Simple question?

So, we get to proposing a god being necessary -- how did you make the leap to anything else?

1. Wouldn't you agree various myths came to exist?

2. Wouldn't you agree competing and interesting myths are the hardiest and likely to survive? This also why some music, literature art, have survived better than other things -- that's just natural.

3. Christianity just happened to be one of the competing myths that had the right elements to grow. But it's not the only one. But no doubt there may be hundreds or thousands of discarded myths that fell by the wayside because they didn't capture the imagination, just like literature, art and music.

Occam's razor like conclusion leads to earthly world explanations for myths before we even get to considering supernatural explanations. (like how the government investigated UFOs. They looked for the most common and useful explanation first rather than considering aliens real. And the alien/UFO existence came up short btw which is why the program pretty much died)

Quote:

the fact that belief in these many gods Nareed likes to name has fallen off the face of the Earth is evidence that could lead one to say they were and are not real gods.

Really? Your god wins by default because he is
one of the last ones standing? That's proof of
nothing. It's evidence of nothing and you know
it. Your other argument that he's real because
so many believe in him is better than this, and
it's faulty as hell.

All of the non-christian gods which are currently being worshiped have not been forgotten. I don't think that is criteria for disproving something as real, either.

All of the evidence that is used to support the existence of God can be used equally well to support the existence of these other gods which are currently being worshipped.

So your task here, and it is a difficult one, is to prove that all of the evidence you use can be tied explicitly and exclusively to your god and no others.

Your assertion that there can not be more than one all-powerful being simultaneously has several problems. One of these reasons is it assumes your god is real, therefore there can be no others. An analogy: the refrigerator is full, so I can't put anything else in it. What if the refrigerator isn't actually full?
In another way, you can't logically assert that one god is real and all other gods are false because one god is real which means all other gods are false.

One more thing - if your god is real, and everyone stops worshiping him, forgets him, and starts worshiping someone else - would that make him any less real?

Anyway, might as well combine a couple points of mine so far.

1. There's really no reason to try to go on sophistic convoluted explanations to explain things like evil in the world, because random happenings whether they result in good or bad, are amoral, i.e., without moral quality; neither moral nor immoral.

This is such a simpler answer for the world as it really is. We don't have to figure out the odd juxtaposition of a loving god and evil happenings he's knows about in advance, because frankly that doesn't make any sense anyway.

2. The success of one religion or another is not proof of its veracity, it's proof of superior myths over inferior myths. Like I said, music, art, and literature are basically kept for the same reasons(when not for historical reasons). Myths were more common where science was still absent to explain things. Myths that could keep people in control of other people were more useful, than myths that did not. Myths that people liked better were more likely to survive.

As I said, this is easily a better simpler explanation than a religion is real.

3. The immense size of the Universe (whatever is the actual proportion) is the reason we can end up some very specific ordered places like Earth. (Think replace Shakespeare with enough monkeys X enough time, and you get the same result as if you had Shakespeare - a work of Shakespeare).

I've not needed to resort to a god or any supernatural causes for my explanations. They simply aren't necessary.

Quote: rxwine

Myths that could keep people in control of other people were more useful, than myths that did not. .

Yes indeed. If you look at the history of
the Church as a whole, it's 100% about
power and control. This is undeniable.
Men controlling other men with a god
myth. Understanding this is all you need
to know about Christianity. Everything
else is superfluous.

Quote: Dalex64

One more thing - if your god is real, and everyone stops worshiping him, forgets him, and starts worshiping someone else - would that make him any less real?

No it wouldn't, but I think it would have us ask some serious questions about the "realness" of this god.

Quote: Dalex64

So your task here, and it is a difficult one, is to prove that all of the evidence you use can be tied explicitly and exclusively to your god and no others.

Actually my task here is to show that all the evidence points to a divine being, great Spirit, and God. I'm trying to show that while theism in general has evidence to support it and reasoned logic the idea that there is no God or atheism has no evidence and no reason behind it.

You are right that why the Holy Trinity is the one true God is a more difficult one and involves faith in revelation and a detailed discussion on what the Holy Trinity teaches us about God and about ourselves. Before we get to that though let's make sure we are clear that there obviously is a God or supreme being, or whatever other word you want to use instead of God that means pretty much the same thing.

Quote:

Your assertion that there can not be more than one all-powerful being simultaneously has several problems. One of these reasons is it assumes your god is real, therefore there can be no others. An analogy: the refrigerator is full, so I can't put anything else in it. What if the refrigerator isn't actually full?
In another way, you can't logically assert that one god is real and all other gods are false because one god is real which means all other gods are false.

What logic tells us is that there must be a non-contingent being that begins all things or else we find ourselves in an infinite regress. God is not an assumption but is necessarily real for anything to make sense or to answer the question, "why is there something rather than nothing?"

Quote: FrGamble

No it wouldn't, but I think it would have us ask some serious questions about the "realness" of this god.

So please kindly remove popularity contests and whether or not we currently believe in something from your repertoire of proof that one god exists and another god does not.

They might be reasons for us to examine something more closely, but they are not evidence of anything, one way or the other.

Quote: rxwine

Anyway, might as well combine a couple points of mine so far.

Thank you.

Quote:

1. There's really no reason to try to go on sophistic convoluted explanations to explain things like evil in the world, because random happenings whether they result in good or bad, are amoral, i.e., without moral quality; neither moral nor immoral.

This is such a simpler answer for the world as it really is. We don't have to figure out the odd juxtaposition of a loving god and evil happenings he's knows about in advance, because frankly that doesn't make any sense anyway.

When we see evil we are repulsed and when we see good we rejoice. This is not the reaction we should have if both these things were really just neutral amoral random occurrences. We all feel very strongly that acts are moral and immoral and we reward and punish people based on this fundamental idea. I grant you that maybe this would be an easy solution to the problem of evil but a very unsatisfying and depressing one. The problem of evil is tough but having faith that no matter what evil we endure that a loving God will make it right and bring good from it is a far better solution for me.

Quote:

2. The success of one religion or another is not proof of its veracity, it's proof of superior myths over inferior myths. Like I said, music, art, and literature are basically kept for the same reasons(when not for historical reasons). Myths were more common where science was still absent to explain things. Myths that could keep people in control of other people were more useful, than myths that did not. Myths that people liked better were more likely to survive.

As I said, this is easily a better simpler explanation than a religion is real.

I think there are some serious problems with your coherent theory here. The story of Christianity does not try to explain things that science at the time could not, its not about thunderbolts being Zeus' wrath or anything like that. It never attempts to be a scientific textbook. Secondly, the story of Christianity is all about freedom not control. An poor man from a poor hard working family becomes an preacher much to the chagrin of the ruling class of both the Jews and Romans. He preaches that every human person is loved by God, He cures lepers, eats dinner with tax collectors and prostitutes, He scolds those who are in power and claims that He is God who has become one of us to serve and not to be served. He washes the feet of His disciples and dies on the cross for our sins and three days later once again defies the powers that be, even death, by His Resurrection. The faith is spread through the poor and needy while it is persecuted by the authorities and even emperors, all who are powerless to stop it. Now it is the largest religion in the world and has spread through the world changing everything. It is the opposite message of keeping people in control it empowers them to see their inherent dignity as a human person and child of God and to never let anyone oppress or rob you of that fundamental truth. I think both you and Evenbob have to reexamine if Christinaity is really about keeping people in control.

Quote:

3. The immense size of the Universe (whatever is the actual proportion) is the reason we can end up some very specific ordered places like Earth. (Think replace Shakespeare with enough monkeys X enough time, and you get the same result as if you had Shakespeare - a work of Shakespeare).

I've not needed to resort to a god or any supernatural causes for my explanations. They simply aren't necessary.

Even if you did believe that with enough monkeys and enough time you could pump out the perfect entire works of Shakespeare (and you really should ask yourself if you really believe that and think about it). You still have to try to answer how those monkeys, paper, and typewriters got there in the first place. They didn't just materialize out of nothing, they don't have the power to create themselves, and they are not necessary beings.