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

[Revoltingest]

How? The OP points out that the variety of god-concepts among humans does not invalidate the possibility nor lessen the probability of God's being.

Perhaps you're conflating "God" (the Christian god)
with "god", the word that denotes any deity.
I'm only addressing the probability of picking the
correct god from the thousands of available
alternatives. The odds look slim that any single
choice would be correct.
The probability of a god existing...I cannot say
what that would be. Somewhere between 0 & 1
though.

 

[thomas t]

So you have tried to act act on faith and asked God in prayer if what you believe in regarding that God is true?

you made a positive claim about my behavior and backed it up by nothing.
No reasons given.
Now, afterwards you start asking the questions.
This is not how it works (if you want to suctanciate a claim).
Your mind seemed to be set before you even asked one question, so I won't answer any from your side now.
I enjoy open debates in which people ask questions first and make up their minds last.

 

[thomas t]

That's not what you said.


This is what you said.


Okay, I missed one thing, so I'll be more accurate. You made a strawman argument then shifted the burden of proof.

Yep, classic D&D, deny and dishonesty.

I said the same thing twice, Night.
No, I did not make a strawman.
So, no honesty involved here.
I didn't shift the burden of proof, either.

 

[McBell]

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

Actually, monotheists are making that assumption...
All he is doing is forwarding that assumption along.

 

[PureX]

Perhaps you're conflating "God" (the Christian god)
with "god", the word that denotes any deity.
I'm only addressing the probability of picking the
correct god from the thousands of available
alternatives. The odds look slim that any single
choice would be correct.

And I am pointing out to you why that is logically irrelevant. A fact that you seem determined to ignore.

The probability of a god existing...I cannot say
what that would be. Somewhere between 0 & 1
though.

Maybe not even that. After all, it's "God" we're talking about. The normal limitations of 'exist or not exist' don't apply; as God is the source, sustenance, and purpose of existence, itself.

 

[PureX]

Actually, monotheists are making that assumption...
All he is doing is forwarding that assumption along.

It doesn't matter who makes the assumption, or who believes it. What matters is that it's a logically unsound presumption. And those who claim that they are beholding of logical reasoning should care about that.

 

[McBell]

It doesn't matter who makes the assumption, or who believes it. What matters is that it's a logically unsound presumption. And those who claim that they are beholding of logical reasoning should care about that.

And yet, one does have to take ALL the beliefs, regardless of how "illogical" you think they are, into consideration when calculating the odds of their one specific deity is the one of the thousands of proposed deities.

 

[Martin]

Atheists often cite the great abundance of gods.
In my opinion, this is not evidence against God.
I believe, it rather shows that God allows other beliefs to happen, for some time at least.
Here is a video by an atheist on this matter:

If you think that every single god deserves to be scrutinized equally... check out a thousand gods then.
This would be my suggestion.

Beliefs are just beliefs, and thoughts are just thoughts . Don't take them too seriously.

 

[PureX]

And yet, one does have to take ALL the beliefs, regardless of how "illogical" you think they are, into consideration when calculating the odds of their one specific deity is the one of the thousands of proposed deities.

That sentence doesn't make much sense. I think you may want to consider this a little more.

"Beliefs" are irrelevant to anyone but the believer. So lets set them aside right off.
There are many proposed god-concepts, none of which are verifiable beyond their subjective functionality, which likewise varies greatly. So the question then becomes which of these proposed god-concepts will/does work best for me? And how I determine this will depends on how honesty and thoroughly I explore the possibilities.

 

[McBell]

"Beliefs" are irrelevant to anyone but the believer. So lets set them aside right off.

Flat out wrong.
The beliefs are quite vital to the calculations.
For the numbers will be different based upon said beliefs.
If the calculations are for a belief you do not hold, then they are irrelevant to your beliefs.
But that does not mean they are irrelevant for those who do have those beliefs.

There are many proposed god-concepts, none of which are verifiable beyond their subjective functionality, which likewise varies greatly. So the question then becomes which of these proposed god-concepts will/does work best for me? And how I determine this will depends on how honesty and thoroughly I explore the possibilities.

Yes there are.
Which means that a single calculated probability will not cover them all.
Thus there will need be separate calculations done based upon the specific beliefs.

 

[firedragon]

It's simple logic.

If "God" were hovering right in front of you, right now, in a 'blaze of glory', saying, "I am your God", how could you possibly determine that this apparition is what it claims? As opposed to perhaps some clever magician's trick, or some advanced alien species presenting itself to you in a way it thinks you can understand, or even a trick of your own mind? The problem is that we don't have the capacity to test such a phenomenal existential ideal as "God". We don't even know what such an 'entity' would entail perceptually, if it could be perceived. We may think we know (blaze of glory, etc.) but such a presumption does not logically validate itself.

Basically you have not explored anything a bit in depth, but possess a general rejection.

Tell me. Why should God "Hover"?

 

[PureX]

Basically you have not explored anything a bit in depth, but possess a general rejection.

Tell me. Why should God "Hover"?

Why wouldn't God hover? The point is we have no idea how God would present to us, perceptually. So we would have no idea how to determine it's authenticity.

 

[firedragon]

Why wouldn't God hover? The point is we have no idea how God would present to us, perceptually. So we would have no idea how to determine it's authenticity.

If we have no idea, why would "God Hover"?

 

[blü 2]

a potential God that created the world and everything within.

Thanks.

Hmm. Just thinking out loud ─

In the bible creation story there is only God, referred to as "he" ie male. In other creation stories I recall ─ not a subject I've looked at closely ─ the creator is female, or a male-female pair, quasi-human, or animal. or sentient sea or earth or sky, or a combination of such things.

I can recall SF stories, but not creation myths, where our universe is constructed or caused to be by a race of beings from elsewhere in the multiverse, perhaps with some parallels to the ancient and lost science in the legend of Atlantis.

But to address your question, if the creation of the universe is attributed to a sole god then yes, the existence of a thousand distinct divine claimants greatly weakens the claim of any one of them.

Nor do I think this can be completely resolved by declaring all those gods to be manifestations of a single god, since their natures, moralities and methods are so diverse.

But one solution might be to disqualify all known gods and attribute the universe to another race of gods, a thousand of whom cooperated to put our universe together.

 

[thomas t]

But to address your question, if the creation of the universe is attributed to a sole god then yes, the existence of a thousand distinct divine claimants greatly weakens the claim of any one of them.

that was the interesting part.
If this was true, I could go ahead and invent one more "Creator gd" and all of a sudden it counts as (more) evidence against a potential real Creator God?
I don't think so.

 

[blü 2]

that was the interesting part.
If this was true, I could go ahead and invent one more "Creator gd" and all of a sudden it counts as (more) evidence against a potential real Creator God?
I don't think so.

But we know of creation myths much older than the Genesis story. I can't think of a way to demonstrate that any particular version of a purposeful creation is more correct than any other.

(I can however point to evidence that supports the conclusion that the universe exists because of physics rather than because of divine beings.)

 

[thomas t]

But we know of creation myths much older than the Genesis story. I can't think of a way to demonstrate that any particular version of a purposeful creation is more correct than any other.

(I can however point to evidence that supports the conclusion that the universe exists because of physics rather than because of divine beings.)

well the latter argument would be a subject for a different thread.

So let's turn to the former.
I could invent another "creator gd" on the spot.
Maybe the people that lived in Canaan before were able to do so, too.
Moreover, it could be that the creation stories prior to Genesis also contain aspects of truth.

 

[Nivek001]

Sorry, but i don't have the burden of proof for claims that I never made. I applaud you for your well thought out strawman, but at the end, it's still nothing but a strawman argument.

What I'm talking about is what you actually said. Majority of Christian teachings don't teach what you said below.



You put too much faith on your tactics, using a strawman argument, that it will help you. But the evidence shows it to be different.

How is it a strawman argument? Because you said so?

The burden of proof lies with one who claims fact, and that is not what I claimed. I claimed what I believe to be true. What’s ironic is that you claim proof matters but you have no problem choosing to not take the challenge not because there is proof that the challenge will bring in false results. In fact you make a decision based on no evidence whatsoever.

It’s an open ended challenge and instead of taking up the challenge to gain first-hand experience as to whether you received any results you make up excuses to not gain any experience and not gain any knowledge that comes would come with it.

 

[Nivek001]

I, for one, have never doubted, much less challenged, your certainty. The fact remains that all manner of people are certain about all manner of things that are wrong. To be honest, your certainty is entirely irrelevant to me.

How does pointing out that other people are wrong have any bearing on my belief being wrong? That does not make any sense.

Why is my belief irrelevant to you? Just because you assume that other people are wrong? How is that a valid reason?

 

[Nivek001]

you made a positive claim about my behavior and backed it up by nothing.
No reasons given.
Now, afterwards you start asking the questions.
This is not how it works (if you want to suctanciate a claim).
Your mind seemed to be set before you even asked one question, so I won't answer any from your side now.
I enjoy open debates in which people ask questions first and make up their minds last.

The reason why a question was asked was for you to make clear what your position is and that my assumption was wrong. That is how clarification works.

You could have settled this just by saying either no or yes to what I have concluded, but since you refuse to answer the question it does seem like to me that my conclusion was correct.