Bull Ring Too many different Gods/Dogs means none of these Exist?

[emilynghiem]

I am totally gonna mess with Toffeenut Baconsmuggler on this one! I actually applaud, support and LIKE TNBS and the last msg posted that brings up multiple objections to Christians teaching and preaching about God and the Bible.

However TNBS argument that since too many Christians and other Religions don't agree on the same God, strikes me as ironic. I believe the diversity of witnesses and ways to express the one God shows how universal yet unique each perception is of the same central source or laws in life. How wonderful!

To mess with Toffeenut Baconsmuggler I am posting this rebuttal to that argument:

Does having a wide range and variety of Dogs mean that Dogs cannot exist?

If people disagree and believe their Dog breeds are the best and the others are inferior, does this automatically negate all their arguments? What if each person has a valid reason for their choice or preference? Can't all people have their own opinions about Dogs and this doesn't change the fact the breeds and species are all variations of the same KIND of animal called DOGS even if they are all very different!

 

[Baron Von Murderpaws]

"Does having a wide range and variety of Dogs mean that Dogs cannot exist?"


Dogs exist, because they can be PROVEN to exist.

Gods, Devils, ghosts, spirits, angels, demons, and other monsters...........all fictitious fantasies of incompetent and gullible/naive minds that cannot grasp reality. Besides NONE of which, have been PROVEN to exist beyond any doubt.

 

[emilynghiem]

"Does having a wide range and variety of Dogs mean that Dogs cannot exist?"


Dogs exist, because they can be PROVEN to exist.

Gods, Devils, ghosts, spirits, angels, demons, and other monsters...........all fictitious fantasies of incompetent and gullible/naive minds that cannot grasp reality. Besides NONE of which, have been PROVEN to exist beyond any doubt.

1. So you are changing your argument.

It is NOT that the religions/reports "disagree".

Your REAL argument is there is no proof.

That was your OTHER argument.

THIS thread is about just your argument that the diversity and conflicts between religious versions of God mean there cannot just be one.

As for your argument about proof:



1. Can Love be proven to exist?

There are different terms and types of LOVE. Different relationships invoke different levels of LOVE.

Yet we all agree that LOVE means the same thing, while some people "don't believe LOVE conquers all."

Do we attack people's beliefs in LOVE just because others do not share these beliefs in LOVE?

2. Can Dreams be proven to be what people report dreaming?

Individuals all report very different dreams.

Do we attack them and demand they prove these dreams really existed?

No, we take it ON FAITH people are reporting their own experiences and process in their heads!

Why not take the same approach when people have visions or insights they call coming from God?

Similar to dreams that can show a brain pattern when they occur, prayers and spiritual healing also incur certain patterns in the brain waves and activity.

Science has actually studied and captured the prayer process as a common brain pattern in both believers/theists and nontheists/agnostics alike.

Why not treat these equally as we do Dreams and accept the process as natural and common but different / unique for each person?

All faith based what the content or meaning or purpose is to each person.

But we don't demand "scientific proof" of what people SAID they dreamed or what it means. It is Their process based on what THEY SAY it means to THEM.

3. If you do not like the Dog analogy to your diversity argument, what about Music or Humor?

Can we PROVE something is funny or is based on faith and what people SAY is funny or not funny?

Can we PROVE what makes something MUSIC? People disagree all the time and argue "that isn't music that is NOISE"

We let people disagree all the time on what is music, or not, and never require scientific proof. We take it on faith people differ and we agree all cultures or generations have their own sense of Music. Why not with sense of Spirituality and connection with God or the Source of all Life and Nature?

Why do we accommodate "diversity" in these other areas, but you argue that if there is "diversity about God" that justifies rejecting ALL.

That was your specific argument This thread addresses the issue of diversity and conflicting representation or claims

Your argument about proof is separate.

I can address that in a separate thread and have 2 other atheist friends asking for scientific proof.

That is the other response, not this one, dealing with scientific proof of correlations with the spiritual healing process

Different topic and thread.

If we are done here we can move to the real issue you have with scientific proof.

I take it your argument really isn't about diversity is it?

 

[Baron Von Murderpaws]

1. So you are changing your argument.

It is NOT that the religions/reports "disagree".

Your REAL argument is there is no proof.

That was your OTHER argument.

THIS thread is about just your argument that the diversity and conflicts between religious versions of God mean there cannot just be one.

As for your argument about proof:



1. Can Love be proven to exist?

There are different terms and types of LOVE. Different relationships invoke different levels of LOVE.

Yet we all agree that LOVE means the same thing, while some people "don't believe LOVE conquers all."

Do we attack people's beliefs in LOVE just because others do not share these beliefs in LOVE?

2. Can Dreams be proven to be what people report dreaming?

Individuals all report very different dreams.

Do we attack them and demand they prove these dreams really existed?

No, we take it ON FAITH people are reporting their own experiences and process in their heads!

Why not take the same approach when people have visions or insights they call coming from God?

Similar to dreams that can show a brain pattern when they occur, prayers and spiritual healing also incur certain patterns in the brain waves and activity.

Science has actually studied and captured the prayer process as a common brain pattern in both believers/theists and nontheists/agnostics alike.

Why not treat these equally as we do Dreams and accept the process as natural and common but different / unique for each person?

All faith based what the content or meaning or purpose is to each person.

But we don't demand "scientific proof" of what people SAID they dreamed or what it means. It is Their process based on what THEY SAY it means to THEM.

3. If you do not like the Dog analogy to your diversity argument, what about Music or Humor?

Can we PROVE something is funny or is based on faith and what people SAY is funny or not funny?

Can we PROVE what makes something MUSIC? People disagree all the time and argue "that isn't music that is NOISE"

We let people disagree all the time on what is music, or not, and never require scientific proof. We take it on faith people differ and we agree all cultures or generations have their own sense of Music. Why not with sense of Spirituality and connection with God or the Source of all Life and Nature?

Why do we accommodate "diversity" in these other areas, but you argue that if there is "diversity about God" that justifies rejecting ALL.

That was your specific argument This thread addresses the issue of diversity and conflicting representation or claims

Your argument about proof is separate.

I can address that in a separate thread and have 2 other atheist friends asking for scientific proof.

That is the other response, not this one, dealing with scientific proof of correlations with the spiritual healing process

Different topic and thread.

If we are done here we can move to the real issue you have with scientific proof.

I take it your argument really isn't about diversity is it?

Talk about changing the subject!!!! WHHHEEEEEWWWW!!!!
Did you forget your meds today, or take too many????

I've always stood on the grounds that there has never been solid proof of "gods and monsters".
There's more proof that it's all nothing more than an old, elaborate scheme to contain the stupid and gullible, by those in power.

 

[emilynghiem]

Talk about changing the subject!!!! WHHHEEEEEWWWW!!!!
Did you forget your meds today, or take too many????

I've always stood on the grounds that there has never been solid proof of "gods and monsters".
There's more proof that it's all nothing more than an old, elaborate scheme to contain the stupid and gullible, by those in power.

What I mean is that THIS thread/topic was set up to target and answer the DIVERSITY argument you made.

Look at the OP.

The question is supposed to focus on the argument that diversity "negates" the premise of "one universal God"

Sorry if it was not clear THAT is the whole point of the thread.

If your answer is "diversity" or "conflicting/different religious beliefs" are NOT a logical argument for why God cannot exist, then we are done here: That is the point.

Your answer seems to be that your REAL argument is lack of scientific proof.

So do we agree it is NOT because of the Objection as stated in the OP: P ==implies ==> Not Q.
P being "Diverse, Conflicting or Relative expressions/beliefs about God" ==> implies ==> "God cannot exist"

FALSE logic

Agreed?

If we agree, I will start a new thread on the subject of how we can use science to settle the issue of God Jesus and Christian teaching.

Separate thread that will vary from the proof you seek and approach the process from a different angle.

Talk about changing the subject!!!! WHHHEEEEEWWWW!!!!
Did you forget your meds today, or take too many????

I've always stood on the grounds that there has never been solid proof of "gods and monsters".
There's more proof that it's all nothing more than an old, elaborate scheme to contain the stupid and gullible, by those in power.

1. The Topic and Point of THIS thread was to address the DIVERSITY objection you made, as ONE of your arguments.

2. I only changed topics because you brought up the issue of Scientific Proof being your real issue and standard.

3. If we both agree the OP argument that "diverse or different religious beliefs and respresentation of God" neither negate, disprove or prove "God exists" then we are done.

Applying science will take up a whole separate thread. Because the parts or process that I propose can be quantified, measured, and documented statistically are not a direct proof, but indirectly demonstrate the process of reaching agreement despite faith based beliefs and differences.

I was saving that for another thread.

I take it from your response here, the Diversity argument is clearly not it.

That is the point and topic of this thread.

To address that and either argue it is a valid argument or agree it is not.