Evidence for a god. Do you have any ?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

So you admit that the definitions are unsatisfying.
I am left just as baffled by what you say believe in as before.
Can you please clarify what you believe a god is and how it goes about "godding"

What definitions are unsatisfying?  I don't read a dictionary to in some way satisfy an urge of mine.  Dictionaries are relatively unbiased sources.  When I'm online, I mostly stick with dictionary.com and M-W.  Sometimes Cambridge or Oxford, but not nearly as much.  Sometimes when you want to apply a definition more liberally, one may define something with just a bit more depth, but all-in-all, the major ones are all pretty good.

What is godding?  Sorry, not familiar with that term, but rather than go through the dictionary spiel again, I'll just give you the opportunity to define it.

It's pretty clear from the context.  A farmer goes about farming, a plumber goes about plumbing, a hunter goes about hunting.  Gods do godding.

Boru

[T0 Th3 M4X]

What definitions are unsatisfying?  I don't read a dictionary to in some way satisfy an urge of mine.  Dictionaries are relatively unbiased sources.  When I'm online, I mostly stick with dictionary.com and M-W.  Sometimes Cambridge or Oxford, but not nearly as much.  Sometimes when you want to apply a definition more liberally, one may define something with just a bit more depth, but all-in-all, the major ones are all pretty good.

What is godding?  Sorry, not familiar with that term, but rather than go through the dictionary spiel again, I'll just give you the opportunity to define it.

It's pretty clear from the context.  A farmer goes about farming, a plumber goes about plumbing, a hunter goes about hunting.  Gods do godding.

Boru

Got it, and happy to accept you definition.

Curious, so how do atheists go about atheisting?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

'Atheist' doesn't imply action of any kind. To be fair, one could, I suppose, posit some sort of non-active god that doesn't need to do any sort of godding.

Boru

[Angelina]

*bold mine*
Why are you making these random leaps, why on earth would they have been the creator of the universe ?

I just stated that you would have to assume they "may" have been, and it is not a leap. The vast majority of the world are creationists, and that is because everything we have on this planet and all life here, are more easily explained with an intelligent creator involved.


Not one thing about being human seems like it could have just occured by random chance.

Again a belief statement, nothing more.
Evolution is the most trusted scientific theory humankind has at the moment, why not read up on it ?

I have read all about evolution, and it explains practically nothing, and definitely nothing I was referring to.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

The vast majority of the world are creationists, and that is because everything we have on this planet and all life here, are more easily explained with an intelligent creator involved.

Fortunately, the world runs on correct explanations, not easy ones.  Creationism explains nothing, makes no predictions, and can't be shown to be correct.  This is not the case with biological evolution.

Boru

[Angelina]

If not God, then what? If not nothing, then what is the something?
God has become clear to me through my experiences being born again and filled with the holy spirit.

Good morning and Welcome. Could I interest you in an introduction thread?

I've read all of your posts, and frankly I've heard all of this before. You provide nothing except a position that states there must be a god because you don't have all of the answers that you would like. That's called "god of the gaps". If that works for you great, go and live you life. But "don't know, therefore god" stopped working for me at the age of 13.

If you can't bring something of more substance here you're wasting your time (unless you just like hearing yourself preach). Your "god" is nothing more than a mental construct, a conception, an abstraction to make you feel better.

So far you've provided argument but no evidence. You can't argue a god into existence.

I went to the introduction threads and posted in a couple of them. I am still getting the hang of this, so forgive me if I don't respond right away, or if I miss someone's response to me.

[T0 Th3 M4X]

The vast majority of the world are creationists, and that is because everything we have on this planet and all life here, are more easily explained with an intelligent creator involved.

Fortunately, the world runs on correct explanations, not easy ones.  Creationism explains nothing, makes no predictions, and can't be shown to be correct.  This is not the case with biological evolution.

Boru

Creationism attempts to explain creation.  How someone applies or responds to it can vary.

It's more problematic for atheist who explain nothing in terms of science.  The best they've been able to come up in "something from nothing" and "inorganic forming into organic, then increasing in complexity."  Modern science implies these ideas are nonsense and are not observable in light of the Law of Conservation of Mass, and Biogenesis.

[polymath257]

So you admit that the definitions are unsatisfying.
I am left just as baffled by what you say believe in as before.
Can you please clarify what you believe a god is and how it goes about "godding"

What definitions are unsatisfying?  I don't read a dictionary to in some way satisfy an urge of mine.  Dictionaries are relatively unbiased sources.  When I'm online, I mostly stick with dictionary.com and M-W.  Sometimes Cambridge or Oxford, but not nearly as much.  Sometimes when you want to apply a definition more liberally, one may define something with just a bit more depth, but all-in-all, the major ones are all pretty good.

What is godding?  Sorry, not familiar with that term, but rather than go through the dictionary spiel again, I'll just give you the opportunity to define it.

Most dictionaries are poor when it comes to technical subjects, including philosophy. They can give the general outilnes, but cannot get into the messy details that meed to be resolved for more thorough discussion.

In particular, dictionary definitions of things like deities, causality, and most scientific ideas tend to ignore the complexities involved.

[T0 Th3 M4X]

What definitions are unsatisfying?  I don't read a dictionary to in some way satisfy an urge of mine.  Dictionaries are relatively unbiased sources.  When I'm online, I mostly stick with dictionary.com and M-W.  Sometimes Cambridge or Oxford, but not nearly as much.  Sometimes when you want to apply a definition more liberally, one may define something with just a bit more depth, but all-in-all, the major ones are all pretty good.

What is godding?  Sorry, not familiar with that term, but rather than go through the dictionary spiel again, I'll just give you the opportunity to define it.

Most dictionaries are poor when it comes to technical subjects, including philosophy. They can give the general outilnes, but cannot get into the messy details that meed to be resolved for more thorough discussion.

In particular, dictionary definitions of things like deities, causality, and most scientific ideas tend to ignore the complexities involved.

Defining something doesn't demand that you fully explain it.

[vulcanlogician]

Most dictionaries are poor when it comes to technical subjects, including philosophy. They can give the general outilnes, but cannot get into the messy details that meed to be resolved for more thorough discussion.

In particular, dictionary definitions of things like deities, causality, and most scientific ideas tend to ignore the complexities involved.

Defining something doesn't demand that you fully explain it.

True, but as Polymath says, dictionaries are often wanting for the caliber of definition that a good debate demands.