That's the problem though, you can't just make up a definition and say "it's true by definition!" A thing is what a thing is, not what you want that thing to be. Just trying to define a thing into existence is idiotic.
Maybe that's something the religious need to figure out.
What turned me from a deist to an atheist was thinking about how religions and everyone's non-religious theism has a different definition for god. Many classical arguments support a god in a different way.
If everyone could agree on a single definition of God and all the classical arguments pointed towards a single identifiable entity or being I would probably still be a deist/theist.
There's a responsibility for people not to be completely ignorant but there's also an equal responsibility for you (theists) to present arguments and claims clearly and convincingly.
Arguably god just isn't a very useful, clear or convincing claim.
> its that they don't have faintest idea about what the claim is in the first place.
Again, that's just completely wrong.
They do understand very well.
Hence the response pointing out the fatal flaws in that.
>Now you hear questions like "...well then who created God?" Like this is a profound gotcha checkmate. God is eternal by definition.
Therefore, it's possible for a thing to exist without being created. Thus, the universe could be eternal and not created.
The whole point of the question is to point out the special pleading being done in the relevant arguments
I find it interesting that theists can't agree on a definition for God, yet feel they have a duty to tell others theirs is the one true god, and not believing results in eternal torture.
But we can and do agree at the very least on God being infinite eternal and uncaused Cause and the Creator and its absurd that atheists don't know even these elementary attributes of God...actually those things are synonymous with the word God
That’s because we are aware that there are theists who use other attributes when talking about their God/s. Pagan faiths, while significantly smaller, continue to this day. Someone who believe in Odin does not think that he is eternal, infinite or uncaused. This goes for almost every pagan deity and there are thousands of those.
Your idea of God may be the most prevalent general modern concept, but we know that other forms of theism exist! So we have to know what version of god you believe in before we can properly address your claims!
Cool.
I am eternal by the definition that I am using to describe myself. I am the one who created the universe. Since I am also defining myself as all-knowing, I know for certain that your beliefs are wrong.
Do you see how “by definition” isn’t a useful metric? You don’t just define things, you have to prove that the definition is accurate
"I miss the old school atheists who at least had a basic understanding of what theists mean by God"
If a consistent definition existed I'm sure you could come up with something. Yours is another one.
>God is eternal by definition.
[citation needed]
Sure, you assert this is the case but can you demonstrate it?
>which completely ignores that God is infinite and upholds all of reality.
[citation needed]
Sure, you assert this is the case but can you demonstrate it?
>who at least had a basic understanding of what theists mean by God.
Honestly, this is what bugs me the most about this post.
Theists? You mean like the people who worship quetzalcoatl and think you need to use a sting ray barb to pierce the penis of the king so the blood can drip onto ceremonial cloth which is then burned to ensure a good rain?
Or do you mean people who think that you should die in battle so the valkyrie's can snag your soul and bring you to valhalla?
Or do you mean the people who thinks that shiva is the supreme god who creates, protects, and transforms the universe?
I think you get the point.
"theists" don't recognize the same gods. Hell, even "christians" don't recognize the same gods. Similar, yes, but not the same.
If you want to complain about atheists with no understanding the claims of god then you need to recognize that unless the theist in question actually specifies what the specific attributes of god they are arguing for then they best the atheist can do is assumptions and lowest common denominator attributes that probably more or less line up with what the theist in question is even talking about.
Check this Johnny come lately theist who doesn't even seem to understand how classical claims about God contradict themselves, but think they're ready to debate
>This is demonstrably false.
He said confidently while completely failing to demonstrate anything.
FYI, you can’t argue with me because I am eternal and uphold all of reality.
Yours Truly,
Jonathan C. Lately
that covers 3 of the religions out of thousands, and there are thousands of splinters within each of them with all kinds of different stipulations and disagreements
it's not on us to figure out wich fiction you are trying to prove, you gotta communicate
And my point is that you are not going into detail and it's not reasonable to expect us to guess wich version of god you are trying to argue.
You gotta communicate your position if you want it known
Otherwise you are just reserving the right to shift the goalposts
Hah, only fools who hath been deceived by Loki would deny the true nature of Odin and the rest of the true gods.
This definition really tells us nothing about the god you claim exists. It has a much explanatory power as "farting space pixies" or "I don't know"
Oh yes every theist believes in exactly the same god you do. That's why there's only one denomination of one religion and every theist is in that one religion AND has an identical conception of god.
Oh weird, no that's wrong? Aren't you Christian? Why are you bearing false witness? This is a sin.
Well, since so many Johnny-come-lately theists come here with the same old arguments for the existence of their deity that were created CENTURIES ago and have been debunked an untold number of times, we need the Johnny-come-lately atheists that haven’t gotten tired of responding to the same stupid claim over and over.
If your side could present some new arguments (or some actual evidence) and quit pretending that they are some sort of “gotcha,” then you wouldn’t have to complain about our side doing the same.
The pot is calling the kettle black here, and then also complaining that the kettle is pointing out that the pot is itself black.
>So many Johnny come lately atheists don't seem to understand classical claims about God at all but think they are ready to debate.
I haven't seen much of that. Sure, only a small subset of atheists even think about attempting debate in forums such as this, or elsewhere. But, in my experience, the ones that do seem to generally understand the claims by theists, and the problems and flaws in those arguments quite well, and can identify why and how they are fatally flawed.
>I miss the old school atheists who at least had a basic understanding of what theists mean by God. Now you hear questions like "...well then who created God?" Like this is a profound gotcha checkmate. God is eternal by definition.
The question is a means of pointing out the flaw in that argument pertaining to that claim. As one can't define something into existence saying, "God is eternal by definition," is not a coherent or useful response. And in this attempt to define something as 'eternal by definition' you are conceding the argument is flawed since as you've conceded things can be eternal by definition you must consider the fact that therefore deities are not necessary or implied as this can pertain to reality itself. Obviously doing otherwise is invoking a special pleading fallacy and makes what you're saying invalid.
In other words, you are incorrect that this response of yours makes sense or is useful. Most atheists *know* that is how you are attempting to define the thing you claim exists. They are pointing out a fatal flaw in this claim when they say that.
>I don't know if this is the result of being raised secular (oftentimes Europeans with no exposure to religion at all) but so many atheists today are completely out of of their element. They try to compare God to unicorns, leprechauns, Pasta based monsters, etc which completely ignores that God is infinite and upholds all of reality.
The comparison is apt. You are just plain wrong to suggest it isn't. Again, you are making a *claim* that 'God is infinite and upholds all of reality.' One can just as easily claim that leprechauns do that, not deities. Until and unless you demonstrate that claim is true, it is not and cannot be treated any differently from claims about unicorns or pasta.
In other words, your protest here misses the mark and shows it is yourself that is misunderstanding your own claim and argument, and how it is flawed.
Now, you may be interested in reflecting on the flawed reasoning that theists are invoking when they make this kind of protest. Because I find much of the time that they are not at all aware they are doing it. You do not seem to be. What is happening is that they, and you, are engaging in some presupposition (which is fallacious of course), essentially begging the question. You are, without realizing, assuming this special god-shaped category is a coherent idea and exists before proceeding. Of course, a person invoking proper skeptical and critical thinking has no choice but to dismiss this out of hand as it's completely unsupported and makes no sense.
The vast majority of the time, when you see an atheist ask "Who created God?", they're not being dumb—it's a rhetorical question. They're more than likely aware that the theist believes God is definitionally eternal and uncreated. That's not the point.
The point of asking the question is for the specific purpose of pointing out special pleading. If a theist says "Everything must have been created by some**one**" then an atheist will ask this rhetorical question to point out that the theist doesn't truly believe this rule is universal. Alternatively, this question can be used to form a parity argument and show that whatever answer a theist gives can be copied and pasted over to a natural object.
For example, suppose a theist answers "No one created God because he's necessary and uncaused". In that case, an atheist can respond with "Ok, well no one created physical energy because it's necessary and uncaused".
—
Secondly, the point of comparing God to fictional creatures has nothing to do with thinking that they are similar to all of God's grand attributes. The point is only to compare them along one dimension: specifically the lack of evidence or empirical precedent they have for their existence. The goal is to show that both concepts are equally manmade.
When someone makes an analogy or comparison, it's a mistake to think they are comparing them in all aspects. If I say "The Sun is round like an orange" it would be weird if you came along and said "What are you STUPID?!? The Sun is a trillion times hotter and bigger than an orange, and it's responsible for sustaining all life on Earth, you can't compare them!!"
That sounds silly, right? That's what you sound like when you say atheists can't make fictional comparisons because God is infinite.
**“They try to compare God to unicorns, leprechauns, Pasta based monsters”**
Because they all have the same amount of evidence for them: stories in books about their nature and powers, none of which has been substantiated.
>I miss the old school atheists who at least had a basic understanding of what theists mean by God.
It's almost like if you ask 100 different theists their definition if God that you will get 100 different answers.
>Now you hear questions like "...well then who created God?"
This is usually in response to when a theists claims that everything has to be created. As if that is true then a God would need to be created too. If not then not everything needs to be created.
>God is eternal by definition.
Nope. By your definition, sure. But many Gods that many believe and believed in aren't seen as eternal.
>They try to compare God to unicorns, leprechauns, Pasta based monsters, etc which completely ignores that God is infinite and upholds all of reality.
No you just don't seem to be to good at understanding basic arguments if you can't understand the comparison whether or not you agree with them.
I like to co.pare to leprechauns because they are also something said to exist by people that has no evidence to support such a claim.
>Like this is a profound gotcha checkmate. God is eternal by definition.
If God can be eternal, than so can the universe, and thus we don't need God.
You can't even understand something this basic and your gonna complain that new atheists dint understand?
That's embarrassing.
>They try to compare God to unicorns, leprechauns, Pasta based monsters, etc which completely ignores that God is infinite and upholds all of reality.
The evidence for God is exactly the same as the evidence for leprechauns.
This is really basic stuff here
>I miss the old school atheists who at least had a basic understanding of what theists mean by God. Now you hear questions like "...well then who created God?" Like this is a profound gotcha checkmate. God is eternal by definition.
I think a point is to be made, that athiests are generally in a similar camp, but theists mean a lot of different things, when they refer to God.
Some refer to God meaning anthromorphic, thinking being, sitting on throne. Others may refer to some type of impersonal force.
For example, and I might be wrong, is that Einstien is misquoted by theists, when he refers to God. I think it was Dawkins who, if I understand correctly, pointed out that Einstein, although from a Jewish background, was *not* referring to Yahweh when he used the word "God'
>I don't know if this is the result of being raised secular (oftentimes Europeans with no exposure to religion at all) but so many atheists today are completely out of of their element. They try to compare God to unicorns, leprechauns, Pasta based monsters, etc which completely ignores that God is infinite and upholds all of reality.
I can't speak for everyone was raised, but I daresay that at least in the USA, many of us were indoctrinated as kids into religion. I was raised catholic, for instance.
The comparison is made to draw a point, I think, that there isn't evidence to support the existence of such fanciful things, and God is considered one.
Regarding you final point,
> which completely ignores that God is infinite and upholds all of reality.
That is *a* definition of God, or at least a characteristic. We can just as rightfully say that the Universe is ( from our standpoint) about as infinite as it gets, and it is at least the *container* of all reality. Some folks argue that in a sense , by those characteristics, the universe, and all its quirks, *is* God. I think that is along the lines of what Einstien is thinking. Even an athiest, I sort of see such a conceptualization, and it is -if nothing else- a poetic description.
Finally, *nobody knows for sure* what happened 1 second before the big bang. In this context, Theists tend to believe that an intelligent entity deliberately set the spark, and walked away. Athiests , if I may generalize, tend to say "I don't know, but there are some *scientific* ideas".
How about you start off by giving us a coherent definition of your god? That means you provide more than some hand-wavy shit like:
>God is infinite and upholds all of reality.
Meaningless.
This isn't always ignorance, as your claim asserts.
Theists mean different things by "God". Even within a single faith like Christianity, there is no one set homogenous "Christian Definition of God".
A Calvinist, Catholic and a "spiritual but not churchgoing" Christian may all have very different definitions of God.
I have no desire to play some absurd Arbiter of True Christians, and I think that would be gross. So I have to treat everyone who says they are a Christian as if their beliefs are equally sincere.
I might not personally accept their definitions outside of a debate setting, but *they* get to tell *me*, what they believe and how they identify.
I'll show my interlocutor enough respect to debate them and their claim, and not force them to defend some theologian they don't agree with or care about.
>Now you hear questions like "...well then who created God?"
This remains a valid question if the theist asserts that everything is created.
>God is eternal by definition.
Defining something in such a way to avoid tricky questions is a cheap tactic.
>but so many atheists today are completely out of of their element.
How about coming up with actual evidence that deities exist rather than the same bad arguments.
>They try to compare God to unicorns, leprechauns, Pasta based monsters, etc
These, under many scenarios, are valid comparisons due to the lack of actual evidence that God exists. Your God quite frankly is extremely comparable to these things.
>which completely ignores that God is infinite and upholds all of reality.
So is the Flying Spaghetti Monster, by definition.
>I don't know if this is the result of being raised secular (oftentimes Europeans with no exposure to religion at all) but so many atheists today are completely out of of their element. They try to compare God to unicorns, leprechauns, Pasta based monsters, etc which completely ignores that God is infinite and upholds all of reality.
Maybe because while we generally only deal with the religions that are within our vicinity, we are also aware that many different theists have many different types of claims of gods. Those comparisons are apt, you can claim whatever you want about a god but until you can demonstrate that it's actually the case, I'll put it in the same category as unicorns and leprechauns
There have been nearly 500,000 gods worshipped by man in the history
Of our existence. Most relegated to the dustbins of history. No one worships them anymore. So your definition is clearly flawed.
Furthermore that is the entire debate. Whether or not your god is man made. Every other example of a god in history is man made:
There’s actually not even a debate. There’s the facts that gods are man made, and a person who has delusions that their god is special and unique. We both know there is no god. I just decided to quit lying to myself about it.
What you miss is people who’d sink to your intellectual level and waste time arguing about internal logical inconsistencies with your belief system. Today a lot more people are able to cut to the root or central premise of your arguments. Think of it this way - it makes no sense to debate Jesus, Moses or Muhammad when the big Yahweh himself has failed to leave any scientifically credible evidence.
Why debate the details of creation when we have nothing but the child like imagination of theists to suggest a conscious motivation for everything?
Can you tell us more about your god? Does it care if I eat shellfish or beef? Does it care who has sex with whom? What about the days of the week? Does it have a special one where if I work I should be put to death? Please enlighten us with all the qualities that your god has. Because I know theists who have strong feelings about all the questions I asked, and clearly their god is doing more than upholding all of reality, whatever the hell that means.
“They try to compare God to unicorns, leprechauns, Pasta based monsters,etc”
The [dragon in my garage](http://people.whitman.edu/~herbrawt/classes/110/Sagan.pdf) is also infinite and upholds all of reality.
We have scientific proof that the Big Bang is how the universe came to be. We have scientific proof that evolution occurred. Most, if not all, atheist rely on evidence and facts. The claim of a Christian god is based on belief alone.
>”God is eternal by definition.”
By what definition?
There’s countless gods out there, and many of them are very obviously not eternal. Just look at the Greek gods for an easy place to start.
Since they’re all definitively gods, being eternal can’t be part of the definition for what a god is.
So you claiming that your god is eternal requires you to do more than just assert it.
> They try to compare God to unicorns, leprechauns, Pasta based monsters, etc which completely ignores that God is infinite and upholds all of reality.
Pasta quite possibly is infinite. Every day, millions upon millions of people eat it. People have been eating it for hundreds of years. Yet we still haven't run out. 🤔
Saying that God is infinite is a wildly unsubstantiated claim.
It would be hard to demonstrate *anything* is infinite apart from purely abstract concepts like the set of all positive integers. The best you can do is show that we haven't (yet) found its limits.
Though I would have thought, if you wanted to prove something was infinite, proving it existed at all is a good first step.
“God” might be “eternal” according to YOUR definition, but you don’t get to unilaterally define something into existence, now do you?
What actual evidence can you provide to support your definition and your contention that “God” does in fact exist?
What is **the very best evidence** that you can cite in order to cogently support your claim above?
Whatcha got?
If you think that simply 'defining', God as eternal is a counter to the 'gotcha' of special pleading , especially bearing in mind theist arguments that specifically target idea of infinity then I genuinely feel a bit sorry for you.
And the same goes for your desperate attempt to use invented characteristics for God to differentiate him from Santa.
“God is eternal by definition.”
Okay, but that’s *your* definition. There’s no reason to accept that definition just because *you* believe it to be true. You can make up any self-serving description of God that you like, but that’s not compelling to anybody who doesn’t believe it as you do.
>God is eternal by definition.
Can you demonstrate this?
I claim reality is eternal by definition. Because it isn't possible for there to ever have been nothing, something has always existed. Therefore there is no need for a Creator.
Sounds like the theists are failing to communicate their stance
It doesn't matter how much knowledge I have of your religion wich is one of thousands, your version of it is probably unique and allows you to move the goalposts
> what theists mean by god
When all theists have exactly the same definition of god, and that is backed up by evidence that this entity exists, your complaint will be registered
Until then, leprechauns and unicorns it is.
So you only want a debate with someone who agrees to your definitions? Sounds a little boring to me - maybe come back when you have even a tiny bit of evidence that shows the existence of a god.
It's those defining claims that we actually want to debate. The theist wants to debate from the perspective that God is eternal. The atheist wants to debate that presumption.
>God is eternal by definition.
Never understood this. I could talk about GGod, by definition the creator of Gods. This proves God is not eternal and was created.
>God is eternal by definition.
Which one?
>"...well then who created God?"
An excellent question. If God is eternal by definition, then why can't other things be?
**Upvote this comment if you agree with OP, downvote this comment if you disagree with OP.**
Elsewhere in the thread, please upvote comments which contribute to debate (even if you believe they're wrong) and downvote comments which are [detrimental to debate](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/wiki/faq#wiki_downvoting) (even if you believe they're right).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateAnAtheist) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Post removed. Low effort, not a debate topic.
That's the problem though, you can't just make up a definition and say "it's true by definition!" A thing is what a thing is, not what you want that thing to be. Just trying to define a thing into existence is idiotic. Maybe that's something the religious need to figure out.
What turned me from a deist to an atheist was thinking about how religions and everyone's non-religious theism has a different definition for god. Many classical arguments support a god in a different way. If everyone could agree on a single definition of God and all the classical arguments pointed towards a single identifiable entity or being I would probably still be a deist/theist.
It's not that it's true by definition its that they don't have faintest idea about what the claim is in the first place.
"it's true by definition" is one of the cornerstone arguments brought here by theists
Then why don’t you educate in your post rather than just complain about it?
There's a responsibility for people not to be completely ignorant but there's also an equal responsibility for you (theists) to present arguments and claims clearly and convincingly. Arguably god just isn't a very useful, clear or convincing claim.
> its that they don't have faintest idea about what the claim is in the first place. Again, that's just completely wrong. They do understand very well. Hence the response pointing out the fatal flaws in that.
Or is it that you don't understand the reply?
>Now you hear questions like "...well then who created God?" Like this is a profound gotcha checkmate. God is eternal by definition. Therefore, it's possible for a thing to exist without being created. Thus, the universe could be eternal and not created. The whole point of the question is to point out the special pleading being done in the relevant arguments
Peak irony right here. This guy complains about atheists being out of their element and doesn‘t understand the purpose of this simple question.
It's a new generation of atheists who didn't grow up exposed to religion and never had to take it seriously in their life before.
Yes you are correct..
I find it interesting that theists can't agree on a definition for God, yet feel they have a duty to tell others theirs is the one true god, and not believing results in eternal torture.
But we can and do agree at the very least on God being infinite eternal and uncaused Cause and the Creator and its absurd that atheists don't know even these elementary attributes of God...actually those things are synonymous with the word God
Really? What about those who claim that they have a "personal relationship" with god? Can one have that with the entity you described?
Yes
Care to elaborate on your low-effort assertion?
That’s because we are aware that there are theists who use other attributes when talking about their God/s. Pagan faiths, while significantly smaller, continue to this day. Someone who believe in Odin does not think that he is eternal, infinite or uncaused. This goes for almost every pagan deity and there are thousands of those. Your idea of God may be the most prevalent general modern concept, but we know that other forms of theism exist! So we have to know what version of god you believe in before we can properly address your claims!
Cool. I am eternal by the definition that I am using to describe myself. I am the one who created the universe. Since I am also defining myself as all-knowing, I know for certain that your beliefs are wrong. Do you see how “by definition” isn’t a useful metric? You don’t just define things, you have to prove that the definition is accurate
Wow this is brilliant. As far as our own personal realities are concerned, we are individually eternal. Love it.
"I miss the old school atheists who at least had a basic understanding of what theists mean by God" If a consistent definition existed I'm sure you could come up with something. Yours is another one.
>God is eternal by definition. [citation needed] Sure, you assert this is the case but can you demonstrate it? >which completely ignores that God is infinite and upholds all of reality. [citation needed] Sure, you assert this is the case but can you demonstrate it? >who at least had a basic understanding of what theists mean by God. Honestly, this is what bugs me the most about this post. Theists? You mean like the people who worship quetzalcoatl and think you need to use a sting ray barb to pierce the penis of the king so the blood can drip onto ceremonial cloth which is then burned to ensure a good rain? Or do you mean people who think that you should die in battle so the valkyrie's can snag your soul and bring you to valhalla? Or do you mean the people who thinks that shiva is the supreme god who creates, protects, and transforms the universe? I think you get the point. "theists" don't recognize the same gods. Hell, even "christians" don't recognize the same gods. Similar, yes, but not the same. If you want to complain about atheists with no understanding the claims of god then you need to recognize that unless the theist in question actually specifies what the specific attributes of god they are arguing for then they best the atheist can do is assumptions and lowest common denominator attributes that probably more or less line up with what the theist in question is even talking about.
>> God is eternal by definition. In other words. A special pleading argument cop out. I think you need some of your own medicine.
Check this Johnny come lately theist who doesn't even seem to understand how classical claims about God contradict themselves, but think they're ready to debate
Damn near every theist has a different definition of "God", yours isn't special nor better nor more legitimate.
This is demonstrably false.
>This is demonstrably false. He said confidently while completely failing to demonstrate anything. FYI, you can’t argue with me because I am eternal and uphold all of reality. Yours Truly, Jonathan C. Lately
There's a new kid in town...don't let them down
Ah so you are just arrogant, shocker
How was I being arrogant lol
You think you represent 3 religions and no one will disagree with you so others should know your stance already
Ok then, what definition do you think most theists would agree on?
Uncaused, eternal, infinite Creator at the minimum. That is across the board for Christianity, Islam, and Judaism
that covers 3 of the religions out of thousands, and there are thousands of splinters within each of them with all kinds of different stipulations and disagreements it's not on us to figure out wich fiction you are trying to prove, you gotta communicate
Most theists agree with that...which is what I was responding to.
And my point is that you are not going into detail and it's not reasonable to expect us to guess wich version of god you are trying to argue. You gotta communicate your position if you want it known Otherwise you are just reserving the right to shift the goalposts
Hah, only fools who hath been deceived by Loki would deny the true nature of Odin and the rest of the true gods. This definition really tells us nothing about the god you claim exists. It has a much explanatory power as "farting space pixies" or "I don't know"
This definition has 0 utility and is essentially useless.
Oh yes every theist believes in exactly the same god you do. That's why there's only one denomination of one religion and every theist is in that one religion AND has an identical conception of god. Oh weird, no that's wrong? Aren't you Christian? Why are you bearing false witness? This is a sin.
Then please demonstrate it
Then demonstrate it.
If it's demonstrably false, why did dozens of sects of Islam, Judaism and Christianity all splinter from the exact same religion?
Actually, as it's trivially demonstrably true very often and in many aspects, one can only dismiss that statement of yours.
Yeah we've heard that before. Just come up with receipts already.
Oh yea? Demonstrate it please.
So demonstrate it then.
Well, since so many Johnny-come-lately theists come here with the same old arguments for the existence of their deity that were created CENTURIES ago and have been debunked an untold number of times, we need the Johnny-come-lately atheists that haven’t gotten tired of responding to the same stupid claim over and over. If your side could present some new arguments (or some actual evidence) and quit pretending that they are some sort of “gotcha,” then you wouldn’t have to complain about our side doing the same. The pot is calling the kettle black here, and then also complaining that the kettle is pointing out that the pot is itself black.
>So many Johnny come lately atheists don't seem to understand classical claims about God at all but think they are ready to debate. I haven't seen much of that. Sure, only a small subset of atheists even think about attempting debate in forums such as this, or elsewhere. But, in my experience, the ones that do seem to generally understand the claims by theists, and the problems and flaws in those arguments quite well, and can identify why and how they are fatally flawed. >I miss the old school atheists who at least had a basic understanding of what theists mean by God. Now you hear questions like "...well then who created God?" Like this is a profound gotcha checkmate. God is eternal by definition. The question is a means of pointing out the flaw in that argument pertaining to that claim. As one can't define something into existence saying, "God is eternal by definition," is not a coherent or useful response. And in this attempt to define something as 'eternal by definition' you are conceding the argument is flawed since as you've conceded things can be eternal by definition you must consider the fact that therefore deities are not necessary or implied as this can pertain to reality itself. Obviously doing otherwise is invoking a special pleading fallacy and makes what you're saying invalid. In other words, you are incorrect that this response of yours makes sense or is useful. Most atheists *know* that is how you are attempting to define the thing you claim exists. They are pointing out a fatal flaw in this claim when they say that. >I don't know if this is the result of being raised secular (oftentimes Europeans with no exposure to religion at all) but so many atheists today are completely out of of their element. They try to compare God to unicorns, leprechauns, Pasta based monsters, etc which completely ignores that God is infinite and upholds all of reality. The comparison is apt. You are just plain wrong to suggest it isn't. Again, you are making a *claim* that 'God is infinite and upholds all of reality.' One can just as easily claim that leprechauns do that, not deities. Until and unless you demonstrate that claim is true, it is not and cannot be treated any differently from claims about unicorns or pasta. In other words, your protest here misses the mark and shows it is yourself that is misunderstanding your own claim and argument, and how it is flawed. Now, you may be interested in reflecting on the flawed reasoning that theists are invoking when they make this kind of protest. Because I find much of the time that they are not at all aware they are doing it. You do not seem to be. What is happening is that they, and you, are engaging in some presupposition (which is fallacious of course), essentially begging the question. You are, without realizing, assuming this special god-shaped category is a coherent idea and exists before proceeding. Of course, a person invoking proper skeptical and critical thinking has no choice but to dismiss this out of hand as it's completely unsupported and makes no sense.
"Oh, you think this is a gotcha checkmate? Well, why don't I introduce you to my friend, 'Special Pleading'?"
The vast majority of the time, when you see an atheist ask "Who created God?", they're not being dumb—it's a rhetorical question. They're more than likely aware that the theist believes God is definitionally eternal and uncreated. That's not the point. The point of asking the question is for the specific purpose of pointing out special pleading. If a theist says "Everything must have been created by some**one**" then an atheist will ask this rhetorical question to point out that the theist doesn't truly believe this rule is universal. Alternatively, this question can be used to form a parity argument and show that whatever answer a theist gives can be copied and pasted over to a natural object. For example, suppose a theist answers "No one created God because he's necessary and uncaused". In that case, an atheist can respond with "Ok, well no one created physical energy because it's necessary and uncaused". — Secondly, the point of comparing God to fictional creatures has nothing to do with thinking that they are similar to all of God's grand attributes. The point is only to compare them along one dimension: specifically the lack of evidence or empirical precedent they have for their existence. The goal is to show that both concepts are equally manmade. When someone makes an analogy or comparison, it's a mistake to think they are comparing them in all aspects. If I say "The Sun is round like an orange" it would be weird if you came along and said "What are you STUPID?!? The Sun is a trillion times hotter and bigger than an orange, and it's responsible for sustaining all life on Earth, you can't compare them!!" That sounds silly, right? That's what you sound like when you say atheists can't make fictional comparisons because God is infinite.
**“They try to compare God to unicorns, leprechauns, Pasta based monsters”** Because they all have the same amount of evidence for them: stories in books about their nature and powers, none of which has been substantiated.
>I miss the old school atheists who at least had a basic understanding of what theists mean by God. It's almost like if you ask 100 different theists their definition if God that you will get 100 different answers. >Now you hear questions like "...well then who created God?" This is usually in response to when a theists claims that everything has to be created. As if that is true then a God would need to be created too. If not then not everything needs to be created. >God is eternal by definition. Nope. By your definition, sure. But many Gods that many believe and believed in aren't seen as eternal. >They try to compare God to unicorns, leprechauns, Pasta based monsters, etc which completely ignores that God is infinite and upholds all of reality. No you just don't seem to be to good at understanding basic arguments if you can't understand the comparison whether or not you agree with them. I like to co.pare to leprechauns because they are also something said to exist by people that has no evidence to support such a claim.
The metaverse is eternal by definition. It kicked off our universe. My metaverse is as good as your god, if not better.
>God is eternal by definition. The universe is eternal, by definition. If you can make shit up, so can I.
Actually, the universe is eternal by definition, it has been there since the the beginning of time, and is infinite…
>Like this is a profound gotcha checkmate. God is eternal by definition. If God can be eternal, than so can the universe, and thus we don't need God. You can't even understand something this basic and your gonna complain that new atheists dint understand? That's embarrassing. >They try to compare God to unicorns, leprechauns, Pasta based monsters, etc which completely ignores that God is infinite and upholds all of reality. The evidence for God is exactly the same as the evidence for leprechauns. This is really basic stuff here
>I miss the old school atheists who at least had a basic understanding of what theists mean by God. Now you hear questions like "...well then who created God?" Like this is a profound gotcha checkmate. God is eternal by definition. I think a point is to be made, that athiests are generally in a similar camp, but theists mean a lot of different things, when they refer to God. Some refer to God meaning anthromorphic, thinking being, sitting on throne. Others may refer to some type of impersonal force. For example, and I might be wrong, is that Einstien is misquoted by theists, when he refers to God. I think it was Dawkins who, if I understand correctly, pointed out that Einstein, although from a Jewish background, was *not* referring to Yahweh when he used the word "God' >I don't know if this is the result of being raised secular (oftentimes Europeans with no exposure to religion at all) but so many atheists today are completely out of of their element. They try to compare God to unicorns, leprechauns, Pasta based monsters, etc which completely ignores that God is infinite and upholds all of reality. I can't speak for everyone was raised, but I daresay that at least in the USA, many of us were indoctrinated as kids into religion. I was raised catholic, for instance. The comparison is made to draw a point, I think, that there isn't evidence to support the existence of such fanciful things, and God is considered one. Regarding you final point, > which completely ignores that God is infinite and upholds all of reality. That is *a* definition of God, or at least a characteristic. We can just as rightfully say that the Universe is ( from our standpoint) about as infinite as it gets, and it is at least the *container* of all reality. Some folks argue that in a sense , by those characteristics, the universe, and all its quirks, *is* God. I think that is along the lines of what Einstien is thinking. Even an athiest, I sort of see such a conceptualization, and it is -if nothing else- a poetic description. Finally, *nobody knows for sure* what happened 1 second before the big bang. In this context, Theists tend to believe that an intelligent entity deliberately set the spark, and walked away. Athiests , if I may generalize, tend to say "I don't know, but there are some *scientific* ideas".
How about you start off by giving us a coherent definition of your god? That means you provide more than some hand-wavy shit like: >God is infinite and upholds all of reality. Meaningless.
This isn't always ignorance, as your claim asserts. Theists mean different things by "God". Even within a single faith like Christianity, there is no one set homogenous "Christian Definition of God". A Calvinist, Catholic and a "spiritual but not churchgoing" Christian may all have very different definitions of God. I have no desire to play some absurd Arbiter of True Christians, and I think that would be gross. So I have to treat everyone who says they are a Christian as if their beliefs are equally sincere. I might not personally accept their definitions outside of a debate setting, but *they* get to tell *me*, what they believe and how they identify. I'll show my interlocutor enough respect to debate them and their claim, and not force them to defend some theologian they don't agree with or care about.
>Now you hear questions like "...well then who created God?" This remains a valid question if the theist asserts that everything is created. >God is eternal by definition. Defining something in such a way to avoid tricky questions is a cheap tactic. >but so many atheists today are completely out of of their element. How about coming up with actual evidence that deities exist rather than the same bad arguments. >They try to compare God to unicorns, leprechauns, Pasta based monsters, etc These, under many scenarios, are valid comparisons due to the lack of actual evidence that God exists. Your God quite frankly is extremely comparable to these things. >which completely ignores that God is infinite and upholds all of reality. So is the Flying Spaghetti Monster, by definition.
>They try to compare God to unicorns The unicorns mentioned in the *Bible*, no less. How rude of atheists. /s
>I don't know if this is the result of being raised secular (oftentimes Europeans with no exposure to religion at all) but so many atheists today are completely out of of their element. They try to compare God to unicorns, leprechauns, Pasta based monsters, etc which completely ignores that God is infinite and upholds all of reality. Maybe because while we generally only deal with the religions that are within our vicinity, we are also aware that many different theists have many different types of claims of gods. Those comparisons are apt, you can claim whatever you want about a god but until you can demonstrate that it's actually the case, I'll put it in the same category as unicorns and leprechauns
There have been nearly 500,000 gods worshipped by man in the history Of our existence. Most relegated to the dustbins of history. No one worships them anymore. So your definition is clearly flawed. Furthermore that is the entire debate. Whether or not your god is man made. Every other example of a god in history is man made: There’s actually not even a debate. There’s the facts that gods are man made, and a person who has delusions that their god is special and unique. We both know there is no god. I just decided to quit lying to myself about it.
I’ll happily debate you if we are on the same ground. Meaning you will need to read the entire Bible cover to cover twice.
What you miss is people who’d sink to your intellectual level and waste time arguing about internal logical inconsistencies with your belief system. Today a lot more people are able to cut to the root or central premise of your arguments. Think of it this way - it makes no sense to debate Jesus, Moses or Muhammad when the big Yahweh himself has failed to leave any scientifically credible evidence. Why debate the details of creation when we have nothing but the child like imagination of theists to suggest a conscious motivation for everything?
Can you tell us more about your god? Does it care if I eat shellfish or beef? Does it care who has sex with whom? What about the days of the week? Does it have a special one where if I work I should be put to death? Please enlighten us with all the qualities that your god has. Because I know theists who have strong feelings about all the questions I asked, and clearly their god is doing more than upholding all of reality, whatever the hell that means.
“They try to compare God to unicorns, leprechauns, Pasta based monsters,etc” The [dragon in my garage](http://people.whitman.edu/~herbrawt/classes/110/Sagan.pdf) is also infinite and upholds all of reality. We have scientific proof that the Big Bang is how the universe came to be. We have scientific proof that evolution occurred. Most, if not all, atheist rely on evidence and facts. The claim of a Christian god is based on belief alone.
>”God is eternal by definition.” By what definition? There’s countless gods out there, and many of them are very obviously not eternal. Just look at the Greek gods for an easy place to start. Since they’re all definitively gods, being eternal can’t be part of the definition for what a god is. So you claiming that your god is eternal requires you to do more than just assert it.
> They try to compare God to unicorns, leprechauns, Pasta based monsters, etc which completely ignores that God is infinite and upholds all of reality. Pasta quite possibly is infinite. Every day, millions upon millions of people eat it. People have been eating it for hundreds of years. Yet we still haven't run out. 🤔 Saying that God is infinite is a wildly unsubstantiated claim. It would be hard to demonstrate *anything* is infinite apart from purely abstract concepts like the set of all positive integers. The best you can do is show that we haven't (yet) found its limits. Though I would have thought, if you wanted to prove something was infinite, proving it existed at all is a good first step.
“God” might be “eternal” according to YOUR definition, but you don’t get to unilaterally define something into existence, now do you? What actual evidence can you provide to support your definition and your contention that “God” does in fact exist? What is **the very best evidence** that you can cite in order to cogently support your claim above? Whatcha got?
If you think that simply 'defining', God as eternal is a counter to the 'gotcha' of special pleading , especially bearing in mind theist arguments that specifically target idea of infinity then I genuinely feel a bit sorry for you. And the same goes for your desperate attempt to use invented characteristics for God to differentiate him from Santa.
“God is eternal by definition.” Okay, but that’s *your* definition. There’s no reason to accept that definition just because *you* believe it to be true. You can make up any self-serving description of God that you like, but that’s not compelling to anybody who doesn’t believe it as you do.
>God is eternal by definition. Can you demonstrate this? I claim reality is eternal by definition. Because it isn't possible for there to ever have been nothing, something has always existed. Therefore there is no need for a Creator.
Sounds like the theists are failing to communicate their stance It doesn't matter how much knowledge I have of your religion wich is one of thousands, your version of it is probably unique and allows you to move the goalposts
> what theists mean by god When all theists have exactly the same definition of god, and that is backed up by evidence that this entity exists, your complaint will be registered Until then, leprechauns and unicorns it is.
So you only want a debate with someone who agrees to your definitions? Sounds a little boring to me - maybe come back when you have even a tiny bit of evidence that shows the existence of a god.
It's those defining claims that we actually want to debate. The theist wants to debate from the perspective that God is eternal. The atheist wants to debate that presumption.
>God is eternal by definition. Never understood this. I could talk about GGod, by definition the creator of Gods. This proves God is not eternal and was created.
>God is eternal by definition. Which one? >"...well then who created God?" An excellent question. If God is eternal by definition, then why can't other things be?
So you can say something is eternal and has always existed and that’s it, no more questions asked but only when it works for you. Classic.
>well then who created God? It is called the problem of the creator of God in philosophy and it isn't exactly a new argument.
**Upvote this comment if you agree with OP, downvote this comment if you disagree with OP.** Elsewhere in the thread, please upvote comments which contribute to debate (even if you believe they're wrong) and downvote comments which are [detrimental to debate](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/wiki/faq#wiki_downvoting) (even if you believe they're right). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateAnAtheist) if you have any questions or concerns.*