queston for Atheist

[fr0d0]

It sounds like you're just making up a definition for God and insisting everyone use it.

I didn't make up the definition. That's the one in the dictionary. Sure we could all make up endless nonsense words and say that they mean the same as any existing word. But why do that? We already have a word. That's how language works, on commonly agreed meanings.

Now I'm happy to accept that the whole of the description of God wasn't inferred, but neither was it taken. I find the objection unnecessary.

[Whateverist]

I don't have near enough faith to be an Atheist.

That is so true. To let the facts take you wherever they lead does take a special kind of faith. Insisting you already know the destination before you begin to investigate really is a cop out and, yes, faithless. Nice to get a self-reflective sort of theist through here. I hope you stick around.

[Rampant.A.I.]

It sounds like you're just making up a definition for God and insisting everyone use it.

I didn't make up the definition. That's the one in the dictionary. Sure we could all make up endless nonsense words and say that they mean the same as any existing word. But why do that? We already have a word. That's how language works, on commonly agreed meanings.

Now I'm happy to accept that the whole of the description of God wasn't inferred, but neither was it taken. I find the objection unnecessary.

God[ god ]
noun
1. the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe.
2. the Supreme Being considered with reference to a particular attribute: the God of Islam.
3. one of several deities, especially a male deity, presiding over some portion of worldly affairs.

http://m.dictionary.com/definition/god

Playing stupid really gets old. You aren't using the dictionary definition. You are inferring your personal God, from the socio-cultural belief system you were raised in, and all the attributes of the Judeo-Christian God instead of any other.

The attributes of God are not inexorably tied to Christianity, as you so idiotically state as fact. Lots of cultures have treated their God as the one true God, with all the assumed characteristics they ascribed to God.

You're special pleading the Christian definition because you happen to be Christian. This is not how logic works.

Equivocation ("to call by the same name") is classified as an informal logical fallacy. It is the misleading use of a term with more than one meaning or sense (by glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time). It generally occurs with polysemic words (words with multiple meanings).

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation

[RobbyPants]

It sounds like you're just making up a definition for God and insisting everyone use it.

I didn't make up the definition. That's the one in the dictionary. Sure we could all make up endless nonsense words and say that they mean the same as any existing word. But why do that? We already have a word. That's how language works, on commonly agreed meanings.

Now I'm happy to accept that the whole of the description of God wasn't inferred, but neither was it taken. I find the objection unnecessary.

As already mentioned by Alex K, the god that people discuss during these discussion also has a lot of other attributes that fleems (or whatever) don't. Just because it shares some characteristics doesn't mean it's the same thing. Apples and oranges share many of the same characteristics and people seem to dislike comparing them (or at least recognize the difference).

That's why I'm objecting. Well that, and it seems you either missed the point of the illustration or were purposefully shifting the subject to something else.

[fr0d0]

I didn't make up the definition. That's the one in the dictionary. Sure we could all make up endless nonsense words and say that they mean the same as any existing word. But why do that? We already have a word. That's how language works, on commonly agreed meanings.

Now I'm happy to accept that the whole of the description of God wasn't inferred, but neither was it taken. I find the objection unnecessary.

As already mentioned by Alex K, the god that people discuss during these discussion also has a lot of other attributes that fleems (or whatever) don't. Just because it shares some characteristics doesn't mean it's the same thing. Apples and oranges share many of the same characteristics and people seem to dislike comparing them (or at least recognize the difference).

That's why I'm objecting. Well that, and it seems you either missed the point of the illustration or were purposefully shifting the subject to something else.

My intention certainly wasn't to shift the focus.

Fleems form the parts of the Christian God that we use to explain things like origins. Let's for the moment forget that God has any other properties: therefore fleems.

Back on topic: no one is saying that this is proof of anything. It's just one theory. Indeed there cannot be proof, and faith deduced cannot be faith unless it can be deduced.

[The Valkyrie]

How do you explain the start of the big bang? there has to be and unCaused first cause. The beginning of the big bang in a split second threw in the existence of time,laws,matter,physics, everything are universe lives with today. If the sun was to far away from the earth we would freeze to death, If we were to close the sun we would burn up.If the oxygen level wasn't perfect we would either suffocate or have fires everywhere. DNA is extremely complex everything is designed on a razors edge, life demands for a brilliant designer its the only logical way. And in the explosion of the big bang it wasn't just random chaos everything was guided into place, what did you guys think everything just happen to be perfect?? I don't have near enough faith to be an Atheist.

Lots of arguments from ignorance here.

We don't know how te universe began or the so-called "first cause". Just because we don't know, though we have a wealth of information that gives us some ideas, that doesn't open the door to "goddidit".

As for earth being just right for us: For a start we EVOLVED to the conditions of the planet. And over 80% of the Earth's surface is hostile to humanity.

[super spidey man]

How do you explain the start of the big bang? there has to be and unCaused first cause. The beginning of the big bang in a split second threw in the existence of time,laws,matter,physics, everything are universe lives with today. If the sun was to far away from the earth we would freeze to death, If we were to close the sun we would burn up.If the oxygen level wasn't perfect we would either suffocate or have fires everywhere. DNA is extremely complex everything is designed on a razors edge, life demands for a brilliant designer its the only logical way. And in the explosion of the big bang it wasn't just random chaos everything was guided into place, what did you guys think everything just happen to be perfect?? I don't have near enough faith to be an Atheist.

I can't explain the start of the big bang.

I don't know about uncaused first causes I don't understand fully how time and space work. I don't understand how something could be uncaused or how something could cause something else before time was created.

It's true our planet is the best planet for life that we know of, we have fairly detailed knowledge of about 9 planets that exist within our galaxy but that's 9 out of about ten trillion planets in our galaxy alone.

I don't know a great deal about oxygen levels but I'm pretty sure they have increased and decreased over time resulting in the huge insects which used to exist which can't anymore because we have less oxygen now.
So when you say "perfect" oxygen levels, there seems to be some margin of error there on what is perfect because the levels have gone up and down, the same can be said of the distance to the sun from the earth which also fluctuates.

When you talk about DNA and say it's all designed on a razors edge it's kind of the same thing I mentioned in the previous paragraph.
Living things do have deformities and sometimes living things are so badly "designed" as you put it, they are no longer living things but dead things in the ground rotting because of heart problems, lung problems, brain problems, cancer and so on and so on.

Again relating to my previous paragraph, everything isn't just perfect.

Well of course life is not gonna be perfect like earthquakes,tornado,death, murder,guilt , feelings, war,floods, natural disasters etc, but that's not the point. Everything in this universe is so detailed and exact that it can not be a random cause. What do you think caused the big bang? Can you prove that a god doesn't exist?

[Faith No More]

Well of course life is not gonna be perfect like earthquakes,tornado,death, murder,guilt , feelings, war,floods, natural disasters etc, but that's not the point. Everything in this universe is so detailed and exact that it can not be a random cause. What do you think caused the big bang? Can you prove that a god doesn't exist?

So, not only do you like arguments from ignorance, you enjoy shifting the burden of proof, too?

You're not making a convincing case here.

[super spidey man]

I don't have near enough faith to be an Atheist.

That is so true. To let the facts take you wherever they lead does take a special kind of faith. Insisting you already know the destination before you begin to investigate really is a cop out and, yes, faithless. Nice to get a self-reflective sort of theist through here. I hope you stick around.

You put your faith in not having a clue of how we got here. How did we get here? If you have such great evidence of proving god doesn't exist, do it then.Prove that god does not exist. You put your faith in a billion years after the fact of the earth into evolution which is totally un proven and you need a leap of faith to believe in that. You put your faith in having no idea what caused the big bang but still hanging on to faith of your atheistic world view that it couldn't have been a god, if not god than what ? nothing can explain the beginning exept for a god if not prove me wrong.

[Faith No More]

So, when called out on your arguments from ignorance and shifting the burden of proof, your response is to double down?

It is no one's responsibility to prove that god doesn't exist. It is up the person making the claim that god does exist. That is you.

And whether or not anyone else has the correct answers has no bearing on the validity of your own claim. You're just shouting, "You don't know, so my answer must be right!" That's total bullshit that gets you no closer to substantiating your own argument, a.k.a. that argument from ignorance everyone keeps mentioning.