be just plain robotic stubbornness.




You keep on and on with your example of what is my argument and you keep seeing what you represent to be my argument that it is a case of circular reasoning.

And you have not presented any text from my posts here that spells your premise 1, namely: "God exists." [ That that is my premise 1. ]

So, I will save us both time and labor by telling you that my first premise is that the concept of God for me is that in concept God is the creator and operator of the universe and everything with a beginning.

When you read you must be meticulous in understanding what the words you are reading are saying, no addition and no subtraction, otherwise you are just going into the direction you want to go to which is the wrong direction, and you are in the wrong discourse -- besides your idea of circular argument is woefully deficient if not all wrong.

Okay, try again, look for the text in my posts where I say "God exists."

Have you learned something already from this thread? Or you are still into what you swallowed uncritically from your "best selling" book of another uncritical atheist writer, who does not know the difference between concept and object?

Okay, give me what you have found out about the concept of God in philosophical language from the three religions of Christians, Muslims, and Ortjhodox Jews.

I don't think veeddzz is at all confused about the fact that he's asking about a concept of God which is other than the one you are suggesting. In fact I doubt it possible that anyone could be confused about what the concept is that you are proposing.

His question is attempting to get you to elaborate on your basis for concluding that the concept you are using is the correct one, over against other possibilities. You have been asked in several different ways to proceed to the next step in the argument, i.e providing evidence to support that this concept of God which you are using refers to something real. His questions is also in that vein.

So far, I do not believe you've offered anything on that subject other than to repeat that the concept you are using is very old. Do you have other arguments?

Thanks Westley for your post, right away I want to tell you that a little reading from your "best selling" whatever author rebutting his own self-made arguments from theists on the existence of God, that is a dangerous little reading.




You are the one into fiction, starting with the fiction that you cannot prove a negative.

Take this example from yourself, that there are no elves and fairies, and you are challenged to prove your statement, "There are no elves and fairies."

At this point you declare smugly that you cannot prove a negative.

And your opponent tells you, "I am not telling you to prove just any negative, but your negative statement that there are no elves and fairies."

So, what will you reply in return, or are you now dumbfounded and left with confusion.


Dear readers here, let us sit back and see how Westley answers.

Thanks well named for your post, I have to leave now after this reply to you.




Okay, you tell me what is your concept of God.

And don't arrogate the task to speak for another poster without his leave, get his leave first; otherwise you could be annoying him: because you are making it appear that he does not know how to express himself correctly.



See you guys again tomorrow.

First of all, there is no philosophical language. Secondly, if I gave you what I found out about the concept of God through my own readings you would likely dismiss it and conclude that I failed to interpret the texts properly.

If you won't answer my one simple question, why should I be motivated to contribute more to the conversation?

Susmario: my concept of God is "the creator and operator of the universe and everything with a beginning"

What arguments are available for me to demonstrate that God exists?

My, albeit very simple, rebuttal question to a creator god is "where did God come from?" The most given answer is that God has always existed. This argument makes a creator god itself irrelevant as you can just as easily decide that the condition preceding the Big Bang had always existed. There is a fundamental problem with any real thing that has no conception (immaculate or otherwise.)

You have presented rather minimal information about your beliefs, and then chastised people that they have the details wrong. When asked for details, instead of providing additional information, you have elected to 'test' people about what those details might be, or even switched to asking for their own definition of God - in a thread about your position. How about filling in some of the blanks yourself, perhaps provide the syllogism that you have thus far only complained that everyone else has misrepresented? Or perhaps shortcut all of that to stating that it's the Kalam, or some variation? Soon enough, the only people left will be the ones who enjoy playing Twenty Questions with complete strangers.

Your definition of god is broad enough as to include naturalistic explanations. Would you like to make the definition more precise, or is it intended to include the natural? Presumably you are aware of other definitions including descriptions like "supernatural, spirit, immaterial, timeless, personal (or at least conscious), powerful, omniscient" etc. Care to comment on any of those descriptors?

As mentioned, this could be cleared up with a bit more input from you. Finally, it's your choice but the condescending commentary is annoying: Where did Westley "declare smugly that you cannot prove a negative"? Where has anyone mentioned their arguments came from some "best-selling book"?

Ok, last attempt.

Lets forget about my first syllogism, and concentrate on this one,

1) God is the creator and operator of everything with a beginning
2) everything exists

C) therefore, God exists

Do you agree that this is a fair representation of your argument?

This is the reason I believe our logic is flawed - by any answer as to our existence, an immaterial eternal cause, or a material eternal cause, it still doesn't logically make sense, given our understanding of how things work.

The conclusion of the ex-nihilo problem should be that nothing exists, yet here we are, so clearly our logic is flawed, or our understanding is too limited.

Then let's just cut to the chase. Show your work.

Still waiting for an answer to

He disagrees with (a) as far as I can tell.

Thanks everyone for your posts; I have to deal with neeeel first because he has produced what he thinks is my argument for God existing, and that according to him is a case of circular reasoning.

So, if you people will just follow our exchange then you might get to know about my thinking and the foundations of my thinking in this thread, "I like to talk with atheists philosophically" -- please read the first page of this thread.


Okay, neeeel, here we go, again, and you have not done what I asked you to do, that is why we are not getting anywhere for me to show you that your understanding of circular reasoning is deficient; and moreover my argument is not circular, not in your deficient understanding of what a circular argument is all about.

Before I forget, I want to commend you, that you are a civil poster.




See that line from you I put in bold, you say again and again essentially the same thought, that that is my first premise.

I already told you to look up my posts, and I also told you that to save time and labor, my first premise is not what you keep on and on and on repeating the same thought essentially.

See that line in bold below, that is my first premise.


Now, a syllogism is an exercise in the mind, but an exercise in the mind as I said elsewhere in the net (look it up with google) belongs to the discussion phase of an issue, for example whether God exists or not; and people who use syllogism are at great risk to commit all kinds of wrong thinking or illogical or unproductive thinking.

Better you abstain from reducing every issue into a syllogism, because a syllogism is overly abstract as to disappear from concrete reality altogether.

Here is how in actual circumstances of exchange of thoughts to settle an issue like God exists or not, we can do much better by first engaging in a discussion phase, then afterwards when we have concurred on for example the concept of Gog, we proceed to what I call the expedition phase, and this means going forth into the realm of concrete actual reality to look for the existence of an entity corresponding to the concept of God we concur on.

So, if we concur on the concept of God as the creator and operator of the universe and everything with a beginning -- that is the fruit of the discussion phase, then we proceed to the expedition to search for the entity that corresponds to the concept.

And this is my concept of God, namely:

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

That is my concept, so you bring up your concept, and we will try to work together to come to a mutually agreed on concept, that is the discussion phase of an issue; and upon agreement, we proceed to the expedition phase of the issue settlement.

What you have been doing all the time is to work only in your mind in an abstract realm of ideas, with your obsession for syllogism, so abstract that there is nothing of any relevance to the concrete reality of the world.

fyp

Ok I can see you are not going to engage in anything I say. The syllogism was simply to show you that your argument ( that everything around us proves the existence of god) was circular. I guess its not that important. I will wait with baited breath for your proof of god.

I heard somewhere that if you run into a jerk in the morning, you ran into a jerk. But if you run into jerks all day, you have to consider the possibility that it might actually be you who is the jerk.

So you have tried and failed to have this conversation on numerous other message boards, and we are now 100 messages deep in this thread and those who are persistently trying to engage you seem unsatisfied with your contributions and about ready to give up. Surely instead of instructing people to re-read your posts for the nth time, it is worth considering that you yourself are the common problem in all these failed attempts at civil and rational philosophical conversation attempts. No?

In any case, (yet again) we can tentatively accept your concept of god and get on to the next part of the conversation. You have said that you believe in God, and I believe you also said you can prove it, but let's just start with your strongest piece of evidence and we'll go from there. Isn't that reasonable?

I think a great way to focus and advance the conversation would be for everyone to refrain from commenting from this point forward until Susmario says something to advance the conversation. Just my $0.02.

People with OCD do consider that possibility, but there is little they can do about it.

ok

Oh do get on with it already. You have your concept. Great. Now why on earth do you think that your concept actually exists?

Here is what you said to me earlier:
This is completely void of content. You and me exist. I agree. How on earth do you get from there to "God exists"? Lay out an argument

P1: You and I exit
P2: __________
etc..
C: Therefore God - as you define it - exists

All I can say right now is that I agree with P1, but that accepting P1 does not result in the conclusion.

You're the one who believes it. Provide whatever proof you wish, and we can judge it on its merits.

It's a peculiar notion, isn't it? Defining a concept of something, and then trying to determine whether such a concept exists in reality.

I'm back to help this thread set the record for most responses to the least content.