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.]
 
Last edited:
Syne said:
Thank you for so readily providing support for exactly what I said:

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

And if that is delusional, remember, it was your own reasoning:
​
:roflmao:

I never said such reasoning was sound. I only made an example of your reasoning that you are now saying "sounds delusional". I would agree.
Click to expand...

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!
 
Last edited:
Magical Realist said:
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!
Click to expand...
Yes. .. they exist despite your so called evidence that they don't.
 
Magical Realist said:
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!
Click to expand...

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:

Magical Realist said:
What if there is an alleged objective thing/person upon which there is no universal consensus? Then it is very likely that thing/person doesn't actually exist.
Click to expand...

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


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.]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Magical Realist said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Magical Realist said:
Yeah..like I never called you a moron but only advised against being one. See..anybody can play THAT game.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Magical Realist said:
Actually no. It goes for anything that has a known objective existence. Things that already exist and so don't depend on consensus to exist all.
Click to expand...

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.

Take the Eiffel Tower for instance. There is a universal consensus on what this object is and what its properties are. Does this mean the existence of the Eiffel Tower DEPENDS on this universal consensus? No. The consensus is an effect of it's objective existence, not its cause.
Click to expand...

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.

What if there is an alleged objective thing/person upon which there is no universal consensus? Then it is very likely that thing/person doesn't actually exist.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Syne said:
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.
Click to expand...

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 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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Syne said:
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.
Click to expand...

"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
 
Magical Realist said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...

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.

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Yazata said:
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.
Click to expand...

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).
 
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.
Click to expand...

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

Reported again for accusing me of being autistic. Second time indicates continued deliberate harassment despite warnings.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top