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

[Nivek001]

a potential God that created the world and everything within.

There is one way to find out to see if there is a God who not only created this world but who also wants us to rely on faith in that God instead of relying on established evidence. That would be to try to act on some faith by learning and applying g what is taught and even seek assurance of truth through prayer and see what happens.

After all, a lack of evidence for there being such a God could be due to willful intent of that God to withhold evidence of divinity so that we are able to act on faith.

 

[Tiberius]

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

Huh? I can't make any sense of this.

 

[Nivek001]

Huh? I can't make any sense of this.

What part of my inquiring how your idea of objective truth is somehow more valid than a truth that’s not been proven currently do you not understand?

Your idea of “not objective truth” doesn’t make any sense as being a valid point. Truth is truth no matter how that truth is revealed.

 

[Revoltingest]

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.

That's a highly subjective test.
I see no merit in it because it would verify every god choice.

 

[thomas t]

and you make up baseless excuses to not even try.

no I don't.

 

[night912]

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

see above.

Classic D&D as usual. Nothing new.

 

[Nivek001]

That's a highly subjective test.
I see no merit in it because it would verify every god choice.

How would such a test verify any God choice if you cannot establish that such a test verifies any God choice? You haven’t presented any evidence to support that conclusion. All you have presented is just an assumption instead of trying it out then put forth your conclusion.

 

[Nivek001]

no I don'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?

 

[night912]

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?

Which God are you referring to? If you you say the Christian God then, firstly which version. But the Christian God that majority of Christians believe in, doesn't teach what you are claiming. The most common Christian God teach that faith must come from evidence. There's no teachings that say that one should abandon/ignore evidence.

 

[Nivek001]

Which God are you referring to? If you you say the Christian God then, firstly which version. But the Christian God that majority of Christians believe in, doesn't teach what you are claiming. The most common Christian God teach that faith must come from evidence. There's no teachings that say that one should abandon/ignore evidence.

I am referring to belief in the divinity of Jesus Christ from which teachings include:

6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

Hebrews 11:6 KJV

it’s also believed that faith is the following:

Now faith is the substance of things hopedfor, the evidence of things not seen.

Hebrews 11:1 KJV

Evidence of things not seen means it’s not evidence as determined by science for evidence to be accepted by science is evidence that can be presented for the world to see.

Where is your proof that the majority of Christians do not believe in those points? Also, what difference does the majority of what people believe have any bearing on the validity those verses?

 

[Revoltingest]

How would such a test verify any God choice if you cannot establish that such a test verifies any God choice? You haven’t presented any evidence to support that conclusion. All you have presented is just an assumption instead of trying it out then put forth your conclusion.

I've nothing new to add.

 

[SigurdReginson]

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

Regards

Well, at one time I was investigating gods to better underetand the truth. I feel like I've learned what I can from the active pursuit of gods. Everything I've seen seen past that point has been just more of the same, really. If there can't be anything really learned past this point of meaningful value, then what's the point?

I've focused all my effort into the worship of a deity (yahweh) before in my life, but what have I got to show for it? 30 years wasted, and no closer to the truth for all of my effort. I've learned more in the past 7 years than I have my entire life combined, and of those 7 years, the bulk of it was learned the past 1-2 years.

The more I focus my efforts on the tangible things in life, the more I can make manifest the things I want to see happen. When sewing seeds with dreams, all you will reap are dreams, and it's time for me to wake up. I may be bleary eyed, but I'm awake now, so don't mind me while I just quietly sip my coffee and plan for the events of the day.

I still investigate religion as a hobby, though. I'm interested in cultural expression, and religions have that in spades. As for gods themselves, I've lost any interest in their pursuit as a way to get to the heart of the truth; there just ain't anything there, from my own personal experience.

 

[night912]

I am referring to belief in the divinity of Jesus Christ from which teachings include:

6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

Hebrews 11:6 KJV

it’s also believed that faith is the following:

Now faith is the substance of things hopedfor, the evidence of things not seen.

Hebrews 11:1 KJV

Evidence of things not seen means it’s not evidence as determined by science for evidence to be accepted by science is evidence that can be presented for the world to see.

Where is your proof that the majority of Christians do not believe in those points? Also, what difference does the majority of what people believe have any bearing on the validity those verses?

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.

a God who wants us to rely on faith instead of evidence

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.

 

[PureX]

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

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.

 

[paarsurrey]

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.

So, It was Just one's wishful thinking not supported by science in any way. Right friend, please?

Regards

 

[PureX]

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.

So what? That has nothing to do with the actual nature or existence of God. Or the likelihood that God is whatever we choose to think God is.

 

[Revoltingest]

So what?

It addresses the OP....that's what.

 

[PureX]

It addresses the OP....that's what.

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. And I concur (though for a different reason). You appear to believe that it somehow, does. And so I have been explaining how, logically, it does not. How is the fact that some people's god-concepts negate the differing conceptions of others relevant to the actual nature or existence of God, or the probability thereof? This is an accusation that atheists throw around often as if it were some sort of logical indictment of theism. And I think it's time we dispelled this foolishness.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

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?

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.

 

[night912]

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!

That's not what you said.


This is what you said.

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

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.