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

[Jayhawker Soule]

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.

Excellent! Which one makes this allowance?

 

[PureX]

I've directly addressed the OP, not ignoring any salient issue.
Could you support your claim that existent of a particular god,
ie, God, is probable? I need more than proselytizing.

It is possible. Probability is not ascertainable. And that does not then translate to "not logically probable".

 

[thomas t]

Excellent! Which one makes this allowance?

Let's say the Creator God, if there is one.
There can't be two of them who created (the world and all things within).

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Atheists often cite the great abundance of gods.
In my opinion, this is not evidence against God.

As the speaker states, it is, most definitely, evidence that god(s) can be (and have been) fabricated by human beings. Pair that with the FACT that no single theist in the history of the world has brought forward any cogent, realistic, compelling, shareable, reproducible evidence for the existence of their God, and I feel it becomes apparent that it is folly to believe in any of them.

Once high-caliber evidence comes around, that's the time to believe in the case of god(s) specifically. Because of this sad state of the playing field of god(s), until there is evidence of this extremely high caliber, there is ABSOLUTELY NO WAY TO TELL APART THE TALES OF A "REAL" GOD FROM A FAKE ONE. That should be a HUGE red flag to anyone with even an ounce of skepticism in their thinking.

 

[Revoltingest]

It is possible. Probability is not ascertainable. And that does not then translate to "not logically probable".

With over 1000 gods to choose from, picking one from the bunch (without objective evidence) is unlikely to be correct.

How would you pick one?

 

[paarsurrey]

Great. So leave that argument aside.

I didnt say "it is proselytisingt o say that with so many conflicting gods" but I said it is used in the proselytising efforts by atheists but they claim they dont do that. Its just that "I and my kind are better than yours" attitude that makes one blind to see that it is proselytisation.

This argument is absurd. Atheists claiming theists are atheists against other theisms is not understanding the very meaning of atheism. Also it is absolutely noticeable that this dire need of rejecting has created a blind faith in some atheists who basically have lost the plot.

Atheists, as people who claim to be very highly intellectual and superior most of the time should resort to objective and specific arguments without resorting to this sort of iteration of the other.

Magenta ^, please.

Here applies the maxim:

"If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck"

Isn't it a part of the Atheist Method, please?
Right friend, please?

Regards

 

[firedragon]

Magenta ^, please.

Here applies the maxim:

"If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck"

Isn't it a part of the Atheist Method, please?
Right friend, please?

Regards

Maybe you could put it that way. I have to think about it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

With over 1000 gods to choose from, picking one from the bunch (without objective evidence) is unlikely to be correct.

How would you pick one?

Just like with any other business deal, by what that god has to offer. Hmm, do I have a god for you!

Commandments

 

[paarsurrey]

I have checked many of them out. They all seem equally man made. I've since stopped checking them out because my time is valuable, and nothing about them really stands out.

Why should one god be more worthy of my time than the others?

As against that, isn't one still investigating, please?

Regards

 

[George-ananda]

Well, as a follower of Hindu philosophy allow me to quote Krishna (speaking as the Universal Absolute) saying tht the many gods are just facets of the One.

Others, on the path of knowledge, know me as the many, the One; behind the faces of a million gods, they can see my face.”

from “Bhagavad Gita: A New Translation,” 9.14–15, by Stephen Mitchell

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Let's say the Creator God, if there is one.

Why don't you drop the "let us say" -- there is no "us," especially when the best I can get is a rather vapid response that sounds very much like cowardly evasion. Your true argument seems to be: "There are about 1000 gods because my God is patient with the weak minded fools who follow the other 999, but I'll dance around any attempt to get me to identify this forbearing deity of mine."

 

[McBell]

Absoltely I can. Here's the calculous. Is the number of people worshipping the sun as a god superior to one? The answer is yes, thus the sun is a god to those people. Would ou rather I present you the calculous in the form of a formula or a formal sylogism?

The point you missed is that it is not the sun you would be trying to prove does not exist.
It is that the sun is or is not a god is what you would be trying to prove.

 

[epronovost]

The point you missed is that it is not the sun you would be trying to prove does not exist.
It is that the sun is or is not a god is what you would be trying to prove.

It's worshiped as one, thus it is one. It might not be YOUR god, but it's still a god to its worshiper and it definitely exists and does the things its worshiper ascribe to it.

 

[McBell]

It's worshiped as one, thus it is one. It might not be YOUR god, but it's still a god to its worshiper and it definitely exists and does the things its worshiper ascribe to it.

Thank you for explaining why you completely missed the point.

 

[PureX]

With over 1000 gods to choose from, picking one from the bunch (without objective evidence) is unlikely to be correct.

The problem is that you keep insisting on being "correct" when correctness is not possible to determine. Then, because it's not possible to determine, you then presume it very unlikely to achieve. And I agree with that. But none of this logically renders the nature or existence of God impossible, nor unlikely. It simply leaves them undetermined. And that does not support the atheist's contention, as so many atheists presume, and proclaim.

How would you pick one?

I would choose whichever conception of God is the more useful to me at the time and under the circumstances. Because I know that my idea of God is not God. It's just my idea of what I hope God to be in that moment. And no matter what form that idea takes, it's always equally possible.

 

[epronovost]

Thank you for explaining why you completely missed the point.

I think you missed the point entirely. The only congent definition of god that all can agree on is that a god is something/someone that is worshipped. The sun fits this definition and exists, thus the sun is a god (well at least to its worshipers). That you have a personnal definition of god that would include characteristics that the sun doesn't have is an entirely different question. Now the question becomes is the sun your god yes/no, but it's not the same thing as is the sun a god yes/no.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

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 what it shows is the endless creativity of man's imagination.

And having said that, I see no reason to suppose the YHWH god to be any less imaginative than Ba'al or Isis or Hermes.

 

[Revoltingest]

The problem is that you keep insisting on being "correct" when correct is not possible to determine.

Actually, I'm arguing against being correct. There are many
mutually exclusive deity options....thousands. This makes
the likelihood of picking the correct on tiny indeed.

 

[McBell]

I think you missed the point entirely.

If it makes you feel better, by all means, think that.

The only congent definition of god that all can agree on is that a god is something/someone that is worshipped. The sun fits this definition and exists, thus te sun is a god. That you have a personnal definition of god that would include characteristics that the sun doesn't have is an entirely different question.

If you call a tail a leg how many legs does a dog have?

Please be so kind as to let me in on my personal definition of god.
I shall await with bated breath.
Of course, I will be in complete god definition limbo until you let me know....

 

[Subduction Zone]

f you call a tail a leg how many legs does a dog have?

Oh wait . . . that's a monkey, never mind.