I would love the chance to do that T.E.M. So far, however there are a couple of people who want to play silly semanitc games. I think they're afraid that if they allow for a definition of God that may then have to address the actual arguments. Instead they have thusfar pretended God cannot be defined in order to try to dodge the arguments being given.

The definition of God which I have given is pretty much identical actually to the God of orthodox monotheism.

viz. A God who is personal [a person without a body ie. a spirit, who is necessarily eternal [thus not a contingent being but has always existed and always will, not dependent on time], omnipotent [able to do whatever is logically possible], rational, perfectly good [always does a morally best action] and omniscient [can know whatever it is logical to know].

Having clarified that I am still awaiting the evidence for the original syllogism on this thread?

Hmmm, I don't think I understand all the points you made. But a few things:

A large part of your concern seems to be largely with the baggage (violence, authoritarianism) that many forms of religion have. I'm pretty much in agreement about that, yet I don't see the need to color any and all talk talk of god henceforth with the same brush.

eye2i2 clearly wants to get the discussion onto church history so he can try to discredit the existence of God based on how certain supposed theists behaved. This of course is a logical fallacy in itself but is clearly the area where eye2i2 would be happiest discussing. As if those who have not believed in God have all been saints!!! This way of trying to discredit God is completely unphilosophical despite being popularist. This would explain the constant harassment I receive for not having 'named' God thusfar.

And will you 'chill' about being asked to 'chill'?? If you really cannot talk any other way than f###ing and blinding then go for it.

See what I mean. Here comes the Dawkins in you! You want to talk about fundamentalists [Zionism / Jihad - taken in it's smaller meaning and ignoring its primary meaning]. This, "watch out theism kills" rubbish has been done already and everyone laughs at it for the nonsense it really is. That's a very desperate route to take.

Your account of post-enlightenment thought is fallacious too. It gave birth to modernism [of which one of its main cercerns was verifiable proof] but that was superceded at least 30 years ago by what is being called postmodernism which is far less certain about such words as 'proof'. Postmodernism has taken note of work done in the philosophy of science where scientists do not talk about verifiable proof or facts any more but rather paradigms and falsifiability.

No, that's right you never said explicitly that theism kills but then why bring up Zionism and Jihad and not The Society of Friends for example? Oh, gee, could it be that a pacifist group of theists doesn't quite fit the bill?!? You're squirming.

What is it with you and this "should behave" quote?!? I was not making any metaphysical point when I talk about your behaviour. The CONTEXT quite clearly was talking about how one is expected to formulate arguments in accepted academia [which I know won't bother you in the slightest because you don't debate in that context ever]. That was the purpose of the "should". Stop trying to make more of it than there was to the comment.

"Appeal to popularism"? Haha. Yeh, I do it all the time actually! I believe in evolution because, not being a biologist, I think it's rational too since almost every single biologist on the planet does. On that basis alone I am justified in my belief. I may end up wrong some day but for now I have justification. I find it hard to believe the FDR cultish explanation that all academia is government funded [which it isn't in my country anyway!!] and therefore there exists a worldwide conspiracy where governments decide what academics and scientists can or cannot say or discover. That's the most silly conspiracy 'theory' [and to use that word IS an abuse of it] I've ever heard. The vast majority of scientists accepted falsifiability in the mid-twentieth century since so many long established rules had to be modified or thrown out. Of course, if you want to argue that modern philosophy of science has got it wrong then you'll have to make your case just like anyone else. So I'm looking forward to your refutation of Popper. Although I'm not holding my breath of course since you are not the hottest on supporting argumentation.

You've never read any Dawkins? Well that doesn't negate the fact that you sound like him I'm sorry to tell you!!

When I talk about FDR I don't imply that they represent mainstream atheism. I've never implied that. In fact I have called them "fundamentalist atheists" to disassociate them from more robust forms of the movement. When I mention FDR it's because you remind me of some of the atheists and what they would say on Molly's website. That's all.

I see you're using dictionaries now! Whatever next? I'm truly shocked! I guess it's not an appeal to authority when you do it then? It must be a UPB eh?

Now you don't have a problem with a 'beginner'? I'm tempted to ask you why not? In fact I will. Why?

You appear to have forgotten that this thread was SUPPOSED to be PROOF that God did not create the universe!! We havn't even been offered a reason yet, let alone proof!!!

The difference between the two is this...

With FSM you want to completely negate all three words. They are not even metaphorical. To be metaphorical they ought to reveal something true about the deity being claimed to exist. There's nothing necessary about the FSM. All three terms explicitly indicate a sharp distinction between it and the classic definition of God. It's just the same with the IPU! In fact your example demonstrates the trick your up to here and it's ironic and I've said it before because it's what you originally charged me with and that is making up new meanings to words. You do that for the IPU. Those words don't mean those things. Not even to you they don't. Do grow up! By contrast all the words used in definition of God appeal to their common meanings. Therefore nothing is veiled - unlike your way of mistreating the English language.

Interesting yet again, but amongst all the fog you create there's nothing on Popper. [Just as there was no mention of the Jihad comments or the behave issue or commenting on the beginner issue.] Wasn't wikipedia any help then? [I know that's your secret exemption to authority!!] Surely I gave you enough time to get that far with your research??? Maybe another week will help. Homework in by this time next week then please!

I'm not going drop the word God on your request. You've given no good reasons why I should. I'm not a deist. I'm not going to submit to your authority. You are an aphilosophist after all!! Who cares about what they think. They think they're oh so rebellious with their aphilosophy not realizing it's still philosophy - just a poorer version of it! You're like someone driving down the road in his car shouting out the window "I'm acarist!!!"