ROFLMAO

From my post, the fourth above sntjohnny's last:

First, sntjohnny-ism: When [sntjohnny] 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" or may exist nowhere besides sntjohnny's imagination and if the thread does exist he never, ever, ever explains precisely where the explanation may exist in the referred to thread.

sntjohnny's response directly above to a question put to him:

. . . did you fail to note that I re-stated your argument in a way that TRANSCENDS these issues? Not in this thread, in the other one.

Of course your answer is "not in this thread, [but is] in the other one." Where else might it be?

Your "answers" are always in the "other thread." I KNOW this about your "answers." You've repeated this same statement dozens of times already now in the brief while that I've been on the board. To continue to repeat it now is self-parody.

The only reason I ask you a question now is not to get an answer. It's to get the very response that you just gave! It's to get a laugh -- and you never let me down.

Thanks, sntjohnny. You're a riot.

You miss the point, DT. I never said that SJ didn't restate the argument.

What I said was, is that I find it hilarious that when asked to clarify a claim that he's made or a concept that he's used, he invariably shrugs it off by referring to other threads which may or may not exist and which may or may not be relevant to what he's been asked in the first place.

He did it again here. You actually took the time and trouble to go to the other thread, copy his response there, bring it back here, and paste it even though that reponse has NOTHING to do with the claim that he's made in this thread that is being disputed.

What is being disputed is his claim that I eliminate the possibility of God by definition when I define the universe as "all that's real."

How does the quote that you just copy'n'pasted support that claim?

It is entirely possible that a God exists which created everything else that exists in the universe. If it is not, then show me where the contradiction lies.

It could be that God was alone in the universe prior to his creation act. This would make God synonymous with the universe at that time. Once God created "the heavens and the earth" and all the rest of that malarkey in Genesis, the universe was, then, composed of God and all the rest of creation.

Now, none of this has the slightest probability of being true of course, but we're not talking about "probability" here. We're talking about "possibility." Sntjohnny made the claim that my definition of the universe made God's existence impossible by definition and that claim is clearly, provably false.

If anyone has made God's existence impossible by definition, it is sntjohnny when he claims that it is impossible for God to exist in the universe.

Lost in all this (which was more than likely the intent) is the fact that I accepted SJ and Doc's definition of God at the bottom of page 1 of the other thread where I write:

I mentioned earlier that I had actually helped your argument by placing God inside the universe, but evidently you didn't pick up on that. Instead, you remain determined to place your god in a completely speculative realm that cannot be experienced by humans. Great. This then eliminates God entirely as even a possible example of being a thing in the universe that is undesigned.

Works for me.

For purposes of argument, I'm perfectly comfortable with accepting the Christian notion that their God is beyond the universe. That, as I point out, makes my argument much stronger.

The claim that I dispute is the claim that says, by defining the universe as "all that is real" eliminates the possibility of God's existence, by definition.

Cog,

I think DT read the situation right.

But I think you are being profoundly unfair.

As you say:  "The claim that I dispute is the claim that says, by defining the universe as "all that is real" eliminates the possibility of God's existence, by definition."

But that was specifically being addressed in the very post that you mined for the 'other thread' comment.

In otherwords, the claim that was being disputed was directly addressed, and you ignored it completely in order to launch your attack.

In regards to the 'other thread' statement, its clear by the context that I was challenging a DIFFERENT accusation, and that is that I hadn't offered any other alternatives, when in fact I had.  And you've continued to ignore that alternative, too, I might add.

So, you're actually wrong on every front.  I was not throwing off my 'answer' to the 'claims being disputed' to the other thread.  That answer is right here on this thread, and you ignored what I said and re-iterated it as though I hadn't commented on it.  Similarly, I have offered alternative POVs on the subject, and you've ignored them.

I've been having trouble finding any substantive posts from you on your own argument.  You're just basically engaged in a 'Get Johnny" game, leaving substantive posts ignored.  Why don't you start addressing them?

In regards to the 'other thread' statement, its clear by the context that I was challenging a DIFFERENT accusation, and that is that I hadn't offered any other alternatives, when in fact I had. And you've continued to ignore that alternative, too, I might add.

Yet, earlier in this same thread you answer Heretic's request for an alternative definition this way:

Well, I've got a thread labeled "cumulative argument for theism" [no, actually, you don't] 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.[inserted comment mine]

I'm not going to go around the board searching for answers in other threads that probably aren't there to begin with and if they are, are probably not relevant. If others want to play those games, great, that's their affair. But not me.

If you've got something to say of relevance, state it as clearly as possible here in this thread; if not, fine. I guess I'll just have to somehow learn to live without your enlightening words.

I have set the record straight on the Christian definition of God. . .

O arrogance    thy name is sntjohnny.

There IS no "Christian definition" for God or for hardly anything else, as well. There are only Christian definitionS for God.

Given your embarrassingly overweening pride, this may be hard for you to swallow, but your definition is just one of many.

This is a real problem in trying to communicate with you. To you, your definition of any term -- no matter how obscure or how arcane that definition -- is THE definition of the term. You are unwilling to use popular definitions or to compromise to reach an agreement about the meaning of terms.

Five.