How many different versions of God are there?

God Checker

Over 3,700 current living Gods and Counting
Over 30,000 sects of Christianity alone, It would seem the message is a bit confusing.




[Mod note: Posts containing nothing but links are likely to be deleted. Please include some reply to another post or the OP.]

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You made the claim that homosexuals who are born that way don't exist because there is no consensus on how they originate. I called that a delusion, NOT because there is no consensus but because homosexuals that are born that way DO in fact exist based on all the evidence. And now you admit it. Thanks for backing me up. lol!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yes. .. they exist despite your so called evidence that they don't.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I did not make a claim, I made an example of the reasoning you were using, and you verified that this sort of reasoning was unsound. Are you really this obtuse? There being "no consensus" has absolutely no bearing on whether something exists or not. Remember, you said:

So by you own estimate, consensus is not a reliable measure of whether something exists.

 

Don't be such a moron. You made the claim that there being no consensus about born homosexuals meant that there were no born homosexuals. That's not what I said. I said an alleged objective thing without universal consensus probably doesn't exist. The proposition that a homosexual is born that way isn't an alleged objective thing. It's a proposition. God is claimed to be an objective being. He is not a proposition. Thus lacking universal consensus for his existence, he probably doesn't exist. Next time think a little more before you post.

[Mod note: Infraction given for repeated name-calling.]

 

I said:

By that reasoning, "it is very likely that" a person born homosexual "doesn't actually exist" because "there is no universal consensus".​

I did not say nor imply that that reasoning was sound, and it should have been clear (by all the quotes of your own words) that it was a criticism of the reasoning of your argument. There is also not a consensus on dark matter, although it is considered an objective thing. So your reasoning would run contrary to accepted science.

 

Reported for calling me obtuse. 2nd insult in one day.


ob·tuse adjective \äb-ˈtüs, əb-, -ˈtyüs\

: stupid or unintelligent : not able to think clearly or to understand what is obvious or simple

 

ob·tuse
1. annoyingly insensitive or slow to understand.

And again, it was a question.

 

Yeah..like I never called you a moron but only advised against being one. See..anybody can play THAT game.

 

The difference is that it is empirically demonstrable that you were "slow to understand", even to the point that it is still unclear whether you understand the difference between asserting a claim and giving a rhetorical example of the reasoning used by another.

Since I did not make a claim, your blatant name-calling did not even have a valid basis for being "advised against", only a pretense for insult.

 

That seems to follow from what the objective/subjective distinction is. It derives from the subject/object distinction. Objective judgements are judgements about objects. An objective judgement is true or false independently of what anyone thinks or feels about the matter. A subjective judgement is a judgement about subjects. The truth and falsity of subjective judgements does depend on what the subject thinks. 'Fish have fins' is an objective claim and its truth is independent of what the person making the claim happens to believe about the matter. 'Fish is delicious' is by contrast a subjective judgement. It isn't really talking about fish at all, but rather about how the subject him/herself feels about the taste of fish.

It seems to me that when theists say that 'God exists', by definition they are saying that God has objective reality. I'm not sure whether it even makes sense for somebody to believe that 'God really exists' while simultaneously believing that 'God' is only a concept or an emotion in their own minds. Certainly that would seem to collapse the difference between theists and athists. After all, atheists will typically agree that some idea of 'God' does exist as a concept in their own mind. That's kind of trivial. Theists seem to be asserting a lot more than that. They aren't just talking about themselves, they are talking about God.

Right. If something has objective existence, then it exists independently of what subjects think or feel about it. If many people are making what are supposedly true statements about the nature of a single object, then we would expect to see a great deal of agreement and simularity between the statements. We would expect them to possess true descriptive content.

We would expect to see agreement that the Eiffel tower is a big metal tower, built in the late 1800's, located in Paris. If somebody is saying that the Eiffel tower is a lake, located in Cairo, then we would naturally suspect that at least some of the things being said about the Eiffel tower aren't true. At the very least, those kind of differences would suggest that the phrase 'Eiffel tower' is ambiguous, with more than one meaning and refers to more than one object.

 

I'm not an astrophysicist, but I think that there is a broad consensus that there seems to be considerably more gravity holding galaxies together than can be attributed to the known matter in the galaxies. That's something that can be observed and calculated. So there seems to be something unknown that's contributing to the gravity.

Additionally, all kinds of speculative hypotheses have been advanced about what that unknown something might be. At this point it's premature to say which of those hypotheses, if any, is actually correct.

 

The difference was that I rejected outright your comparison of a proposition and the lack of consensus regarding its truth to a posited objective thing/person and the lack of consensus regarding it's existence. It then frustrated you that I wouldn't fall for your trap, at which point you adhomed me with the accusation of being autistic. That's how you operate. People refuse to grant your comparisons and you go off on them as somehow obtuse and stupid or even mentally disabled. Then you pretend "Oh..it was just an innocent question not meant to be offensive." Some people may play this game with you but I won't. I will expose your tactics every time. And that's not a threat. It's a promise.

 

"Dark matter is currently one of the greatest mysteries in the cosmos — an invisible substance thought to make up five-sixths of all matter in the universe. The scientific consensus right now is that dark matter is composed of a new type of particle, one that interacts very weakly at best with all the known forces of the universe, except gravity. As such, dark matter is invisible and nearly completely intangible, mostly only detectable via the gravitational pull it exerts."---http://www.space.com/23879-dark-matter-detection-discovery.html

 

There is no dispute on whether the concept of god exists, only on the truth of its nature (whether a creation of man's imagination, a social evolution development, an independent entity, or something more subtle). Now you are free to restrain yourself to the proposition that the only matter worth discussing is the gross existence of a real, independent entity, but that is arbitrary. Where there is dispute over a thing's nature, it is clear that some thing is being disputed, whether strictly an object of the mind or not.

Demonstrably false. That happened in a different thread entirely, in no way related to your "no consensus" argument here. Apparently you are so worked up you can no longer keep different threads straight. :roflmao:

I did not use the words "autistic", "stupid", or "mentally disabled". I asked you a question that appears to have inadvertently been too on-the-nose, judging by your overreaction to it.

 

There is a consensus on the existence of the phenomena (like the concept of god), but none on its objective nature, as there is yet no objective evidence of that nature (like the concept of god).

 

Your frustration with not being answered carries over against me in every thread. It's just the kind of person you are.

 

Reported again for accusing me of being autistic. Second time indicates continued deliberate harassment despite warnings.

 

Yes, you are just a persecuted martyr.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

More personal attacks on me doesn't really help your argument. Just your own lack of a valid counterargument.