Faith

"The Blind Men and an Elephant"

Anyone?

Originally posted by whodey
I would agree that they are all candidates as well. However, it is somewhat of a short list, no? I would then continue investigating which one has further evidences as to the real God. As I have said before there are other evidences which support my faith such as Biblical prophesy which you seem to scoff at.

Not so fast. While there are several extant theistic religions dating from antiquity to choose from, it does not necessarily mean they're right. There are also many extant non-theistic religions dating from antiquity. Buddhism, Taoism, Confucianism, and Jainism, for example, are all non-theistic religions, which is to say that they do not have a creator god. By your line of reasoning, since they are extant religions dating from antiquity, these religions have an equal chance of being correct. So the choice is not confined to which creator god is the correct one, but now includes the question of whether there is even a creator god at all.

And there is no reason to confine our plausible choices to theistic and non-theistic religions. Naturally, we can expend our viable options to include agnosticism and atheism. After all, as 16% of the world's people are non-religious, we could just as plausibly count this as evidence against the existence of a god. If we include everything that people currently believe as being a plausible option, then on this basis alone there is no reason to assume that any of them is more likely than any other. Which is to say that since current beliefs can lend equal weight to any option, it therefore cannot count as evidence for any of them.

As your approach (despite your repeated protests) amounts to nothing more than the fallacy "Argumentum ad populum", we must ignore it completely and turn to other sources of evidence. And if the best you can come up with is Biblical prophesy, then we shall be forced to conclude that you have no evidence at all. As I've said before, Biblical prophesy cannot be counted as evidence because it amounts to nothing more than circular reasoning (my religion is true because my religious writings say its true).

So if you want to believe that your particular god is true, then go ahead, you're free to do so. But don't pretend that you have any "evidence" to back up that specious conclusion.

Originally posted by rwingett
Not so fast. While there are several extant theistic religions dating from antiquity to choose from, it does not necessarily mean they're right. There are also many extant non-theistic religions dating from antiquity. Buddhism, Taoism, Confucianism, and Jainism, for example, are all non-theistic religions, which is to say that they do not have a creator god so. But don't pretend that you have any "evidence" to back up that specious conclusion.

Who cares whether their religions have a creator God? The bottom line is either God is supreme or we are supreme. Take your pick. One belief system says that we were created by a superior intellect as the other states that mystical forces created us by mere chance. Again, take your pick. One of these hand full of belief systems are correct that you mentioned. They have survived from antiquity and continue today. The correct answer is from but a handfull of belief systems.

As for your rejection of prohpesy I can't say that I blame you. You can't really argue accurate predictions can you.

Originally posted by whodey
Who cares whether their religions have a creator God? The bottom line is either God is supreme or we are supreme. Take your pick. One belief system says that we were created by a superior intellect as the other states that mystical forces created us by mere chance. Again, take your pick. One of these hand full of belief systems are correct that you menti ...[text shortened]... f prohpesy I can't say that I blame you. You can't really argue accurate predictions can you.

So are you ready to fully abandon your specious claim that the persistent, current, and widespread belief for the christian god counts as evidence toward his factual existence? It seems, at least, that you've recanted and are now claiming that it all comes down to personal preference, with no regard to "evidence" at all. Of all the wildly varied and mutually contradictory belief systems that mankind has held, and currently holds, one is likely to be true. That may be so, but since mere belief gives us no clue as to which it is, it's hardly worth going to the trouble of saying at all.

The correct answer is from but a handfull of belief systems.

What about a god that doesn't interfere in the world's affairs? Such a god would leave no evidence of its existence, and wouldn't gather much of a following, but that's no evidence that it doesn't existence.

It is simply not true that, if there is a god, one of the popular modern religions must be correct.

Originally posted by GregM
[b]The correct answer is from but a handfull of belief systems.

What about a god that doesn't interfere in the world's affairs? Such a god would leave no evidence of its existence, and wouldn't gather much of a following, but that's no evidence that it doesn't existence.

It is simply not true that, if there is a god, one of the popular modern religions must be correct.[/b]

There are no gods of any kind that leave evidence of their existence. There is exactly as much evidence to support the existence of Zeus, the christian god, Thor, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Ganesh, and the deist god, which is to say exactly none. But, as you correctly point out, the fact that there is no evidence to support their existence does not count as evidence of their non-existence.

Originally posted by rwingett
What you're saying is that what determines if a god is real or not is if anyone believes in him. Zeus is not real because nobody believes in him. The christian god is real because 2.1 billion people believe in him. A god that nobody believes can't be a real god, while a god that 1/3 of the world's people believe in must be a real one. It IS ma ist zealots who would impose their narrow-minded brand of theocracy upon the nation.

Brahman is a real god with real power.

Brahman is not a god. Brahma is a god in some Hindu beliefs, I think. But the Brahman is not a being. Brahman is the ground of being, the whole without an edge, the all without another—and is not necessarily (or even primarily) personal—in Advaita Vedanta, which is non-dualistic.

Brahman is similar to the Tao. A number of religions that Whodey (I think it was) listed are not theistic. Some of them also use the word “God” to mean no more or less than they mean by Brahman (similar to the Stoics using the word to mean nature and the logos).

Monism, or non-dualism, versus (mono-)theism is the great religious divide. When I use the word “God” (except in a particular context, which I am likely to be critiquing), I never mean a being, or super-being, or supernatural being...

EDIT: I realize you were responding to Whodey here, and not making a claim yourself for Brahman; I lifted that out of context.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
"The Blind Men and an Elephant"

Anyone?

Yep.

Originally posted by rwingett
So are you ready to fully abandon your specious claim that the persistent, current, and widespread belief for the christian god counts as evidence toward his factual existence? It seems, at least, that you've recanted and are now claiming that it all comes down to personal preference, with no regard to "evidence" at all. Of all the wildly varied and mutuall ...[text shortened]... gives us no clue as to which it is, it's hardly worth going to the trouble of saying at all.

Once again you are placing words in my mouth. The premise was that if God be God then he would have had a following of some kind since ancient times up until today. Granted, there are a handful of other belief systems that are also in this category and are evidence for them as well. However, I have mentioned other evidences for my belief in the Christian God which you have simply ignored.

Originally posted by GregM
[b]The correct answer is from but a handfull of belief systems.

What about a god that doesn't interfere in the world's affairs? Such a god would leave no evidence of its existence, and wouldn't gather much of a following, but that's no evidence that it doesn't existence.

It is simply not true that, if there is a god, one of the popular modern religions must be correct.[/b]

If there is a God who does not interfere in the world's affairs then such a God may as well be dead in relation to mankind. It would be akin to him not existing at all.

Originally posted by whodey
Once again you are placing words in my mouth. The premise was that if God be God then he would have had a following of some kind since ancient times up until today. Granted, there are a handful of other belief systems that are also in this category and are evidence for them as well. However, I have mentioned other evidences for my belief in the Christian God which you have simply ignored.

I will simply reiterate, yet again, that belief in god does not count as evidence for his existence. Beyond that all you have mentioned is prophecy, which is complete nonsense.

You have entered two items, both of which are utterly worthless.

Originally posted by whodey
If there is a God who does not interfere in the world's affairs then such a God may as well be dead in relation to mankind. It would be akin to him not existing at all.

The extreme narcissism of your peculiar belief system shows itself yet again.

Originally posted by no1marauder
The extreme narcissism of your peculiar belief system shows itself yet again.

What is wrong in saying that if there be a God who is indifferent to me then as far as I am concerned such a God is dead to me. Do I really care about a God who cares nothing for me? Why should I?

Originally posted by whodey
What is wrong in saying that if there be a God who is indifferent to me then as far as I am concerned such a God is dead to me. Do I really care about a God who cares nothing for me? Why should I?

Why would that bother an almighty God?

You want to believe that your personal existence is the most important thing in the universe. That is extreme narcissism. Such is understandable in a primitive religion.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Why would that bother an almighty God?

You want to believe that your personal existence is the most important thing in the universe. That is extreme narcissism. Such is understandable in a primitive religion.

There is a very big difference between believing that the universe hinges on my existence and believing that there is a God in who's existence is necessary for the existence of the universe and who just so happens to value my existence. The mere fact that God values my existence gives me value. Otherwise, in the grande scheme of things I am nothing.