There are about 1000 gods. Is that evidence against God?

[PureX]

When picking from 1 in 1000, the chances
of picking the right one are 1 in 2?

You are assuming that there can be only one "correct" conception of God, but we have no way of knowing this to be so.

 

[PureX]

I think that you are saying that God could exist though our conceptions of God might be wrong.

Of course. Our conceptions of God are not God, and do not define, validate, or invalidate God's nature or existence. So the fact that we hold many different conceptions of God has no bearing on the actual nature or existence of God.

 

[Subduction Zone]

WHICH faith based teachings are proven wrong or immoral? Can you be any more vague?

Newsflash, not all faith based teachings are the same.

If one relies on the Bible the list is almost endless.

Slavery is bad, mmmkay?

 

[paarsurrey]

Of course. Our conceptions of God are not God, and do not define, validate, or invalidate God's nature or existence. So the fact that we hold many different conceptions of God has no bearing on the actual nature or existence of God.

I agree with one here. G-d exists irrespective of our concept of Him.
Jesus was never a god, just a human being, I understand. Right friend, please?

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

You are assuming that there can be only one "correct" conception of God, but we have no way of knowing this to be so.

This may be sorted out with the Religious Method, I understand. Right friend, please?

Regards

 

[PureX]

I agree with one here. G-d exists irrespective of our concept of Him.
Jesus was never a god, just a human being, I understand. Right friend, please?

Regards

Jesus of Nazareth is a character in a mythological religious story. Whatever else he may have been is not known to us. People can believe whatever they want, all I'm asking for is a little honesty about what we can know, and what we can't.

 

[paarsurrey]

Here you go again, twisting my words. If you're going to try to use a straw man, at least try not to make it so obvious, okay?
Everything we know for a fact is true about the universe has been shown by science.
Of course, if you can show me something that is demonstrably true about the universe that is NOT the result of scientific investigation, then please present it. Bear in my I actually expect you to demonstrate that it is true, so loud proclamations that you really REALLY believe it aren't going to be good enough.



Name any truth we know about the universe and it was provided by science.



Why should I bother doing that? It assumes that religion is able to provide some factual information about the way the universe works. Until you can show that religion can actually provide objectively true information that science can not, why should I bother with it?

Magenta ^.

It is a tall claim of the Atheism, I understand, science does not have any such claim, please.
If science claims it, please quote from science. Right friend, please?

Regards

 

[Subduction Zone]

Magenta ^.

It is a tall claim of the Atheism, I understand, science does not have any such claim, please.
If science claims it, please quote from science. Right friend, please?

Regards

You keep repeating this error. Science does not claim anything so your request is pointless.

 

[Revoltingest]

What part of try it out for yourself do you not understand?

I understand your desire that I try out a belief in your god, ie, God.
But that's not an option. It's no more possible for me than believing
Harry Potter, Zap Brannigan & Zaphod Beeblebrox are real. And
still, I'd have no way to verify one is correct.

 

[Revoltingest]

Well, I have just suggested a reasonable Method in my post #135 , one may like to read it please. Right friend, please?

Regards

The premises chosen strike me as ad hoc.
A fan of any religion could do the same, ie,
pick premises that support their god over
all the others.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I understand your desire that I try out a belief in your god, ie, God.
But that's not an option. It's no more possible for me than believing
Harry Potter, Zap Brannigan & Zaphod Beeblebrox are real. And
still, I'd have no way to verify one is correct.

Too bad his religion does not have a God Back Guarantee:

“Try us for thirty days and if you don’t like us, your God will most likely take you back.
This is an important detail in spreading His Word. If it works for infomercials, it will definitely work for religion. The God-back guarantee should always be offered up front.”

 

[Revoltingest]

Hmm....what if everyone is partially right? What if we have to put all of the religions together in order to find out the real truth?

Maybe this is why God created the Tower of Babel, so that some day, once we all learn to get along, we can get back together with the various cultures that God separated (and scrambled their languages so that they could not communicate)?

Once we find it in our hearts to have universal love, maybe then we can be ready for God's full message?

Every religion can claim the "what if" validation.
And being partially right is still less than correct, ie, partially wrong.
There's still no proffered cromulent basis to choose one over others.

 

[firedragon]

You are assuming that there can be only one "correct" conception of God, but we have no way of knowing this to be so.

What have you explored to know or know that it cannot be known?

 

[Revoltingest]

You are assuming that there can be only one "correct" conception of God, but we have no way of knowing this to be so.

My assumption isn't what you posted. It's that a great
many versions of the gods are mutually exclusive, eg,
the Christian god vs Norse gods.

 

[Revoltingest]

Too bad his religion does not have a God Back Guarantee:

“Try us for thirty days and if you don’t like us, your God will most likely take you back.
This is an important detail in spreading His Word. If it works for infomercials, it will definitely work for religion. The God-back guarantee should always be offered up front.”

I see people doing that here on RF....try out a religion....see
how it feels...believe in it, or seek out another. Just not for me.

 

[Nivek001]

But when the only thing you are testing is the general advice your religion offers - be good to others, etc - and their religion also teaches the same thing, then it's a little hard to get a conclusive result.



But when putting your beliefs to the test - such as by practicing the "be nice to others" idea - is exactly what they'd be doing, then you're both likely to get similar results, and that's why they hold their beliefs are correct. Because like you, they have put their beliefs to the test and found that they worked.

And when you put other things to the test - praying to move mountains, or handling poisonous snakes, those tests routinely FAIL - a fact that you have completely ignored, and which I will suspect you will ignore again. And if you don't ignore it, you will make excuses as to why those tests don't count.



And again, I will point out that since you claim that we can't get verification until we are dead, there's really no way for anything to be verified. So I don't particularly fancy wasting my entire life on something with no guarantee that it's correct.

Where did I say we cannot get verification until we are dead? I simply said we can get personal verification of the truth even though we cannot prove that truth to the world, but it is still the truth nonetheless.

It’s remarkable that you keep insisting that you choose to do something not based on any evidence but on the lack of evidence. It’s rather hypocritical if you to do that.

Again, the challenge is there that you can find truth through taking certain actions based on faith and see how it effects you personally, but instead you make excuses saying you would not take action unless there is evidence while at the same time you take action to the contrary without any supporting evidence to the contrary.

While all facts are considered true not all truths are considered fact. If all truths were considered fact science would no longer be a work in progress because everything in the universe would have been proven by now through science, and that is not the case.

There are still truths out there that science has not proven and yet they are still truths nonetheless. There is no logic in your position.

 

[Nivek001]

If one relies on the Bible the list is almost endless.

Slavery is bad, mmmkay?

So, you are saying that because slavery was once accepted in the Bible that everything else taught In the Bible is false and is never ending? How does that make sense?

Also, where does the Bible say that if slavery was acceptable in one period of time in one culture it’s the same in all periods of time in all cultures?

“To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven:
time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up that which is planted;
laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance;
get, and a time to lose; a time to keep, and a time to cast away;
rend, and a time to sew; a time to keep silence, and a time to speak;
hate; a time of war, and a time of peace.

Ecclesiastics 3:1-8 KJV

 

[Nivek001]

I understand your desire that I try out a belief in your god, ie, God.
But that's not an option. It's no more possible for me than believing
Harry Potter, Zap Brannigan & Zaphod Beeblebrox are real. And
still, I'd have no way to verify one is correct.

How does not proving Harry Potter, Zap Brannigan, and Zaphod Beebkebrox are real have anything to do with establishing whether or not there is a God who wants us to rely on faith in that God instead of relying on established evidence the whole world can see?

The challenge is open for you to at least find out and verify on a personal level and see if that is truly the case. Why are you afraid to at least try that instead choosing to not do that, which is not based any established evidence but based on nothing but an assumption that if it applies to Harry Potter it automatically applies to everything else without bothering to prove that is truly the case by the way?

 

[night912]

no please, that's not the game.
If you insinuate that all religions are equally probable to be true.... then the onus is on you to present a way of how to calculate their probability, I think. Won't you agree?

no please, that's not the game.
If you insinuate that all religions are equally probable to be true.... then the onus is on you to present a way of how to calculate their probability, I think. Won't you agree?

Let's check the facts to see who has the burden of proof.

It's evidence that belief in any one of them
is to believe in something highly improbable

Revoltingest claims that all of them are not probable. The evidence to support that claim is that none of them have shown that their god is probable. Lack of evidence for being probable is evidence for not being probable.

IF they all are equally probable....
Well... IF.
Then...

Thomas t claims that they all have an equal amount of probability.

How would probability be calculated
If none are evidence based?

Here, Revoltingest is asking thomas t how he was able to make his calculation and having the solution of all being equal when it's not possible for someone to make a calculation of probability for data if there is no data to calculate.

no please, that's not the game.
If you insinuate that all religions are equally probable to be true.... then the onus is on you to present a way of how to calculate their probability, I think. Won't you agree?

Thomas t then shifted the burden of proof on to Revoltingest.

He asked a question.
One you seem reluctant to answer.

Then Mestemia stated that he, (Revoltingest), was just asking thomas t a question on how thomas t was able to conclude that they are all equal.

in asking the question, he shifted the burden of proof. This is at least how I interpreted it...

Here thomas t is denying that he was reluctant to answer Revoltingest's question and tried to come up with a reason to justify not answering the question. And the reason he came up with is, blame Revoltingest for being the one who was doing the shifting of the burden of proof simply because Revoltingest asked his question.

So the result is.......
The one in bold has the burden of proof.

In conclusion, thomas t made a claim and has the burden of proof and did not meet his burden, instead, he shifted it on to Revoltingest. And when Mestemia pointed that out, thomas t became dishonest and accused Revoltingest of having the burden of proof and being the one who had shifted the burden of proof, when in fact, it was thomas t doing everything that he accused Revoltingest of doing.

By doing a simple fact check, this dilemma was easily solved.

Have a nice day.

 

[Revoltingest]

How does not proving Harry Potter, Zap Brannigan, and Zaphod Beebkebrox are real have anything to do with establishing whether or not there is a God who wants us to rely on faith in that God instead of relying on established evidence the whole world can see?

All appear to be inventions of man.
To say that one is real, would require a cogent evidence
based argument. But none have been presented.

The challenge is open for you to at least find out and verify on a personal level and see if that is truly the case.

What "personal" method would that be?

Why are you afraid to at least try that instead choosing to not do that, which is not based any established evidence but based on nothing but an assumption that if it applies to Harry Potter it automatically applies to everything else without bothering to prove that is truly the case by the way?

I have no fear.
But to try out a belief in a god simply isn't possible.
My brain won't let me believe that some not-even-wrong
concept is reality, ie, The Truth.