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

[Revoltingest]

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.



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.



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



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.



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



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.



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.

I don't think anyone was being dishonest.
Anyway....
Probability is all about dealing with possibilities of
outcomes when we lack information. The problem
with religions that make no testable claims is that
they cannot be disproven. Comparing the gods of
such religions points to equal probability of being
true/untrue. The vast number of such gods makes
picking the correct one unlikely.

 

[Nivek001]

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.



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.



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



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.



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



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.



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.

Where did I say or even insinuate that all religions are equally probable to be true? If that were the case why would I go on about finding out through acting on faith to see if certain particular beliefs are true?

I’m not trying to prove anything. Where are you getting that the onus is on me to prove anything. All I am pointing out is there is an open ended challenge for you to take.

All you have to do to determine if it does produce personal results is take the challenge, but instead you make baseless assumptions that somehow it’s impossible to find truth without established evidence while not bothering to prove how that is actually the case.

While all facts are considered true not all truths are considered fact, and you assuming otherwise does not prove otherwise. It’s rather ironic that you make up an excuse not based on any supporting evidence but simply on an assumption. You have strong faith in that baseless assumption.

 

[thomas t]

and I feel it becomes apparent that it is folly to believe in any of them.

I think it isn't.
a large quantity of made up gods cannot serve as evidence for the absence of a real one, I think.

until there is evidence of this extremely high caliber,

if you are only reacting if God reveals himself in a extremely clear manner, God has every reason to not reveal himself to you, I think.
If he did, he would run into a totally unprepared human being.
Compare this to the money insurance companies are making.
They make money.... even if for their customers, the evidence for a potential loss of money is low.
This is how I understand insurance companies' business and how it works.

That should be a HUGE red flag to anyone with even an ounce of skepticism in their thinking.

God might take this attitude as red flag to himself, too.

 

[night912]

I believe along with probabilities there are also exceptions. It was probable at age 75 getting the Covid-19 would kill me but I was an exception because God intervened and made it go away.

The probability that Covid-19 would kill you, wasn't 100%. So why the F**k didn't your God intervene and make it go away for all those who died. A lot of them being believers themselves. So your God only save the the arrogant and immoral people like yourself because your God created you in his image? That says a lot about you and your God.

Actually, you haven't demonstrated that your God exist, so that means that between you and the God you can't demonstrate to exist, you are the only true arrogant and immoral being that actually exist.

 

[night912]

Where did I say or even insinuate that all religions are equally probable to be true? If that were the case why would I go on about finding out through acting on faith to see if certain particular beliefs are true?

I’m not trying to prove anything. Where are you getting that the onus is on me to prove anything. All I am pointing out is there is an open ended challenge for you to take.

All you have to do to determine if it does produce personal results is take the challenge, but instead you make baseless assumptions that somehow it’s impossible to find truth without established evidence while not bothering to prove how that is actually the case.

While all facts are considered true not all truths are considered fact, and you assuming otherwise does not prove otherwise. It’s rather ironic that you make up an excuse not based on any supporting evidence but simply on an assumption. You have strong faith in that baseless assumption.

Perhaps you quoted the wrong person?

 

[Nivek001]

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.

What "personal" method would that be?

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.[/QUOTE

What is your proof that in order for something to be true there has to be proof? If that were the case science would no longer be a work in progress because everything that exists in the universe would have been proven by now to exist and that is not the case.

There are still truths out there that science has not proven but they still truths nonetheless. All you have to do is at least test the challenge out, but instead make excuses that have no supporting evidence to back it up, which is rather ironic.

 

[thomas t]

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."

no, I never called someone names or think of any participants here in a disparaging manner.
I don't think I danced around anything.
This thread is about a thousand gods being evidence against a potential true God yes or no. Nothing less, nothing more.

 

[Revoltingest]

What is your proof that in order for something to be true there has to be proof? If that were the case science would no longer be a work in progress because everything that exists in the universe would have been proven by now to exist and that is not the case.

There are still truths out there that science has not proven but they still truths nonetheless. All you have to do is at least test the challenge out, but instead make excuses that have no supporting evidence to back it up, which is rather ironic.

I don't claim that unknown truths cannot exist.
What test for beliefs to you use?

BTW, ya gotta keep your response outside of the [quote.] & [/quote.]
thingies. (I added the period in each so that it'll be visible.

 

[Nivek001]

I think it isn't.
a large quantity of made up gods cannot serve as evidence for the absence of a real one, I think.

if you are only reacting if God reveals himself in a extremely clear manner, God has every reason to not reveal himself to you, I think.
If he did, he would run into a totally unprepared human being.
Compare this to the money insurance companies are making.
They make money.... even if for their customers, the evidence for a potential loss of money is low.
This is how I understand insurance companies' business and how it works.

God might take this attitude as red flag to imself.

Where are you getting that in order for anything to be real there has to be evidence of any kind for it? What is your proof that is the case as opposed to that being your baseless assumption that everything that exists in universe has already been proven by science?

Again, this is an open ended challenge for you to test on a personal level and you make up baseless excuses to not even try.

 

[thomas t]

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, I didn't insinuate that all religions are equally probable to be true. Don't put words in my mouth.

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

No, I did not, don't twist the things I said.

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

No I didn't shift the burden of proof, you only put words in my mouth, so all the rest of what you just claimed about me isn't true either, I think, please read again.
I said "IF all gods...." IF! this doesn't mean that I claim this condition to be true, though, so please read again what I have said!

 

[Tiberius]

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

Yeah, you don't actually know what science is, do you?

You speak as though science is some big book filled with information, and you are asking me to show you which page says "The Earth orbits the sun" or which page says "Light is made up of photons," or "This is General Relativity."

It's not.

Science is a process, a way of investigating the world in a way that works to reduce the errors that any single person can introduce.

There is no process other than science which can provide verifiable information about how the universe works.

 

[Nivek001]

And your proof that that your brain won’t let you be open minded enough to at least try the challenge out as opposed to you just simply choosing to not bother with the challenge is what?

 

[Tiberius]

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.

Not objective truth.

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.

How so? If I told you that dancing naked in a circle five time counter clockwise then three time clockwise, followed by five jumping jacks would give you a million dollars, would you do it? Of course not. And why not? Because you've got no reason to believe it will work.

And that's why I don't try your claims about religion.

(By the way, it's really rather arrogant of you to assume that I've never done what you suggest. I was a Christian for the firs 20 or so years of my life, you know, and I did what you suggest I do now. It didn't work for me then, and I've got no reason to believe it would work for me now.)

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.

And what action have I taken 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.

Please give me an example of a Truth that is NOT a Fact.

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.

I completely agree that there are truths out there that science has not yet found. It would be very arrogant of me to claim that science knows everything. But I can be certain that these undiscovered facts will not contradict any of the facts we have already determined. We will never find, for instance, a fact that requires gravity be a repulsive force rather than an attractive one.

 

[Nivek001]

I don't claim that unknown truths cannot exist.
What test for beliefs to you use?

I already explained what the test is. I have been posting what that test is over and over again. The test is to try to find out if you can receive truth about a God by acting on faith in the teachings of that God and praying to that God for verification of truth through receiving actual assurance.

All you have to do is try is try that test out for yourself instead up make up baseless excuses to not even try.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

This thread is about a thousand gods being evidence against a potential true God yes or no. Nothing less, nothing more.

The overwhelming majority of the atheists and agnostics I've encountered do not raise the multiplicity of gods as "evidence against a potential true God" but, rather, evidence casting doubt on your certainty concerning your god. You're pummeling a straw man.

 

[night912]

no, I didn't insinuate that all religions are equally probable to be true. Don't put words in my mouth.

No, I did not, don't twist the things I said.
No I didn't shift the burden of proof, you only put words in my mouth, so all the rest of what you just claimed ybout me isn't true either, I think, please read again.
I said "IF all gods...." IF! this doesn't mean that I claim this condition toi be true, though, so please read again what I have said!

You insinuate that, in a hypothetical scenario, all religions are equally probable to be true. So the hypothetical burden of proof is still you.

From my observations made in the past, I concluded that it was a high probability that you are going to say something like this. Classic D&D, dishonesty and denial. When someone use the same tactics so many times in the past, it is predictable that they will use it again.

Using "if", "when", "it's just my belief" etc, as insurance, can't save you from every incident.

 

[thomas t]

The overwhelming majority of the atheists and agnostics I've encountered do not raise the multiplicity of gods as "evidence against a potential true God" but, rather, evidence casting doubt on your certainty concerning your god. You're pummeling a straw man.

I don't think so. In the video, Shermer wouldn't have spent a minute in laying out how many gods or Gods exist if he didn't think that iti was a reason against faith.

 

[thomas t]

You insinuate that, in a hypothetical scenario, all religions are equally probable to be true. So the hypothetical burden of proof is still you.

when I say: If the sun shines in an hour; I will go out for a walk, I have zero burden of proof.

Using "if", "when", "it's just my belief" etc, as insurance, can't save you from every incident.

see above.

 

[Nivek001]

Not objective truth.



How so? If I told you that dancing naked in a circle five time counter clockwise then three time clockwise, followed by five jumping jacks would give you a million dollars, would you do it? Of course not. And why not? Because you've got no reason to believe it will work.

And that's why I don't try your claims about religion.

(By the way, it's really rather arrogant of you to assume that I've never done what you suggest. I was a Christian for the firs 20 or so years of my life, you know, and I did what you suggest I do now. It didn't work for me then, and I've got no reason to believe it would work for me now.)



And what action have I taken to the contrary?



Please give me an example of a Truth that is NOT a Fact.



I completely agree that there are truths out there that science has not yet found. It would be very arrogant of me to claim that science knows everything. But I can be certain that these undiscovered facts will not contradict any of the facts we have already determined. We will never find, for instance, a fact that requires gravity be a repulsive force rather than an attractive one.

Where do you get that your idea of objective truth is mire true that a truth that has yet to be proven?

Where are you getting that trying out to the teachings of Christ means to

The overwhelming majority of the atheists and agnostics I've encountered do not raise the multiplicity of gods as "evidence against a potential true God" but, rather, evidence casting doubt on your certainty concerning your god. You're pummeling a straw man.

How is a lack of evidence proving the belief in a God who wants us to rely on faith instead of evidence a valid point in casting doubt on the certainty of my belief?

Just because they use it as an excuse does not mean that their excuse is valid. If a lack of evidence matters why don’t they try to prove how that matters when determining the certainty of my belief in a God who wants us to rely on faith instead of evidence for the world to see?

 

[thomas t]

Not evidence against which God, exactly?

a potential God that created the world and everything within.