I sure hope I don't have to explain the point here...

ROFL!

As always, when faced with an argument that they cannot offer a reasonable refutation, some here start spin-off threads like crazy.

Johnny, johnny, johnny. You've lost it man. Just admit defeat. Folks will respect you much more if you do that. It takes more of a man to admit defeat than it does to just do the "nah..na..na..na..na..nah" thing.

You're making yourself look sillier than you already look.

Sometimes I really entertain the thought that johnny really is an atheist who maintains this site in order to demonstrate the illogical, silly and irrational arguments and behaviors of believers.

I disagree.  It is not pointless.  It is, of course, derived from this thread here:

http://www.sntjohnny.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=2039&start=50

If the reasoning employed in that thread is valid, so is my argument above.

Harry, what's the matter with my argument?  I can't quite put my finger on it....

Nevermind  

I beg to differ.  :)

You got it!  I thought my joke would be too clever for ya'll.  I'm so pleased it weren't.  

It seems to me that Cog has soft-pedaled his question begging some, which pleases me greatly.  But there is no doubt that his definition of universe precluded the existence of any 'God' that any theist would accede to, an odd circumstance since he was specifically trying to make his premise palatable to such.

Its sad it took this thread to illustrate that, but sometimes that's what it takes.

Ah, but his own thread was a spinoff, so what does that mean?

I have already explained- on that thread- where the problem is.  I understand that Cogito is 'your boy' and that prevents you from seeing what everyone else was able to see, but you could at least spend a moment in silent introspection wondering, "Given the quick understanding exhibited by even some others on 'my team,' perhaps I need to think more carefully about what I'm reading.  Possibly I am the one missing things."

Its just a thought.  

Cogito has already conceded that there is a difference between panentheism and pantheism and this may affect his argument.  He is waiting for Doc to provide some symbols to help explain that situation (I doubt he'd want to hear from me), so I'd like to think that my humble little thread actually served the purpose it was intended to serve.

But then, one can never know on these things.

"Thai is what I have been waiting for. Johnny complains about the definition yet fails to provide an alternative."

Well, I've got a thread labeled "cumulative argument for theism" which seems to cover it.   The truth is, that I shouldn't need to provide an alternative.  We are talking about very basic concepts here.

"I'm quite confused here, johnny complains Universe=All that is real excludes the existance of God. It was asked of him if he does not believe his God is real. His reply is only a "ROFL"."

You guys kill me.   You're serious, aren't you?

"For many a year now. Even before this web-site existed. Any that are still here from the DTF days will remember this same behavior."

That's your perspective.  My own perspective is that I create spin-offs not when I'm seriously challenged (because I can't remember that ever actually happening), but because critical issues are being BLATANTLY IGNORED.

Creating a new thread to highlight the point being swept under the rug is an effective way to deal with it.

Trust me, if your only recourse here is to piss and moan about starting new threads, the word P-A-T-H-E-T-I-C comes to mind.  WAAAAAAAAAAAAAH.  If you don't like it, address the points that are being raised in the original thread.

No offense to you knuckleheads, but as well as I can tell, Cogito has left both Liz and myself hanging on his ORIGINAL THREAD (if he spins off that's no biggie... Got it. Your team... he get's a pass.  Got it), and Cogito nor anyone except DT has responded to my post on his NEW THREAD.

So, basically, I'm actively maintaining all three threads.  It can't be argued that I'm running anywhere.  I'm unanswered in the other two.  Check the facts.

As to the point, if you guys cannot understand how reducing 'all that is real' to the universe excludes the possibility that God could be real- keeping in mind that God, by DEFINITION, is a supernatural entity alleged to exist outside the universe, I honestly can't help you.  I really can't.

BTW, my cumulative argument for theism has been unanswered for several days, too.

Why don't you guys quite your stitching and boaning and step up and answer some of the original threads going on and maybe folks wouldn't have to start new ones.

"First, sntjohnny-ism: When he cannot clarify some statement that he's made, he invariably claims that he's explained it before in some thread or other somewhere that may exist or may have been lost in "THE HACK""

What are you smoking.  The thread I pointed him to is one that you have been involved in and is active right now:

"In this case, the thread referred to actually exists"

DOH!  Well, I guess all your blather was for nothing.

"If it is that thread then what sntjohnny refers to in that thread that relates to this one is very much in dispute."

No, my friend.   What is crystal clear in that thread is the theistic conception of 'God,' and it was expressly made clear in a post describing panentheism.   You can't 'dispute' that I believe something different than what I say I believe.  You can dispute whether or not what I believe is true, of course, and that's not what is going on here.

YOU WERE EXPLICITLY TRYING TO FRAME THE ARGUMENT BASED ON PREMISES THAT CHRISTIANS AND/OR IDers  WOULD ACCEPT.

It is NOT brain surgery, than, that you would mean by the words you used in your argument the meanings that Christians or IDers would mean.  

"Usually it seems that he refers to other threads to simply avoid"

Yes, after some 5,000 posts, clearly trying to save my own time by referring others to where similar matters were addressed is 'avoidance.'

"that he knows no one will go to the trouble to peruse"

Not my problem.  On the other hand, I have trouble making sense of how I can offer long-winded answers to questions that I simultaneously 'avoid' and 'can't explain.'  lol  

I mean, that is really funny.

"Second sntjohnny-ism: He claims that some statement that he's made is so self-evident that there is no need for further clarification"

A.  Clarifications WERE given.
B.  I was generous.  If you don't understand Christian theism, that's ok, but don't try to represent it then, and certainly don't try to impose YOUR ideas about what you think Christian theism means on the theists.

People like to be able to speak for themselves, thank you.

Nice use of emoticons, btw.

I stand by my statements.  I also stand by my statements that there is no possible way that I can make the point more clearer.  I stand by my statement that your statements represent a completely false understanding of Christian theism.  There is nothing more I can do so long as you refuse to allow Christian theists tell you what they really think.

If you have trouble comprehending my clarifications, you could ask others involved to try to chime in.  Personally, I think its a little ridiculous to simultaneously accuse me of avoiding topics while simultaneiously being long-winded, of avoiding clarifications when obviously attempting to clarify, to get bent out of shape when I use smileys, and then see insults where there are none when I don't.

You are proving to be a person who is impossible to please.

All this and sntjohnny still has not (cannot?) explain what he means when he says that by my defining the universe as "all that is real," I have by definition eliminated the possibility of God's existence.

Could the reason be that he's simply wrong? :)

The reason my definition does not make the existence of God impossible by definition, is because it is entirely possible to make the claim that both God is real and is in the universe. There is nothing contradictory about such a claim.

Now, whether or not the claim is true is another story. Personally, I do not believe that it is true; but I do acknowledge that it is possible for it to be true.

This makes sntjohnny's claim (i.e., that by defining the universe as "all that is real," I have made the existence of God impossible by definition) false.