Fundamental concept of God in relation to the universe.

[Pachomius]

All such phrases are distractions: flying spaghetti monster, invisible pink unicorn, celestial teapot.

Just keep to the concept, maker of everything that is not God.

What is wrong with that concept?



Pachomius

 

[Gracchus]

All such phrases are distractions: flying spaghetti monster, invisible pink unicorn, celestial teapot.

Just keep to the concept, maker of everything that is not God.

What is wrong with that concept?

So, everything is either God or not God. But you can demonstrate any real thing that is not God. You cannot demonstrate any real thing that is God.

You cannot demonstrate the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the Invisible Pink Unicorn, Russel's Teapot, or (your) God. Those things have that in common.

Pantheists and panentheists can point to the universe and say "That's God." Their God is real because their God is reality itself. (Admittedly the panentheists claim that God is or may be more than what is real.)

 

[quatona]

All such phrases are distractions: flying spaghetti monster, invisible pink unicorn, celestial teapot.

That would depend on the topic and the context.
Btw.: In this your thread you were the one who brought them up. Typically, atheists don´t bring them up in discussions about the concept of god, but in discussions about evidence and such.

Just keep to the concept, maker of everything that is not God.

What is wrong with that concept?

That such an entity exists is an unparsimonous assumption, to begin with.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

yrreg is that you??

Have fun, y'all.

 

[SithDoughnut]

All such phrases are distractions: flying spaghetti monster, invisible pink unicorn, celestial teapot.

Just keep to the concept, maker of everything that is not God.

What is wrong with that concept?

Pachomius

What is God and what isn't God? Am I part of God? Is Jesus not part of God? The concept is far too vague to have any real meaning.

 

[bricklayer]

What is the fundamental concept of God in relation to the universe?

As a Christian theist I will say that the fundamental concept of God in relation to the universe is that God is the creator of the universe.

What about other Christians here and also non-Christians?



Pachomius

First off, humans don't have conceptions, we have perceptions. Only God can conceive an idea.

God is necessary, everything else is contingent.

 

[SithDoughnut]

First off, humans don't have conceptions, we have perceptions. Only God can conceive an idea.

Where do these ideas exist when we're not perceiving them?

 

[bricklayer]

All ideas are eternally present, in the mind of God.

There are two types of ideas: intellectual conceptions and intellectual perceptions.
God's reasoning ontologically sequences eternally present intellectual conceptions.
Man's reasoning ontologically sequences a chronological sequence of intellectual perceptions.

The biggest difference between God's ideas and our ideas is the fact that we are not the first ones to have our ideas.

 

[KCfromNC]

All ideas are eternally present, in the mind of God.

There are two types of ideas: intellectual conceptions and intellectual perceptions.
God's reasoning ontologically sequences eternally present intellectual conceptions.
Man's reasoning ontologically sequences a chronological sequence of intellectual perceptions.

The biggest difference between God's ideas and our ideas is the fact that we are not the first ones to have our ideas.

You sound as if you're very sure of this. Why?

 

[bricklayer]

You sound as if you're very sure of this. Why?

I'm not trying to be evasive, but why series questions beg a common context. We many not have a common context. Could I trouble you to rephrase your question, please?

 

[Pachomius]

Before anything else I have the suggestion that people who don't accept that humans have concepts, please dispense yourselves from this thread.


Now, I am still asking people here who do accept that people have concepts, tell me what is wrong with the concept of God in the Christian faith as creator of everything not God Himself, in relation to the universe.

Now, what is wrong with a concept can be wrong because people are not psychologically sympathetic to examine it.

But the concept in itself has internal ingredients which should be examined, prescinding from whether the examiner is psychologically sympathetic to it or not.

So, if you prescinding from psychological motivations just examine the internal ingredients of the concept, and see what is wrong with the ingredients making up the concept, then you can tell readers here what is wrong with the concept in its internal ingredients.

Now, my concept of God in the Christian faith is maker of everything that is not God Himself, or maker of the universe in all its parts and parcels that are not God Himself.

What are the ingredients of this concept of God, then? namely:

Maker of everything that is not God Himself. ​

And if you think that the concept is wrong, how and why are the ingredients wrong which make up the concept?



Pachomius

 

[bricklayer]

Before anything else I have the suggestion that people who don't accept that humans have concepts, please dispense yourselves from this thread.


Now, I am still asking people here who do accept that people have concepts, tell me what is wrong with the concept of God in the Christian faith as creator of everything not God Himself, in relation to the universe.

Now, what is wrong with a concept can be wrong because people are not psychologically sympathetic to examine it.

But the concept in itself has internal ingredients which should be examined, prescinding from whether the examiner is psychologically sympathetic to it or not.

So, if you prescinding from psychological motivations just examine the internal ingredients of the concept, and see what is wrong with the ingredients making up the concept, then you can tell readers here what is wrong with the concept in its internal ingredients.

Now, my concept of God in the Christian faith is maker of everything that is not God Himself, or maker of the universe in all its parts and parcels that are not God Himself.

What are the ingredients of this concept of God, then? namely:

Maker of everything that is not God Himself.
​

And if you think that the concept is wrong, how and why are the ingredients wrong which make up the concept?



Pachomius

Humans perceive concepts, they just don't conceive them.
Unless, of course, you believe yourself to have had a truely original idea, an idea that God only perceived after you conceived it.
There's nothing wrong with the concept above, it's just your perception of it that's in error.

 

[quatona]

What are the ingredients of this concept of God, then? namely:

Maker of everything that is not God Himself. ​

And if you think that the concept is wrong, how and why are the ingredients wrong which make up the concept?

I´m not sure I understand the use of "what is wrong with..." in this context.

 

[bricklayer]

Concepts are never right or wrong. They are what they are.
Our perceptions of those concepts however can be accurate or inaccurate.

 

[Received]

Let me see if I get your view right. It's very much Berkeleyian, and posits that God's concepts translate to facts from our perspective. Without God's sustaining of these concepts in his mind, we wouldn't have reality as we know it.

But we can have our own concepts that differ from God's fact-concepts, and these concepts can very much be wrong. If I conceptualize a triangle to have four sides, this concept is incorrect. A concept involves both signifier and signified.

 

[Pachomius]

This is a topic that should be participated in by people who know what is a concept and what is a right concept and what a wrong concept.

If you don't know what is a concept and what is right or wrong with a concept, then please go away.


Or better, people who are questioning whether concepts at all exist, or knowing they exist, are questioning whether humans can talk about what is a right concept and what is a wrong, please do your research with Google in the internet, to acquaint yourselves on concepts and rightness and wrongness in regard to a concept.

And then when you have come to what is a concept and what is a right concept and what a wrong concept, you might care to return here.

Otherwise you are wasting your time here.

And wasting our time.

Please, people who just want to waste time, go away.



I will just address myself to people who do know what are concepts and what is right in a concept and what is wrong in a concept, so that we can determine whether the fundamental concept of God in the Christian faith is right, in its internal ingredients.

I have said that the fundamental concept of God in the Christian faith in relation to the universe, to be the following:

Maker of everything that is not God.​

But before proceeding further, this topic should also be participated only by people who do know what is the fundamental concept of God in the Christian faith in relation to the universe, which I have stated time and again, to be the line above, namely, "Maker of everything that is not God."


Someone here says that if his concept of a triangle is that it has four sides, then it is an incorrect concept of a triangle.

[...]

But we can have our own concepts that differ from God's fact-concepts, and these concepts can very much be wrong. If I conceptualize a triangle to have four sides, this concept is incorrect. A concept involves both signifier and signified.

Addressing people who do know what is a concept and what is a right concept and what a wrong concept...

Do we see that Received has contributed a useful thought to the examination of a concept in order to know whether it is a right concept or not.

He tells us, "A concept involves both signifier and signified."

So that if his concept of a triangle is that it has four sides, then it is a wrong concept.

Addressing Received, let us we two and others of the utmost good faith and good intention here, exchange thoughts about how with the involvement of the concepts of signifier and signified we can know a concept to be right or wrong.

First off, the signifier is a human being, and the signified is something outside the human being.

Is that what you mean by the signifier and the signified in a concept in terms of determination by humans whether it is a right or a wrong concept?

So that a human whose concept of a triangle is that it has four sides, he as a signifier is not getting correctly what is a triangle in itself which in itself has not four sides, but everybody, i.e., every signifier, knows it to have three sides, not more and not less.


So, addressing Received, would you care to examine the concept of God in the Christian faith, being "Maker of everything that is not God Himself," in relation to the universe, examine it from the standpoint of signifier and signified, in order to tell us from your examination whether it is a right concept or not.



Attention to people who want to waste time here, don't do it here, go away and do your thing elsewhere.




Pachomius

 

[quatona]

Attention to people who want to waste time here, don't do it here, go away and do your thing elsewhere.

Initially I wasn´t intending to waste my time here - au contraire I felt it might be a worthwhile thread.
Thanks for your advice, and thanks for warning me that the time spent here is wasted! I have come to that conclusion, as well.

 

[elopez]

"I don't understand. You say you did not mean it in a non - anthropomorphism manner, yet that would mean that you did not mean it in way of not referring to human attributes in relation with God. So you describe God with human attributes then? Yes, that is pantheistic. Unless you meant to say that you did not mean it in a anthropomorphic way, in which case I would question how you do understand it then because how else do we understand the statement "God is the universe," or "God is part of everything"?"

What ARE you rambling on and on about, elopez??

If you did not understand what I meant or wanted it clarified, why didn't you simply ask: "What did you mean there, Tim??"

Would that not have been more sensible than going on and on trying to make your own presumptions regarding my meaning or intentions??

If you didn't notice in my post, I did ask questions so that you could clarify your position. It's not my fault you cannot follow what I'm saying, and if you can then you should be able to clarify.

 

[elopez]

"If you want to be considered pantheistic........"

"Pantheism is the view that the Universe (Nature) and God are identical. Pantheists thus do not believe in a personal, anthropomorphic or creator god."

What I meant by "nonanthropomorphic" was that I see God personally and anthropomorphically....So, when I say God is a part of everything and everything is a part of God, I am not saying that in a way that excludes the anthropomorphic or human attributes commonly applied by people when they describe God......

I see God as a part of everything and everything as a part of God...personally and anthropomorphically...

Right, if you claim the universe is God that is what is pantheistic, as it is surely not monotheistic and so not really Christian. Is evil and sin part of God, as that would include "everything"? Now again, if God is eternal and God is the universe, is the universe eternal or does God have a beginning to His existence? That is really what I would love to be clarified.

 

[Pachomius]

[...]

Right, if you claim the universe is God that is what is pantheistic, as it is surely not monotheistic and so not really Christian. Is evil and sin part of God, as that would include "everything"? Now again, if God is eternal and God is the universe, is the universe eternal or does God have a beginning to His existence? That is really what I would love to be clarified.

Dear elopez, I fear that Tim Myers might not care to continue with you.

That is the phenomenon of atheists of the kind who are not into the utmost good faith and utmost good will in participating in a thread, but they just want to obstruct the productivity of participants who do care to come to a greater knowledge and appreciation thus of a concept or an issue being discussed.

You will notice that they will go into questioning whether concepts exist whether concepts can be right or wrong, when if they be possessed of the utmost good faith and the utmost good will in joining a thread, they should already know what is a concept and what is a right concept in the broader embrace of a thread and most specially in the actual embrace of a thread.

Namely, in the broad embrace of a thread a concept exists and there is a rightness and a wrongness in a concept.

For our actual concern in the present thread the instant present particular embrace of this thread, I am talking about the concept of God in the Christian faith in relation to the universe.

Which concept I submit to be maker of everything that is not God Himself.


So atheists who do have the utmost good faith and the utmost good will to be productive in this thread, please read up on the concept of God in the Christian faith in relation to the universe, to attain the particular embrace of the present thread, then you can join in the discussion how that concept is right or wrong in terms of the broader embrace of the thread, namely, the existence of concepts and that a concept can be right or wrong.

Addressing atheists who are possessed of the utmost good faith and the utmost good intention or good will, you are welcome to join here.

No, I don't require that you believe in God.

We are not talking about belief in God or non-belief in God, but in the concept of God in the Christian faith in relation to the universe.

Can you get that into your heads?


It's like you are not vegetarians (in case you are actually not vegetarians), but you can and should have the concept of what is a vegetarian if you want to join vegetarians to exchange thoughts with them on their vegetarianism, and thus you can discuss with vegetarians what is the rightness or the wrongness of their concept of being a vegetarian.

Otherwise please go away and return to your atheists' forums where you can engage in all kinds of not keeping to the issue of God or no God in an academic manner, but take pleasure the kind degrading to yourselves in resorting to insults against God, and parading yourselves as pretty smart in declaring that you are not insulting God or His name, but you are just pointing out that for yourselves God is in the same category as a flying spaghetti monster, an invisible pink unicorn, a celestial teapot.

I call that gross intellectual dishonesty of the most darkest strain.

Go away, return to your brethren in your own atheists' forums where you can come out openly and brazenly to hurl all kinds and manners of outrageous scornful utterances against God and His name, in order to nurse your hatred toward God.



Dear elopez, about God and the universe being God or a part of God and God a part of the universe, my own position is that all such attributions are done by way of figures of speech and what is called poetic license.

Important for Christians is that God and the universe are not identical, just as if I may use an analogy, we can say that your father is a part of you and you are a part of your father or you and your father of mutually part of each other, but you both child and father know that you two are not identical.



Pachomius