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

[Nivek001]

No. You are claiming you will not receive assurance of truth affirming the one who I believe to be divine and that following his Gospel will not help one to gain eternal happiness.

Therefore if you claim it’s a fact that being I believe to be divine is not divine nor that his Gospel will help one to gain eternal happiness then you do have to prove it since a fact isn’t a fact unless it’s proven to be a fact.

Since the being I believe in to be not only divine but also since he claims he is the one God we should follow in order to gain the greatest happiness, if one receives assurance that his Gospel is true then that shows which God one should start trying to follow.

 

[Tiberius]

No. You are claiming you will not receive assurance of truth affirming the one who I believe to be divine and that following his Gospel will not help one to gain eternal happiness.

No, I am claiming that if it was true, it would be true for EVERYONE, and we wouldn't have some people who found it true and others who didn't.

Therefore if you claim it’s a fact that being I believe to be divine is not divine nor that his Gospel will help one to gain eternal happiness then you do have to prove it since a fact isn’t a fact unless it’s proven to be a fact.

No. The burden of proof is on you. If you claim the being you believe to be divine is actually divine, then you must support that claim. You don't get to say, "This is what I think, prove me wrong."

Since the being I believe in to be not only divine but also since he claims he is the one God we should follow in order to gain the greatest happiness, if one receives assurance that his Gospel is true then that shows which God one should start trying to follow.

However, people have gotten assurances from many different gods that their particular belief is true. It is not unique to your faith.

 

[Nivek001]

No, I am claiming that if it was true, it would be true for EVERYONE, and we wouldn't have some people who found it true and others who didn't.



No. The burden of proof is on you. If you claim the being you believe to be divine is actually divine, then you must support that claim. You don't get to say, "This is what I think, prove me wrong."



However, people have gotten assurances from many different gods that their particular belief is true. It is not unique to your faith.

Where did I say the invite to learn the truth about God through acting on faith and through prayer was only for some and not from others?

What part of my saying that if there is third party who wants to know if what I believe about God or if what you believe about God is true can take up on the invite and take the challenge of acting on faith and praying for assurance that what is learned about is true can do so did you not understand?

Any third party means the invitation is for everyone.

HOW does you saying the burden of proof is on me actually proves the burden of proof is on me? Why would I have to prove that I believe. It’s a belief not a claim of fact. Why would I be declaring belief anyway if I was supposed to prove what I believe is not a belief?

You are not making any sense. It only that you made a claim that the burden of proof is on me. Since you made that claim then prove how the burden of proof is upon me to show that what I believe in is not what I believe in but I know to be fact that the whole world can see. So prove it!

Also, like I said ANY THIRD PARTY who wants to know if what I believe in is at least true anyway can do so by acting on faith by learning about the Gospel, applying what is learned about that Gospel, and seeking for assurance that such a God and his Gospel is true through asking God about it in prayer.

Also, your proof that others actually receive the exact same type of assurance about their various beliefs as I have, which by the way I haven’t fully described just how that sense of assurance is like, is what?

After all, you claimed that other people have gotten their assurances about other beliefs from other gods and their experiences is the same experience as mine. Since you claimed that the assurance experience I received regarding the God I believe in is not unique, prove it.

 

[Tiberius]

Where did I say the invite to learn the truth about God through acting on faith and through prayer was only for some and not from others?

If it is for everyone, why do some people get different results?

What part of my saying that if there is third party who wants to know if what I believe about God or if what you believe about God is true can take up on the invite and take the challenge of acting on faith and praying for assurance that what is learned about is true can do so did you not understand?

Any third party means the invitation is for everyone.

What makes you think I don't get that?

What I am saying is that given your proposed method's notorious unreliability, why should anyone even bother with it in the first place?

HOW does you saying the burden of proof is on me actually proves the burden of proof is on me? Why would I have to prove that I believe. It’s a belief not a claim of fact. Why would I be declaring belief anyway if I was supposed to prove what I believe is not a belief?

No, I am saying that since you made a claim, you have to provide support for that claim. From Wikipedia:

The burden of proof is usually on the person who brings a claim in a dispute. It is often associated with the Latin maxim semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit, a translation of which in this context is: "the necessity of proof always lies with the person who lays charges."

SOURCE

You are not making any sense. It only that you made a claim that the burden of proof is on me. Since you made that claim then prove how the burden of proof is upon me to show that what I believe in is not what I believe in but I know to be fact that the whole world can see. So prove it!

You're acting like a child. Reasonable debate is not what you are after here, is it?

Also, like I said ANY THIRD PARTY who wants to know if what I believe in is at least true anyway can do so by acting on faith by learning about the Gospel, applying what is learned about that Gospel, and seeking for assurance that such a God and his Gospel is true through asking God about it in prayer.

And if the results they get don't agree with you, then you'll just dismiss their claims, won't you? That's what you did with me!

Also, your proof that others actually receive the exact same type of assurance about their various beliefs as I have, which by the way I haven’t fully described just how that sense of assurance is like, is what?

Ah yes, of course, I'm sure you are the ONLY PERSON IN THE WORLD who has ever had assurance from their deity of choice that their particular religious beliefs are true.

After all, you claimed that other people have gotten their assurances about other beliefs from other gods and their experiences is the same experience as mine. Since you claimed that the assurance experience I received regarding the God I believe in is not unique, prove it.

Are you telling me that no one other than Christians have their deity assuring them that their religion is true?

 

[Nivek001]

If it is for everyone, why do some people get different results?



What makes you think I don't get that?

What I am saying is that given your proposed method's notorious unreliability, why should anyone even bother with it in the first place?



No, I am saying that since you made a claim, you have to provide support for that claim. From Wikipedia:

SOURCE



You're acting like a child. Reasonable debate is not what you are after here, is it?



And if the results they get don't agree with you, then you'll just dismiss their claims, won't you? That's what you did with me!



Ah yes, of course, I'm sure you are the ONLY PERSON IN THE WORLD who has ever had assurance from their deity of choice that their particular religious beliefs are true.



Are you telling me that no one other than Christians have their deity assuring them that their religion is true?

What. makes me think you didn’t get that is because you say that the challenge works for some and not for others. That doesn’t make sense because whether the results from the challenge are either positive or negative they still would be considered results for that third party, because that party came into the challenge with no expectations right?

How have I dismissed your claims? I have questioned them because you haven’t proven you did as you claimed, but there hasn’t been proof that you didn’t do as you claimed either. If I had dismissed them I would not be stressing that there is a way that any third party can find out who is right here by trying it out for themselves. If I dismissed them I would have instead tried to prove how you are wrong or just say you are wrong and that’s all there is to it.

How does pointing out that people have claimed to have different results prove that the challenge is unreliable. There hasn’t been any proof one way or the other from anyone who has claimed negative results that they did do it as directed nor has there been any proof that they didn’t do as directed.

That still leaves to it being your word and their word vs. my word and the word of others who claimed to do the challenge and claimed positive results. With a stalemate like that there is one way for ANY third party who didn’t take the challenge to find out who is right here, and that is for that third party to take the challenge and see what happens.

You would figure if you were stressing so much about receiving no positive results you would be fine with any third party who decided to take that challenge since if they did the challenge and came up with no positive results that would only help your argument, so why are you bickering here about taking the challenge to begin with instead?

 

[Tiberius]

What. makes me think you didn’t get that is because you say that the challenge works for some and not for others. That doesn’t make sense because whether the results from the challenge are either positive or negative they still would be considered results for that third party, because that party came into the challenge with no expectations right?

You don't seem to understand my point.

If your proposed method was a valid way of finding the truth about reality, then everyone would get the same result. When different people measure the moon to see how far away it is, they all get the same result. When different people look at gravity to see how strong it is, they all get the same result. So why is it that your method of looking at God results in such variation in results? That's what we expect from thingsd that don't exist, not what we expect from reality.

How have I dismissed your claims? I have questioned them because you haven’t proven you did as you claimed, but there hasn’t been proof that you didn’t do as you claimed either. If I had dismissed them I would not be stressing that there is a way that any third party can find out who is right here by trying it out for themselves. If I dismissed them I would have instead tried to prove how you are wrong or just say you are wrong and that’s all there is to it.

Well, for a start you dismissed my claim that I tried it your way and got nothing in your Post 349, when you said:

"And your proof that you even bought the product to begin with, let alone actually tried it out as directed is what? You saying you did? LOL."​

You have no justification to question my claims at all. You only do so, it seems, because I am disagreeing with you and you don't want to admit that my experience is just as valid as yours.

How does pointing out that people have claimed to have different results prove that the challenge is unreliable. There hasn’t been any proof one way or the other from anyone who has claimed negative results that they did do it as directed nor has there been any proof that they didn’t do as directed.

Because any valid method of investigating reality must produce reliable results. If it does not, we can't ever be sure that the results we get are accurate. I've already given a few examples of how science does this.

Or do you think that a method which gives different results each time can be reliable? Even if it did somehow produce the right answer - how could you possibly know which of the various answers was the correct one?

That still leaves to it being your word and their word vs. my word and the word of others who claimed to do the challenge and claimed positive results. With a stalemate like that there is one way for ANY third party who didn’t take the challenge to find out who is right here, and that is for that third party to take the challenge and see what happens.

Given the fact that most people in the world are NON-Christians, I think the side that claims your beliefs are wrong is winning. Not that I'm a fan of the argument from popularity, but you're the one who brought it up...

You would figure if you were stressing so much about receiving no positive results you would be fine with any third party who decided to take that challenge since if they did the challenge and came up with no positive results that would only help your argument, so why are you bickering here about taking the challenge to begin with instead?

I'm not stressed at all that I haven't seen any good reason to believe in any deity. And I certainly have no problem if someone wants to do your "challenge". Of course, I would tell them to expect that you'll dismiss their experience if their experience doesn't match with yours, since you only seem interested in cherry picking...

 

[Nivek001]

You don't seem to understand my point.

If your proposed method was a valid way of finding the truth about reality, then everyone would get the same result. When different people measure the moon to see how far away it is, they all get the same result. When different people look at gravity to see how strong it is, they all get the same result. So why is it that your method of looking at God results in such variation in results? That's what we expect from thingsd that don't exist, not what we expect from reality.

Well, for a start you dismissed my claim that I tried it your way and got nothing in your Post 349, when you said:

"And your proof that you even bought the product to begin with, let alone actually tried it out as directed is what? You saying you did? LOL."​

You have no justification to question my claims at all. You only do so, it seems, because I am disagreeing with you and you don't want to admit that my experience is just as valid as yours.

Because any valid method of investigating reality must produce reliable results. If it does not, we can't ever be sure that the results we get are accurate. I've already given a few examples of how science does this.

Or do you think that a method which gives different results each time can be reliable? Even if it did somehow produce the right answer - how could you possibly know which of the various answers was the correct one?
Given the fact that most people in the world are NON-Christians, I think the side that claims your beliefs are wrong is winning. Not that I'm a fan of the argument from popularity, but you're the one who brought it up...

I'm not stressed at all that I haven't seen any good reason to believe in any deity. And I certainly have no problem if someone wants to do your "challenge". Of course, I would tell them to expect that you'll dismiss their experience if their experience doesn't match with yours, since you only seem interested in cherry picking...[/QUOTE







Well, nothing proves that the challenge given can only be a valid way of finding the truth about reality, would only be where everyone would get the same result quite like just be because you said so instead of actually proving that claim.

So, your proof that all who claimed to have taken that challenge were being honest and sincere is?

Your proof that all who did the challenge had the exact same motives is?

Your proof that everyone who has taken the challenge put forward the same amount of effort it?

Your proof that personal motivations, desires,and commitments can be scientifically measured like measuring the distance to the moon, or measuring the level of gravity is?

Your proof that it would be impossible for such a challenge to get varied results even though each and every person is different is?

Just how were the previous questions I asked you were just me dissing you instead of well, questioning your argument since, well, they were questions after all? If I dissed your claim about your taking the challenge I would have ether provided proof how your claimed attempt was invalid or just simply said no one should get negative results like you have claimed.

Instead, I just simply questioned the validity of your claim and since your claim has not been disproven, instead of saying that if one gets your claimed negative results they are doing it wrong, I am simply encouraging one to just take the challenge and left it open for them to decide for themselves what there answer is.

How do you figure that I don’t want to admit that your results are as valid as mine when I pointed out that not only your claim has not been either proven or disproven, but my claim has also not been proven or disproven?

How do you figure that just because it’s possible that some people may not take the challenge with sincere intentions means that no one should ever take that challenge at all? How must there be the only one way to reflect valid truthful challenge results which would be to have it proven for the world to see that whether or not there is a God who wanted us to rely on faith in him instead of relying on established evidence?

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 that exists in the universe would have already been proven by now to exist.

Since that is not the case that means it’s possible that there are additional ways one can receive truth outside of obtaining fact.

You are still asking me if one is not sure if the results are not set up under the guidelines of proven fact for the world to see how does one know if their results are valid whatever they may be? It’s odd you are asking me this since you claimed that you received an assured answer in the negative when you took the challenge.

Well since you haven’t proven your claimed results to be fact and I haven’t proven my results to be proven fact, and because it’s possible that one can find truth without having fact since not all truths are considered fact, then that leaves just one option. One would just have to take the challenge personally in good faith with sincere intent and then just see what happens.

It’s a challenge that does not come with a 100 percent guarantee for proven accurate results before taking the challenge BECAUSE it a test if faith as well.

However, it’s more encouraging than not taking the challenge at all BECAUSE there certainly is no way one can rely on looking at a lack of evidence when determining if there is a God who taught reliance on faith in him instead of relying on established evidence. The reason why that is the case is the following point, which is that the reason why there is a lack of evidence could be due to God withholding evidence of divinity on purpose., so that we can rely on faith.

 

[Tiberius]

@Nivek001 please sort out the incorrect quote tags.

 

[Nivek001]

@Nivek001 please sort out the incorrect quote tags.

Why?

Which ones are incorrect?

 

[wellwisher]

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.

 

[wellwisher]

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.

Say you won an election, like Biden, for the President of the US. If Biden was very confident in the validity of his beliefs, there would no need to target and censor the opposition. Targeting and censorship is more a defensive posture, to help reduce fear and perceived threat, since one's position is not that strong. It may not be able to withstand free speech and opposing points of view of anyone in power.

The same is true of the Gods. If God the Father was self confident, in his own skin, there would be no need, to become insecure and petty with the 1000 god competition. There is no need to be a bully or cheat. Instead he would step out of time, and see that all these foundations, would eventually lead to a platform, by which the gospel can be preached to all nations.

There is another related angle that came to mind. There are 6500 languages in the world. Experts claim that language is needed of human to think. If we assume this to be true, it follows that different languages, based on different words, meanings and priorities, would end up with unique ways to view the same things; own unique gods. God the Father will not mind if this occurs, since all have the same goal, but in their own language.

 

[Tiberius]

Why?

Which ones are incorrect?

In post 407. Your responses are not separated from the text of my post that you are replying to. Makes it very confusing and impossible to quote properly.

So, please fix it. It's the courteous thing to do.

 

[Nivek001]

In post 407. Your responses are not separated from the text of my post that you are replying to. Makes it very confusing and impossible to quote properly.

So, please fix it. It's the courteous thing to do.

So, you could read it anyway? That still means you can respond to what was said. This seems like a lame excuse for you to complain.

 

[Tiberius]

So, you could read it anyway? That still means you can respond to what was said. This seems like a lame excuse for you to complain.

I'm not going to go through and try to find all of your responses. In any case, you can't spare ten seconds to go and edit the post? Geez.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm not going to go through and try to find all of your responses. In any case, you can't spare ten seconds to go and edit the post? Geez.

One of my pet peeves is when I improperly post a response by screwing up the quote function. My number one problem are fat fingers that constantly turn "quote" into "quoite".

To @Nivek001 your post as is all but unreadable as it it now and even harder for people to respond to properly. If you want to have a conversation with someone then you need to fix it. If you only want to demonstrate how wrong you are then leave it as it is.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

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.

I think there is a qualitative difference between the many gods of polytheistic systems, who tend to be specialized and represent abstract ideas or forces of nature, and the monotheistic God who is the Creator.

IMHO, anyone who worships one God who is the Creator is worshiping the same God, regardless of what name they call him/her/it.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

So, you could read it anyway? That still means you can respond to what was said. This seems like a lame excuse for you to complain.

If you want a particular person to read a post for sure, they have to recieve an alert. They receive an alert if you quote their own post. If it is a post where you are quoting someone else, you can do it by referencing them as follows:
@Nivek001

If a person has not received an alert, you really can't expect them to read every post you write on a given thread. Most threads are too exhaustive for us to skim through every post. We pick and choose what to read, usually reading our alerts first, and then maybe a few others by recent interesting topics if we have time. There are those who spend a great deal of time, and are more thorough, but you just can't assume that everyone is like that.

 

[Nivek001]

I'm not going to go through and try to find all of your responses. In any case, you can't spare ten seconds to go and edit the post? Geez.

You don’t have to. Especially when you can still read the post. You definitely can’t help but try to find anything to complain and criticize about. That seems rather pathetic.

 

[Tiberius]

You don’t have to. Especially when you can still read the post. You definitely can’t help but try to find anything to complain and criticize about. That seems rather pathetic.

What's pathetic is someone who can't spare a moment to be courteous for others.

 

[Nivek001]

What's pathetic is someone who can't spare a moment to be courteous for others.

You could read what was posted. What’s pathetic is instead of just read it and move on you have to complain just because it’s not to your liking.

Pathetic.