Atheists' non-fundamental concept of God in relation to the universe.

[pgp_protector]

There seems to be some sort of confusion. True, 'our' Pachomius, aka yrreg or ryrge, does travel the boards of the internet with his show. But I doubt it is the same person as the spammer from Stop Forum Spam.

I was just letting them know why their username was flagged.
Given I don't know their IP and if it also matches (some just flag on name, others on IP others on e-mail) but with SFS you can trap on any one or multiple triggers.

 

[Pachomius]

Well, I have read all the posts, and thanks a lot for your participation.


The title of the thread is:

Atheists' non-fundamental concept of God in relation to the universe.​

So, please always read the title before you start writing, so that you will be dealing with the issue.

Now, atheists and others are pointing out that tooth fairy, flying spaghetti monster, invisible pink unicorn, celestial teapot are not any insulting words by which they are demeaning the concept of God in the Christian faith in relation to the universe, which is thus verbalized by yours truly:

God is the maker of everything that is not God Himself.​

Just for the sake of not being misunderstood as wanting to insult God, please abstain from using such epithets, use instead no evidence concept or the abbreviation, nec.

It's like this, if a child were to tell you that his dad is the chief operating officer of a large business establishment and you say that his dad is a tooth fairy, a flying spaghetti monster, an invisible pink unicorn, and a celestial teapot, bystanders who hear you will get the impression and correctly at that that you are insulting him and his dad, even though you keep on explaining that there is no evidence of his dad being the chief operating officer.

So, the bystanders will just tell you, then tell the child, there is no evidence, why use demeaning eptithets -- unless you are really into insulting the child and his dad?

Emotionally, addressing people atheists and other non-Christians, if you keep using those epithets in reference to God, then emotionally you are not after the concept of God, the fundamenatl concept that is, in the Christian faith, in relation to the universe which is:

Maker of everything that is not God himself.​

May I just ask you to abstain then from such utterances, in this Christian forum?

I think I will consult with the authorities here if they can give their position whether all such epithets which are patently insulting to Christians and God should be avoided and users of such epithets will be given counseling?


Well, addressing the authorities here, what do you think?

In a way, this is the house of the Lord, and people who are not Lord's people keep uttering epithets which are patently derogatory to the Lord... how would you like that if you have guests in your home and they keep uttering in reference to your dad that he is a tooth fairy, etc.?

Shouldn't you at least tell them to mind their tongue?


Anyway, posters who use such epithets on God are definitely engaged in a non-fundamental concept of God in the Christian faith in relation to the universe.

So, I don't see what is their purpose here if that is their mis-knowledge or mis-acquaintance and they insist on that, with the concept of God in the Christian faith in relation to the universe?

What indeed is their purpose here?

What will happen if atheists and non-Christians are given counseling to not use such epithets?

They will leave this forum, all of them?

I submit that they who are sincerely after exchange of thoughts on God or no God without resorting to name-calling they will continue to stay here and mind their tongue, as they keep watch on their heart.



Pachomius

 

[Pachomius]

Someone here says that he does not know that atheists maintain the concept of God in the Christian faith is impossible.

Well, bless his heart, he is not exposed to such opinions.


The only thing that he is insisting on is that there is no evidence for the existence of God.

But I have been reminding him and others with the same enlightenment, namely, there is no evidence for God, that I am not here into proving God with evidence.

I am just into the concept of God.

Please get that into your heads.

It is a failure of subtlety that some people just cannot or will not get that distinction, between the concept of a thing and the existence of the thing in objective reality outside the mind of man.

On the one hand such people keep harping on no evidence, and on the other they keep occupying their mind with a non-fundamental concept of God in the Christian faith in relation to the universe.

Now, I have been telling people here that the fundamental concept of God in the Christian faith is that God is the maker of everything that is not God Himself.

So if you are not acquainted with that concept of God, then you are not correctly oriented in your enlightenment that there is no evidence for God.

And that is why you keep on bringing up tooth, spaghetti, unicorn, teapot, etc.

Do you see your way of thinking, which is not to the issue because you don't have the correct fundamental concept of God in the Christian faith in relation to the universe.

And you don't have it because you keep it out of your mind.


Okay, I ask you:

Do you accept that God in His fundamental concept in relation to the universe for Christians is:

Maker of everything that is not God Himself.​

Now, again, mind you, we are dealing with concepts, not with the reality of existence outside the mind of man.

Just the concept, so please, no need to bring in your mantra on lack of evidence insofar as you are concerned on your concept of evidence and how it is relevant and how much is required.

Because when you examine your knowledge of evidence you might come to another enlightenment that this is not some very easy matter like the evidence of the food is in the eating.

Because there are things which cannot be ascertained by eating, but by thinking on the totality of mankind's experience.


Coming back to the concept of God, once you get the correct concept of God, then we can productively exchange views on God or no God in terms of objective existence outside man's mind.

Until then you are into diversions.




Pachomius

 

[Pachomius]

I just answer to all of you on your main points and to the issue.

If you have any specific point you want to bring up for me to attend to personally, then formulate it concisely, clearly, and to the issue, then I will attend to you personally.


Pachomius

 

[Jro]

Why does the concept of your god deserve special consideration above and beyond the concept of other creator gods who stand in the same relationship to the Earth?

 

[sandwiches]

Okay, I ask you:

Do you accept that God in His fundamental concept in relation to the universe for Christians is:

Maker of everything that is not God Himself.​

I'll accept that many(most?) Christians probably see God as the maker of everything but himself. And?

 

[Pachomius]

Why does the concept of your god deserve special consideration above and beyond the concept of other creator gods who stand in the same relationship to the Earth?

Well, if they also made the universe, then they are our God.

Only their admirers have not thought out much more carefully on the concept of, in relation to the universe.

If they do, they will come to the conclusion that their God(s) are the same and identical God who in fundamental concept in the Christian faith is the maker of everything that is not God Himself.



Pachomius

 

[Pachomius]

I'll accept that many (most?) Christians probably see God as the maker of everything but himself. And?

And? So, sign up with the concept of God in the Christian faith, okay?

It does not mean that you have to accept the existence of God, but it just means that you do know what is the fundamental concept of God for Christians, in relation to the universe.

Otherwise, how can any discourse at all that is to be relevantly conducted among people who want to discuss the matter of the existence of God outside the human concept of that God?


For example, does Bigfoot exist or not?

Anyone who talks about that question, namely, the existence of Bigfoot, has got to come to everyone's else concept of Bigfoot, so that they will be talking about the same concept which is supposed to conceptually in the minds of speakers represent Bigfoot as he is to be existing in objective reality even when speakers are not thinking of the concept of Bigfoot.

Else, how can these speakers one day get together to look for Bigfoot, if they don't have a uniform concept of Bigfoot?

Perhaps they have different concepts of Bigfoot, in which case they can organize different expeditions to look for each one group's Bigfoot, and that is very wasteful for everyone.

Unless of course you want to have different kinds of Bigfoot provided that at least he or it has one foot bigger than any other feet he or it might have.

Now in regard to God, for Christians in fundamental concept He is only one and He is the maker of everything that is not God Himself.

So the search for this God should be no trouble, because everything that you see in objective reality that is not self-made, is made by God.

There is God in everything as the one sustaining it in existence and giving it the capability to operate, continuously as long as God perseveres to give it existence.

Hope you get my point.



Pachomius

 

[Jro]

Well, if they also made the universe, then they are our God.

Only their admirers have not thought out much more carefully on the concept of, in relation to the universe.

If they do, they will come to the conclusion that their God(s) are the same and identical God who in fundamental concept in the Christian faith is the maker of everything that is not God Himself.



Pachomius

I guess I'd like you to go more in depth regarding how these concepts differ. I don't quite buy the "Well they believe in our god too, they just haven't thought about it as much." There are many different creation myths- how can you be sure your concept of god isn't a less sophisticated form of another creator god?

 

[quatona]

Okay, I ask you:

Do you accept that God in His fundamental concept in relation to the universe for Christians is:

Maker of everything that is not God Himself.​

How often do you expect me to answer this question?
​

 

[Pachomius]

I guess I'd like you to go more in depth regarding how these concepts differ. I don't quite buy the "Well they believe in our god too, they just haven't thought about it as much." There are many different creation myths- how can you be sure your concept of god isn't a less sophisticated form of another creator god?

I submit Christians' concept of God is the most sophisticated, modesty aside.

Name one sophistication of other gods which the Christian God does not have in concept.

You see, it is the fundamental concept of God in relation to the universe for Christians that:

God is the maker of everything that is not God Himself.​

So, what more sophistication can you think of that other gods which you have in your conceptual repertoire possess, which God in our conceptual repertoire does not possess, when we already define God in our conceptual repertoire as:

God is the maker of everything that is not God Himself.​

Hope you get my drift.




Pachomius

 

[Pachomius]

Originally Posted by Pachomius

Okay, I ask you:

Do you accept that God in His fundamental concept in relation to the universe for Christians is:

Maker of everything that is not God Himself.​

How often do you expect me to answer this question?

With all respect to your self-esteem, I have not come to a definite answer from you.

Now, in order that I will be certainly sure that you do get the fundamental concept of God in relation to the universe, in the Christian faith, please repeat after me the following text in quotation marks.

"I, quatona, do solemnly affirm that I do know the fundamental concept of God in relation to the universe, in the Christian faith to be:

Maker of everything that is not God Himself.​

Further affiant sayeth naught."
​

Now, I can be certainly sure that you are talking about the same concept of God as I am talking about, if you do affirm the preceding text above from your own lips and pen.


That will stop all diversions from you.




Pachomius

 

[ToHoldNothing]

This is sounding more and more like an apologetic for Anselm's ontological argument and conception of God thereof. Problem is, this presumes that your idea of what is the greatest God is not necessarily what every person says is the greatest God imaginable. God could be more than just a creator, but the greatest thing ever, that than which nothing greater can be thought, etc. If God's greatness is contingent on human imagination, then we have a problem from the start

 

[Pachomius]

This is sounding more and more like an apologetic for Anselm's ontological argument and conception of God thereof. Problem is, this presumes that your idea of what is the greatest God is not necessarily what every person says is the greatest God imaginable. God could be more than just a creator, but the greatest thing ever, that than which nothing greater can be thought, etc. If God's greatness is contingent on human imagination, then we have a problem from the start

I am talking about concepts, not existence, so don't bring in Anselm.


I have this idea that from the concept one can use it to go forth in the realm of objective reality and look for God, namely, as conceptualized thus:

Maker of everything that is not God Himself.​

It is not my task here to prove the existence of God, but just in case you are interested, you can make use of the concept above of God and organize an expedition to go search for an entity in the objective reality realm that fits that description of maker of everything that is not God Himself.

Anselm if I am not mistaken is saying, like from the concept of Bigfoot man can be sure that Bigfoot exists even without ever going forth to look for Bigfoot.

Only he is very deep into profound (sic) logic, by insisting that he is into a concept of God as the most perfect entity that man can divine (pun not intended), voilà, there is the proof of God's existence, because how can God be in concept the most perfect if in existence He does not exist.

And I am sure a lot of non-diversionary thinkers of the topmost caliber take him very seriously.

But mind you, that is not my task here: first, not my task to prove the existence of God, and second, not to state that God is the most perfect concept that man can divine, etc.

I am stating simply that for Christians in fundamental concept in relation to the universe God is the maker of everything that is not God Himself.

Now, if that concept of God has any and all sophistications of other peoples' Gods or god myths whatever, then that does not mean that I am saying that God is the most perfect in concept entity that man can divine.


God in fundamental concept in relation to the universe, in the Christian faith, is just merely simply only the maker of everything that is not God Himself.





Pachomius

 

[ToHoldNothing]

Anselm isn't saying that you don't have to seek God, but merely that God's nature is such that it cannot but exist. Ontological arguments follow that from the concept of something as defined in a way greater than anything else or as necessary, it therefore exists by its very nature as a concept.

If you're not trying to prove God's existence, but only prove that the Christian concept is fundamentally that God is self existent and a Creator of the universe, a question still remains: which of the many Christian theologies does this God fall under? Trinitarian, Binitarian, Unitarian, Modalist, Godhead, etc.?

 

[Pachomius]

Anselm isn't saying that you don't have to seek God, but merely that God's nature is such that it cannot but exist. Ontological arguments follow that from the concept of something as defined in a way greater than anything else or as necessary, it therefore exists by its very nature as a concept.

If you're not trying to prove God's existence, but only prove that the Christian concept is fundamentally that God is self existent and a Creator of the universe, a question still remains: which of the many Christian theologies does this God fall under? Trinitarian, Binitarian, Unitarian, Modalist, Godhead, etc.?

I am not even proving that "that God is self existent and a Creator of the universe."

But I am stating what is the fundamental concept of God in relation to the universe in the Christian faith.

So, if you don't agree with me, then tell me what is to you the fundamental concept of God in relation to the universe, in the Christian faith.

Okay, here is again what I know to be the fundamental concept of God in relation to the universe, in the Christian faith:

Maker of everything that is not God Himself.​

You don't agree with me that is the fundamental concept of God in relation to the universe, in the Christian faith.

Okay, please tell me what is.




[ I will be online but doing other things, and come back in ten minutes time. ]

Pachomius

 

[ToHoldNothing]

As a non christian apostate, I can only say that this seems more like the fundamental concept of God in Christianity: The Creator of the Universe and Origin of all Goodness and Purpose in the World. This reflects the larger import and comprehensive nature of God and its revelation in the Bible and how Christians are basically surrendering everything to God, which I find problematic on its face.

 

[Pachomius]

As a non christian apostate, I can only say that this seems more like the fundamental concept of God in Christianity: The Creator of the Universe and Origin of all Goodness and Purpose in the World. This reflects the larger import and comprehensive nature of God and its revelation in the Bible and how Christians are basically surrendering everything to God, which I find problematic on its face.

You bring in so many things when the fundamental concept of God etc. is so simple, any man in the street can understand it.

Maker of everything in the universe that is not God Himself.​

I am asking you if you know that to be the précis of the fundamental concept of God in relation to the universe, in the Christian faith, yes, no?


If no, then what do you find problematic in that fundamental concept of God in relation to the universe, in the Christian faith?




Pachomius

 

[ToHoldNothing]

What I find problematic is that you're simplifying what is a more complex concept in Christianity of God than what you're describing, which is a fundamental concept of God in terms of theism. Fundamental concept of God in Christianity would have to involve Jesus Christ, I imagine, at the very least, not to mention a God that reveals itself and wants a relationship with its creation. Just a God that created the world and is self existent is believed in by many other theists besides Christians. Therein lies your problem. You could be accused of oversimplifying what is a more spiritually complex God than in...say Deism

 

[Pachomius]

What I find problematic is that you're simplifying what is a more complex concept in Christianity of God than what you're describing, which is a fundamental concept of God in terms of theism. Fundamental concept of God in Christianity would have to involve Jesus Christ, I imagine, at the very least, not to mention a God that reveals itself and wants a relationship with its creation. Just a God that created the world and is self existent is believed in by many other theists besides Christians. Therein lies your problem. You could be accused of oversimplifying what is a more spiritually complex God than in...say Deism

Well that is your opinion, but what is Jesus without the Father maker of everything?


So, let us go first to the most fundamental concept in the Christian faith in regard to God in relation to the universe.

Will you stay there, or you want to bring in so many things, but avoiding the most fundamental issue in the Christian faith on the fundamental concept of God in relation to the universe.


That will reveal you to be a diversionary thinker.





Pachomius